Abstract
The conceptual and procedural differences between quantitative and qualitative methods have led many researchers to realize that some methodologies are better suited for studying some phenomena over other phenomena. However, practical guidelines for making these method decisions have yet to be developed. The primary purpose of this paper is to begin to provide such guidelines, especially in the study of religious phenomena. We first discuss the common mistake in Western psychology of considering methods as mere procedures rather than as the outcomes of different interpretations of the world. We then compare five features of a general quantitative interpretation with five features of a general qualitative interpretation. From this comparison, the advantages and disadvantages of each method strategy are discussed. Knowledge of these advantages and disadvantages allows methods to be better matched to the religious phenomena being studied.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
As we will see, even the strategy of operationalization does not really allow empiricists to study nonobservables (or private experiences).
We distinguish between methods and methodologies in this paper. Methods are the procedures, strategies, and practices of researchers, whereas methodologies are the assumptions, philosophies, and systems of thinking that originate, underlie, and guide the use of these methods.
We use philosophies, assumptions, and interpretive frameworks somewhat interchangeably because all three are different ways of referring to the conceptions that underlie and guide the use of our methods.
This fact is rarely understood in the West. Indeed, studies of operationalizations, such as hugs, are often misrepresented in the West as studies of the construct being operationalized, such as love. In other words, many Western researchers have assumed that a study of the operationalization is a study of the nonobservable they want to study. As noted, this is especially problematic since most Western researchers do not study the relationship between their operationalization and the construct. Indeed, this relationship cannot be studied empirically, in principle, because this relationship is not observable.
As we will see, we can value generalizability without requiring it to be invariant or lawful in a conventional sense.
This research value does not preclude the possibility of someone else, with a different interpretive framework, re-interpreting these data in another manner. Qualitative researchers are explicitly open to these re-interpretations and view them as normal and even good. Such reinterpretations also occur in quantitative research, but these are typically viewed as problematic.
Here we mean emotions, thoughts, and meanings themselves, with “themselves” emphasized because the operationalizations of these private (scientifically not observed) experiences are not the things themselves.
References
Bernstein, R. J. (1983). Beyond objectivism and relativism: Science, hermeneutics, and praxis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bohman, J. (1991). New philosophy of social science. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bordens, K. S., & Abbott, B. B. (1999). Research design and methods: A process approach (4th ed.). Mountain View: Mayfield Publishing.
Bunge, M. (1959). Causality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Chen, Y. (in press). Methodological issues on psychology of religion research in the Chinese context. Pastoral Psychology.
Cushman, P. (1995). Constructing the self, constructing America: A cultural history of psychotherapy. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Dueck, A. (1995). Between Jerusalem and Athens: Ethical perspectives on culture, religion, and psychotherapy. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
Heiman, G. W. (1995). Research methods in psychology. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
James, W. (1902/1982). The varieties of religious experience. New York: Penguin Books.
Kruger, D. (1988). An introduction to phenomenological psychology. Cape Town: Juta and Co, Ltd.
Merriam-Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/symbol. Accessed 30 June 2010.
Nelson, J., & Slife, B. D. (in press). Theoretical and epistemological issues in the psychology of religion. Oxford handbook of the psychology of religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Packer, M. J., & Addison, R. B. (Eds.). (1989). Entering the circle: Hermeneutic investigation in psychology. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1983). Methodology for the human sciences: Systems of inquiry. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1989). Phenomenological research methods. In R. S. Valle & S. Halling (Eds.), Existential-phenomenological perspectives in psychology: Exploring the breadth of human experience (pp. 41–60). New York: Plenum Press.
Richards, P. S., & Bergin, A. E. (2005). A spiritual strategy for counseling and psychotherapy (2nd ed.). Washington: APA Books.
Slife, B. D. (2004). Theoretical challenges to therapy practice and research: The constraint of naturalism. In M. Lambert (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (pp. 44–83). New York: Wiley.
Slife, B. D. (2005). Testing the limits of Henriques’ proposal: Wittgensteinian lessons and hermeneutic dialogue. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 1–14.
Slife, B. D. (2008). A primer of the values implicit in counseling research. Counseling and Values, 53(1), 8–21.
Slife, B. D. (2009). Mixed methods and mixed methodologies. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada, August.
Slife, B. D., & Gantt, E. (1999). Methodological pluralism: a framework for psychotherapy research. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55(12), 1–13.
Slife, B. D., & Melling, B. (2009). The ideology of empiricism. Edification: Journal of the Society for Christian Psychology, 2(1), 44–48.
Slife, B. D., & Williams, R. N. (1995). What’s behind the research? Discovering hidden assumptions in the behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Slife, B. D., Hope, C., & Nebeker, S. (1999). Examining the relationship between religious spirituality and psychological science. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 39(2), 51–85.
Slife, B. D., Smith, A. M., & Burchfield, C. (2003). Psychotherapists as crypto-missionaries: An exemplar on the crossroads of history, theory, and philosophy. In D. B. Hill & M. J. Kral (Eds.), About psychology: Essays at the crossroads of history, theory, and philosophy (pp. 55–72). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Slife, B. D., Reber, J., & Richardson, F. (2005a). Critical thinking about psychology: Hidden assumptions and plausible alternatives. Washington: American Psychological Association Press.
Slife, B. D., Wiggins, B. J., & Graham, J. T. (2005b). Avoiding an EST monopoly: toward a pluralism of methods and philosophies. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 35, 83–97.
Slife, B. D., Burchfield, C., & Hedges, D. (2010). Interpreting the “biologization” of psychology. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 31(3), 165–177.
Wiggins, B. J. (in press). Confronting the dilemma of mixed methods. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Slife, B.D., Melling, B.S. Method Decisions: Quantitative and Qualitative Inquiry in the Study of Religious Phenomena. Pastoral Psychol 61, 721–734 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-011-0366-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-011-0366-3