Qualitative Research Methods in Psychology

Abstract

In scientific community, and particularly in psychology and health, there has been an active and ongoing debate on relative merits of adopting either quantitative or qualitative methods, especially when researching into human behaviour (Bowling, 2009; Oakley, 2000; Smith, 1995a, 1995b; Smith, 1998). In part, this debate formed a component of development in 1970s of our thinking about science. Andrew Pickering has described this movement as sociology of scientific (SSK), where our scientific understanding, developing scientific ‘products’ and 'know-how', became identified as forming components in a wider engagement with society’s environmental and social context (Pickering, 1992: 1). Since that time, debate has continued so that today there is an increasing acceptance of use of qualitative methods in social sciences (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Morse, 1994; Punch, 2011; Robson, 2011) and health sciences (Bowling, 2009; Greenhalgh & Hurwitz, 1998; Murphy & Dingwall, 1998). The utility of qualitative methods has also been recognised in psychology. As Nollaig Frost (2011) observes, authors such as Carla Willig and Wendy Stainton Rogers consider qualitative psychology is much more accepted today and that it has moved from the margins to mainstream in psychology in UK. (Willig & Stainton Rogers, 2008: 8). Nevertheless, in psychology, qualitative methodologies are still considered to be relatively 'new' (Banister, Bunn, Burman, et al., 2011; Hayes, 1998; Richardson, 1996) despite clear evidence to contrary (see, for example, discussion on this point by Rapport et al., 2005). Nicki Hayes observes, scanning content of some early journals from 1920s – 1930s that many of these more historical papers discuss personal experiences as freely as statistical data (Hayes, 1998, 1). This can be viewed as an early development of case-study approach, now an accepted methodological approach in psychological, health care and medical research, where our knowledge about people is enhanced by our understanding of individual 'case' (May & Perry, 2011; Radley & Chamberlain, 2001; Ragin, 2011; Smith, 1998).