Tension Between the Theoretical Thinking and the Empirical Method: Is it an Inevitable Fate for Psychology?

Regular Article

Abstract

This paper will start from focusing on the limitations of quantitative approach in psychology from three viewpoints. First-- data collection, especially experiments and questionnaires as two major methods of quantitative approach. The second limitation is data aggregation, followed by the third-- statistical significance testing. After that, recent spread of qualitative approach as another option for one of psychological methods will be introduced and a controversy surrounding epistemology of qualitative approach will be also introduced. Finally, it will be discussed that accumulation of faithful descriptions on reality, especially from qualitative approach, would be needed for producing creative research.

Keywords

Quantitative approach Qualitative approach Methodology of psychology 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Jaan Valsiner, Clark University, for his helpful comments on an earlier draft.

References

  1. Adams, H. F. (1931). Measurement in psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 15, 545–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., & Delamont, S. (2001). A debate about our canon. Qualitative Research, 1, 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakan, D. (1966). The test of significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 66, 423–437.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss, vol.1: Attachment. London: Hogarth Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bridgeman, P. W. (1927). The logic of modern physics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist, 45, 1304–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Condor, S. (2003). “The least doubtful promise for the future”?: The short history of Tajfel’s “sociopsychological” approach to laboratory experimentation. In J. Laszlo & W. Wagner (Eds.), Theories and controversies in societal psychology (pp. 153–179). Budapest: New Mandate.Google Scholar
  8. Danziger, K. (1985). The methodological imperative in psychology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 15, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Editors’ introduction. Qualitative Research, 1, 3–6.Google Scholar
  10. Gigerenzer, G., & Murray, D. J. (1987). Cognition as intuitive statistics. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Giles, D., Gough, B., & Packer, M. (2004). Editorial. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grossen, M. (2010). Interaction analysis and psychology: a dialogical perspective. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 44, 1–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.Google Scholar
  14. Hofstee, W. K. B. (1990). The use of everyday personality language for scientific purposes. European Journal of Personality, 4, 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: a study of cross-cultural researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17, 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lincoln, Y. S. (2010). “What a long, strange trip it’s been…”: twenty-five years of qualitative and new paradigm research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oak: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Lykken, D. (1968). Statistical significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 151–159.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McGregor, D. (1935). Scientific measurement and psychology. Psychological Review, 42, 246–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meehl, P. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 806–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Michell, J. (1997). Quantitative science and the definition of measurement in psychology. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 355–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Michell, J. (2000). Normal science, pathological science and psychometrics. Theory & Psychology, 10, 639–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Molenaar, P. C. M. (2004). A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: bringing the person back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Measurement, 2, 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and paradigms regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 48–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morrison, D. E., & Henkel, R. E. (Eds.). (1970). The significance test controversy: A reader. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  26. Omi, Y. (1998). Some problems of studies using “scales”. In T. Sato (Ed.), Gendai no Esprit(372): Psychology for personality (pp. 221–227). Tokyo: Shibundo. in Japanese.Google Scholar
  27. Omi, Y. (2007). Some issues surrounding measurement. In Y. Watanabe (Ed.), Methodology of psychology (pp. 68–89). Tokyo: Asakura-shoten. in Japanese.Google Scholar
  28. Omi, Y., & Kawano, K. (1996). Criteria of convincedness: what do psychologists work? Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (Tokyo Metropolitan Univ.), 269, 31–45. in Japanese.Google Scholar
  29. Shwarz, M. (2009). Is psychology based on a methodological error? Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 43, 185–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. St Pierre, E. A., & Roulston, K. (2006). The state of qualitative inquiry: a contested science. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19, 673–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tajfel, H. (1972). Experiments in a vacuum. In J. Israel & H. Tajfel (Eds.), Social psychology: A critical assessment (pp. 69–121). London: Academic.Google Scholar
  32. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Trendler, G. (2009). Measurement theory, psychology and the revolution that cannot happen. Theory & Psychology, 19, 579–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Trueba, H. T. (1990). The role of culture in literacy acquisition: an interdisciplinary approach to qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 3, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yamagishi, T. (1998). The structure of trust: The evolutionary game of mind and society. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. in Japanese.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of YamanashiKofuJapan

Personalised recommendations