There are many quiet and not-so-quiet disagreements, disputes, quarrels, and so on within the discipline of psychology. Sometimes these disputes (etc.) take place in private; sometimes they take place in public. Some are so pervasive
that they characterize a field, to the point where the dispute becomes part of the field’s identity, and its members, who share that identity to some degree, take the disagreement very seriously. For example, and I promise I am
not making this up, I once observed two well-regarded faculty members of a prestigious institution in the western United States get into a fist fight at a local brewery over … wait for it … the relative merits of behavior modification
versus cognitive therapy in treating a particular condition. I’ll say that in more general terms. Two grown adults physically fought one another over a difference in theoretical orientation. Here’s the funny thing. Many of you
who are new to the field of psychology, new to professional science, or new to the academic world, might find this shocking. Who would fight over such a thing? Those of us who have been around a while are not shocked at all … people
can and often do get heated over their science.1
Now, to be clear, I would never advocate for the use of physical aggression (or any type of aggression, for that matter) to solve a disagreement. Science is full of disagreement, and psychology is no exception here. As students of
psychology, you (dear readers) are likely familiar with some of these disagreements. Nature versus nurture is one, for example. Or, how about this one? Is personality fixed or changeable? Don’t answer that question out loud … you
might upset one of your lab mates. Today, we are going to focus on one half of a disagreement. We will selectively and shamelessly limit most of our discussion to describing the relative merits of one side of an ongoing dispute.
You might say to yourself “Self! That is not a fair and balanced approach.” That is true. But, in recent years, most folks have focused on the side we are going to, for the most part, ignore. So, by focusing on the other side,
we are actually balancing the scale. What is this dispute I am referring to? And, which side will we focus on? Those are both good questions, and I am glad you asked them. Here are the answers: (a) Quantitative versus qualitative
research methods; (b) We’ll focus on the fluffy qualitative stuff.2
Getting That Rich, Contextualized Information
Let us begin by distinguishing between quantitative and qualitative research methods. Quantitative research methods involve the collection, analysis, and interpretation of numerical data that are used to represent some quality of variables
(Aidley, 2018). In short, quantitative research uses numbers to precisely measure stuff. Qualitative research, on the other hand, is the collection, analysis, and interpretation of nonnumerical data (Billups, 2019). Typically,
qualitative research involves the use of observations, rich verbal descriptions, and the exploration of subjective experiences. So, as you might have gathered, the key difference between quantitative and qualitative methods is
whether numbers are used. Quant uses numbers, while qual for the most part doesn’t. This may seem like a minor difference, but it has major implications for a research enterprise. The types of questions one can answer, the types
of specific research methods that can be used, the analysis, the interpretation, all these things are impacted by the decision to take a quant versus qual approach. Notably, quantitative methods have been dominant in the field
of psychology for quite some time. Indeed, some folks might even suggest that quantitative methods are superior to qualitative methods, and our disproportionately greater reliance on quantitative methods is indicative of this superiority.
Not so fast. As you will see here, qualitative methods are extremely useful in many situations and, indeed, indispensable if you want to answer certain questions.
When might an intrepid qualitative researcher want and/or need to use qualitative research methods, you ask? Another great question. I answer by stating that there are several situations for which these methods are useful. For example,
qualitative methods are typically used when researchers desire rich, complex information about people’s subjective experiences. This information often allows researchers to contextualize this experience and to uncover the significance
or meaning attached to it. For example, a qualitative researcher may be interested in the emotional experiences of multiethnic romantic partners. As you (dear reader) might imagine, the emotional experiences of multiethnic romantic
partners are probably quite complex, diverse, context-dependent, and time-specific. This complexity, diversity, and specificity is unlikely to be fully captured using standard, closed-response surveys that associate a numerical
value with some two-word response (e.g., 5 = “Strongly Agree!”). Instead, we would need to take a different approach, one that allows those being studied to answer the researchers’ questions relatively freely, openly, and without
much restriction. Qualitative methods often involve such an approach. Additionally, qualitative methods may be particularly useful in situations where (a) little is known about a particular topic, so lots of descriptive information
is needed to guide and direct subsequent research, and/or (b) the subject under examination is rare or uncommon, and researchers can’t generate a large enough sample to employ quantitative techniques. For this last situation, we
might instead perform an in-depth qualitative study of a few individuals or cases.2
How to Open a Can of Worms
Now, there are a number of techniques that qualitative researchers use to collect data from their participants. We can refer to these techniques as “can openers.” Why? Because qualitative researchers want participants to provide lots
of information. They want to “open up a can of worms,” as they say. In other words, they want people to “spill the beans” … and beans frequently come in cans … cans that need to be opened. Actually, I’ve changed my mind. Let’s
not call them can-openers. That’s too silly. Let’s just continue.
Qualitative researchers may collect data by conducting one-on-one interviews, focus groups, naturalistic observation, and in-depth analysis of old documents, literature, and other archived data sources. These are by no means the only
methods that qualitative researchers use, but a common thread among qualitative methods is that they are particularly well-suited for generating a lot of information. For instance, if a researcher wants to know about the lived
experience of an individual in a multiethnic romantic relationship, an extended interview with that person is a good way to generate a lot of information. If a researcher wants a similar amount of information about more than one
person, such that we can begin to infer common experiences among individuals from the same group, a focus group might be the way to go. But, what to do with all that data we have collected? How do we organize it? How do we describe
it? Interpret it? There are many ways to do this, but qualitative researchers frequently use coding, content analysis, and thematic analysis to identify and represent common themes, concepts, and ideas present in the data. To continue
with our example, if several individuals in our focus group articulate a similar experience, that would suggest that the experience is at least common and perhaps significant.
What to Do If You Prefer the “Fluffy” Stuff
Some researchers denigrate the use of qualitative methods, with the most common criticism being that these methods lack objectivity and precision. Obviously, objectivity and precision are key to the scientific enterprise, so this is
important to note. But, it should also be stated that, when applied correctly, these methods can be very objective and very precise. And, good news! The qualitative approach can be used to examine many different topics in many
different fields of inquiry. Foundational qualitative research has been conducted in social psychology (e.g., examining the experience of prejudice), health psychology (e.g., examining the experience of being a caregiver), clinical
psychology (e.g., describing the subjective nature of mental illness), and industrial/organizational psychology (e.g., describing workplace climate), and many other areas. So, qualitative psychology is not a subfield of psychology
more generally, but rather it is a methodological approach that can be used to study many different subjects within psychology. Correspondingly, academic programs that emphasize qualitative psychology can be found at many universities
worldwide, such as the University of Illinois, the University of Alberta, and the University of Manchester, among others.
I can now hear you saying, “I love the fluffy stuff! What jobs can I get once I finish up with school?” Career opportunities for qualitative psychologists can vary widely depending on their interests, expertise, and professional goals.
Qualitative psychologists may also pursue roles in areas outside of psychology such as education, human resources, public policy, or international development, applying their skills to address diverse social, organizational, and
individual challenges. But, it is important to note that, wherever they are, qualitative psychologists are often at the forefront of the research enterprise, tackling complex and messy topics that other methods are not yet suited
for. That is impressive. If it were recognized more broadly, we might have fewer arguments about the relative merits of qualitative versus quantitative methods. Instead, we could have nice, enlightening conversations about the
relative merits of qualitative and quantitative methods.
1I like to call physical altercations over scholarly disputes “nerd fights.” You can call them that too. Some might be bothered by the name-calling. I understand and respect that position. However, it is my position that if one is willing to harm another human over such things, then they have opened themself up to ridicule.
2I would like to go on the record and state that I do not, in fact, believe that qualitative methods are “fluffy.” I merely use the term to highlight the belief, widespread among some, that qualitative methods are less rigorous than quantitative methods.
3This one may sound familiar to some of you, as it describes the case study. Notably, the case study is a qualitative method that has a long and rich history of use in psychology. This highlights the fact that qualitative methods have been used extensively by psychologists for many years, despite the current emphasis on quantitative methods in the field.
Additional Reading and Resources:
American Psychological Association, Division 5, Quantitative and Qualitative Methods. https://www.apadivisions.org/division-5
Howitt, D. (2019). Introduction to qualitative research methods in psychology. Pearson UK.
References
Aidley, D. (2018). Introducing quantitative methods: A practical guide. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Billups, F. D. (2019). Qualitative data collection tools: Design, development, and applications. Sage Publications.
Ethan A. McMahan, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Psychological Sciences at Western Oregon University where he teaches courses in research methods, advanced research methods, and positive psychology. He is passionate about undergraduate education in psychology and has served Psi Chi members in several ways over the last few years, including as a faculty advisor, Psi Chi Western Region Steering Committee Member, Grants Chair, and most recently, as the Western Regional Vice- President of Psi Chi. His research interests focus on hedonic and eudaimonic approaches to well-being, folk conceptions of happiness, and the relationship between nature and human well-being. His recent work examines how exposure to immersive simulations of natural environments impact concurrent emotional state and, more broadly, how regular contact with natural environments may be one route by which individuals achieve optimal feeling and functioning. He has published in the Journal of Positive Psychology, the Journal of Happiness Studies, Personality and Individual Differences, and Ecopsychology, among other publications. He completed his undergraduate training at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs and holds a PhD in experimental psychology from the University of Wyoming.
Copyright 2024 (Vol. 28, Iss. 4) Psi Chi, the International Honor Society in Psychology
