A Reflexive Phenomenological Exploration This presentation aims to reflexively explore the impact of the affects and positive or negative emotions of mental health professionals working with refugees in the Greek context.
Introduction One of the major claims made regarding qualitative methods is that they diverge from scientific explanation models in terms of the need for hypothesis testing. A scientific hypothesis is based on a background theory, typically assuming the form of a proposition whose validity depends on empirical confirmation.
Otherwise, a hypothesis is nothing but an imaginative conjecture. Moreover, when researchers do not obtain empirical confirmation for their hypothesis, the theory in question or part of it may not be able to predict relevant aspects of the phenomenon under investigation.
Their primary interest is to achieve understanding Verstehen of a particular situation, or individuals, or groups of individual, or sub cultures, etc. In summary, qualitative methods are primarily inductive, in contrast to the deductive methods of experimental science. The debate centers around how we justify that what we know is valid.
More specifically, induction Qualitative research papers psychology the form of reasoning based on empirical observation in the process of developing scientific laws and theories. Thus, induction negotiates the relationship between empirical reality and its theorization, in addition to the production and validation of knowledge.
For example, qualitative methods have been accused of reflecting the problems pointed out by philosophers of science e. In other words, qualitative researchers tend to prioritize logic emerging from experience, preferring to expand their knowledge from it as opposed to using a priori, deductive, concepts.
Qualitative researchers have for decades reacted to this distorted view of the field e. Of the many examples that could be cited, I highlight grounded theory methodology GTM.
There are differences among researchers using this approach e. GTM rests in a state of permanent tension between 1. What is the role of theory in qualitative research? Alternatively, what function do empirical data play in the theorizing process? Answering these questions is important for the continuing advancement of qualitative methods as well as the inclusion of this field in the discussions of similar issues that have been witnessed in the philosophy of science.
As a starting point, I recapitulate the main characteristics of the so-called problem of induction, arguing that it raises important questions regarding the value of theory in science.
Next, I review ways of describing the theory-empirical data relationship that have been proposed in order to address the problem of induction in the realm of the philosophy of science.
Against this backdrop, I discuss how qualitative researchers have dealt with the question of induction, using a "generic analytic cycle" common to qualitative methods as an illustration.
In the last sections, I propose reconsidering the role of theory in qualitative research. I argue for the need to recover a substantial definition of theory in these studies. According to HUME there are two primary ways to validate knowledge: Knowing facts is equivalent to identifying their causes and effects.
However, observing facts, describing them in their manifestation, does not amount to science. There must be a leap from the visible to the invisible, and herein lies induction: The inductive leap allows us, based on singular facts, to create statements about sets of facts and their future behavior.
What permits us to go from a singular fact to a statement about facts in general or future facts? According to HUME induction does not involve a logical base. The "statement about all" is not contained in the "statement about some.
HUME claims that it is merely habit that causes us to think that if the sun rose today, it will do so once again tomorrow. There is therefore a psychological component in this knowledge-building process. In other words, HUME demonstrated that passing from some to all is an emotionally and imaginatively based process, and that the root of any knowledge is sensory experience.
The past may not be the best guarantee for current knowledge; otherwise, how can we explain unpredictable events? In the well-known analogy cited by POPPERthe fact that we observe innumerable white swans does not allow us to assume that there will never be a black one.
Another relevant question is distinguishing between empirical generalizations, based on the observation of a recurring number of singular cases, and universal generalizations, in the form of laws. Without resorting to metaphysics, how do we attest to the truth of universal laws, which establish necessary non-accidental connections between events, based on observations of singular cases only QUINE,p.
According to the skeptic HUME, all what we can do is create hypotheses about how things should occur, drawing from our own empirical experiences or habits; we can never determine the ultimate fundamentals of the phenomena.
This irrationality is based in HUME's opinion that our beliefs have more weight than rationality does in making up our understanding. They argue that a large number of observations, obtained experimentally over a wide range of circumstances, allow inference from the empirical particular to the theoretical universal.
Knowledge, they assert, can be constructed on the basis of repeated observations, to the point where no observational statements conflict with the law or theory thereby derived, or up to an established saturation point.
He purports that if there is no logical support to infer a universal law from singular experience, there must be support for the opposite. That is, we can legitimately allege that a theory is true or false based on singular observational statements. Thus, the order is inverted:Qualitative Research in Psychology.
Impact Factor. Search in: Advanced search. Submit an article. New content alerts RSS. Citation search. Citation search A change of view: arts-based research and psychology.
Kerry Chamberlain, Kathryn McGuigan, David Anstiss & Kayla Marshall. Qualitative vs Quantitative Research. Here’s a more detailed point-by-point comparison between the two types of research: 1.
Goal or Aim of the Research. The primary aim of a Qualitative Research is to provide a complete, detailed description of the research topic. It is usually more exploratory in nature. Psychology is about understanding the behaviour and cognitive processes of people and animals in their physical, social and organisational environment.
As a behavioural science, it examines the way behaviour is learned and can be changed. As a social science, it focuses on individuals within the context of families, organisations and other groups, communities, cultures and societies.
Volume 14, No. 1, Art. 25 – January Theory Building in Qualitative Research: Reconsidering the Problem of Induction. Pedro F.
Bendassolli. Abstract: The problem of induction refers to the difficulties involved in the process of justifying experience-based scientific plombier-nemours.com specifically, inductive reasoning assumes a leap from singular observational statements to general.
Only measurable data are being gathered and analyzed in quantitative research.. Qualitative research focuses on gathering of mainly verbal data rather than measurements. Gathered information is then analyzed in an interpretative manner, subjective, impressionistic or even diagnostic.
Volume 11, No. 3, Art. 8 – September Sample Size and Saturation in PhD Studies Using Qualitative Interviews. Mark Mason. Abstract: A number of issues can affect sample size in qualitative research; however, the guiding principle should be the concept of plombier-nemours.com has been explored in detail by a number of authors but is still hotly debated, and some say little understood.