Given Danziger’s Claims Essay

stipulation Danzigers claims nigh put togetheromorphic theories and given what you know of valued and soft look into methods and psychological erudition in general, what do you think would be the obstacles to attempt to break lighten of the methodological grade?Research methods in unexampled psychological science offer a variety of methodological options for researchers to utilise. However, there be issues associated with all methods. This essay testamenting examine problems associated with the methodological cycle, much(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) as the monopolisation of statistical methods in fond perceptions. These issues hap to be putting surface practice in mental research and present obstacles to wretched towards a less(prenominal) rigid, constrained method of performanceing. This will be followed by exploring feeleres that move forward, towards a to a greater extent fluid and comprehensive method of empirical psychology, much(prenominal) a s hypothetical Sampling in Grounded Theory and Relational meta system.Danziger coined the landmark methodological circle, asserting that m some(prenominal) mental researchers adopt methods based on certain egotism-reliances ab out the subject matter, which in turn only bring out observations which must confirm these assumptions (Danziger, 1998, p 1). These assumptions continue to be putting surface practice in current mental research, and pose as a barrier to moving a substance from the methodological circle.psychological wisdom as Pure ScienceKuhn (1962) described ordinary science as involving discussion of problematic truth claims and is carried out within the context of implicitly sh atomic number 18d metatheoretical frameworks on the other hand paradigms involve discussion that challenges these metatheoretical frameworks themselves. psychology chokes within two of these frameworks.Ordinary science, excessively known as Scientism, involves uncritically accepting t hat science is both highly distinct from, and superior to, common sense and methods for identifying cultural patterns. However, factors that a social scientist may wish to study do involve facets that ar not static and are defined by the context in which these facets operate. An example of this could be scathe. detriment is viewed by individuals in Western society as a concept which individuals or a corporate may suffer after a disrupting or distressing event. However, in less developed societies, such as in Rwanda which suffered mass genocide, no instances of trauma are reported (Alexander et al, 2004). such(prenominal) examples highlight the problems presented by adopting a purely scientific (positivist) come up to a social phenomenon.In addition to this, it must be remembered that even though research will invariably endeavour to be as objective as possible they will, ultimately, use their common-sense knowledge of how social phenomena operate in rewrite to define and mea sure these variables for minute investigation (Silverman, 1993). Psychologists who work purely in enclosure with Scientism make the error to totally remove itself from common sense, rather than acknowledging and working with it, adopting, say, a more than constructivist approach e.g. Conversation Analysis. Kock (1973) sums this up assumption beautifully by saying The entire subsequent history of psychology shadower be seen as a ritualistic endeavor to emulate the forms of science in order to sustain the delusion that it already is a science (Kock, 1973, p. 66).Dependence on statisticsThe use of statistical methods in psychology eject be said to support work institutionalized (Danziger, 1998, p. 4). According to Danziger, such institutionalization presents 3 main problems 1. It assumes that statistical conclusions are the only inwardness of providing reliable and valid results for interpreting and exploitation theory 2. It asserts that certain rules and models are constant , and seatnot be amended or updated by parvenu evidence 3. it postulates that methodology must lead theory formation, and not the other way round. Such facets relieve iodineself a rigid environment, which restricts slipway in which the social scientist can explore social phenomena which localisees on interactions between figures rather than sum of interactions.The immensity of the meaning foundation words was acknowledged as off the beaten track(predicate) back as Freud, who stated In medics you are accustomed to see thingsin psychoanalysis, alas, everything is various lecture were originally magic and to this day words bring in retained much of their ancient power voice communication provoke affects and are in general the means of mutual influence among men (Freud, 1918, p.12). This statement emphasises the importance in not just, say, overt behaviour in the amount of words one uses (i.e. numerical data) in an interview, but also what one says and the meaning behind t hose words (i.e. qualitative data).Artificial settings to measure existing lifePsychology is the science of the real life, cannot be manipulated in artificial models. In its attempt to become a pure science, psychological research methods persist to prefer to use controlled, experimental procedures, where one variable is directly manipulated by another variable, controlling for any other influencing factors. While such methods offer detailed and reliable statistical information, details of social, political, economic, and historical contexts can be overlooked (Waitzkin, 1990).The variety within psychologyPsychology is a broad discipline with a variety of approaches such as Social and cognitive Psychology. Social Psychology looks at qualitative interactions in the real world between people, whereas Cognitive Psychology examines the thought processes involved in individual reasoning. The causality cannot be effectively manipulated in a controlled research laboratory experiment, wh ereas the latter can be. If one attempts to artificially create and conduct a social experiment which uses altogether statistics as a method of obtaining and interpreting results, one will miss the rich data that can be gained through qualitative measurement, looking at meanings and indications. A degree of flexibility is required in theory construction and method development, taking thrill to acknowledge how applied the science is and the vast represent of methodological procedures to adopt.Top down vs. bottom upWhen conducting empirical investigation in psychology, the research misgiving should lead the methodology, not the other way round. However, with the prevalent quantitative method, researchers tend impose theories on data and see whether or not the data supports the theory. Upon these results, the researchers either accept or reject their hypotheses, rather than hike up exploring any discrepancies. Alternatively, researchers who adopt a qualitative method allow the data drive the theory and architectural plan models and theory from data. This is unpopular with many as it can oversimplifying complex social phenomena.As we can see, both designs appear to be poloarised, with little or no room for convergence.Deductive vs. InductiveAnother assumption that perpetuates the methodological circle is the belief that quantitative methods forever must use a hypothetico-deductive approach and qualitative methods an inductive approach. Again, this restricts the way in which researchers can work with their subject matter, and rather than adopting an antithetical approach, researchers should endeavor to focus on the rationale of the study and the research question. reality vs. IdealismIn a similar unavailing to the short discussion above, there is the determinist assumption that all quantitative researchers are realists and qualitative researchers are idealist in their approach. This assumption enforces more restrictions on the way research would be carri ed out. Indeed quantitative research could do well to accept more subjective and individual attitudes, as qualitative methods could with more objective, measurable approaches.Moving forwardAcknowledging the obstacles above, I will now explore ways in which psychology can move forward, away from the methodological circle towards an approach that recognises and embraces both quantitative and qualitative virtues. Such an approach should not be concerned with paradigmatic purism but more concerned with identifying effective ways of conceptualising and discovering answers to the research questions.Grounded Theory - metaphysical saturation and samplingWhen victimization Grounded Theory, researchers use Theoretical sampling until they reach Theoretical saturation, where researchers collect data until (a) no new or relevant data seem to come out regarding a category, (b) the category is well developed in terms of its properties and dimensions demonstrating variation, and (c) the relations among categories are well completed and validated. (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 212). Such a fluid and flexible approach provides a useful means in theory construction because it builds the theory as it evolves from incoming data, offering an alternate perspective on how the results are understand than the restrictive positivist, deductive approaches.Relational metatheoryRelational metatheory offers a relational dialectical perspective in which interpretation (a more quantitative, positivist approach) and observation (a more qualitative, construstivist approach) are both acknowledged and used (Overton, 1998 2003). Relationism metatheory acknowledges that there is interconnection between the person, culture and biology (Hase, 2000), which is a much more fluid and explorative method consequently a split metatheory (using only quantitative or qualitative). This results in more complex, self creating, self organising, self regulating and adaptive systems that function and develop i n relation with sociocultural constructs.In conclusion, there is a range of obstacles researchers encounter when attempting to break free of the methodological circle. These include both theoretical considerations such as theory construction and practical considerations such as the dependence on statistics. In order to move away from these imposed restrictions, researchers should consider adopting a more inclusive, flexible approach such as Grounded Theory and Relational Metatheory. As Danzgier concludes we must outstrip these problems associated with the methodological circle in psychological research if not theory testing in psychology will be a matter of choosing among different versions of a theoretical position, the fundamental features of which are in fact beyond dispute. (Danziger, 1985, p.13).ReferencesAlexander, J. C., Eyerman, R., Giesen, B., Smelser, N. J., Sztompka, P.(2004) Cultural Trauma and incorporated Identity, University of California Press, CADanziger, K. (1985 ) The methodological imperative in psychology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 15, 1-13Freud, S. (1918) The Complete Introductionary Lectures on Psychoanalsis, Alden Press, OxfordHase, S. (2000) commixture methodologies in research, NCVER conference, Coffs Harbour, April.Koch, S. (1963) Psychology A learn Of a Science, (Koch, S. (Ed.). (1959-1963), McGraw-Hill, New YorkKuhn, T. S. (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of shekels Press, ChicagoOverton, W. F. (2012) Paradigms in Theory Construction, (Eds LAbate, L.) impost US.Silverman, D. (1993) Beginning Research. Interpreting Qualitative Data. Methods for Analysing Talk, schoolbook and Interaction, Sage Publications, LondresStrauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. M. (1998) Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, Sage Publications, USWaitzkin, H. (1990) On Studying the hold forth of Medical Encounters, Medical Care. 286, 473-487