Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Minding the Gap: Positivism, Psychology, and the Politics of Qualitative Methods

1997; Wiley; Volume: 53; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1111/0022-4537.00049

1540-4560

Erica Burman,

Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics

Journal of Social IssuesVolume 53, Issue 4 p. 785-801 Minding the Gap: Positivism, Psychology, and the Politics of Qualitative Methods Erica Burman, Corresponding Author Erica Burman Manchester Metropolitan University The author wishes to thank Mary Brydon-Miller for her editorial support and inspiration for the title of this article. She also wishes to thank colleagues and students in Women's Studies and at the Discourse Unit, Department of Psychology and Speech Pathology, The Manchester Metropolitan University, for providing the supportive and invigorating context for this paper. ERICA BURMAN teaches developmental psychology and women's studies at The Manchester Metropolitan University. Her work revolves around feminist critiques of subjectivity and the "psy complex," in which issues of "method" and research practice are vital. She has edited or coedited a number of publications, including Feminists and Psychological Practice (Sage, 1990), Discourse Analytic Research (Routledge, 1993), and Deconstructing Feminist Psychology (Sage, 1998). She has also authored or coauthored a number of books, including Qualitative Methods in Psychology (Open University Press, 1994), Deconstructing Developmental Psychology (Routledge, 1994), Psychology Discourse Practice: From Regulation to Resistance (Taylor & Francis, 1996), and Challenging Women: Psychology's Exclusions, Feminist Possibilities (Open University Press, 1996).Discourse Unit, Department of Psychology and Speech Pathology, The Manchester Metropolitan University, Hathersage Road, Manchester M13 OJA, UK, tel: (+44)(0)161 247 2557, fax: (+44)(0)161 247 6394. Electronic mail may be sent to [email protected]Search for more papers by this author Erica Burman, Corresponding Author Erica Burman Manchester Metropolitan University The author wishes to thank Mary Brydon-Miller for her editorial support and inspiration for the title of this article. She also wishes to thank colleagues and students in Women's Studies and at the Discourse Unit, Department of Psychology and Speech Pathology, The Manchester Metropolitan University, for providing the supportive and invigorating context for this paper. ERICA BURMAN teaches developmental psychology and women's studies at The Manchester Metropolitan University. Her work revolves around feminist critiques of subjectivity and the "psy complex," in which issues of "method" and research practice are vital. She has edited or coedited a number of publications, including Feminists and Psychological Practice (Sage, 1990), Discourse Analytic Research (Routledge, 1993), and Deconstructing Feminist Psychology (Sage, 1998). She has also authored or coauthored a number of books, including Qualitative Methods in Psychology (Open University Press, 1994), Deconstructing Developmental Psychology (Routledge, 1994), Psychology Discourse Practice: From Regulation to Resistance (Taylor & Francis, 1996), and Challenging Women: Psychology's Exclusions, Feminist Possibilities (Open University Press, 1996).Discourse Unit, Department of Psychology and Speech Pathology, The Manchester Metropolitan University, Hathersage Road, Manchester M13 OJA, UK, tel: (+44)(0)161 247 2557, fax: (+44)(0)161 247 6394. Electronic mail may be sent to [email protected]Search for more papers by this author First published: 09 April 2010 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1997.tb02461.xCitations: 25 ERICA BURMAN teaches developmental psychology and women's studies at The Manchester Metropolitan University. Her work revolves around feminist critiques of subjectivity and the "psy complex," in which issues of "method" and research practice are vital. She has edited or coedited a number of publications, including Feminists and Psychological Practice (Sage, 1990), Discourse Analytic Research (Routledge, 1993), and Deconstructing Feminist Psychology (Sage, 1998). She has also authored or coauthored a number of books, including Qualitative Methods in Psychology (Open University Press, 1994), Deconstructing Developmental Psychology (Routledge, 1994), Psychology Discourse Practice: From Regulation to Resistance (Taylor & Francis, 1996), and Challenging Women: Psychology's Exclusions, Feminist Possibilities (Open University Press, 1996). The author wishes to thank Mary Brydon-Miller for her editorial support and inspiration for the title of this article. She also wishes to thank colleagues and students in Women's Studies and at the Discourse Unit, Department of Psychology and Speech Pathology, The Manchester Metropolitan University, for providing the supportive and invigorating context for this paper. AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Abstract This article explores the politics and practices of qualitative research, in particular by interrogating the "gap" between qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. Two main claims are elaborated: first, that despite being recommended on grounds of ethical superiority (such as of nonmanipulation and instrumentality), qualitative research is not immune from such problems and may indeed harbor its own practices of exploitation; second, and correspondingly, that the moral high ground associated with qualitative research arises from the ways it is used rather than from any intrinsic features of the methodology. The argument is made that it is important to maintain this distinction in order to counter the tendency toward methodological fetishism so prevalent in scientistic (i.e., aspiring to "natural" scientific status) disciplines such as psychology. After framing these issues with some comments on the current popularity of qualitative methods, the article illustrates these claims by exploring 5 key ways that the positivist agenda of the discovery and control of a natural world can return in qualitative research, especially when this is mistakenly evaluated according to criteria formulated for quantitative analyses. The article concludes with a consideration of the epistemological and political status of attempts either to bridge or exacerbate the gap between qualitative and quantitative approaches. References Banister, P., Burman, E., Parker, I., Taylor, M., & Tindall, C. (1994). Qualitative methods in psychology: A research guide. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press. Burman, E. (1994). Deconstructing developmental psychology. London: Routledge. Burman, E. (1996). The crisis in modem social psychology and how to find it. South African Journal of Psychology, 26(3), 135–142. Burman, E. (in press). Disciplinary apprentices: Qualitative methods in student psychological research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. Burman, E., Aitken, G., Alldred, P., Allwood, R., Billington, T., Goldberg, B., Gordo Lopez, A., Heenan, C., Marks, D., & Warner, S. (1996). Psychology discourse practice: From regulation to resistance. London: Taylor & Francis. Burman, E., Alldred, P., Bewley, C., Goldberg, B., Heenan, C., Marks, D., Marshall, J. E., Taylor, K., Ullah, R., & Warner, S. (1996). Challenging women: Psychology's exclusions, feminist possibilities. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. E. Burman, S. Mitchell & P. Salmon (Eds.) (1996). Tensions in qualitative research [Special issue.] Changes Journal of psychology and psychotherapy, 14( 3). E. Burman, & I. Parker (Eds.) (1993). Discourse analytic research: Repertoires and readings of texts in action. London: Routledge. O. D'Adamo, V. Garcia Beaudouz, & M. Montero (Eds.) (1995). Psicologia de la Accion Politica. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Paidos. N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.) (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage. Finch, J. (1984). "It's great to have someone to talk to": The ethics and politics of interviewing women. In C. Bell & H. Roberts (Eds.), Social researching: Politics, problems, practice (pp. 70–87). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Foster, J., & Parker, I. (1995). Carrying out investigations in psychology. Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society. Frankenberg, R. (1993). White women, race matters. London: Routledge. Frosh, S. (1989). Psychology and psychoanalysis: Minding the gap. London: Macmillan. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine. Griffin, C., & Phoenix, A. (1994). Qualitative methods and feminist psychology. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 4, 287–299. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography: Principles in practice. London: Tavistock. S. Harding (Ed.) (1986). Feminism and methodology. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press. Harre, R., & Secord, P. (1972). The explanation of social behavior. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. K. Henwood, & P. Nicolson (Eds.) (1995). Qualitative research [Special issue]. The Psychologist, 8, 109–129. K. Henwood, & I. Parker (Eds.) (1994). Qualitative methods [Special issue]. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 4. Henwood, K., & Pidgeon, N. (1994). Beyond the qualitative paradigm: A framework for introducing diversity within qualitative methodology. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 4, 225–238. Henriques, J., Hollway, W., Venn, C., Walkerdine, V., & Urwin, C. (1984). Changing the subject: Psychology, social regulation and subjectivity. London: Methuen. Hollway, W. (1989). Subjectivity and method in psychology: Gender, meaning and science. London: Sage. Howitt, D., & Owusu-Bempeh, J. (1994). The racism of psychology. Lewes, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Ingleby, D. (1985). Professionals as socializers: The "psychomplex." Research in Law, Deviance and Social Control, 7, 79–109. Kelly, A. (1985). Action research: What is it and what can it do? In R. Burgess (Ed.), Issues in educational research: Qualitative methods (pp. 129–151). Lewes, UK: The Falmer Press. Kelly, L., Regan, L., & Burton, S. (1992). Defending the indefensible? Quantitative methods and feminist research. In H. Hinds, A. Phoenix, & J. Stacey (Eds.), Working out: New directions in women's studies (pp. 149–160). London: The Falmer Press. Lubek, I. (1993). Social psychology textbooks: An historical and social psychological analysis of conceptual filtering, consensus formation, career gatekeeping and conservatism in science. In H. J. Stam, L. P. Mos, W. Thorngate, & B. Kaplan (Eds.), Recent Trends in Theoretical Psychology ( Vol. III) (pp. 359–378). New York: Springer Verlag. M. Maynard, & J. Purvis (Eds.) (1994). Researching women's experiences from a feminist perspective. London: Taylor & Francis. Morgan, D. (1981). Men, masculinity and the process of sociological inquiry. In H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing feminist research, (pp. 83–113). London; Routledge and Kegan Paul. Morss, J. (1995). Growing critical. London: Routledge. L. Nencel & P. Pels (Eds.) (1991). Constructing knowledge: Authority and critique in the social sciences. London: Sage. Oakley, A. (1981). Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms? In H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing feminist research (pp. 30–61). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Parker, I. (1989). The crisis in modern social psychology and how to end it. London: Routledge. Parker, I. (1992). Discourse dynamics. London: Routledge. Parker, I. (1994a). Reflexive research and the grounding of analysis: Social psychology and the psy complex. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 4. Parker, I. (1994b). Reflexive social psychology: Discourse analysis and psychoanalysis. Free Associations, 32(4), 527–548. Parker, I., & Burman, E. (1993). Against discursive empiricism and imperialism: Thirty-two problems with discourse analysis. In E. Burman & I. Parker (Eds.), Discourse analytics research. London: Routledge. Phoenix, A. (1990). Social research in the context of feminist psychology. In E. Burman (Ed.), Feminists and psychological practice. London: Sage. Potter, J. (1988). What is reflexive about discourse analysis? The case of reading readings. In S. Woolgar (Ed.), Knowledge and reflexivity: New frontiers in the sociology of knowledge. London: Sage. Pugh, A. (1990). My statistics and feminism — A true story. In L. Stanley (Ed.), Feminist praxis: Research, theory and epistemology in feminist sociology (pp. 103–112). London: Routledge. P. Reason, & J. Rowan (Eds.) (1981). Human inquiry: A sourcebook of new paradigm research. Chichester, UK: Wiley. C. Renzetti, & R. Lee (Eds.) (1993). Researching sensitive topics. London: Sage. Ribbens, J. (1989). Interviewing: An unnatural situation? Women's Studies International Forum, 12(6), 579–592. H. Roberts (Ed.) (1981). Doing feminist research. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Rose, N. (1985). The psychological complex. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Rose, N. (1990). Governing the soul. London: Routledge. Scientific Affairs Board. (1988). The future of the psychological sciences. Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society. Sieber, J. (1993). The ethics and politics of sensitive research. In C. Renzetti & R. Lee (Eds.), Researching sensitive topics (pp. 14–26). London: Sage. Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage. Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York; Holt, Rinehart and Winston. L. Stanley (Ed.) (1990). Feminist praxis: Research, theory and epistemology in feminist sociology. London: Routledge. Stanley, L., & Wise, S. (1993). Breaking out again: Feminist consciousness, feminist research. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. F. Steier (Ed.) (1991). Research and reflexivity. London: Sage. Ullah, R. (1996). Black parent governors: A hidden agenda. In E. Burman, P. Alldred, C. Bewley, B. Goldberg, C. Heenan, D. Marks, J. Marshall, K. Taylor, R. Ullah, & S. Warner. Challenging women: Psychology's exclusions, feminist possibilities. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Ware, V. (1992). Beyond the pale: White women, racism and history. London: Verso. Waterhouse, R. (1993). "Wild women don't have the blues": A feminist critique of "person-centered" counseling. Feminism & Psychology, 3(1), 55–71. Wilkinson, S. (1988). The role of reflexivity in feminist psychology. Women's Studies International Forum, 11(5), 493–502. S. Wilkinson, & C. Kitzinger (Eds.) (1995). Feminism and discourse. London: Sage. S. Wilkinson, & C. Kitzinger (Eds.) (1996). Representing the other: A feminism and psychology reader. London: Sage. Woolgar, S. (1988). Science: The very idea. London: Tavistock. Citing Literature Volume53, Issue4Winter 1997Pages 785-801 ReferencesRelatedInformation