Qualitative research and its place in psychological science.

Abstract

In discussing the place of diverse qualitative research within psychological science, we highlight the potential permeability of the quantitative-qualitative boundary and identify different ways of increasing communication between researchers specializing in different methods. Explicating diversity within qualitative research is facilitated, initially, through documenting the range of qualitative data collection and analytic methods available. We then consider the notion of paradigmatic frame and review debates on the current and future positioning of qualitative research within psychological science. In so doing, we argue that the different ways in which the concept of paradigm can be interpreted allows us to challenge the idea that diverse research paradigms are prima facie incommensurate. Further, reviewing the ways in which proponents of qualitative research are seeking to reconfigure the links between paradigms helps us to envisage how communication between research communities can be enhanced. This critical review allows us to systematize possible configurations for research practice in psychology on a continuum of paradigm integration and to specify associated criteria for judging inter-method coherence.

Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report.

“…These assumptions are described in varied literatures as the researchers' epistemological beliefs, worldview, paradigm, strategies, or research traditions (Morrow, 2005;Ponterotto, 2005b;Creswell, 2013). For instance, they could indicate whether their approaches to inquiry are descriptive, interpretive, feminist, psychoanalytic, post-positivist, constructivist, critical, postmodern or constructivist; theorists often carve these philosophies along different lines (e.g., Guba & Lincoln, 2005;Madill & Gough, 2008;Mertens, 2010;Parker, 2004). Although some research is firmly grounded in one or more set of these assumptions, research also may be question driven and conducted pragmatically (Morgan, 2007).…”

“…Prior to this meeting, the members reviewed readings on qualitative methods reporting (e.g., Madill & Gough, 2008;Neale, 2015;O'Brien, Harris, Beckman, Reed & Cook, 2014;Tong, Sainsbury, & Craig, 2007;Tong, Flemming, McInnes, Oliver, & Craig, 2012;Walsh, 2015;Wisdom, Cavalier, Onwuegbuzie & Green, 2012;Wong, Greenhalgh, Westhorp, Buckingham & Pawson, 2013), a task force report to the Society for Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology, a section of APA Division 5, on the recommendations regarding publishing and reviewing of qualitative research (Levitt et al, 2017), and the initial quantitative APA journal article reporting standards (APA Publications and Communications Board Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards, 2008). The work of these leaders in qualitative methods provided valuable suggestions for us to consider in the formation of our standards.…”

Clinical practice as research for a rare condition: systematic research review of qualitative research exploring patients’ experiences of penile cancer

“…Nevertheless, there are a wide range of qualitative data collection and analytic methods available [21] , which often draw upon unique ways of thinking about and exploring the world. While medical science has long been associated with quantitative approaches, this does not necessarily mean it is incommensurate with qualitative research paradigms [21] . Qualitative methods have much to offer research in the medical sciences, particularly where there is currently little known about an issue.…”

Subjectivity in psychological science: From problem to prospect.

“…In this flexible, pragmatic approach, different aspects of investigation would be variously explicated for different constituencies (e.g., user groups vs. science journals), for different purposes (e.g., practical application of findings vs. contribution to theory; see e.g., Yardley, 2007;Yardley & Bishop, 2007). And as we have argued in a previous article (Madill & Gough, 2008), it would be a mistake to apply simple distinctions between qualitative and quantitative research, as this would overlook commonalities across different methodologies and the very real differences between specific qualitative (and quantitative) methods.…”

“…Notwithstanding the greater presence of qualitative methods within psychological research in recent years (see Madill & Gough, 2008), the lesser status it is afforded within the discipline generally, indexed by the predominance of experimental methods within prestigious publications and funded research projects (Rennie, Watson, & Monteiro, 2002), underscores the scientific discomfort in relation to the issue of subjectivity.…”