ArticleFrontiers in psychology2016
"Having to Shift Everything We've Learned to the Side": Expanding Research Methods Taught in Psychology to Incorporate Qualitative Methods.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Making Psychology "Count": On the Mathematization of Psychology.Europe's journal of psychology · 2023Article
- Social Normativity of Research Methods and the Methodological Discrepancy between Mainstream Psychological Research and Danish Psychology Students' Master's Thesis Projects.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2022Article
- A Call for the Inclusion of Mixed Methods Research in the Undergraduate Psychology Curriculum.Frontiers in psychology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In Australia the tradition of conducting quantitative psychological research within a positivist framework has been challenged, with calls made for the inclusion of the full range of qualitative and quantitative methodologies within the undergraduate psychology curriculum. Despite this, the undergraduate psychology curriculum in most Australian universities retains a strong focus on teaching quantitative research methods. Limited research has examined attitudes toward qualitative research held by undergraduate psychology students taught within a positivist framework, and whether these attitudes are malleable and can be changed through teaching qualitative methodologies. Previous research has suggested that students from strong quantitative backgrounds experience some cognitive dissonance and greater difficulties in learning qualitative methods. In this article we examine 3rd year undergraduate psychology students' attitudes to qualitative research prior to commencing and upon completion of a qualitative research unit. All students had previously completed two 13 weeks units of study in quantitative research methods. At Time 1, 63 students (84.1% female) completed online surveys comprising attitudinal measures. Key themes to emerge from student comments were that qualitative research was seen as an alternative approach, representing a paradigmatic shift that was construed by some students advantageous for meeting future professional and educative goals. Quantitative measures of attitudes to qualitative research were associated with general attitudes toward research, and psychology-specific epistemological beliefs. Changes in attitudes following completion of the qualitative research methods unit were in the hypothesized direction, but non-significant (small effect sizes). The findings increase our understanding of psychology students' attitudes toward qualitative research and inform our recommendations for teaching research methods within the undergraduate psychology curriculum.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.