In Defense of Qualitative Research Methods

    In science, there seems to be an underlying goal of quantifying everything. We hope that our theories and hypotheses can be mathematically verified or statistically significant. Undergirding this is a kind of modernist idealism, the hope that we as humanity can discover ultimate, unchangeable truths. What can be more enduring and unchanging than mathematical equations? A perfect triangle will forever be a perfect triangle and 2 plus 2 will always equal 4. This is irrefutable in the eye of the mathematician; it is the allure of certain knowledge. It is this certainty which seems to present itself as the ultimate goal of the sciences. This is a very Platonic way of understanding things, the idea that we can discover through our particular methods a kind of universal, unalterable truth about the nature of reality.

Is everything quantifiable?

    This is the first assumption that must be questioned as we make room for other methods of inquiry and understanding. This is particularly true for the social sciences. Psychologists, anthropologists, and sociologists are not dealing with rocks or the motion of objects. These scientists are seeking to understand the complexities of human nature, society, and cultures. These subjects of study are inseparably connected to context and therefore they are going to change across time and circumstance. In the case of psychology, we cannot expect to understand a human being in the same way we understand the law of gravity. Human beings are subject to change throughout history, culture, and individual circumstance. Given our particular topic of study as psychologists it makes sense that we open ourselves up to other methods of understanding and research.

    As therapists and counselors, we discuss something with our client, and then we may ask “how does that make you feel?” If we are willing to accept the client’s experience as important and meaningful in the context of therapy, why do we not do the same in our research? We assume the individual cannot accurately portray how they feel or the extent of their psychological symptoms. We would rather rely on standardized assessments and diagnostic criteria to help us as the “professional” to categorize and dissect the individual. Maybe this is a valid process of inquiry in the animal kingdom, but we are not dealing with animals, we are dealing with human beings, and I believe there is an important distinction. Why should we not, in our research, present something to our clients and then ask “how does that make you feel?” We would then accept the clients report as true to what they are feeling and experiencing in that moment. We allow the human experience to be the basis of our theories, techniques, assumptions, and scientific consensus.

Human beings are experts of their own experience

    One may argue, and rightly so, that one individual’s experience cannot be generalized to other people, much less universalized. Herein lies the need to acknowledge the unique experiences of every individual and of varying cultures. We should not expect what one individual reports to be necessarily true of another. It is true, however, that the reports of many individuals within a diverse sample can be meticulously examined for underlying themes, similarities, and distinct differences. The hope then, is that some generalizability can be garnered through the phenomenological experiences of many. It is important that we are still wary of just how generalizable our findings really are, and we should never assume our findings to be universally applicable. We should remember that the purpose of our study is to examine a particular population and make conclusions or suggestions regarding that population.

    In summary, qualitative research methods place at the center of scientific inquiry, the human experience. Because our population of interest as psychologists is the human being, why should our basis of inquiry be anything else? Qualitative research methods offer the promise of deeper understanding, fresh insights, and sensitivity to cultural and historical differences across populations. There will always be individuals conducting quantitative research in psychology, and it has its place, but I argue that it is not a superior method of inquiry to qualitative research.