Qualitative
Research
in
Psychology
EXPANDING
PERSPECTIVES
IN
METHODOLOGY
AND
DESIGN
Edited
by
Paul
M.Camic
Jean E. Rhodes
Lucy Yardley
Foreword
by Michael Bamberg
American Psychological Association, Washington, DC
2003
Foreword
Michael
Bamberg
Every newly established research tradition has its own way of coming
into being, and qualitative research is no exception. With regard to my own
initial involvement with what later became established as qualitative
research – or, as I call it when presenting it to my students, qualitative
inquiry – it is hard to pinpoint when and how it all began. I do
not think that there was a particular event or a sudden insight that can be
woven into my academic life story and labeled as my "turning point."
It simply happened. However, I clearly recall many events over 8 to 10 years (in
the late 1970s and early 1980s) at different places (Berkeley, San Diego,
Nijmegen, Berlin) and involving friends and colleagues around the same age
cohort though from quite different disciplines (sociology, anthropology,
linguistics, education, political science, comparative literature, health
sciences and nursing studies, psychology). These events consisted of meetings
in which my colleagues and I discussed transcripts of interviews, observational
records, or papers we had come across before they were published. During them
something took place that contributed to my slow and gradual turn to qualitative
methods as the preferred inquiry method in psychology. Although these meetings
often had some flavor of subversiveness and conspiracy, taking place most often
outside the institutions where we were doing our research and teaching, they
were not governed by an anti-institutional stance but, as strange as this may
sound, by work with actual data. These data came from real people with real
lives; people who were sharing aspects of their subjective, experiential
life-worlds – including their emotions, desires, and moral values. We, as
investigators, were bystanders, allowed to catch a glimpse of who these people
were, how they wanted to be understood, or how they made sense of others and
themselves, including their own experiences and their lives.
What
stood out most for us at that time was our interest in singular cases and
discursive processes that seemed to represent the individuality and subjectivity
of experiences of our research participants – something that thus far had not
been central to the social and humanistic sciences, not even in psychology. In
contrast to our traditional endeavors to generalize across individual cases,
to discover patterns, laying out "underlying" structures or systems
that seemed to govern particular actions or events, possibly even as an attempt
to uncover underlying universals, it was the unique that aroused our interest.
Explanatory approaches that had been developed and worked up within the hypothetico-deductive model of knowledge as something that was out there to be conquered were out. Observing, describing, and understanding became the new key terms and the new business was knowledge building and knowledge generation rather than affirmation or falsification of some previously established hypotheses. To seek and to understand what was subjective in the experience and lives from the point of view of our research participants became the primary task – asking to be empathic with regard to the subjectivity and experience of our participants, particularly of those who were vulnerable, disadvantaged, or opening their wounds from social or personal maltreatments. In sum, the original but initially relatively unreflected turn to make the individual participants with their unique experiences more central to the research process gave birth to a redefinition of the role of the researcher and his or her relationship to what now became the "research participant" and consequently to what could count as knowledge, the status of data, and the status of interpretation and analysis.
Reflecting
on a time before the debates between quantitative versus qualitative and
between explanatory versus interpretive methods, I do not think that any of us
had in mind that what we were doing could become codified, canonized, and handed
down to new students of psychology in the form of a systematic methodology. The
idea that this type of working with observational data and recorded
conversations could possibly be integrated back into the disciplines that we
were representing, particularly into the discipline of psychology, was foreign
to us back then. But exactly this has happened in the course of the past 15 or
so years – again, as a slow and gradual process, resulting in quite a number
of, at first, self-designed courses and quite a number of textbooks, handbooks,
and cookbooks for how to better understand and how to carry out qualitative
research across the disciplines. It is interesting to note that psychology
lagged considerably behind in this development.
This
volume is one of the first books to appear in psychology that substantially
addresses the importance of qualitative inquiry as a vital means of approaching
the problems studied by psychologists. Paul M. Camic, Jean E. Rhodes, and Lucy
Yardley have chosen some of the best minds in the field to produce an eloquent
volume that will have great appeal to graduate students and seasoned researchers
alike. This book is organized and written in a way that invites readers to come
along for an adventure of discovery that enlivens the essence of research in the
field.
The
first part of the book, which acts as a cornerstone of qualitative inquiry for
psychologists does not get bogged down by epistemological and ontological
foundational debates that often turn young students of qualitative data more off
than on. These first four chapters provide an excellent introduction to
qualitative methodology within the context of existing and emerging social
sciences research. The second part goes on to introduce 10 different methods
used in qualitative research. Each chapter reveals and develops its stance with
regard to the connection between theory and (moral and political) practice and
communicates effectively where and how to apply (and not to apply) the suggested
methodological exigencies. Each chapter is thoughtfully laid out as an
apprenticeship to a field of study on its own, exemplifying the methods and
applying them. At the same time all chapters leave considerable space for
students of qualitative data to try out their own ambitions and to explore their
own questions and interests in novel ways, taking what has been offered in this
book as stepping stones into a deeper involvement – not just with methodological
approaches but with psychology as a whole.
I
am confident that the collection presented in this book will help overcome old
rifts and controversies and contribute to the development of a much more
inclusive psychology – one that clearly sees the challenges qualitative
research brings to the discipline – but also one that is no longer threatened
but willing and able to integrate the world of subjective experience and the
processes of its construction as central.