Search

Despite the sustained flourishing—both in terms of quantity and quality—of qualitative research in psychology, psychology's establishment 'gatekeepers' seem to still be wedded to the dogma that only experimental research and quantitative data are sufficiently robust to be taken seriously. In this paper we make the case against this contempt and call for qualitative research and data to be recognized as valid and epistemologically sound in its own right. Given that its ontology is based upon constructionist assumptions about the nature of the social world, its power to provide nuanced insight into the complexity of humankind is not a problem, but its greatest strength. Our paper therefore starts with a brief review of the ontological and epistemological differences between the two approaches to demonstrate that they are complementary rather than competition. We then make our case, based on two key strategies: first by shedding light on the fact that many (perhaps even most) of psychology's classic experimental studies actually collected qualitative data (in the form of debriefing interviews and the like) and used it to understand what was going on; and then by recent studies that have expressly sought feedback about the hypothesis being purportedly tested. We then recognize the extent to which contemporary researchers are expressing their frustration at the way that they are being forced into a methodological straight jacket, by carrying out their research in ways they view as inauthentic. We end with a call to kerb the methodological dogma that has taken hold of psychology, and to move to a more inclusive approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Consideration of how interrelated social structures relate with personality has been limited. In this paper, we discuss how researchers might apply an intersectional framework–which uses a social justice lens to examine how social structures are interconnected and impact individuals—at three distinct levels of personality including traits, characteristic adaptations, and integrative life narratives. We begin by providing conceptualizations of personality and intersectionality and describe considerations for their integration, including the need to widen the methodological and epistemological scope of personality science. Key areas of research that demonstrate the promise of an intersectional framework for unpacking structures of power and oppression in relation to the person are then described for each level of personality. Specifically, recommendations for how an intersectional framework may be used to examine structural identity domains in relation to trait levels, values and goals, as well as the content and process of narrated lives are offered. We conclude with discussion of how application of an intersectional framework is crucial for promoting inclusion and generalizability in personality science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I present some preliminary analyses of what is at stake in the growing use of digital methods in psychology. Their exponential rise in the discipline has scientific consequences, because such methods embody unarticulated assumptions that derive from their cultural, technical, or commercial origins. Such methods also rearticulate researcher-participant relations in new ways, and reframe what it means to take part in psychological research. Additionally, strong calls for psychologists to exploit the potentials of Big Data to analyze and influence human action in real time signal the growing entanglement of psychology, computer science, and the accumulative tactics of the digital economy. As part of a larger project to trace the social life of digital methods in psychology, my aim here is to link disparate literature in psychology, science and technology studies, and critical data studies, to situate such methods in the broader context of technologically afforded shifts in modes of economic and knowledge production. I argue that digital methods are in urgent need of analysis, not only in terms of the interpretive frames, modes of participation, and courses of action they afford, but as research media that circulate in a larger digital and political economic ecosystem, and with associations that span multiple sociotechnical assemblages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1950, the President of the American Psychological Association emphasised the economic and political importance of creativity for US society. His account of creativity exhibits a number of tensions that can be identified in other psychologists' theories and conceptualisations of creativity. This paper considers the tensions from the perspective of critical discursive psychology. In the terms of that approach, the tensions derive from multiple non‐academic discourses around creativity, including popular discourses of creativity and art. The paper argues that conceptualisations of creativity from academic psychology have in turn entered wider discourses, invoked, for example, in recent celebrations of the global sector of the creative and cultural industries (CCI). The tensions within psychology's conceptualisations are significant, however, because they raise questions about the extent to which the psychology of creativity has a common reference and coheres around the study of a single phenomenon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Principles and applications of open science (also referred to as open research or open scholarship) in psychology have emerged in response to growing concerns about the replicability, transparency, reproducibility, and robustness of psychological research alongside global moves to open science in many fields. Our objective in this paper is to inform ways of collectively constructing open science practices and systems that are appropriate to, and get the best out of, the full range of qualitative and mixed‐method approaches used in psychology. We achieve this by describing three areas of open research practice (contributorship, pre‐registration, and open data) and explore how and why qualitative researchers might consider engaging with these in ways that are compatible with a qualitative research paradigm. We argue it is crucial that open research practices do not (even inadvertently) exclude qualitative research, and that qualitative researchers reflect on how we can meaningfully engage with open science in psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]