No abstract

The increasing prominence of qualitative inquiry in psychological research has been accompanied by reflection on teaching and learning practices within undergraduate and postgraduate psychology courses. To date, there is limited empirical understanding of how experienced qualitative researchers approach teaching students about qualitative research design. The present study draws on interviews with qualitative researchers (N = 12) from multiple disciplines, occupying various positions within academia. Using thematic analysis, seven themes were developed, under the superordinate theme present qualitative research as a legitimate approach to enquiry. The themes illuminate practical pedagogical implications for teaching qualitative research, including introducing qualitative research in bite-sized chunks and initiating students to qualitative inquiry through foundational methods. The findings contextualise the teaching of qualitative methods as a site of multiple tensions, for example, balancing pragmatism and idealism, and providing structure to students while enabling flexibility. Educators and supervisors of qualitative research navigate these tensions in their teaching practice to provide students with what they see as the best possible learning experiences. We call for further research to build a profile of evidence-based pedagogical practice for teaching qualitative research, while also acknowledging the fluidity needed to embrace changing epistemologies, methodologies, methods, and data sources.

Online shaming, where people engage in social policing by shaming perceived transgressions via the internet, is a widespread global phenomenon. Despite its negative consequences, scarce research has been conducted and existing knowledge is largely anecdotal. Using a correlational online survey, this mixed-method study firstly assessed whether moral grandstanding, moral disengagement, emotional reactivity, empathy, social vigilantism, online disinhibition, machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy predict participants’ (N = 411; aged 15–78) likelihood to engage in online shaming. Two hierarchical multiple regression analyses revealed these predictors significantly accounted for 39% of variance in online shaming intentions, and 20% of variance in perceived deservedness of online shaming (f2 = .25 and .64 respectively, p < .001). A content analysis of an open-ended question offered further insights into public opinions about online shaming. These qualitative findings included the perception of online shaming as a form of accountability, the perceived destructive effects of online shaming, the perceived role of anonymity in online shaming, online shaming as a form of entertainment, online shaming involving ‘two sides to every story’, the notion that ‘hurt people hurt people’, online shaming as now a social norm, and the distinction between the online shaming of public and private figures. These findings can be used to inform the general public and advise appropriate responses from service providers and policy makers to mitigate damaging impacts of this phenomenon.