Presidential
Address: Division 32
August
2001
HUMANISTIC
PSYCHOLOGY AND
QUALITATIVE
RESEARCH:
AFFINITY,
CLARIFICATIONS, AND INVITATIONS
Constance
T. Fischer
Duquesne
University
My goal
today is to encourage humanistic psychologists to expand our impact
through greater involvement with qualitative research. Qualitative
research is growing apace in education, nursing, cultural studies,
feminist studies, and of course in anthropology and sociology.
Psychology's traditional notions of science, however, have allowed
psychology pretty much to ignore these developments. Nevertheless,
some federal funding agencies now routinely require ethnological
studies as a precursor to other research. The public at large
and many of our laboratory colleagues are disenchanted with the
narrowness and remoteness of much of traditional psychological
research. By now individuals in many universities are directing
programs of qualitative research, especially in psychotherapy,
as well as guiding individual doctoral students' efforts to undertake
qualitative research. Here, our colleagues Art Bohart, Robert
Elliott, and David Rennie come immediately to mind. Duquesne University
and Saybrook Graduate School are increasingly well known for their
dissertations based on empirical qualitative research. Across
Canada and the U.S., as individual faculty members are developing
expertise in qualitative methods, demands for their assistance
is accelerating. A published document on evolving guidelines for
publishing qualitative psychological research (Elliott, Fischer,
& Rennie, 1999) has been helpful to authors and to editors.
The new Handbook of Humanistic Psychology (Schneider, Bugenthal,
& Pierson, 2001) has several excellent articles on qualitative
research. Still, the academic zeitgeist obviously has not been
transformed; there is much to be done!
I
believe that good qualitative research will change the meaning
of "scientific" and of "psychology" much more readily than will
complaints about the hegemony of positivistic imitations of natural
science methods. As our fund of understandings based on qualitative
research grows, readers will come to regard natural science methods
as being appropriate for the biological and physical orders and
humanistic/human science methods as being particularly appropriate
for the human order. Note: statistical methods, so long as they
are not used in the service of reductive explanation, are of course
decidedly useful in understanding human affairs. When I speak
of "qualitative research" I am not counterposing it against use
of quantitative data, but rather am evoking a frame of reference
within which we attend to the character of specifically human
activity. I think we are wonderfully poised at a juncture from
which we can encourage psychological qualitative research to be
more fully holistic-to attend to the broad spectrum of specifically
human experience and meanings.
Although
what I present this afternoon is from my own perspective, developed
over several decades, I think that few persons engaged in qualitative
research would argue with it at a general level, and I think that
most of it has been said in depth in many other places. My intentions
today are to offer some clarifications for persons who are just
now considering undertaking qualitative research, and to encourage
those of us already involved to share ideas about how we might
further promote qualitative research.
Humanistic
Psychology and Qualitative Research: Affinity
My own
efforts in qualitative research did not begin within an explicit
humanistic psychology, although by the time I discovered its name
I realized that I was already familiar with many threads of its
literature. My research efforts were grounded in existential-phenomenological
philosophical foundations for psychology conceived as a human
science. My development, among colleagues at Duquesne University,
was greatly influenced by Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty. This background
productively encouraged me in the following important directions:
to study descriptive data for what they said about a person's
life-world; to attend to the lived body as an indicator of a person's
inclinations and moments of being affected in efforts to follow
those inclinations; to allow psychology literature to inform my
study but not to provide filters; to try to convey my understandings
holistically; and to find ways to express commonalities across
individuals without losing sight of concrete variations in the
descriptions of or by individuals.
Prior
to turning more purposively to humanistic resources, I developed
rigor in developing themes, in expressing them carefully, and
in showing other researchers how they might read my data to get
in touch with what I had seen and perhaps modify what I had found.
This rigor was influenced both by graduate school training in
research methods and by Andy Giorgi's early procedures for careful
referencing within transcribed descriptions of just where themes
originated.
However,
eventually I found that my study of descriptions from research
participants, and that of my students, was richest when we allowed
our studies to be informed by immersion in humanistic literature
and values, and in works valued by humanistic psychology. Here
I'm talking about any works that explore, celebrate, and express
what is uniquely human--professional literature, humanities studies,
creative literature and poetry, performing arts, and the like.
Being informed by this realm as we study data enlivens dialogue
between cognitive reflection that is seeking to find language
for themes and continuing attunement to the flow and dispersions
of an individual's striving for personal meaning and connections,
assumptions, disappointments, affirmations, spiritual dimension,
values, and hopes and joys as well as dread or despairs. Buber's
kind of respect for the "thou" within our data helps us to be
even better at putting into abeyance our outsider expectations.
Similarly, being imbued with the humanities and humanistic psychology's
work encourages us to be creative as we strive to evoke, to express,
to represent, what we found.
In short,
being explicitly attuned in this way to one degree or another
brings us deeper and fuller understandings of life-world meanings,
which is a goal of, or a step in, most qualitative psychology
research.
Clarifications:
What is Qualitative Research?
There
is, of course, a large range of legitimate qualitative research.
To my way of thinking, across this range the word "qualitative"
does not simply mean "not quantitative." "Quality" refers to "what
it's like" to be in a particular state or situation; "quality"
refers to character of the life-world. Researchers may go on to
use qualitative findings to classify various experiences and to
then track them in terms of nonqualitative categories or outcomes.
In any case, the qualitative research phase puts us in touch with
experience prior to the research subject's and the researcher's
later distanced reflection.
So what
is included in the range of qualitative method? Let me address
exclusions first. I am not talking about anything that simply
isn't quantitative, nor about material whose sole use as data
is to be counted. Qualitative research, as I view it, is a systematic
effort to find commonalities in lived worlds through study of
individuals' observed or reported states or situations.
It seems
to me that there are two main groups of qualitative research.
The first is basic research akin to "pure" science. Grounded theory
for example systematically and depthfully explores life-world
experience, notating data that has given rise to themes and cross-referencing
these insights. Traditionally, grouned theory research also has
incorporated two external kinds of data such as test scores or
observations. Empirical, (psychological) phenomenology is another
basic research approach. The investigator reads descriptions of
living through a situation, and systematically explores what is
being said about how the person is relating to self, world, and
others. All data must be accounted for, and common themes are
brought together in a holistic summary typically accompanied by
examples from each research subject.
Let me
present a brief form of such a holistic summary, foregoing examples
for the sake of time, from a study of being in privacy: "Privacy
is when: the watching self and the world fade away, along with
geometric space, clock time, and other contingencies, leaving
an intensified relationship with the intentional [attended to]
object. The relationship is toned by a sense of at-homeness or
familiarity, and its style is one of relative openness to or wonder
at the object's variable nature" (Fischer, 1971, p. 154). Although
this is an example of basic research, like others, it holds many
implications for social and educational policy. For example, the
study points toward the importance of enhancing privacy for the
sake of one's growth in understanding, in contrast to typical
notions of privacy as keeping others out of our lives.
A second
main group is practical qualitative research. Here, life world
understandings are a starting point for exploring their relation
to various outcomes. For example, a particular experience within
psychotherapy can be qualitatively researched and then identified
in transcriptions or by client report, and then related to indicators
of process and/or outcome. Robert Elliott has pioneered this kind
of research. Program evaluation is another form of practical qualitative
research. For example, researchers explore clients' experiences
of a program and compare those of persons who complete the program
with those of persons who drop out at various points.
I hope
that as more folks engage in qualitative research that we don't
produce the equivalent of psychotherapy being said to have 500+
varieties. Rather, I hope that we will specify the traditions
from which we draw, and then specify the attitudes and steps that
we took to come to our understandings of our data. We should be
flexible in developing procedures to fit our research topics.
And we should make our data and any written material illustrating
our steps available for interested scholars. Yes, I do think human-science
researchers are scholars.
There
are longstanding traditions of qualitative research developed
outside of psychology, such as ethnology, participant observation,
and the grounded research mentioned above. Fred Wertz reminds
us in one of his chapters in the already cited new Handbook of
Humanistic Psychology that psychoanalysis has long used its own
qualitative research methods, and that Gibson's ecological research,
Piaget's observational methods, William James' investigation of
religious experience, Gordon Allport's use of personal documents,
and Maslow's study of self-actualization are all examples of qualitative
research. But, as we know, psychology as a whole has not continued
on these paths!
Let me
return to the contemporary qualitative research that focuses on
developing an understanding of persons' living of situations to
review what most researchers in this realm agree on. Experience
does not stay still, but rather flows, comes in and out of focus,
and so on. Hence necessarily static characterizations of abstracted
themes are understood to be efforts to hint at still more. The
researcher knows that pointing clearly for the moment to one aspect
of a person's living of his/her world means that other aspects
are only adumbrated. The researcher acknowledges that of course
his or her own life and interests inform and influence what is
seen. We do not attempt to seek knowledge that is independent
of our human ways of knowing; indeed we have no access to whatever
exists except through human looking and meaning-making. We assume
that others will offer further insights, refinements, and improved
wording after looking at our data and at our efforts to express
what the research put us in touch with.
Many
natural science researchers-physicists, astronomers, and so on-readily
say that these last sentences are true of their work too. Scientific
method involves working systematically with data that are publically
visible and shareable. One may manipulate, measure, and test hypotheses
and still regard findings as partially human constructions. Unfortunately,
most psychology research is based on 19th Century epistemology,
specifically a philosophical stance that knowledge is of material
that can be known as it really is. When we speak of human-science
psychology we refer to a psychology that acknowledges the life-worlds
of both human subjects and researchers. Human-science psychology
is so-named to contrast with the philosophy of 19th Century natural
science. Human science researchers are not opposed to traditional
research design and statistical testing, but rather to the still
prevailing reductive attitude with which the research typically
is undertaken. By "reductive" I refer to translating findings
into underlying forces, causes, and entities presumed to be independent
of our ways of knowing and living them.
In short,
qualitative research is not a particular method but rather many
methods that share an epistemology. That philosophy of knowledge
generally is hermeneutic, meaning that all disciplined knowledge
is developed through perspectival, ever-evolving interpretations.
The often cited "hermeneutic circle" is that of coming to an overall
understanding, and then returning to the sources of that understanding
in light of the present one and then taking revisions back to
the whole, and so on. One can also cycle through cultural and
historical contexts of the subject matter. Actually of course
in practice, whether in research or clinical assessment, the "circle"
loops about in many overlapping side trips. At any rate, hermeneutic
interpretation does not follow the path of deductive logic that
characterizes most experimental psychology. Findings are explicitly
perspectival and ever open to new consideration.
Some
further clarifications:
*I encourage
us to speak of our work as being empirical; our data are visible
and open to re-inspection. Experimentation and statistical analysis
are not the only way to be empirical.
*Although
our findings are "relative to" our methods, perspectives, times,
and so on, they are not relativistic in the sense of being merely
subjective, or at the whim of each observer. All research, including
traditional research, is relative.
*Validity
is judged in terms of its resonance for readers, both in terms
of their own exposure to the topic, and in terms of how well findings
appear to fit the data. Usefulness whether for theory, policy,
or practice is a relevant form of validity and can guide our work.
*Generalizability
is not our goal. That criterion is based in the tradition of looking
for universal truth, which is not our goal. A more pertinent criterion
for us is that we specify what we can of typicality and variation
in particular circumstances. Ultimately typicality is an empirical
question. In the meantime, qualitative findings are presented
as they held for all subgroup subjects in a study, so we don't
require levels of probability!
*Speaking
of subjects, APA's publication manual prefers the term "participants."
While I like the idea of regarding our providers of data as being
genuinely regarded as actively participating in the research,
that is not the manual's purpose. Where we can, I'd like for us
to retain the term "subjects," referring to persons' subjecthood,
their being agents and experiencing beings, and so on, in contrast
to their being objects akin to the objects of the natural sciences.
*Finally,
I would like to enter the debate on whether a different term should
replace "qualitative" in "qualitative research. It is often argued
that "qualitative" is said not to indicate more than that the
research is not quantitative. I am all for retaining the term
"qualitative," which I take to refer to the quality-the character
or nature--of humans' living of their worlds.
Invitations
Now I
present a list of suggestions for furthering the practice of qualitative
research.
*First,
let's do it! There's still much more being published about qualitative
psychological research than there is actual published studies.
I encourage those of us in universities to publish our own work
in addition to advising dissertations. I encourage those of us
outside of universities to engage in qualitative research.
Especially
for those getting started, study groups, either in academic settings
or in the community, can be very supportive and are a way of sharing
the labor of qualitative work for those interested in collaborating
on a particular topic. Group analysis of data has been a rewarding
experience, pioneered independently by Arnie Collen at Saybrook,
Joe deRivera at Clark, and Steen Halling at Washington State.
At Duquesne,
two years ago, with our Liberal Arts Dean's encouragement, we
formed an interdisciplinary group that meets monthly as well as
for quarterly formal research presentations and guest lectures.
The group named itself "The Center for Interpretive and Qualitative
Research (CIQR) which we enjoy pronouncing "seeker." Folks from
nursing, education, and occupational therapy, as well psychology
and sociology participate regularly. This semester, qualitative
researchers from the University of Pittsburgh have agreed to meet
with us to share the doings of their similar group.
Even
for dyads or triads doing collaborative work, it's not just that
the labor gets shared, but also that the energy level, comradery,
and creativity are greatly increased.
This year
at Duquesne two dissertation students have undertaken a joint
dissertation, to share labor, provide mutual moral support, and
to compare their independent analyses before formalizing final
findings.
*Let's
also help students and colleagues to publish their work. Admittedly
this is much more difficult than helping others to publish traditional
studies. Encouraging writing to publish involves teaching ways
of presenting examples of procedural steps as well as exploring
efficient ways of presenting findings. Over the years, I 've concluded
that our descriptive writing does not have to mean that we are
at a disadvantage in competing with manuscripts that follow the
Occum's razor tradition of explanation. Being able to refer to
accepted qualitative research procedures and then just briefly
mentioning one's own variations saves a lot of pages! Admittedly
we have to be creative in finding ways to represent findings so
that they evoke more than is said explicitly. We write to communicate
to broader readerships than traditional specialized scientists.
Encouraging publication also involves coaching to say what we
mean rather than falling back on our own jargon. Finally, I encourage
us to promote writing in first person and active voice, both for
more efficient and engaging writing and so that the author is
continuously owning the research process.
I think
we should insist on solid historical and well as contemporary
literature reviews, indicating just where the present study fits
and why the study was designed as it was. Too often I receive
qualitative manuscripts by authors who seem to think that because
they are working within a nontraditional paradigm that they need
not heed traditional conventions, and/or that their work is so
unusual that it need not be related to the efforts of other scholars.
Reviewers and editors often reject such manuscripts outright on
the assumption that the entire piece is naive.
I advise
people who are about to try to write a journal manuscript based
on their dissertations not to try to miniaturize their magnum
opus (a prohibitive task), but rather to choose a journal and
an audience and then to write pretty much from memory what would
be relevant to that group. I even suggest cutting down to size
by outlining an imagined 40 minute in-service talk based on the
research.
I encourage
writing to try to involve readers of particular prospective journals
so that those readers will find their interests spoken to and
so that they become collaborators in understanding the qualitatively
presented topic. This involvement is the ground of lived validity
as well as the beginning of proposed amendments to the findings.
Of course
sometimes encouraging publication requires urging authors to undertake
further study before submission. Once one's study is in shape
to deserve documentary status in our profession's journals, then
I suggest that we consider submitting our work to relevant content-area
journals, rather than seek out only third force publications.
Compelling qualitative studies often speak beyond theoretical
persuasions and are given serious review. [My chapter (Fischer,
1999) on "Designing qualitative research reports for publication"
may be of interest.]
*Although
I don't have a good track record myself in convincing dissertation
students to build on earlier qualitative studies rather than undertaking
something not yet studied qualitatively, I do hope we can do more
to design and interweave extension and variation studies. Similarly,
I hope that we can develop a series of studies that compare findings
using different qualitative approaches, so that we can begin to
say empirically what approaches generally seem better suited to
which phenomena and to which research questions.
*A great
area for demonstration of the utility of qualitative research
is that of program evaluation, where "consumers'" descriptions
of their experiences can be tracked with outcomes. Most receivers
of these studies are grateful for such accounts of how the numbers
turned out as they did. In addition, some agencies allow for an
action component, in which program policy or procedures are altered
as qualitative data indicate what might be going wrong. Marketing
psychologists have been using qualitative methods for years. Many
other users of research are eager for meaningful descriptions
that throw light on quantitative data, and that suggest further
directions. Our life world orientation is tailor-made for bringing
understanding to just these complex situations which don't yield
well to experimental studies. I invite professionals and dissertation
students alike to look for these opportunities.
My final
invitation for now is that for the rest of our convention session,
you share with all of us your experiences in attempting, conducting,
and promoting humanistic qualitative research.
References
Elliott,
R., Rennie, D. L., & Fischer, C. T. (1999). Evolving
guidelines for publication of qualitative research in
psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 38, 215-229.
Fischer,
C. T. (l975). Privacy as a profile of authentic consciousness.
Humanitas, ll, 27?43.
Fischer,
C. T. (1999). Designing qualitative research reports for publication.
In M. Kopala & L. Suzuki (Eds.). Using qualitative research
methods in psychology (pp. 105-129). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schneider,
K.J., Bugenthal, J.F.T., & Person, J.F. (Eds.).
(2001).
The handbook of humanistic psychology: Leading edges in theory,
research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
