Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-5ngxj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-20T13:59:41.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Disentangling paradigm and method can help bring qualitative research to post-positivist psychology and address the generalizability crisis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2022

Moin Syed Open the ORCID record for Moin Syed [Opens in a new window]  and
Kate C. McLean
Moin Syed
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA moin@umn.edu; https://cla.umn.edu/about/directory/profile/moin
Kate C. McLean
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Western Washington University (KCM), Bellingham, WA 98225, USA mcleank2@wwu.edu; https://wp.wwu.edu/katemclean/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

For decades, psychological research has heavily favored quantitative over qualitative methods. One reason for this imbalance is the perception that quantitative methods follow from a post-positivist paradigm, which guides mainstream psychology, whereas qualitative methods follow from a constructivist paradigm. However, methods and paradigms are independent, and embracing qualitative methods within mainstream psychology is one way of addressing the generalizability crisis.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e32
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galliher, R. V., McLean, K. C., & Syed, M. (2017). An integrated developmental model for studying identity content in context. Developmental Psychology, 53, 2011–2022. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gergen, K. J., Josselson, R., & Freeman, M. (2015). The promises of qualitative inquiry. American Psychologist, 70(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038597CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grahek, I., Schaller, M., & Tackett, J. L. (2021). Anatomy of a psychological theory: Integrating construct-validation and computational-modeling methods to advance theorizing. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 803–815. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966794CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, M. R. (2015). Resistance to qual/quant parity: Why the “paradigm” discussion can't be avoided. Qualitative Psychology, 2(2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madill, A. (2015). Qualitative research is not a paradigm: Commentary on Jackson (2015) and Landrum and Garza (2015). Qualitative Psychology, 2(2), 214–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLean, K. C., Syed, M., Pasupathi, M., Adler, J. M., Dunlop, W. L., Drustrup, D., … McCoy, T. P. (2020). The empirical structure of narrative identity: The initial Big Three. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(4), 920–944. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000247CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, O. C., & McAdams, D. P. (2015). Four functional roles for case studies in emerging adulthood research. Emerging Adulthood, 3(6), 413–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696815592727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheel, A. M., Tiokhin, L., Isager, P. M., & Lakens, D. (2021). Why hypothesis testers should spend less time testing hypotheses. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 744–755. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966795CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Stedman, J. M., Kostelecky, M., Spalding, T. L., & Gagné, C. (2016). Scientific realism, psychological realism, and Aristotelian–Thomistic realism. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 37(3/4), 199–218.Google Scholar
Tafreshi, D., Slaney, K. L., & Neufeld, S. D. (2016). Quantification in psychology: Critical analysis of an unreflective practice. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 36(4), 233–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/teo0000048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wertz, F. J. (2014). Qualitative inquiry in the history of psychology. Qualitative Psychology, 1(1), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000007CrossRefGoogle Scholar