A Comment on Cupchik's "Observing the Social World".

Abstract

Cupchik's proposed method for training students to understand the social world breaks from the traditional method of mastering the psychological literature first and then generating new ideas from existing research. His proposal allows research ideas to come from observations of naturally occurring events, which could range from friends walking in the park to pets finding their food dish everyday. These real - life observations are then balanced with a critical examination of the literature. Although Cupchik's approach, in our opinion, is exciting and may increase the originality of research ideas, it has both merits and difficulties. We would like to address our comments first to his theoretical position and second to his research study.A training approach which suggests that research questions be generated from real - life observations has broad applications. Although Cupchik points out that observational techniques are emphasized in clinical but not in empirical training, he does not evaluate the relevance and breadth of his proposed method across different areas of psychology. For example, investigators whose research questions require them to do traditional laboratory work (e.g., cognitive or physiological psychologists) may adapt Cupchik's proposed research method to suit their mode of investigation. Even if the process of observation is technical (e.g., through neuroelectrodes), new observations can still be made (Bavelas, 1987). In this regard, Cupchik's approach may not only increase researchers' chances of investigating phenomena that are distinct from others already addressed in the literature, it may also permit investigation of familiar phenomena in a novel way and is useful to researchers with clinical or experimental backgrounds.The benefits of originality or creativity are also not explicitly explored. As graduate students, we feel that it is this aspect of his proposal that improves upon traditional research methods. Cupchik's method of research may provide researchers with a better opportunity to contribute to the literature by breaking free from established ideas and exploring their own. Designing and executing unique studies rather than having studies reflect others' work is not only beneficial for researchers' intellectual growth, but also for psychology in general. Furthermore, if researchers are encouraged to follow their own observations and hunches, they may define and understand the phenomenon of interest more clearly than if the idea had been derived from the existing literature. Cupchik's approach encourages researchers to define their positions regarding a topic, and to explore this topic in their own minds before turning to others' ideas. Researchers who follow this method of inquiry may be able to judge the relevance of existing literature more easily, and identify competing arguments embedded in a confusing or contradictory literature more quickly.Alternatively, we believe that there is a need to address researchers' potential concerns regarding the investment of time to observe phenomena that are already well documented in the literature. By reading the literature first and then designing one's investigation, researchers can feel fairly certain that their results are not simply a replication of another researcher's findings. In this way, the literature can assist one's scholarly productivity. By adopting Cupchik's method, some researchers may invest much time, effort, and money to gather observational data before turning to the literature. For some researchers, this method may be tremendously fruitful, whereas for others it may be a significant waste of time. Limiting the purpose of one's initial observations only to derive one's research topic might offer a potential solution to this problem. Once the researcher has a clear idea of the phenomenon of interest, then the literature could be used to judge the originality of the topic and also to evaluate other variables that may be included in the investigation. …