Given Danziger’s Claims Essay

Given Danzigers claims about manneromorphic theories and given what you know of duodecimal and soft investigate methods and psychological science in general, what do you think would be the obstacles to attempt to escape free of the methodological batch? look for methods in modern psychology offer a variety of methodological options for researchers to utilise. However, thither ar issues associated with all methods. This essay will examine problems associated with the methodological motorcycle, overmuch(prenominal) as the monopolisation of statistical methods in social wisdoms. These issues elapse to be common practice in psychological research and lay out obstacles to moving towards a less rigid, constrained method of stimulateing. This will be followed by exploring border ones that move forward, towards a much roving and inclusive method of empirical psychology, such as Theoretical Sampling in Grounded supposition and relative meta supposition.Danziger coined th e term methodological circle, asserting that many another(prenominal) psychological researchers adopt methods based on certain assumptions about the subject matter, which in turn only produce observations which must confirm these assumptions (Danziger, 1998, p 1). These assumptions ride out to be common practice in current psychological research, and sustain as a barrier to moving a counselling from the methodological circle.psychological science as Pure ScienceKuhn (1962) described ordinary science as involving intervention of problematic truth claims and is carried out within the scene of implicitly shared meta theory-based frameworks on the former(a) hand paradigms involve password that challenges these metatheoretical frameworks themselves. psychology breaks within both(prenominal) of these frameworks.Ordinary science, as well(p) as know as Scientism, involves uncritically accepting that science is both highly diaphanous from, and superior to, common sense and method s for identifying cultural patterns. However, factors that a social scientist whitethorn wish to study do involve facets that are not nonmoving and are defined by the context in which these facets operate. An example of this could be trauma. accidental injury is viewed by individuals in Western society as a concept which individuals or a suckive may suffer after a disrupting or distressing levelt. However, in less developed societies, such as in Rwanda which suffered mass genocide, no instances of trauma are report (Alexander et al, 2004). Such examples highlight the problems presented by adopting a purely scientific (positivist) approach to a social phenowork forceon.In addition to this, it must be remembered that even though research will always endeavour to be as objective as possible they will, ultimately, use their common-sense knowledge of how social phenomena operate in order to define and verse these shiftings for precise investigation (Silverman, 1993). Psychologists who work purely in line with Scientism make the error to totally despatch it self from common sense, sooner than acknowledging and working with it, adopting, say, a much constructivist approach e.g. discourse Analysis. Kock (1973) sums this up assumption beautifully by saying The entire subsequent history of psychology fanny be known as a ritualistic endeavor to emulate the forms of science in order to sustain the imposition that it already is a science (Kock, 1973, p. 66).Dependence on statisticsThe use of statistical methods in psychology can be said to have run low institutionalized (Danziger, 1998, p. 4). According to Danziger, such institutionalization presents 3 main problems 1. It assumes that statistical conclusions are the only means of providing reliable and valid results for interpreting and developing hypothesis 2. It asserts that certain rules and models are constant, and cannot be amended or updated by forward-looking evidence 3. it postulates that methodology must lead theory formation, and not the other way round. Such facets create a rigid environment, which restricts ways in which the social scientist can search social phenomena which focuses on interactions between figures kind of than meanings of interactions.The importance of the meaning behind speech communication was acknowledged as out-of-the-way(prenominal) back as Freud, who stated In medics you are accustomed to see thingsin psychoanalysis, alas, everything is differentWords were originally magic and to this day words have retained much of their ancient powerWords harass 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 those words (i.e. qualitative data).Artificial settings to measure real 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 tend to prefer to use controlled, experimental procedures, where one variable is directly manipulated by another variable, controlling for any other influencing factors. season 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 regard in individual reasoning. The former cannot be effectively manipulated in a controlled laboratory experiment, whereas the latter can be. If one attempts to artificially create and go a social experiment which uses solely statistics as a method of obtaining a nd interpreting results, one will miss the rich data that can be gained through qualitative measurement, looking at meanings and interpretations. A percentage point of flexibility is required in theory construction and method development, taking care to acknowledge how applied the science is and the vast array of methodological procedures to adopt.Top down vs. bottom upWhen conducting empirical investigation in psychology, the research question should lead the methodology, not the other way round. However, with the preponderant vicenary 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 further exploring any discrepancies. Alternatively, researchers who adopt a qualitative method part with the data drive the theory and design models and theory from data. This is unpopular with many as it can oversimplifying complex social phenomena.As we c an 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 always 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 antithetic approach, researchers should endeavor to focus on the rationale of the study and the research question. naive realism vs. IdealismIn a similar vain 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 carried 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 relate with paradigmatic purism but more concerned with identifying effective ways of conceptualising and discovering answers to the research questions.Grounded scheme -Theoretical saturation and samplingWhen apply Grounded Theory, researchers use Theoretical sampling until they reach Theoretical saturation, where researchers collect data until (a) no new or relevant data bet to emerge regarding a category, (b) the category is well developed in term of its properties and dimensions demonstrating variation, and (c) the carnal knowledges among categories are well established 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 purview on how the results are interpreted 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 utilize (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 then a resolve metatheory (using only quantitative or qualitative). This results in more complex, self creating, self organising, self regulating and adaptive systems that function and develop in relation with sociocultural constructs.In conclusion, there is a range of obstacles researchers encounter when attempting to break free of the methodological circle. These i nclude both theoretical findations such as theory construction and practical considerations such as the dependency 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 overcome 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 Collective Identity, University of California Press, CADanziger, K. (1985) The methodological imperative in psychology. philosophical system of the Social Sciences, 15, 1-13Freud, S. (1918) The Complete Introductionary Lectures on Psychoanalsis, Alden P ress, OxfordHase, S. (2000) Mixing methodologies in research, NCVER conference, Coffs Harbour, April.Koch, S. (1963) Psychology A Study Of a Science, (Koch, S. (Ed.). (1959-1963), McGraw-Hill, New YorkKuhn, T. S. (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of dough Press, ChicagoOverton, W. F. (2012) Paradigms in Theory Construction, (Eds LAbate, L.) Springer US.Silverman, D. (1993) Beginning Research. Interpreting Qualitative Data. Methods for Analysing Talk, Text 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 Discourse of checkup Encounters, Medical Care. 286, 473-487