Post by Maddie1 on Oct 11, 2015 20:39:56 GMT
In large part the extent to which worthwhile replication is viewed as possible and the extent to which it is seen to add validity to research is, according to Vossler and Moller (2015), a matter of qualitative research methods versus quantitative research methods:
‘Whereas quantitative researchers value reliable measures to allow studies to be replicated […], qualitative researchers argue that research situations, by their very nature, cannot be replicated.’ (180)
Simplistic definitions of qualitative and quantitive research are as follows:
‘Qualitative research [is] language based research, in which experiences, perceptions, observations, etc. are not reduced to numerical form.
Quantitative research […] is number-based research, generally incorporating statistical analysis.’ (Cooper; 186)
In order to be regarded as holding validity in the current climate of evidence based practice (EBP), quantitative approaches that allow for ‘easy’ replication of research findings are rated more highly than qualitative methods:
‘It is important to be aware that the medical understanding implicit in the EBP model means that certain types of research are seen as ‘better’ than others.’ (Vossler and Moller, pp6-7)
Those research studies that can be demonstrably replicated under controlled conditions are the ones that are regarded as ‘better’ or more valid by proponents of this approach such as the National Health Service (NHS) and Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT).
There are those within the profession who agree with this viewpoint:
‘[…] for research to be valuable it needs to be easily replicated and compared with other studies.’ (Twigg, 2005, 134)
Along with Twigg (2015), Coyne and Niels Kok (2014) are critical of psychotherapy research that cannot be replicated and consider such studies to be contributing to the ‘dire state’ of research in the profession.
From this perspective, quantitative research using a method called Randomised Control Trials (RCTs) is viewed as most valid. Psychotherapy research using an RCT model will involve the use of controlled conditions such as treating clients who suffer only from anxiety (rather than anxiety and depression or anxiety and an eating disorder) and utilising exactly the same therapeutic intervention for each client. The use of controlled conditions is seen to ensure that improvement in clients can be proven to be the result of the therapy rather than the result of other factors, such as a change in a client’s circumstances outside of the therapy (e.g. a new job or moving house). Whilst psychotherapy research that can be replicated in such a way is seen by some as having distinct advantages (and therefore validity), Vossler and Moller (2015) state that ‘[…] many practitioners are sceptical about this kind of research; they feel that manual used therapy in a controlled, experimental setting is not mirroring the 'messiness' of their everyday therapeutic practices [...]' (2015, 8)
To such practitioners, other, less easily replicated methods that reflect the messiness of everyday therapeutic practices, such as case studies (a qualitative method) are considered a highly valid research approach:
'[...] the advantages of case study methodology are that it allows research to be carried out that is relevant to practice, it involves a research process that supports personal and professional development [...] as well as making a distinctive contribution to the evidence base as a whole.' (McLeod, Thurston & McLeod, 2015, 209)
Arguably case studies with individual clients engaged in long-term psychotherapy cannot be replicated in a controlled manner; there are far too many variables in terms of the individual client and psychotherapist in question. However, this does not necessarily mean that the information provided by this research methodology isn’t valid.
It therefore seems that what constitutes validity in psychotherapy research may have different meanings within different contexts. In terms of gaining funding from organisations such as the NHS, quantitative research that can replicated is arguably most valid. Whereas, in terms of psychotherapists developing professionally, a broader range of research methods, including qualitative approaches that are extremely difficult to replicate, may be just as valid or perhaps even more so.
References:
Cooper, M (2012) ‘Essential Research Findings in Counselling and Psychotherapy: The Facts are Friendly’ Sage, London
Coyne and Niels Kok (2014) 'Salvaging Psychotherapy Reseach: A Manifesto’ [Accessed on 08/10/15 at: www.researchgate.net/publication/266020903_Salvaging_psychotherapy_research_A_manifesto]
McLeod, J, Thurston, M & McLeod, J (2015) in ‘The Counselling and Psychotherapy Research Handbook’ Sage, London [Edited by Vossler, A and Moller, N: 2015]
Twigg, E (2015) in ‘The Counselling and Psychotherapy Research Handbook’ Sage, London [Edited by Vossler, A and Moller, N: 2015]
Vossler, A and Moller, N in (2015) ‘The Counselling and Psychotherapy Research Handbook’ Sage, London [Edited by Vossler, A and Moller, N: 2015]
‘Whereas quantitative researchers value reliable measures to allow studies to be replicated […], qualitative researchers argue that research situations, by their very nature, cannot be replicated.’ (180)
Simplistic definitions of qualitative and quantitive research are as follows:
‘Qualitative research [is] language based research, in which experiences, perceptions, observations, etc. are not reduced to numerical form.
Quantitative research […] is number-based research, generally incorporating statistical analysis.’ (Cooper; 186)
In order to be regarded as holding validity in the current climate of evidence based practice (EBP), quantitative approaches that allow for ‘easy’ replication of research findings are rated more highly than qualitative methods:
‘It is important to be aware that the medical understanding implicit in the EBP model means that certain types of research are seen as ‘better’ than others.’ (Vossler and Moller, pp6-7)
Those research studies that can be demonstrably replicated under controlled conditions are the ones that are regarded as ‘better’ or more valid by proponents of this approach such as the National Health Service (NHS) and Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT).
There are those within the profession who agree with this viewpoint:
‘[…] for research to be valuable it needs to be easily replicated and compared with other studies.’ (Twigg, 2005, 134)
Along with Twigg (2015), Coyne and Niels Kok (2014) are critical of psychotherapy research that cannot be replicated and consider such studies to be contributing to the ‘dire state’ of research in the profession.
From this perspective, quantitative research using a method called Randomised Control Trials (RCTs) is viewed as most valid. Psychotherapy research using an RCT model will involve the use of controlled conditions such as treating clients who suffer only from anxiety (rather than anxiety and depression or anxiety and an eating disorder) and utilising exactly the same therapeutic intervention for each client. The use of controlled conditions is seen to ensure that improvement in clients can be proven to be the result of the therapy rather than the result of other factors, such as a change in a client’s circumstances outside of the therapy (e.g. a new job or moving house). Whilst psychotherapy research that can be replicated in such a way is seen by some as having distinct advantages (and therefore validity), Vossler and Moller (2015) state that ‘[…] many practitioners are sceptical about this kind of research; they feel that manual used therapy in a controlled, experimental setting is not mirroring the 'messiness' of their everyday therapeutic practices [...]' (2015, 8)
To such practitioners, other, less easily replicated methods that reflect the messiness of everyday therapeutic practices, such as case studies (a qualitative method) are considered a highly valid research approach:
'[...] the advantages of case study methodology are that it allows research to be carried out that is relevant to practice, it involves a research process that supports personal and professional development [...] as well as making a distinctive contribution to the evidence base as a whole.' (McLeod, Thurston & McLeod, 2015, 209)
Arguably case studies with individual clients engaged in long-term psychotherapy cannot be replicated in a controlled manner; there are far too many variables in terms of the individual client and psychotherapist in question. However, this does not necessarily mean that the information provided by this research methodology isn’t valid.
It therefore seems that what constitutes validity in psychotherapy research may have different meanings within different contexts. In terms of gaining funding from organisations such as the NHS, quantitative research that can replicated is arguably most valid. Whereas, in terms of psychotherapists developing professionally, a broader range of research methods, including qualitative approaches that are extremely difficult to replicate, may be just as valid or perhaps even more so.
References:
Cooper, M (2012) ‘Essential Research Findings in Counselling and Psychotherapy: The Facts are Friendly’ Sage, London
Coyne and Niels Kok (2014) 'Salvaging Psychotherapy Reseach: A Manifesto’ [Accessed on 08/10/15 at: www.researchgate.net/publication/266020903_Salvaging_psychotherapy_research_A_manifesto]
McLeod, J, Thurston, M & McLeod, J (2015) in ‘The Counselling and Psychotherapy Research Handbook’ Sage, London [Edited by Vossler, A and Moller, N: 2015]
Twigg, E (2015) in ‘The Counselling and Psychotherapy Research Handbook’ Sage, London [Edited by Vossler, A and Moller, N: 2015]
Vossler, A and Moller, N in (2015) ‘The Counselling and Psychotherapy Research Handbook’ Sage, London [Edited by Vossler, A and Moller, N: 2015]
