ArticleIntegrative psychological & behavioral science2011
Travel into a fairy land: a critique of modern qualitative and mixed methods psychologies.
Article in Integrative psychological & behavioral science, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quo Vadis, Cultural Psychology? Time to Become Psychology. Again.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2025Article
- Psychology's Questionable Research Fundamentals (QRFs): Key problems in quantitative psychology and psychological measurement beyond Questionable Research Practices (QRPs).Frontiers in psychology · 2025Review
- Toward a Cultural Evolutionary Psychology: Why the Evolutionary Approach does not Imply Reductionism or Determinism.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2021Article
- Psychology Today: Still in Denial, Still Outdated.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2020Article
- Studies in the Mentality of Literates: 1. Conceptual Structure and Aspects of Visual Perception.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2020Article
- Studies in the Mentality of Literates: Searching for the Cultural Great Divide at the Individual Level of Analysis.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2020Article
- Psychology is not primarily Empirical Science: A Comparison of Cultures in the Lexical Hypothesis Tradition as a Failure of Introspection.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2017Article
- What are Higher Psychological Functions?Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2016Review
- Interpreting "Personality" Taxonomies: Why Previous Models Cannot Capture Individual-Specific Experiencing, Behaviour, Functioning and Development. Major Taxonomic Tasks Still Lay Ahead.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2015Review
- Developing "Personality" Taxonomies: Metatheoretical and Methodological Rationales Underlying Selection Approaches, Methods of Data Generation and Reduction Principles.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2015Review
- Single-Case Research Methods: History and Suitability for a Psychological Science in Need of Alternatives.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2015Review
- Conceiving "personality": Psychologist's challenges and basic fundamentals of the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2015Review
- Appraisal of research depends upon its conceptualization.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2014Article
- Personality as continuous stochastic process: what Western personality theory can learn from classical confucianism.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2014Article
- A brief measure of attitudes toward mixed methods research in psychology.Frontiers in psychology · 2014Article
- Personality psychology: lexical approaches, assessment methods, and trait concepts reveal only half of the story--why it is time for a paradigm shift.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2013Article
- Peeking into personality test answers: inter- and intraindividual variety in item interpretations.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2013Article
- Becoming conscious of the American middle class (un)consciousness.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this article modern qualitative and mixed methods approaches are criticized from the standpoint of structural-systemic epistemology. It is suggested that modern qualitative methodologies suffer from several fallacies: some of them are grounded on inherently contradictory epistemology, the others ask scientific questions after the methods have been chosen, conduct studies inductively so that not only answers but even questions are often supposed to be discovered, do not create artificial situations and constraints on study-situations, are adevelopmental by nature, study not the external things and phenomena but symbols and representations--often the object of studies turns out to be the researcher rather than researched, rely on ambiguous data interpretation methods based to a large degree on feelings and opinions, aim to understand unique which is theoretically impossible, or have theoretical problems with sampling. Any one of these fallacies would be sufficient to exclude any possibility to achieve structural-systemic understanding of the studied things and phenomena. It also turns out that modern qualitative methodologies share several fallacies with the quantitative methodology. Therefore mixed methods approaches are not able to overcome the fundamental difficulties that characterize mixed methods taken separately. It is proposed that structural-systemic methodology that dominated psychological thought in the pre-WWII continental Europe is philosophically and theoretically better grounded than the other methodologies that can be distinguished in psychology today. Future psychology should be based on structural-systemic methodology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21258882What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.