Given Danziger’s Claims Essay Example for Free

Given Danzigers Claims EssayGiven Danzigers claims ab come out of the closet methodomorphic theories and given what you know of quantitative and soft research methods and psychological science in general, what do you think would be the obstacles to attempt to break free of the methodological circle?Research methods in modern psychological science offer a variety of methodological options for researchers to utilise. However, there argon issues associated with all methods. This essay will examine problems associated with the methodological cycle, much(prenominal) as the monopolisation of statistical methods in companionable sciences. These issues exsert to be common practice in psychological research and present obstacles to paltry towards a less rigid, constrained method of working. This will be followed by exploring turn upes that move forward, towards a much fluid and inclusive method of empirical psychology, such as speculative Sampling in Grounded Theory and Relationa l meta conjecture.Danziger coined the stipulation methodological circle, asserting that many psychological researchers adopt methods based on certain assumptions about the subject matter, which in turn only induce observations which must confirm these assumptions (Danziger, 1998, p 1). These assumptions continue to be common practice in current psychological research, and pose as a barrier to moving away from the methodological circle.psychological science as Pure ScienceKuhn (1962) described ordinary science as involving discussion of problematic truth claims and is carried out within the context of implicitly sh atomic number 18d metatheoretical frameworks on the other hand paradigms involve discussion that challenges these metatheoretical frameworks themselves. Psychology operates within both of these frameworks.Ordinary science, alike known as Scientism, involves uncritically accepting that science is both highly distinct from, and superior to, common sense and methods for i dentifying cultural patterns. However, factors that a social scientist whitethorn wish to study do involve facets that are not static and are defined by the context in which these facets operate. An example of this could be trauma. distress is viewed by individuals in Western society as a concept which individuals or a collective may suffer after a disrupting or distressing event. However, in less developed societies, such as in Rwanda which suffered mass genocide, no instances of trauma are reported (Alexander et al, 2004). Such examples highlight the problems presented by adopting a purely scientific (positivist) approach to a social phenomenon.In addition to this, it must be remembered that even though research will ever so endeavour to be as objective as possible they will, ultimately, use their common-sense knowledge of how social phenomena operate in order to define and measure these variables for microscopic investigation (Silverman, 1993). Psychologists who work purely in line with Scientism make the error to totally remove itself from common sense, rather than acknowledging and working with it, adopting, say, a more constructivist approach e.g. Conversation Analysis. Kock (1973) sums this up assumption beautifully by saying The entire subsequent history of psychology plunder be seen as a ritualistic endeavor to emulate the forms of science in order to sustain the delusion that it already is a science (Kock, 1973, p. 66).Dependence on statisticsThe use of statistical methods in psychology can be said to have become institutionalized (Danziger, 1998, p. 4). According to Danziger, such institutionalization presents 3 main problems 1. It assumes that statistical conclusions are the only path of providing reliable and valid results for interpreting and developing theory 2. It asserts that certain rules and models are constant, and cannot be amended or updated by new evidence 3. it postulates that methodology must lead theory formation, and not the oth er way round. Such facets raise a rigid environment, which restricts ways in which the social scientist can explore social phenomena which focuses on interactions between figures rather than meanings of interactions.The importance of the meaning behind words was acknowledged as far back as Freud, who stated In medics you are accustomed to see thingsin psychoanalysis, alas, everything is different address were originally magic and to this day words have retained much of their ancient powerWords provoke affects and are in general the means of mutual influence among men (Freud, 1918, p.12). This statement emphasises the importance in not just, say, overt behaviour in the amount of words one uses (i.e. numerical data) in an interview, but also what one says and the meaning behind those words (i.e. qualitative data).Artificial settings to measure in truth lifePsychology is the science of the real life, cannot be manipulated in artificial models. In its attempt to become a pure science, psychological research methods die hard to prefer to use controlled, experimental procedures, where one variable is directly manipulated by another variable, controlling for any other influencing factors. While such methods offer slender and reliable statistical information, details of social, political, economic, and historical contexts can be overlooked (Waitzkin, 1990).The variety within psychologyPsychology is a broad discipline with a variety of approaches such as Social and Cognitive Psychology. Social Psychology looks at qualitative interactions in the real world between people, whereas Cognitive Psychology examines the thought processes involved in individual reasoning. The former cannot be effectively manipulated in a controlled laboratory experiment, whereas the latter can be. If one attempts to artificially create and conduct a social experiment which uses solely statistics as a method of obtaining and interpreting results, one will miss the rich data that can be gaine d through qualitative measurement, looking at meanings and interpretations. A degree of flexibility is required in theory construction and method development, taking do by to acknowledge how applied the science is and the vast array of methodological procedures to adopt.Top down vs. bottom upWhen conducting empirical investigation in psychology, the research suspicion should lead the methodology, not the other way round. However, with the dominant quantitative method, researchers tend impose theories on data and see whether or not the data supports the theory. Upon these results, the researchers each accept or reject their hypotheses, rather than further exploring any discrepancies. Alternatively, researchers who adopt a qualitative method allow the data drive the theory and innovation models and theory from data. This is unpopular with many as it can oversimplifying complex social phenomena.As we can see, both designs appear to be poloarised, with little or no room for converge nce.Deductive vs. InductiveAnother assumption that perpetuates the methodological circle is the belief that quantitative methods always must use a hypothetico-deductive approach and qualitative methods an inductive approach. Again, this restricts the way in which researchers can work with their subject matter, and rather than adopting an antithetical approach, researchers should endeavor to focus on the rationale of the study and the research question. world vs. IdealismIn a similar vain to the short discussion above, there is the determinist assumption that all quantitative researchers are realists and qualitative researchers are idealist in their approach. This assumption enforces more restrictions on the way research would be carried out. Indeed quantitative research could do well to accept more subjective and individual attitudes, as qualitative methods could with more objective, measurable approaches.Moving forwardAcknowledging the obstacles above, I will now explore ways in wh ich psychology can move forward, away from the methodological circle towards an approach that recognises and embraces both quantitative and qualitative virtues. Such an approach should not be concerned with paradigmatic purism but more concerned with identifying effective ways of conceptualising and discovering answers to the research questions.Grounded Theory -Theoretical saturation and samplingWhen using Grounded Theory, researchers use Theoretical sampling until they reach Theoretical saturation, where researchers collect data until (a) no new or relevant data seem to emerge regarding a category, (b) the category is well developed in terms of its properties and dimensions demonstrating variation, and (c) the relations among categories are well established and validated. (Strauss Corbin, 1998, p. 212). Such a fluid and flexible approach provides a useful means in theory construction because it builds the theory as it evolves from incoming data, offering an alternate perspective o n how the results are interpreted than the restrictive positivist, deductive approaches.Relational metatheoryRelational metatheory offers a relational dialectical perspective in which interpretation (a more quantitative, positivist approach) and observation (a more qualitative, construstivist approach) are both acknowledged and used (Overton, 1998 2003). Relationism metatheory acknowledges that there is interconnectedness between the person, culture and biology (Hase, 2000), which is a much more fluid and explorative method then a split metatheory (using only quantitative or qualitative). This results in more complex, self creating, self organising, self regulating and adaptive systems that function and develop in relation with sociocultural constructs.In conclusion, there is a range of obstacles researchers encounter when attempting to break free of the methodological circle. These include both theoretical considerations such as theory construction and practical considerations such as the dependence on statistics. In order to move away from these imposed restrictions, researchers should consider adopting a more inclusive, flexible approach such as Grounded Theory and Relational Metatheory. As Danzgier concludes we must overcome these problems associated with the methodological circle in psychological research if not theory testing in psychology will be a matter of choosing among different versions of a theoretical position, the fundamental features of which are in fact beyond dispute. (Danziger, 1985, p.13).ReferencesAlexander, J. C., Eyerman, R., Giesen, B., Smelser, N. J., Sztompka, P.(2004) Cultural Trauma and incorporated Identity, University of California Press, CADanziger, K. (1985) The methodological imperative in psychology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 15, 1-13Freud, S. (1918) The Complete Introductionary Lectures on Psychoanalsis, Alden Press, OxfordHase, S. (2000) Mixing methodologies in research, NCVER conference, Coffs Harbour, April.Koch, S. (1963) Psychology A content Of a Science, (Koch, S. (Ed.). (1959-1963), McGraw-Hill, New YorkKuhn, T. S. (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoOverton, W. F. (2012) Paradigms in Theory Construction, (Eds LAbate, L.) Springer US.Silverman, D. (1993) Beginning Research. Interpreting Qualitative Data. Methods for Analysing Talk, textbook and Interaction, Sage Publications, LondresStrauss, A. L. Corbin, J. M. (1998) Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, Sage Publications, USWaitzkin, H. (1990) On Studying the Discourse of Medical Encounters, Medical Care. 286, 473-487