ReviewIntegrative psychological & behavioral science2015
"Slow food" post-qualitative research in psychology: old craft skills in new disguise?
Review in Integrative psychological & behavioral science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Matching Qualitative Inquiry Design and Practice to Contemporary Burns Research Questions: Are We Getting It Right?European burn journal · 2022Article
- Generalization from Single Cases and the Concept of Double Dialogicality.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2018Review
- Do We Really Want a Future as Qualitative Psychologists?Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2015Review
- The future of qualitative research in psychology--a discussion with Svend Brinkmann, Günter Mey, Luca Tateo, and Anete Strand.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2015Article
- New directions in qualitative research in psychology.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2015Article
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
The present paper addresses several aspects discussed in the special issue on the future of qualitative research in psychology. Particularly, it asks whether in light of the overhomogenization of the term "qualitative methods" researchers actually can still assume that they talk about the same thing when using this terminology. In addressing the topic of what constitutes the object of psychological research and what accordingly could be a genuinely psychological qualitative research it acknowledges the need to return to the study of persons' unique experience. In light of the risk of "McDonaldization" in present qualitative research, it argues that we need to return to learning research methods as craft skills. It will then give an outlook on how recent developments in discursive and narrative psychology offer a fruitful avenue for studying unique psychological experience as people manage to 'move on' in a material world and in irreversible time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25912775What 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.