Question Response Philosophical Differences Between Qualitative and Quantitative Paradigms and Approaches
Discussion Response
Chelsea
We want to ensure we are able to gain insight and depth to the approach being studied. It is important to see how each person is their own being and their own reality of the way they view things. A descriptive research design would be best fit to answer the additional questions that instructors are wanting to find. Utilizing a more in-depth participant approach/interaction approach, such as, direct observation. We can also look into more of a historical research design which can examine evens the participant has experienced for present or future effects tot the study. We can formulate research questions, journals, audio/videotape or data collecting.
There are ethical issues that can arise in the study. It is important the psychologist be well trained to understand the multiple factors that can arise when conducting a study and having questions answered. As stated in Ponterotto (2013) article “It may be possible to do good quantitative research without knowing much about epistemology of the philosophy of (social) science, but good qualitative research requires an informed awareness of philosophical perspectives” (Ponterotto, J. G., 2013) which is a characteristic of ontology. We also have a characteristic of epistemology, which contributes to the relationship between the participant and the researcher, as well as, rhetorical structure, which is the language they use to explain the research findings to the participant. As in any study, we want to ensure the participants privacy is respected and kept confidential. Any form of recording or data collecting will require the participants consent via verbal and in writing.
Much of the quantitative approach and paradigm differ due to it being more data and statistical collecting. The methods require a more structured approach than what a qualitative approach requires. In our qualitative approach, we are wanting to know more about the participant and how we can develop our hypothesis and collect our data, with the right approach.
Discussion Response 2
Randolph
Varying paradigmatic approaches to psychology research are only just recently demonstrating elevated measures of refinement. There is some contention among practitioners regarding mixed-method research models, because they are known for, “[…] combining qualitative and quantitative paradigms” (Frost, 2011, p. 9). Sociologist Dr. Ann Oakley (1944 – ) of London University’s Institute of Education terms the current debate, “paradigm wars,” (Oakley, 1999, p. 247), even calling the discourse a, “battle” (p. 248). As more and more technological and psychometric advances emerge, past discursive discourse has effectively morphed into healthy debate as to the myriad research modalities available in the exploration of analytical latencies of human behavior. A systematic mixed-method (qualitative and quantitative) strategy may be the appropriate course in the Murphy (2014) Scenario, as examiners are seeking objective (statistical) and subjective (intuitive) conclusions/results.
Qualitative and quantitative models are likely superior apposite analytic methods as there are explorations/analyses of multi-directional (intuition/statistics) components taken into consideration. Ponterotto (2013) breaks the directionality factor down (elaborates) even further by positing a “[…] constructionist-interpretivist” (p. 21) paradigm by introducing interrogative protocol as a construct of the research design (p. 23). With a constructionist approach, protocol assigns values to variables, and is rooted in “valid potential” (p. 24). This is actually a suitable strategy for patients, as variables are expressly controlled. From applicable matrices germane to the Murphy (2014) Scenario, this allocates a basis of relative probability, using tried-and-true, peer-reviewed statistical math to arrive at calculable conclusions. Math is written in stone, and in the vernacular, and thus opens the door for more speculative idealistic (from the mind) ways to render generalization extinct from the paradigm. Nothing is flawless &/or perfect; & no thing is written in stone.
There may be no all-inclusive way to assign fundamentally and wholly valid data to a functionally qualitative investigative model. The design cancels itself, in terms of the scaffolding (framework) of assigning margin-for-error. This aids in the development of more sophisticated Likert-Scale questionnaires, as attitudes and emotions can be challenging to quantify.
