Anarchistic Epistemology for Qualitative Psychology

 Paul Feyeraband 1924-1994

This isn't about positive psychology, but more about the gnawing despair I have when thinking about the current instantiation of qualitative methodologies within psychology.

Qualitative psychology appears to be falling into the same trap that some quantitative psychology fell into, the notion that by following a set of procedures then valid knowledge will follow.

There are a number of possible reasons why this has happened.

Wanting to be taken seriously

By having a set of prescriptions in parallel with the sorts of prescriptions that quantitative psychology has perhaps there is a hope that will promote qualitative psychology as worthy. The most successful qualitative research approach across the social sciences, grounded theory, has long adopted the notion that "Care in applying the grounded theory methodology correctly is the single most important factor in ensuring rigour" (Cooney, 2011, p17). And from one of the originators of grounded theory

Grounded theory refers to a specific methodology on how to get from systematically

collecting data to producing a multivariate conceptual theory. It is a total    methodological package. It provides a series of  systematic, exact methods that start with with collecting data and take the researcher to a theoretical piece that is publishable.

Glaser, 2010, p 1.

Despite the early authors in psychology, such as Potter and Wetherell (1987) are careful to point out that their guidelines are guidelines, not a recipe to follow, it feels that twenty six years later we have lost that sense, and instead there is an expectation that following rules will lead to positive outcomes.

Teaching qualitative methods

Doing qualitative methods as an undergraduate student can be threatening. Very often students are confronted with the idea that Psychology is not a natural science at the same time that they are trying to learn ways to do research. It is less threatening to be told as long as a set of prescriptions are followed then they will get good marks, than to be told that the heart of qualitative methods is a joyful confusion. This problem is exasperated when methods teaching is divorced from theoretical and conceptual issues. In these circumstances it is more likely that students are taught a set of procedures and exhorted to work hard. Just like with quantitative methods students are likely to take those lessons on board, research is hard work and not fun, and if they try to navigate the maze we have set for them then they will get their reward.

A tentative solution

Discover anarchistic epistemology, along with an expectation that doing qualitative research is fun.

I might return to this in a slightly more coherent form later in the year.  

References

Cooney, A. (2011). Rigour and grounded theory. Nurse Researcher, 18(4), 17-22.  

Glaser, B. G. (2010). The Future of Grounded Theory. Grounded Theory Review, 9(2), 1-14.

Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology : beyond attitudes and behaviour  London : Sage