Critically evaluate the usefulness of qualitative methods in relation to psychological research

Following will be an early essay on the topic of the usefulness of qualitative reseach in psychology. This could be extended to other sciences as well. Or just help to look into the right direction, as numbers will only get people so far. Sooner or later a deeper connection to the people is needed. Especially in fields that build up on psychological research like marketing for example.
Now on to the essay.

In psychology, as in most natural sciences, quantitative research dominated the research papers. Gathering data by questionnaires, experiments and surveys. Analysing the data for patterns and significant results to support or reject a hypothesis.
Over time, it became obvious that quantitative research would not be enough to research every possibility in psychological areas. This does not mean quantitative research was abandoned. Quantitative research is still dominant and appropriate for the majority of research projects. As it is connected to positivism, which means it considers realism that the world is an objective place that can be studied and understood. Positivism also considers only observable processes or phenomena as valid knowledge (Tolman, 1993).
This positivism or realism also provides the information why there was a need for a different approach. Another research method. As the quantitative research does not take into account the personal experiences of a participant or the different viewpoints a person can have. This means quantitative research is limited to predetermined theories and not very flexible to theories that might develop through the analysis of data. It presses the data into a format fitting the research and the research question. And with statistics, everything is possible by just ignoring a variable that seemed insignificant during the data analysis. But even if this one variable might be insignificant, how many significant variables are connected and influenced by this one variable? As individual beings process experience and interpret cognitions in very complex ways, often these processes cannot be directly observed with the technology available.
This approach was found in qualitative research methods. This method considers social constructionism, as it includes the reality humans construct in their mind from the experiences and perceptions they have. This includes the concepts of belief (Smith, 2015).
In order to evaluate the usefulness of the qualitative research methods for psychology, these research methods must first be looked at in more detail. The qualitative research methods offer researchers the possibility to look at subjective experiences and thereby the point of view of the participant and not the research theory. It allows researchers to develop new theories while analysing data instead of only confirming already existing theories. Qualitative research methods are very open-minded as they do not reject positivism or realism, but embrace the social constructivism mentioned above. Also, the qualitative research does not primarily rely on numbers as the quantitative research methods do. It is an analysis of words and direct observations. This data can consist of observation journals, personal diaries or interviews (Smith 2015, Ashworth 2015).
In clinical psychology, two types of qualitative research are very important. First there is the method of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) and second there is the Grounded Theory. IPA was described by Smith in 2004 as a qualitative research method that takes an ideographic stance, is inductive and interrogative. This means that IPA is a tool to analyse data on a personal level, rejecting hypotheses for more open-ended questions and it is driven by the data. It is an alternative to classical quantitative research methods suitable for psychological health topics. These health topics can include chronic pain, dementia or depression. This research method tries to make sense of the personal experience of a participant and how they make sense of those experiences. This means in a way the participant interprets and not the researcher. The researcher tries to analyse the data from the point of view of the participant. With this very subjective approach come certain problems. As the researcher tries to make sense of how the participant makes sense of his or her experiences, the researcher will have a hard time doing so as his own concepts and experience will interfere with this process. In 2003 Reynolds looked at some strengths and limitations of the IPA method. As for the limitations, there is one limitation that is common for qualitative research methods. Because of the process of the analysis, the IPA method is very time-consuming. Another problem is that the analysis will always be an assumption of how the participant is making sense of the experiences, because of its subjective nature. But this does not have to be a limitation as this also allows researchers to look into topics that do not offer large sample sizes or very general symptoms. For example, depression. There are some general indicators and symptoms for depression, but how patients experience a depression episode is unique to them. Shaw et al. 2009 analysed 6 female adolescents with depression using the IPA method. This allowed the researchers a deeper understanding of how the participants made sense of experiences and a deeper view of the emotional response to the experiences. They found several key themes in their analysis of the interview that were expressed differently by each participant. Also, the researchers used to check on each other's interpretation to see if they came to the same interpretation of the participants' thought process and check for validity during the process.
This research presents another problem developing from one of the core problems. Like IPA and most qualitative research methods, they are very time-consuming. Even small participant numbers can present a problem for one researcher alone. But if there are several researchers working on the same interviews, it could lead to very different interpretations of the participants' thought processes. It does not have to be that the researchers are biased by their own experiences and thought processes, but it can be something as simple as that one researcher was not present at the actual interview and has only the transcript. Without observing the participants' speech patterns and body language, it can be harder to interpret their processes. Videotaped interviews can help with that problem, but are not an option for every type of interview and might influence the way participants react.
Reynolds (2003) also considers it a limitation that every IPA analysis and the results are not actually the thought processes of the participant alone, but are a cooperative construction between participant and researcher of the thought processes that make sense of experiences. Considering that, as mentioned, the thought processes and experiences of the researcher can interfere with the interpretation of the participants' thought processes, this might be considered correct. But the question here is whether this is a limitation or drawback, or if it is not a question of the definition of IPA. As humans have a subjective cognition of a maybe objective world, this will always be a problem or, in a way, a constant.
But it is not always about the pros and cons of a method. Often, researchers try to find some balance in their research method, to find reliable and valid results. Reynolds (2003) found that IPA offers a deep insight and deepening understanding of participants and their experiences with events. Reynolds used the example of chronic pain patients that used creative art making as a strategy to cope with their problem. From the analysis of the interviews, it showed that this strategy is helping. With patterns and themes like this showing up in an analysis, it can develop further theories about this event and further research for better strategies to deal with chronic pain or to develop better interventions.
Qualitative research methods also allow research that helps to understand the experience of participants not only in connection with a mental disorder or problems that derive from the disorder, but also how they experience the psychological health services. With this, the practitioners can learn and understand how to improve the service and understanding of the patients. A good example of such a case would be Martindale et al. (2009) with their study about service user experience with informed consent and confidentiality. Two things that are often a problem, as people tend to nod these off to not be considered stupid and thereby often pose an ethical dilemma for researchers and practitioners.
The second variation of the qualitative research that is common in clinical psychology is Grounded Theory. This approach developed by Glaser and Strauss in the 1960's offers a very open framework, a set of strategies to explore data and produce a theory that is grounded in this data (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Unlike, the Grounded Theory does not rely on interpretation to study a process and produce a theory. It allows a free exploration of the data. This approach is useful as a first step in research as it can be used for processes that do not have any theory or the existing theories are not adequate. Found in a study published in 2016 by Hunter et al. about the motivation and intervention use in long-stay dementia care.
Later, the Grounded Theory evolved into two different approaches, because the researchers that developed this approach had a falling out. Now there is a Straussian and a Glaserian approach to Grounded Theory. Grounded Theory is a good example of how a research method can develop into different directions and still be accepted. But both approaches left some researchers unsatisfied with the method and this opened the way for another approach to Grounded theory by Charmaz (2008). In Chamaz' approach, the researcher is recognized as a part of the research process and that is his interpretation of the data. It also argues that there might be a theory in the background but these theories should not influence the analysis or production of categories. In a way, it seems as if basic Grounded Theory got mixed with parts from IPA. There are many more approaches to Grounded Theory, but these are the more commonly used approaches.
Charmaz (1990) also used to criticise the basic approach to Grounded Theory as categories did not seem to emerge from the analysed data, but were constructs created by the researcher. Which seems logical as the researcher interprets the data and has a subjective view as his cognition is influenced by, his own experiences and thought processes.
With Grounded Theory, this might even be a bigger problem than with other qualitative approaches, as this method is even more time-consuming than others. Reading through the handbooks available on the topic of qualitative research like Smith (2015) allows a basic understanding of the process by having a basic question, gathering data, analysing data for codes and categories, going back to literature review and then gathering more data or analysing existing data with the new information in mind to find trends and compare the data. It is easy to get lost in the process and to stay open-minded without having ideas that influence the data analysis further.
Other more general problems with qualitative research can be the relationship between participant and researcher (Karnieli-Miller et al. 2009) and the power distribution between the participant and the researcher. As the qualitative research departs from the classical system of the researcher, it is the ultimate power that promotes that all participants are equally involved in the research process.
A very obvious problem for qualitative research is the language itself. Data is language based and language is a thing in constant development and change. Often only little things between one or two generations, but when analysing old dairies or texts that are 200 or 300 years old the problem becomes more obvious. Also, even if a participant or a researcher speaks a language fluently, there is a difference if the language is the mother tongue or a second language.
The conclusion in the evaluation of the usefulness of qualitative research in psychology is that the qualitative research methods, despite their limitations, have important advances that allow researchers to explore topics that cannot be researched with the classical quantitative research methods. Neither method is perfect and suitable for every research topic or style. So every research method, quantitative and qualitative, has its uses. This means that just because qualitative research methods are relatively new and still testing their boundaries, they are not useful or are inadequate. Like with quantitative research, it is important to find the necessary balance to have reliable and valid research results.

It was a little longer than I remembered it, might help someone who is into research.
Here are the references for the test above.
Happy New Year to you all.

References

Ashworth, P. (2015). Conceptual foundations of qualitative psychology. In J. A. Smith (Eds.), Qualitative psychology : a practical guide to research methods / edited by Jonathan A. Smith (4-24). London: SAGE.

Charmaz, K. (2008). Constructivism and the Grounded Theory. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of Constructionist Research (397-412). New York: The Guilford Press.

Hunter, A., Keady, J., Casey, D., Grealish, A., & Murphy, K. (2016). Psychosocial Intervention Use in Long-Stay Dementia Care: A Classic Grounded Theory. Qualitative Health Research, 26(14), 2024-2034.

Karnieli-Miller, O., Strier, R., & Pessach, L. (2009). Power Relations in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health Research, 19(2), 279-289.

Martindale, S. J., Chambers, E., & Thompson, A. R. (2009). Clinical psychology service users' experiences of confidentiality and informed consent: A qualitative analysis. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 82, 355-368.

Reynolds, F. (2003). Exploring the Meanings of Artistic Occupation for Women Living with Chronic Illness: a Comparison of Template and Interpretative Phenomenological Approaches to Analysis. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66(12), 551-558.

Shaw, K. S., Dallos, R., & Shoebridge, P. (2009). Depression in Female Adolescents: An IPA Anlysis. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 14(2), 167-181.

Smith, J. A. (2004). Reflecting on the development of interpretative phenomenological analysis and its contribution to qualitative research in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1(1), 39-54.

Smith, J. A. (Eds.). (2015). Qualitative psychology : a practical guide to research methods / edited by Jonathan A. Smith (3rd ed.). London: SAGE.
Tolman, C.W. (1993). Positivism in psychology: historical & contemporary problems // Review. Canadian Psychology, 34(5), 467-469.