Learning Goals
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
- Distinguish between qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods research;
- Gain familiarity with the meaning of ontology and epistemology;
- Consider the difference between positivist and interpretivist research;
- Consider idiographic versus nomothetic research interests;
- Consider the difference between inductive and deductive perspectives;
- Start to consider yourself in the field of research.
Grappling with Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches to Research
Mental health and emotional wellbeing have not enjoyed the priority awarded to physical health. They are usually deprived of funds and qualified staff, and despite one in four of us estimated to experience mental health problems, mental health research has ‘lagged behind many other areas in terms of priority, funding, and therefore discoveries’ (Departmen of Health and Social Care 2017, p. 2). This book approaches research with mental health practitioners in mind. We are particularly aiming at counsellors, psychotherapists and counselling psychologists who–over the last 30 years–we have witnessed often feel marginalised and ‘homeless’ as researchers. Therapists are natural investigators, exploring, tracing and considering underlying meanings–it is what we do. Most of our research students enter their research training with this enthusiasm for finding out. In our studies into therapists’ relationship to research (Bager-Charleson et al. 2018) one therapist said, for instance, that ‘reading and writing–finding out–it’s like breathing for me’, whilst another summed up her sense of enjoyment as follows:
‘Every day I talk about research [I am] really passionate about the process, the exciting process about not knowing anything and then finding out, experiment with ideas and then finding new knowledge…’
However, regrettably we also notice obstacles for therapists wanting to take their research further. One therapist explained, ‘when I ask my manager in the NHS about doing more research training – I’d love to do a PhD – she just says “Nevine, you’re already overqualified for what you do, you’re a counsellor...”
A reoccurring theme is a sense of ‘gap’ between an emotional, embodied and intuitive practice on the one side and research often construed as detached and rational on the other. In the same study (Bager-Charleson et al. 2019) a psychoanalytic therapist working within the NHS says:
When I think of research I associate it with feeling lonely, the largest upset is to not find research which reflects what I work with. Being a psychotherapist can feel like being a second-class citizen in the NHS. Cognitive, neuro, biological, outcome measures – there’s a whole bunch of people I can contact and speak to. But I’m not working within those approaches … I struggle with the idea that emotions are measurable, and that I need a scientific practice. We can’t work with the mind without thinking about what we mean by the mind … I mean, in the 80s I worked in - well what best would described as asylums, which were quite sickly, immoral and abusive really. Those things, the bigger picture is massively important to me.
Therapists are often caught between two contrasting schools of thought, with an evidence-based approach emphasising the importance of certainties contrasted by social constructionist-inspired approaches emphasising differences with socio-cultural, linguistic and gender-related interests. Both argue for transparency and accountability, but from conflicting angles. For more therapists to enjoy and take part in research, we believe it is important to become familiar with both, whilst enjoying freedom and confidence in building on questions, problems and approaches which best suit the therapists and clinical practice. We regard the divide between the two approaches to mental health and emotional wellbeing as important to acknowledge and explore, and will refer to concepts such as ontology, epistemology and methodology to highlight a longstanding dispute about ‘reality’ and relevant knowledge. Ellis and Tucker (2015) assert, for instance, that the ‘scientisation of psychology as a discipline has to some extent repressed its emotional history’ (p. 180), and in the following chapter, we will look more closely at emotions and embodied awareness as sources of knowledge. Whilst largely adopting a pragmatic approach to research ourselves, we do believe that an emotionally repressed research runs the risk of repressing clinical practice if it shuns, rejects and detaches itself from the messiness and ambivalence of life.
On the other hand, our studies (McBeath et al. 2019; Bager-Charleson et al. 2019) also highlight the risk for therapists of being marginalised in research contexts through lack of knowledge. Whilst counselling psychologists often bring basic knowledge in quantitative research from their first degree, counsellors and psychotherapists tend to be unprepared for this kind of research. As one of our participants said, ‘I don’t agree with measuring, at least I think I don’t. I don’t really know anything about it. I’ve assumed that that kind of research doesn’t work for me but to be honest I don’t understand it and haven’t even tried it. I’d actually like to learn more’.
This book is written for our research students as well as for various research participants to support them in making informed decisions. It advocates an overarching pluralist framework on research, with approaches chosen from qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods and pluralistic research. We have invited researchers to share key features of their methodology and approaches to therapy-related matters. This means that the chapters will differ in tone, emphasis and focus. We hope by this to encourage you to connect with your research problem, interest and approach to issues directly or indirectly related to your clinical practice to further our knowledge in the field of mental health and emotional wellbeing in general.
Reflection
We have interspersed the text with Reflection and Activity sections to encourage you as a reader to reflect on theories discussed and apply them to your own work and experiences.
Considering Research Approach
Today’s research discourse is often punctuated by concepts such as evidence, efficacy and effectiveness. We will return to these concepts. In this introduction consideration will be given to some of the differences and similarities between quantitative and qualitative research, which we believe is a significant distinction to become ‘at ease’ with, to dispel some of the perceived mysteries within research. We aim to briefly introduce some of the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches. There will also be an introduction to some of the philosophical assumptions that underpin quantitative and qualitative research methods, with specific mention made of ontological and epistemological considerations. These two terms broadly relate to assumptions about the nature of existence (ontology) and how we might gain knowledge about the nature of existence (epistemology).
Your Methodology
In counselling and psychotherapy most research activity is commonly associated with either qualitative or quantitative research methods, although there is a growing trend in so-called mixed methods approaches wherein a blend of quantitative and qualitative techniques is utilised.
The importance of ontology and epistemology considerations within a research context will have a significant bearing on the choice of research methodologies and the perceived relationship of researchers to their research. Although not often made explicit, the choice between quantitative and qualitative methods reflects contrasting ontological and epistemological positions. In choosing quantitative or qualitative methods (or both) the researcher is tacitly revealing a choice of preferred research philosophies. Scotland (2012) makes a key point which all researchers should keep in mind when he states that ‘It is impossible to engage in any form of research without committing (often implicitly) to ontological and epistemological positions’ (p 10).
Ontological and Epistemological Considerations
There are different ontological positions. Two commonly used positions are realism and relativism. Briefly, the differences between realism and relativism reflect significantly differing assumptions about the nature of reality and existence. A realist view assumes that there is an objective reality out there that exists independently of our cognitions, perceptions or theories. In contrast, a relativist view proposes that reality, as we know it, is constructed inter-subjectively through the social creation of meaning and understanding; there is no objective reality within a relativist view. The American poet Muriel Rukeyser (1968) succinctly captured the essential heart of relativism with these few words:
The universe is made of stories, not of atoms. (p 486)
From a research perspective these two contrasting ontological positions raise some profound questions which we believe are relevant when formulating research in areas such as mental and emotional wellbeing: What is reality and what kind of knowledge is helpful, relevant and regarded as ‘true’ or valid–and why?
An important starting point is how we position ourselves in our research. Does the researcher believe they are independent of the reality of their research or do they believe that they somehow participate in the construction of the reality of their research? These are two very basic and different research philosophies and they signal very different relationships between the researcher and their research.
From an epistemological perspective there are competing philosophies. An often-used distinction is between positivism and interpretivism (or constructionism, or social constructionism) that follow from and complement the ontological positions of realism and relativism. A positivist stance assumes that reality is objective and that casual factors between events can be discovered by scientific observation. An interpretivist stance assumes that reality is subjective and that reality can only be observed as approximations or estimates. Finally, positivism assumes that social phenomena and their meanings are fixed, whilst interpretivism assumes that social phenomena and their meanings are constantly being revised through social interaction and language.
The difference between positivism and interpretivism is really quite striking. Crotty (1998) has eloquently captured the difference with reference to trees. Here is his account of positivism:
And here is Crotty’s account of interpretivism:That tree in the forest is a tree, regardless of whether anyone is aware of its existence or not. As an object of that kind, it carries the intrinsic meaning of treeness. When human beings recognize it as a tree, they are simply discovering a meaning that has been lying in wait for them all along. (p 8)
We need to remind ourselves here that it is human beings who have constructed it as a tree, given it the name, and attributed to it the associations we make with trees. (p 43)
As Scotland (2012) has commented, ‘a tree is not a tree without someone to call it a tree’.
The differing epistemological positions of positivism and interpretivism have significant implications for research activity. Quantitative methodologies are grounded in positivism where the researcher is a scientist, an empiricist interes...