Managing Quality in Qualitative Research

Flick, Uwe

doi:10.4135/9781849209441

Cited by 346 publications

(274 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

251

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These biases may also -014-9281-3 http://janauher.com 20/50 carry on to the interpretation of results as explored in parts II and III below. To help researchers to become aware of and to minimise potential biases, the individuals under study should ideally be involved at least in some extent without implying that their interpretations need to be accepted by researchers or be directly reflected in scientific theories as is already done in qualitative research (e.g., techniques of communicative validation, Flick 2008;Lahlou 2011).…”

Section: Methodsological Implications For Explorations and Scientificmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This becomes most strikingly apparent in many (especially quantitative) psychologists' reluctance to involve in their research-at least to some degree-the individuals whose psychical phenomena are under study (as done in many qualitative methods; cf. Flick 2008). Instead, scientific psychologists often maintain a tensed and sometimes rather dismissive stance towards lay psychologists.…”

Section: Everyday Psychology and Scientific Psychologymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interpreting “Personality” Taxonomies: Why Previous Models Cannot Capture Individual-Specific Experiencing, Behaviour, Functioning and Development. Major Taxonomic Tasks Still Lay Ahead

Uher

2014

Integr. psych. behav.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As science seeks to make generalisations, a science of individual peculiarities encounters intricate challenges. This article explores these challenges by applying the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals (TPS-Paradigm) and by exploring taxonomic "personality" research as an example. Analyses of researchers' interpretations of the taxonomic "personality" models, constructs and data that have been generated in the field reveal widespread erroneous assumptions about the abilities of previous methodologies to appropriately represent individual-specificity in the targeted phenomena. These assumptions, rooted in everyday thinking, fail to consider that individualspecificity and others' minds cannot be directly perceived, that abstract descriptions cannot serve as causal explanations, that between-individual structures cannot be isomorphic to within-individual structures, and that knowledge of compositional structures cannot explain the process structures of their functioning and development. These erroneous assumptions and serious methodological deficiencies in widely used standardised questionnaires have effectively prevented psychologists from establishing taxonomies that can comprehensively model individual-specificity in most of the kinds of phenomena explored as "personality", especially in experiencing and behaviour and in individuals' functioning and development. Contrary to previous assumptions, it is not universal models but rather different kinds of taxonomic models that are required for each of the different kinds of phenomena, variations and structures that are commonly conceived of as "personality". Consequently, to comprehensively explore individual-specificity, researchers have to apply a portfolio of complementary methodologies and develop different kinds of taxonomies, most of which have yet to be developed. Closing, the article derives some meta-desiderata for future research on individuals' "personality".Key words: personality functioning and development; phenomenon-methodology matching; betweenindividual and within-individual differences; nomothetic and ideographic approaches; standardised questionnaire methods; traits; Big Five Model and Five Factor Model; Compositional Structures and process structures; personality model and taxonomy. . Interpreting "personality" taxonomies: Why previous models cannot capture individual-specific experiencing, behaviour, functioning and development. Major taxonomic tasks still lay ahead. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49,

show abstract

Section: Methodsological Implications For Explorations and Scientificmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Everyday Psychology and Scientific Psychologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpreting “Personality” Taxonomies: Why Previous Models Cannot Capture Individual-Specific Experiencing, Behaviour, Functioning and Development. Major Taxonomic Tasks Still Lay Ahead

Uher

2014

Integr. psych. behav.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Establishing such encoding schemes for all kinds of phenomena and events that are to be explored in a given study can build on techniques well-established in ethology (e.g., Lehner 1998) and other neighbouring natural science disciplines (cf. Uher 2013, Desideratum 1d) and on many hermeneutic-interpretive methods well-established in the social and cultural historical sciences (e.g., Berg & Lune 2012;Fahrenberg 2002;Flick 2008;Gadamer 1975).…”

Section: Establishing Explicated Encoding Schemesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing “Personality” Taxonomies: Metatheoretical and Methodological Rationales Underlying Selection Approaches, Methods of Data Generation and Reduction Principles

Uher

2014

Integr. psych. behav.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Taxonomic "personality" models are widely used in research and applied fields. This article applies the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals (TPS-Paradigm) to scrutinise the three methodological steps that are required for developing comprehensive "personality" taxonomies: 1) the approaches used to select the phenomena and events to be studied, 2) the methods used to generate data about the selected phenomena and events and 3) the reduction principles used to extract the "most important" individual-specific variations for constructing "personality" taxonomies. Analyses of some currently popular taxonomies reveal frequent mismatches between the researchers' explicit and implicit metatheories about "personality" and the abilities of previous methodologies to capture the particular kinds of phenomena toward which they are targeted. Serious deficiencies that preclude scientific quantifications are identified in standardised questionnaires, psychology's established standard method of investigation. These mismatches and deficiencies derive from the lack of an explicit formulation and critical reflection on the philosophical and metatheoretical assumptions being made by scientists and from the established practice of radically matching the methodological tools to researchers' preconceived ideas and to pre-existing statistical theories rather than to the particular phenomena and individuals under study. These findings raise serious doubts about the ability of previous taxonomies to appropriately and comprehensively reflect the phenomena towards which they are targeted and the structures of individual-specificity occurring in them. The article elaborates and illustrates with empirical examples methodological principles that allow researchers to appropriately meet the metatheoretical requirements and that are suitable for comprehensively exploring individuals' "personality".Key words: personality assessment; lexical approach; standardized questionnaire methods; traits; Big Five Model and Five Factor Model; psychometrics; scientific quantification, contextualised methodologies; quantitative methods; phenomenon-methodology matching; emic approach and etic approach. . Developing "personality" taxonomies: Metatheoretical and methodological rationales underlying selection approaches, methods of data generation and reduction principles. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49,

show abstract

“…Themes that were touched on included: past experience in supply chain, current role in the organizations, service quality within the supply chain, supplier relations and integrations, as well as the state of the industry and their views for the near future. Informal interviews of internal customers and employees in other functions were also carried out both randomly and when specific information called for complementary data from a specific function, as suggested by Flick (2008). This proved to be the best option when dealing with busy people in the middle of the operations such as dockworkers and warehouse workers.…”

Section: Methodsologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Cruise ship suppliers: A field study of the supplier relationship characteristics in a service supply chain

Véronneau

Roy

Beaulieu

2015

Tourism Management Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Managing Quality in Qualitative Research

Cited by 346 publications

References 0 publications

Interpreting “Personality” Taxonomies: Why Previous Models Cannot Capture Individual-Specific Experiencing, Behaviour, Functioning and Development. Major Taxonomic Tasks Still Lay Ahead

Interpreting “Personality” Taxonomies: Why Previous Models Cannot Capture Individual-Specific Experiencing, Behaviour, Functioning and Development. Major Taxonomic Tasks Still Lay Ahead

Developing “Personality” Taxonomies: Metatheoretical and Methodological Rationales Underlying Selection Approaches, Methods of Data Generation and Reduction Principles

Cruise ship suppliers: A field study of the supplier relationship characteristics in a service supply chain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About