Given Danziger’s Claims Essay

Given Danziger’s claims about ‘methodomorphic theories’ and given what you know of quantitative and qualitative research methods and psychology in general, what do you think would be the obstacles to attempt to break free of the ‘methodological circle’? Research methods in modern psychology offer a variety of methodological options for researchers to utilise. However, there are issues associated with all methods. This essay will examine problems associated with the ‘methodological cycle’, such as the monopolisation of statistical methods in social sciences. These ‘issues’ continue to be common practice in psychological research and present obstacles to moving towards a less rigid, constrained method of working. This will be followed by exploring approaches that move forward, towards a more fluid and inclusive method of empirical psychology, such as Theoretical Sampling in Grounded Theory and Relational metatheory. Danziger coined the term ‘methodological circle’, asserting that many psychological researchers adopt methods based on certain assumptions about the subject matter, which in turn â€Å"only produce observations which must confirm these assumptions† (Danziger, 1998, p 1). These assumptions continue to be common practice in current psychological research, and pose as a barrier to moving away from the ‘methodological circle’. Psychology as Pure Science Kuhn (1962) described â€Å"ordinary science† as involving discussion of problematic truth claims and is carried out within the context of implicitly shared metatheoretical frameworks; on the other hand â€Å"paradigms† involve discussion that challenges these metatheoretical frameworks themselves. Psychology operates within both of these frameworks. ‘Ordinary science’, also known as Scientism, involves uncritically accepting that science is both highly distinct from, and superior to, ‘common sense’ and methods for identifying cultural patterns. However, factors that a social scientist may wish to study do involve facets that are not static and are defined by the context in which these facets operate. An example of this could be trauma. Trauma is viewed by individuals in Western society as a concept which individuals or a collective may suffer after a disrupting or distressing event. However, in less developed societies, such as in Rwanda which suffered mass genocide, no instances of trauma are reported (Alexander et al, 2004). Such examples highlight the problems presented by adopting a purely scientific (positivist) approach to a social phenomenon. In addition to this, it must be remembered that even though research will always endeavour to be as objective as possible they will, ultimately, use their common-sense knowledge of how social phenomena operate in order to define and measure these variables for precise investigation (Silverman, 1993). Psychologists who work purely in line with Scientism make the error to totally remove itself from common sense, rather than acknowledging and working with it, adopting, say, a more constructivist approach e.g. Conversation Analysis. Kock (1973) sums this up assumption beautifully by saying â€Å"The entire subsequent history of psychology can be seen as a ritualistic endeavor to emulate the forms of science in order to sustain the delusion that it already is a science† (Kock, 1973, p. 66). Dependence on statistics The use of statistical methods in psychology can be said to have become â€Å"institutionalized† (Danziger, 1998, p. 4). According to Danziger, such institutionalization presents 3 main problems: 1. It assumes that statistical conclusions are the only means of providing reliable and valid results for interpreting and developing theory; 2. It asserts that certain rules and models are constant, and cannot be amended or updated by new evidence; 3. it postulates that methodology must lead theory formation, and not the other way round. Such facets create a rigid environment, which restricts ways in which the social scientist can explore social phenomena which focuses on interactions between figures rather than meanings of interactions. The importance of the meaning behind words was acknowledged as far back as Freud, who stated â€Å"In medics you are accustomed to see things†¦in psychoanalysis, alas, everything is different†¦Words were originally magic and to this day words have retained much of their ancient power†¦Words provoke affects and are in general the means of mutual influence among men† (Freud, 1918, p.12). This statement emphasises the importance in not just, say, overt behaviour in the amount of words one uses (i.e. numerical data) in an interview, but also what one says and the meaning behind those words (i.e. qualitative data). Artificial settings to measure real life Psychology is the science of the real life, cannot be manipulated in artificial models. In its attempt to become a ‘pure’ science, psychological research methods tend to prefer to use controlled, experimental procedures, where one variable is directly manipulated by another variable, controlling for any other influencing factors. While such methods offer detailed and reliable statistical information, details of social, political, economic, and historical contexts can be overlooked (Waitzkin, 1990). The variety within psychology Psychology is a broad discipline with a variety of approaches such as Social and Cognitive Psychology. Social Psychology looks at qualitative interactions in the real world between people, whereas Cognitive Psychology examines the thought processes involved in individual reasoning. The former cannot be effectively manipulated in a controlled laboratory experiment, whereas the latter can be. If one attempts to artificially create and conduct a social experiment which uses solely statistics as a method of obtaining and interpreting results, one will miss the rich data that can be gained through qualitative measurement, looking at meanings and interpretations. A degree of flexibility is required in theory construction and method development, taking care to acknowledge how applied the science is and the vast array of methodological procedures to adopt. Top down vs. bottom up When conducting empirical investigation in psychology, the research question should lead the methodology, not the other way round. However, with the dominant quantitative method, researchers tend impose theories on data and see whether or not the data supports the theory. Upon these results, the researchers either accept or reject their hypotheses, rather than further exploring any discrepancies. Alternatively, researchers who adopt a qualitative method allow the data drive the theory and design models and theory from data. This is unpopular with many as it can oversimplifying complex social phenomena. As we can see, both designs appear to be poloarised, with little or no room for convergence. Deductive vs. Inductive Another assumption that perpetuates the ‘methodological circle’ is the belief that quantitative methods always must use a hypothetico-deductive approach and qualitative methods an inductive approach. Again, this restricts the way in which researchers can work with their subject matter, and rather than adopting an antithetical approach, researchers should endeavor to focus on the rationale of the study and the research question. Realism vs. Idealism In a similar vain to the short discussion above, there is the determinist assumption that all quantitative researchers are realists and qualitative researchers are idealist in their approach. This assumption enforces more restrictions on the way research would be carried out. Indeed quantitative research could do well to accept more subjective and individual attitudes, as qualitative methods could with more objective, measurable approaches. Moving forward Acknowledging the obstacles above, I will now explore ways in which psychology can move forward, away from the ‘methodological circle’ towards an approach that recognises and embraces both ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ virtues. Such an approach should not be concerned with paradigmatic purism but more concerned with identifying effective ways of conceptualising and discovering answers to the research questions. Grounded Theory -Theoretical saturation and sampling When using Grounded Theory, researchers use Theoretical sampling until they reach ‘Theoretical saturation’, where researchers collect data â€Å"until (a) no new or relevant data seem to emerge regarding a category, (b) the category is well developed in terms of its properties and dimensions demonstrating variation, and (c) the relations among categories are well established and validated.† (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 212). Such a fluid and flexible approach provides a useful means in theory construction because it builds the theory as it evolves from incoming data, offering an alternate perspective on how the results are interpreted than the restrictive positivist, deductive approaches. Relational metatheory Relational metatheory offers a relational dialectical perspective in which interpretation (a more quantitative, positivist approach) and observation (a more qualitative, construstivist approach) are both acknowledged and used (Overton, 1998; 2003). Relationism metatheory acknowledges that there is interconnection between the person, culture and biology (Hase, 2000), which is a much more fluid and explorative method then a split metatheory (using only quantitative or qualitative). This results in more complex, self creating, self organising, self regulating and adaptive systems that function and develop in relation with sociocultural constructs. In conclusion, there is a range of obstacles researchers encounter when attempting to break free of the ‘methodological circle’. These include both theoretical considerations such as theory construction and practical considerations such as the dependence on statistics. In order to move away from these imposed restrictions, researchers should consider adopting a more inclusive, flexible approach such as Grounded Theory and Relational Metatheory. As Danzgier concludes we must overcome these problems associated with the ‘methodological circle’ in psychological research; if not â€Å"theory testing in psychology will be a matter of choosing among different versions of a theoretical position, the fundamental features of which are in fact beyond dispute.† (Danziger, 1985, p.13). References Alexander, J. C., Eyerman, R., Giesen, B., Smelser, N. J., Sztompka, P. (2004) Cultural Trauma and Collective Identity, University of California Press, CA Danziger, K. (1985) The methodological imperative in psychology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 15, 1-13 Freud, S. (1918) The Complete Introductionary Lectures on Psychoanalsis, Alden Press, Oxford Hase, S. (2000) ‘Mixing methodologies in research’, NCVER conference, Coffs Harbour, April. Koch, S. (1963) Psychology: A Study Of a Science, (Koch, S. (Ed.). (1959-1963), McGraw-Hill, New York Kuhn, T. S. (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Overton, W. F. (2012) Paradigms in Theory Construction, (Eds L’Abate, L.) Springer; US. Silverman, D. (1993) â€Å"Beginning Research†. Interpreting Qualitative Data. Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction, Sage Publications, Londres Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. M. (1998) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, Sage Publications, US Waitzkin, H. (1990) On Studying the Discourse of Medical Encounters, Medical Care. 28:6, 473-487