Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research in Cross-Cultural Psychology

Throughout most of its history it would have been unlikely that the Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology would have shown interest in a special issue devoted to qualitative and methods. Indeed we were surprised by the tremendous support and enthusiasm shown by JCCP editors when we first proposed the idea for this project in the summer of 2006. But today it is evident that qualitative and mixed methods research is enjoying a renaissance in psychology, as in the other social and health sciences. Signs of a resurgence are everywhere, ranging from a report from the United States National Institutes of Health encouraging the submission of qualitative applications (Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, 1999), to the emergence of new journals emphasizing qualitative and mixed methods, to the establishment of the American Psychological Association’s new division of qualitative research. Of course, the interest is hardly new. Wilhelm Wundt, the founder of experimental psychology, proposed qualitative methods for the study of psychology in its cultural context and wrote a vast tome, Voelkerpsychologie, on the subject (Wundt, 2008). Even as the twentieth century progressed, researchers in experimental, personality, and clinical psychology continued to use qualitative and mixed methods, though they may not have articulated them as such (Ashworth, 2003). Yet over the past fifty years, qualitative research in psychology has been largely marginalized. Qualitative researchers have been barred from large research departments and have found it difficult to publish their work in major journals. Mixed methods research has fared even less well, although it is now beginning to re-establish itself in the applied sub-disciplines such as educational and industrial psychology. The origin of psychology’s marginalization of qualitative inquiry has been the focus of several historical accounts (Ashworth, 2003; Tesch, 2009) and doubtless reflects larger forces shaping the modern history of the social sciences. However, a key proximal cause of the isolation of qualitative research was the development, at mid-century, of the “incompatibility hypothesis.” This hypothesis asserts that qualitative and quantitative research paradigms are inherently incompatible—differing not only in their strategies of inquiry, but also by their research goals, and, most importantly, by the epistemologies in which they are anchored. According to the hypothesis quantitative research is inseparable from a “positivist” epistemology, while qualitative research is inherently inseparable from a “constructivist,” or “naturalist” epistemology (Tesch, 2009; Maxcy, 2003). In this view, quantitative, empiricist research attempts to gauge reality as it really is; constructivist research seeks to describe the “realities” constructed by subjects. The incompatibility hypothesis escalated into an acrimonious conflict—the “paradigm wars”--that raged furiously throughout the nineteen seventies and eighties. Warriors on both sides declared not only the impossibility of dialogue, but also the irreducible superiority of their own position. By the late eighties, however, a softening in relations between the two camps began to emerge. Over the past fifteen years, a new generation of mixed methods researchers is declaring the paradigm wars over, having been superseded by the “third methodological way”(Maxcy, 2003; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 1998; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2009). This third way asserts the “compatibility hypothesis,” claiming “the objectives, scope, and nature of inquiry [in qualitative and quantitative research] are consistent across methods and across paradigms.”(Johnson et al., 2009) The third way is grounded in the philosophy of pragmatism (Teddlie et al., 1998)—and a practical epistemology in which the idea of “what is true” is closely linked to the reality of “what works.” In the context of research methodology, a pragmatic perspective proposes that research methods and designs must be judged on the basis of what they can accomplish. The special issue aims to demonstrate this position—the “third way”—for cross-cultural psychology. Our criteria in choosing papers for this special issue were grounded in a pragmatic perspective. First, we sought reports of studies that investigated research questions of interest to cross-cultural psychologists. Second, we sought studies in which design and method were appropriate for the research question being asked. We were especially interested in comparative studies since comparative research is one of the hallmarks of cross-cultural psychology. As you look over the papers presented in this issue you will find that they do not all fit neatly into traditional categories. Some of them privilege individual perspectives and experiences (Lim; Kurman & Roer-Strier); others do not (e.g. Keller & Otto). One involves the quantification of qualitative data and hypothesis testing (Karasz). Several studies rely on interview data (Karasz; Penny, Newton & Larkin) and several employ observation (Greenfield, Maynard, and Marti; Keller & Otto). Two papers use narrative analysis, focusing less on what is said by participants than on how they say it (Weisman; Nalkur). We were especially motivated to include high quality mixed methods studies in the issue. Several uses of mixed methods are illustrated, including the quantitative first-qualitative second design (Kurman & Roer-Strier) and the use of alternating methods in a long-term research program (Keller & Otto). If we had to characterize the epistemological position underlying most of the studies, we would probably use the term “soft empiricism”. By this we mean that while the subjective worlds of research participants are a central focus, these “inner worlds” are investigated in order to shed light on specific problems in the “real” world. For example, Penny, Newton and Larkin identify a public health problem: the failure of the mental health system to provide effective care to ethnic minority groups. The authors analyze interview data with the goal of understanding how culturally shaped models of illness and care may act as a barrier to treatment engagement. This pragmatic, empiricist focus is common in many good qualitative studies. We will now turn to a more general discussion of qualitative and mixed methods research. Anticipating that some readers may lack experience with these methods, we present below brief descriptions of some of their typical features. We also point out some of the common fictions associated with these approaches.