Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26138804›Full record

ReviewIntegrative psychological & behavioral science2015

Do We Really Want a Future as Qualitative Psychologists?

Alessandra Fasulo

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Alessandra FasuloUniversity of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK. alessandra.fasulo@port.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this article I pick up some threads from the contributions in the previous special issue of IPSB dedicated to the future of qualitative psychology, and elaborate on them around two main points. The first is the status of qualitative psychology as a social and institutional category; the second is what we mean by experience. As concerns the first point, I argue that using the label of qualitative psychology may separate us from the rest of psychology, also creating a false impression of homogeneity among qualitative approaches and a false opposition with quantitative methods. Implications for teaching as well as research are discussed. The second issue has to do with experience as the object of qualitative psychology investigations. I propose three ways of formulating experience in research which would prevent naïve assumptions about accessing it directly through language. These are 1) experience as experience of the researcher, 2) experience as situated intersubjectivity, and 3) experience as expression. I discuss how being clearer about definitions of experience and going towards engaged forms of research could safeguard the integrity of both researcher and participants.

Indexed as

Personal Narratives as TopicPsychologyQualitative ResearchHumansExperienceNarrativeParticipatory researchQualitative psychologyRecognitionSubjectivity

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.