Post by Maddie1 on Oct 14, 2015 21:27:25 GMT
Here I will look at some of the differences between qualitative research and quantitive research. I will do this whilst considering the ways in which the two approaches can work together. This is because I believe that whilst it is vital for the limitations of both methodologies to be acknowledged, ultimately it is more constructive to look at the ways in which the two approaches to research may compliment each other and together provide a fuller picture of how psychotherapists can provide the highest level of service to clients. I share Cooper’s (2012) viewpoint:
‘I see different research as having different contributions to make at different times, and do not feel that an ‘either/or’ split between quantitive and qualitative methods is either necessary or constructive.’ (Cooper, 2012, 8)
McLeod (2015) also makes this point:
‘Within the field of contemporary research in counselling and psychotherapy, there is a broad consensus that qualitative and quantitative methodologies represent distinct and complementary approaches to inquiry.’ (McLeod, 2015, 81)
This approach is based on the idea of methodological pluralism. Which McLeod (2015) related to psychotherapy in the following way:
'Methodological pluralism is the idea that there are many ways in which reliable, valid, and practical knowledge can be attained. Within the field of research in counselling and psychotherapy, there has been a growing acceptance, over the past twenty years, that a pluralistic stance in relation to knowledge is necessary if real progress is to be made in bridging the gap between research and practice.' (6)
In terms of considering how this methodological pluralism works in practice, it is important first to distinguish between quantitive and qualitative research. Quantitative research can be defined as:
‘[…] research that involves control of variables and observation of effects or relationships that can be expressed in the numbers characteristic of the studied samples and generalised to the population that the research samples represent.’ (Timulak, 2015, 76).
Key to quantitative research is the way in which the measures used ‘[…] allows us to determine whether the client’s pre-post change was reliable (i.e. it was bigger than could be found by chance) and clinically significant (i.e. its volume brought the client to a state similar to the one typical for normative, non-clinical, healthy people)’. (ibid, 83)
Qualitative research can be defined as:
‘[…] research that often focuses on the description of complex phenomena as they occur under natural conditions, or participants’ own experiences of various phenomena. These descriptions are then represented by the researcher in a condensed form but are still very close to the phenomena as observed or expressed/described by the participants.’ (ibid, 76-7)
Some of the objections to each of these approaches (such as the perceived lack of scientific rigour associated with qualitative approaches (Twigg, 2015) and the assertion that the controlled conditions associated with some quantitive approaches distort findings (Finlay, 2015) have been discussed on the forum in the previous weeks so I will not repeat them in detail here. Rather, I will point out that of course, both qualitative and quantitive approaches have their critics within the field of psychotherapy and each approach has its disadvantages (Vossler and Moller, 2015).
Returning now to the difference between the two types of research when used in the field of psychotherapy, Cooper (2012) asserts that ‘Quantitative findings are used to build up a picture of the typical outcomes of therapy and the kinds of factors that tend to be associated with positive changes [… and] qualitative research […] is used to try to understand some of the more complex processes and outcomes in therapy, as well as some of the ways in which clients might specifically experience the therapeutic process.’ (8)
Thus, qualitative and quantitive research methods can be used together to strong effect in the field of psychotherapy by exposing different aspects of the therapeutic process. Mearns, Thorne and McLeod (2013) outline the way in which if a psychotherapeutic investigation is thorough, ‘[…] we would likely find that we had to go continually come and go between qualitative and quantitive methods as our attempts to answer questions threw up even more questions.’ (185)
An example of how this would work in practice would be research conducted into the effectiveness of Hypno-psychotherapy in treating sufferers of anxiety. A quantitive approach could be taken in the first instance in the form of a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT). Researchers could divide a group of individuals suffering from anxiety in to two groups. Half of the individuals would be allocated to a treatment group and the other half to a control group. The treatment group would receive Hypno-psychotherapy for a period of ten weeks and the control group would receive no therapeutic treatment and would be left on a waiting list for this period of time. Assuming that the treatment group improved more than the control group, qualitative research could then be undertaken to explore in more detail why this was the case. If this qualitative research took the form of interviews and these interviews revealed that participants felt they had improved due to the visual imaging exercises undertaken with the therapist then that would provide additional information which could be further researched. This result could then be further researched using another quantitive approach such as a Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - Outcome Measure (CORE-OM) questionnaire which is ‘[…] A 34-item, self report (i.e. client-completed rather than assessed by the practitioner) measure […].’ (Twigg, 2015, 134). As with the RCT, a group of anxiety sufferers could be divided into two with one group receiving treatment without the use of visual imaging techniques and the other half receiving exactly the same treatment with the addition of visual imaging techniques. CORE-OM reports could be given to participants from both groups to measure which group of individuals showed the most improvement; those treated with visual imaging exercises and those treated without. The results of these would either back up the results of the qualitative interviews or challenge them.
In summary, I therefore feel that the field of psychotherapy benefits from both qualitative research and quantitive research. There are limitations to both methodologies and it is therefore critical to consider carefully which approach to use on the basis of the question being asked:
‘The adoption of a methodologically pluralistic stance involves rejecting the notion that there is a hierarchy of knowledge, in favour of a more nuanced position that argues the choice of method depends on the question that is being asked and the situation in which research is being carried out. (McLeod, 2015, 6)
References:
Cooper, M (2012) ‘Essential Research Findings in Counselling and Psychotherapy; The Facts are Friendly’ Sage, London
Finlay, L (2015) in Vossler, A and Moller, N (2015) ‘The Counselling and Psychotherapy Research Handbook’ Sage, London
McLeod, J (2015) ‘Doing Research in Counselling and Psychotherapy’ Sage: Los Angeles, London, Washington DC, New Dehli and Singapore
Mearns, D, Thorne, B and McLeod, J (2013) 'Person-Centred Counselling in Action' Sage, London [ed. Dryden, W]
Timulak, L, (2015) in Vossler, A and Moller, N (2015) ‘The Counselling and Psychotherapy Research Handbook’ Sage, London
Twigg, E (2015) in Vossler, A and Moller, N (2015) ‘The Counselling and Psychotherapy Research Handbook’ Sage, London
‘I see different research as having different contributions to make at different times, and do not feel that an ‘either/or’ split between quantitive and qualitative methods is either necessary or constructive.’ (Cooper, 2012, 8)
McLeod (2015) also makes this point:
‘Within the field of contemporary research in counselling and psychotherapy, there is a broad consensus that qualitative and quantitative methodologies represent distinct and complementary approaches to inquiry.’ (McLeod, 2015, 81)
This approach is based on the idea of methodological pluralism. Which McLeod (2015) related to psychotherapy in the following way:
'Methodological pluralism is the idea that there are many ways in which reliable, valid, and practical knowledge can be attained. Within the field of research in counselling and psychotherapy, there has been a growing acceptance, over the past twenty years, that a pluralistic stance in relation to knowledge is necessary if real progress is to be made in bridging the gap between research and practice.' (6)
In terms of considering how this methodological pluralism works in practice, it is important first to distinguish between quantitive and qualitative research. Quantitative research can be defined as:
‘[…] research that involves control of variables and observation of effects or relationships that can be expressed in the numbers characteristic of the studied samples and generalised to the population that the research samples represent.’ (Timulak, 2015, 76).
Key to quantitative research is the way in which the measures used ‘[…] allows us to determine whether the client’s pre-post change was reliable (i.e. it was bigger than could be found by chance) and clinically significant (i.e. its volume brought the client to a state similar to the one typical for normative, non-clinical, healthy people)’. (ibid, 83)
Qualitative research can be defined as:
‘[…] research that often focuses on the description of complex phenomena as they occur under natural conditions, or participants’ own experiences of various phenomena. These descriptions are then represented by the researcher in a condensed form but are still very close to the phenomena as observed or expressed/described by the participants.’ (ibid, 76-7)
Some of the objections to each of these approaches (such as the perceived lack of scientific rigour associated with qualitative approaches (Twigg, 2015) and the assertion that the controlled conditions associated with some quantitive approaches distort findings (Finlay, 2015) have been discussed on the forum in the previous weeks so I will not repeat them in detail here. Rather, I will point out that of course, both qualitative and quantitive approaches have their critics within the field of psychotherapy and each approach has its disadvantages (Vossler and Moller, 2015).
Returning now to the difference between the two types of research when used in the field of psychotherapy, Cooper (2012) asserts that ‘Quantitative findings are used to build up a picture of the typical outcomes of therapy and the kinds of factors that tend to be associated with positive changes [… and] qualitative research […] is used to try to understand some of the more complex processes and outcomes in therapy, as well as some of the ways in which clients might specifically experience the therapeutic process.’ (8)
Thus, qualitative and quantitive research methods can be used together to strong effect in the field of psychotherapy by exposing different aspects of the therapeutic process. Mearns, Thorne and McLeod (2013) outline the way in which if a psychotherapeutic investigation is thorough, ‘[…] we would likely find that we had to go continually come and go between qualitative and quantitive methods as our attempts to answer questions threw up even more questions.’ (185)
An example of how this would work in practice would be research conducted into the effectiveness of Hypno-psychotherapy in treating sufferers of anxiety. A quantitive approach could be taken in the first instance in the form of a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT). Researchers could divide a group of individuals suffering from anxiety in to two groups. Half of the individuals would be allocated to a treatment group and the other half to a control group. The treatment group would receive Hypno-psychotherapy for a period of ten weeks and the control group would receive no therapeutic treatment and would be left on a waiting list for this period of time. Assuming that the treatment group improved more than the control group, qualitative research could then be undertaken to explore in more detail why this was the case. If this qualitative research took the form of interviews and these interviews revealed that participants felt they had improved due to the visual imaging exercises undertaken with the therapist then that would provide additional information which could be further researched. This result could then be further researched using another quantitive approach such as a Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - Outcome Measure (CORE-OM) questionnaire which is ‘[…] A 34-item, self report (i.e. client-completed rather than assessed by the practitioner) measure […].’ (Twigg, 2015, 134). As with the RCT, a group of anxiety sufferers could be divided into two with one group receiving treatment without the use of visual imaging techniques and the other half receiving exactly the same treatment with the addition of visual imaging techniques. CORE-OM reports could be given to participants from both groups to measure which group of individuals showed the most improvement; those treated with visual imaging exercises and those treated without. The results of these would either back up the results of the qualitative interviews or challenge them.
In summary, I therefore feel that the field of psychotherapy benefits from both qualitative research and quantitive research. There are limitations to both methodologies and it is therefore critical to consider carefully which approach to use on the basis of the question being asked:
‘The adoption of a methodologically pluralistic stance involves rejecting the notion that there is a hierarchy of knowledge, in favour of a more nuanced position that argues the choice of method depends on the question that is being asked and the situation in which research is being carried out. (McLeod, 2015, 6)
References:
Cooper, M (2012) ‘Essential Research Findings in Counselling and Psychotherapy; The Facts are Friendly’ Sage, London
Finlay, L (2015) in Vossler, A and Moller, N (2015) ‘The Counselling and Psychotherapy Research Handbook’ Sage, London
McLeod, J (2015) ‘Doing Research in Counselling and Psychotherapy’ Sage: Los Angeles, London, Washington DC, New Dehli and Singapore
Mearns, D, Thorne, B and McLeod, J (2013) 'Person-Centred Counselling in Action' Sage, London [ed. Dryden, W]
Timulak, L, (2015) in Vossler, A and Moller, N (2015) ‘The Counselling and Psychotherapy Research Handbook’ Sage, London
Twigg, E (2015) in Vossler, A and Moller, N (2015) ‘The Counselling and Psychotherapy Research Handbook’ Sage, London
