论心理学两种研究范式的整合趋向

本文从方法学的视角分析了心理学研究的两大基本范式。文中讨论了量的研究与质的研究在本体论、认识论、价值论方面存在的差异,探讨了量的研究与质的研究整合的逻辑依据与历史依据。量的研究与质的研究存在各自的优缺点,它们的整合是必要的,也是可能的。文中进一步探讨了量的研究与质的研究整合的基本方式,包括次序式整合、平行式整合、交叉式整合等。     

质的研究:医学教育研究的另一种范式

通过将质的研究与定量研究、定性研究进行各维度对比,充分显示了质的研究范式的独特个性.并使用文献分析法,分析了我国医学教育领域中,医学教育研究方法应用的现状.进而探讨了质的研究范式在医学教育研究领域应用的意义及其优势,以及该研究范式在医学教育研究中如何引入的问题.     

论主客二分的心理学研究范式

本文考察了主客二分研究范式的内涵、发展脉络与历史地位。作者认为,主客二分研究范式张扬着心理学的自然科学定向,体现的是人作为自然物的形象,展示的是将人的心理、行为视作“现象”,试图以实证方法揭示人的心理、行为规律的“外观心理学”境界。它和主客同一研究范式均可在未来心理学中获得各自合理存在的空间。     

条件推理:“演绎”与“概率”两种实验研究范式之比较

本研究通过推理心理学研究中的“演绎”和“概率”两种实验范式设计对同一个班级的大学生参与者(实验一中N=57,实验二中N=43)进行先后两次有关条件推理的实验研究后,得出如下主要结果:(1)推理者在对不同的“纯形式条件命题本身的认可度”以及对由它们各自建构的同类型推理题的推理结果之间的作答反应模式之间的差异都很小且具有较高的一致性;(2)对由不同的“含具体内容的假言命题”本身的认可度之间以及由它们建构的同类型条件推理题的推理结果之间具有较大的差异性;(3)推理者对“演绎”和“概率”两种不同实验范式分别建构的内容近似的推进题进行推理时具有大致相同的作答反应趋势。由此可以推论推理者在“概率推理实验范式”中的作答或推理结果可以被视为只是对“演绎推理实验范式”的相应推理题给出“概率解”的心理加工过程。     

延迟满足——一个值得在我国开展的研究计划

本文以文献回顾为出发点,阐述“延迟满足”之基本研究范式及研究新趋势,并以此为基础,构思一个在中国各地开展的研究计划.具体来说,此计划包括六点建议:(一)实验研究以密斯(Mischel)的基本研究范式为蓝本,(二)在研究设计上结合问卷测量与实验研究,(三)细致地比较个人测试和群体测试的异同,(四)致力进行“发展向度”的研究,(五)制订吻合理论建构及本土处境的“延迟满足”测量问卷,(六)从“延迟满足”过渡至“满足于过程”.     

论主客同一的心理学研究范式

本文考察了主客同一研究范式的内涵、发展脉络及历史地位。作者认为,主客同一研究范式体现着心理学的人文科学定向,张扬的是人有别于自然物的“天使”形象,展示的是将人的心理、行为视作“生活”,试图从内部体验、直观以达成对人的独特本质洞察的“内观心理学”境界。它和主客二分研究范式均可在未来心理学中获得各自合理存在的空间。     

亚里士多德物理学中的“原因”和“运动”概念——从库恩的观点看

在库恩“范式”理论的发展中,“类比”对于塑形知识范式的基本作用被越来越多地强调。与此相应,亚里士多德亦将“类比”作为认识得以形成和扩展的基本方法。正是凭借对“人间”领域中较熟悉事物的观察,亚里士多德才得以形成对“天”进行论说的概念基础。正因如此,亚式物理学中那些诸多不同于现代物理学的特质,似都可以通过这种独特的类比模式得到说明。     

亚里士多德对“偏好”如是说

亚里士多德在《前分析篇》和《论辩篇》中提出了关于“偏好”的理论。本文从现代偏好逻辑的观点分析亚里士多德的偏好理论,作者认为亚里士多德提出了“强偏好”和“无差别偏好”等概念,提出了“强偏好的完全性”、“强偏好的不对称性”、“强偏好的换质位”以及“强偏好的合取扩展”等等原理。作者希望本文的分析能对现代偏好逻辑的研究提供一些资料。     

对“分析进路的伦理学范式”的思考

当前,在关于“分析进路的伦理学范式”的讨论中,有一种观点引人关注:“科学性的描述,使得道德既不通达‘天理’(因为形而上学被否定了),也不脚踏实地(因为‘道德’变成了对概念的词义分析,变成了单纯的‘知识’,而不指导生活和行动)。”对此,笔者认为有必要作出回应,并澄清一些问题。按照笔者的理解,邓安庆在《分析进路的伦理学范式批判》一文中所作的并非是对分析哲学本身的批判,也不是对整个分析进路的伦理学的批判,而只是对那种不适当地把分析哲学方法应用于伦理学研究的某些“范式”进行批判。     

焦虑个体“冷”、“热”执行功能Stroop效应量比较

该文采用Stroop实验范式对筛选出的49名高焦虑个体和48名低焦虑个体的“冷”、“热”执行功能进行测量,以探讨不同焦虑程度个体“冷”、“热”执行功能间的差异。结果表明,在“冷”执行功能方面,高焦虑个体与低焦虑个体Stroop效应量之间没有显著差异;在“热”执行功能方面,两组被试情绪Stroop的效应量无差异;两类词;12的Stroop效应量差异显著;词汇类型×被试类型的交互作用非常显著;进一步的简单效应分析表明,两组被试的情绪Stroop效应量在消极词汇水平差异显著,两类词汇Stroop效应量在低焦虑组差异显著。说明高、低焦虑个体在“冷”执行功能上没有显著差异,高焦虑个体的“冷”执行功能正常,而“热”执行功能下降,表现为高焦虑个体对两极情绪的趋避关系失调,即对消极情绪具有偏向性,对积极情绪具有回避性。     

Quality Criteria Under Methodological Pluralism: Implications for Conducting and Evaluating Research

Many community psychologists adhere to a methodological pluralist orientation to research; however, it is often unclear what such a position means in practice. This paper draws out the practical implications of methodological pluralism for community research. It proposes four sets of criteria for how research might be appraised under a pluralistic ethos: criteria applicable to all research, research-relevant community psychology values and principles, criteria specifically applicable to quantitative research, and criteria specifically applicable to qualitative research. The paper also addresses how pluralistic community research may be conducted, at each of three levels: integrating methods within a single study, using different approaches within a research program, and pluralism in the field as a whole.     

Reflexivity in quantitative research: A rationale and beginner's guide

Reflexivity is the act of examining one's own assumption, belief, and judgement systems, and thinking carefully and critically about how these influence the research process. The practice of reflexivity confronts and questions who we are as researchers and how this guides our work. It is central in debates on objectivity, subjectivity, and the very foundations of social science research and generated knowledge. Incorporating reflexivity in the research process is traditionally recognized as one of the most notable differences between qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Qualitative research centres and celebrates the participants' personal and unique lived experience. Therefore, qualitative researchers are readily encouraged to consider how their own unique positionalities inform the research process and this forms an important part of training within this paradigm. Quantitative methodologies in social and personality psychology, and more generally, on the other hand, have remained seemingly detached from this level of reflexivity and general reflective practice. In this commentary, we, three quantitative researchers who have grappled with the compatibility of reflexivity within our own research, argue that reflexivity has much to offer quantitative methodologists. The act of reflexivity prompts researchers to acknowledge and centre their own positionalities, encourages a more thoughtful engagement with every step of the research process, and thus, as we argue, contributes to the ongoing reappraisal of openness and transparency in psychology. In this paper, we make the case for integrating reflexivity across all research approaches, before providing a ‘beginner's guide’ for quantitative researchers wishing to engage reflexively with their own work, providing concrete recommendations, worked examples, and reflexive prompts.     

The role of work experience and individual beliefs in police officers' perceptions of date rape: An integration of quantitative and qualitative methods

Surveyed police officers from two police departments in the Midwest on their perceptions of date rape (N=91). The aim of this research was to examine the influence of officers' work experiences and general beliefs about women on their perceptions of date rape. Two approaches were utilized. First, using quantitative structural-equation modeling, a model that integrated work experiences and individual beliefs was evaluated using LISREL VII. Results suggest a direct path from the work experience variables to perceptions of date rape: Officers with more experience with rape cases held more sympathetic beliefs about data rape and date rape victims. Officers who found their training on rape to be very helpful, and those who reported that their work environment was sexualized and sexual harassment was a problem, were also less victim blaming. An indirect influence of these variables was also supported. Officers with more experience, those who perceived their training as helpful, and those with heightened awareness of sexual harassment in the workplace also held more favorable attitudes toward women, which, in turn, predicted less victim-blaming perceptions of date rape. Second, qualitative methods were used to have the police define and describe in their own words what has shaped their beliefs about date rape. These narratives were content analyzed by two raters. The qualitative results validated the quantitative findings as the officers were most likely to mention professional experience with rape cases and departmental trainings as important factors that changed their opinions. Work climate and personal experiences were also cited as influential. Implications for integrating qualitative and quantitative methods in research, and training interventions with police are discussed. The author thanks the Editor, Bill Davidson, Holly Angelique, Susan Englund, Doug Luke, Melody Scofield, and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on this paper. I also acknowledge Camille Johnson and Jody Venable for their assistance collecting and coding the data. This research was supported by a grant from the George W. Fairweather Fund.     

The relationship between qualitative and quantitative research: Lessons from feminist psychology

The dominant methodological approach in psychological research has involved the use of quantitative methods within a positivist framework. In this article we argue that both qualitative and quantitative methods have their strengths and limitations, depending on the research question under investigation. We examine some of the advantages of qualitative methods, paying particular attention to the value of such methods for feminist researchers. We challenge the positivist assumption that all research should be apolitical and value-free, arguing that the political context in which all research studies take place plays an important role in decisions about the appropriate research methods to use. Despite the value attached to qualitative methods by feminist researchers, there may be projects for which quantitative methods, or a combination of qualitative and quantitative techniques, are more suitable. We draw on examples from our research on the transition from school to the job market for young people, and a study of 16- to 19-year-old first time mothers to illustrate these points, examining the practical implications of our arguments for applied social psychology research.     

Mixed methods research design for pragmatic psychoanalytic studies

Calls for more rigorous psychoanalytic studies have increased over the past decade. The field has been divided by those who assert that psychoanalysis is properly a hermeneutic endeavor and those who see it as a science. A comparable debate is found in research methodology, where qualitative and quantitative methods have often been seen as occupying orthogonal positions. Recently, Mixed Methods Research (MMR) has emerged as a viable "third community" of research, pursuing a pragmatic approach to research endeavors through integrating qualitative and quantitative procedures in a single study design. Mixed Methods Research designs and the terminology associated with this emerging approach are explained, after which the methodology is explored as a potential integrative approach to a psychoanalytic human science. Both qualitative and quantitative research methods are reviewed, as well as how they may be used in Mixed Methods Research to study complex human phenomena.     

Disintegration,New Consciousness,and Discontinuous Transformation: A Qualitative Investigation of Quantum Change

The role of qualitative methods within humanistic psychology research is explored though a Web-based dialogue among the authors expressing varying, and often quite diverging, views on assorted concerns about research methodologies and their underlying epistemologies. Specifically explored is whether qualitative methods are inherently better for capturing an understanding of human experience congruent with a human science approach to research or, alternatively, whether both qualitative and quantitative approaches simply offer different, and often complementary, advantages and disadvantages. The divisiveness between humanistic and positive psychology is also explored in relationship to the former field's frequent preference for qualitative methods within a human science paradigm, in contrast to the latter field's frequent preference for quantitative methods within a positivistic science paradigm.     

Encompassing experience: Meanings and methods in health psychology

Abstract

Health psychology is limited by its almost exclusive use of a positivist quantitative research paradigm, and the adoption and use of qualitative methods by health psychologists will provide increased understandings of health and illness. Qualitative methods provide a means to incorporate the social world into our research, and furnish ways to investigate the meanings of health and illness experience. We present a brief consideration of the qualitative paradigm and some important underlying issues related to its use. We describe three qualitative approaches - grounded theory, narrative analysis, and discourse analysis - chosen for their relevance and diversity. We provide illustrations of the use of each in health research, and suggest how these approaches could be utilised by health psychologists to enrich understanding in the health field. We conclude that health psychologists have a great deal to gain from joining other social science health researchers in adopting qualitative approaches in their research.     

THE VIEW FROM DOWN HERE

In this article, graduate students and one faculty member respond to the innovative methods presented in this issue. We identify three theoretical and methodological tensions that shape our interest in and willingness to work with these methods. The first questions whether the strengths of doing qualitative research outweigh the limitations. The second involves feminist research ideals and how attainable they are. The third explores epistemological tensions between qualitative and quantitative research. Although intrigued by the data these methods generated and by their underlying epistemology, we question the status of certain qualitative research in psychology. We contend that the criteria by which qualitative research is evaluated must be made more explicitly before quantitatively trained researchers will incorporate these methods into their own work.     

Grounded Theory methods in child psychotherapy research

This article considers the place of qualitative research in psychoanalysis and child psychotherapy. It discusses why research methodology for many years occupied so small a place in these fields, and examines the cultural and social developments since the 1960s which have changed this situation, giving formal but also qualitative methods of research much greater significance. It reflects on the different pressures to develop explicit research methods which arise both from outside the psychoanalytic field, as a condition of its continued professional survival, and from within it, where its main aim is the development of fundamental psychoanalytic knowledge. It suggests that the conduct of mainly quantitative research into treatment outcomes is largely a response to these external pressures, whilst the main benefits to be gained from the development of qualitative research methods, such as Grounded Theory, are in facilitating the knowledge-generating capacities and achievements of child psychotherapists themselves. The paper describes Grounded Theory methods, and explains how they can be valuable in the recognition of hitherto unrecognised meanings and patterns as these are made visible in clinical practice. Finally, it briefly describes three examples of completed doctoral studies, all of which have added significantly to the knowledge-base of child psychotherapy, and which demonstrate how much can be accomplished using this method of research.     

Graduate education in qualitative methods in U.S. psychology: current trends and recommendations for the future

The visibility of qualitative research methods (QRM) in U.S. psychology has increased with the dissemination of qualitative research in journals and books, formation of professional and scientific organizations, and recognition in educational institutions. While gains have been made, the current state of doctoral training in qualitative methods remains uncertain. It is unclear what training graduate students receive in U.S. psychology programs about qualitative methodologies and how further gains can be made in expanding visibility of QRM in graduate education. In this mixed-methods study, we surveyed a sample of faculty in U.S. psychology graduate programs about the frequency of QRM course offerings, graduate training, and students’ use of QRM in their dissertation research. We also explored qualitative responses from faculty regarding their attitudes about QRM and how these attitudes might help increase or diminish the frequency of methods training available to students. We found that even within graduate programs where there was support for QRM, enduring perceptions about the value of qualitative research limit faculty and graduate students’ use of qualitative methodologies in their research. With these findings in mind, we offer several recommendations for increasing the visibility of QRM in U.S. graduate education and the discipline of psychology as a whole.