Paradigm Shift in Counseling Psychology Research Methodology Essay Example

Paradigm Shift in Counseling Psychology Research Methodology Essay Example Paradigm Shift in Counseling Psychology Research Methodology Paper Paradigm Shift in Counseling Psychology Research Methodology Paper From early 1970s discussions about the utility, benefit and relevance of qualitative research methodology to the psychology field, in general, and counseling psychology, in particular, has taken a central position (Goldman, 1976; Hanson, et al. , 2005; Howard, 1983). More specifically, Bogard and Wertz (2006) observed that Gordon Allport, in 1942, first made the call for pluralism of research methods in the science of psychology when, in a monograph commissioned by the National Research Council, he encouraged researchers to explore alternative research methods instead of the over-reliance on quantitative methods. However, only in the 1970s did any significant movement in this direction started. The 1980s and 1990s saw significant discussions about the incorporation of qualitative methods in counseling research. The enlightment created by these discussions and the increasing number of qualitative papers, texts and articles that have ensued have considerably changed the face of counseling research, such that more than five decades after Gordon Allport made the first call for research diversity; Ponterotto (2005) strongly believes that counseling psychology is moving away from its primary reliance on quantitative methods to a more balanced reliance on quantitative and qualitative methods (p. 126). There is no denying the fact that research plays a primary role in any academic or professional field. For example, Polit, Beck, and Hungler (2001) defined research as a systematic inquiry that uses disciplined method to answer questions or solve problems (p4). It is obvious from this definition that the goal of research is to create relevant knowledge, to develop, refine and expand the horizon of what is known, and also attempt to proffer answers for the unknown, within the chosen field of study. Moreover, in professional fields like counseling, research studies do not only refine and add to what is known in theory and practice, but also empower the counseling psychologist to capably foresee and manage the complexities and dynamism of the social world (Laws and Marcus, 2003). However, the knowledge that can be gleaned from different research efforts depends, to a large, extent, on the research method adopted, and this in turn is shaped by the researchers worldview and philosophy of science. Stressing this point, Howard (1983) indicates that different core ontological assumptions held by researchers predisposes to the adoption of related assumptions about human nature. Beliefs about human nature then shape opinions about what kinds of knowledge are appropriate, which in turn, significantly determine the research methods adopted. The author argued that a worldview that perceive reality as concrete and humans as responders to this reality encourages positivist science and quantitative research methods. Conversely, a worldview that perceive reality as subjective interpretations of experiences and humans as adapting organisms encourages an interpretivist approach and qualitative research methods. The philosophy of objective reality and laboratory experimentation of the physical sciences has dominated psychology research as the gold standard for over a century. However, the numerous calls for a move towards a more encompassing view and approach to social research that started in the 1970s have severally highlighted the failure of the quantitative research approach to provide answers to social problems and guidance to professionals (Bogard and Wertz, 2006; Howard, 1983). Fishman (1999) noted that the problems with the over-reliance on quantitative methods first came to light during the turbulent times of the 1960s. During this period and the decades that follow, it became clear to many, Fishman argued, that psychology’s delivery on the promise of clear, objective answers to the problems of the complex, ambiguous troubles of the social world was scant at best (p. 371). Apparently, this realization fostered the emerging consensus that counseling research requires a shift in perspective to meet the needs of practitioners (Howard, 1983). The explosion of textbooks on qualitative methods; the the strong affinity for qualitative approaches held by many counseling students and professionals; and the Delphi poll of counseling psychology training directors in the United States that rated qualitative sophistication as one of the top trends for counseling research development in the next decade, most probably confirms Ponterottos claims and belief that counseling psychology is in the midst of a gradual paradigm shift. This paper intends to present further arguments to support Ponterottos assertion. The next section will attempt to explain Ponterottos position on the paradigm shift presently taking place in counseling research; this will be followed by an explanation of the epistemological and ontological differences that distinguish the quantitative and qualitative research paradigms. Lastly, further argument will be provided to support and defend the claim that counseling research is experiencing a shift in perspective. The Need for a Paradigm Shift in Counseling Psychology Research Ponterotto’s Argument Ponterotto (2005) provided an elaborate argument on the need for, and the factors that expresses the movement towards a balanced reliance on qualitative and quantitative research methods. Presenting his recent observations and current perceptions (p. 126), Ponterotto argued that the field of psychology, in general, and counseling psychology, in particular, has been, for too long, dominated by the positivist and post positivist paradigms associated with quantitative research methods. This dominance, it is argued, is reflected in available course work, dissertations conducted and in published research reports. Ponterotto argue that such over-reliance on single research philosophy significantly reduces the potential for growth and also limits the knowledge base and practical relevance of counseling research. Therefore, by broadening the fields research scope to include interpretivist paradigms and the associated qualitative methods, counseling psychology will advance more rapidly as a scientific field. Ponterotto is not alone in his opinion. He shares the same sentiment with several other authors like Gergen (2001) who argued that the conception of psychological science commonly shared within the discipline is historically frozen and is endangered by its isolation from the major intellectual and global transformations of the past half century† (p. 803); and Goldman who has been calling for a revolution in counseling psychology for several decades. Ponterotto also observed that in recent times, the need to enhance and improve the level of qualitative research training available to students of counseling psychology has been emphasized by several stakeholders. The author argues that though the present level of adoption of qualitative research training is still low, it is on the increase. Highlighting the importance of the increase in qualitative research training students and scholars receive, Rennie, Watson, and Monteiro (2002) noted that graduate students and scholars start appreciating the richness of qualitative research methods and its potential contribution to the field counseling psychology. With such increase in interest, professional conferences start receiving proposals for qualitative research papers and eventually, journal editors and publishers start to take notice of the shift in the wind. The authors declare that from all indications, all of these have been happening already, signaling the slow, but determined shift in research perspectives. Lastly, Ponterotto observed that an increasing number of quantitatively trained counseling psychologist now adopt qualitative methods into their research programs. While the negative implication of this is that most of these counseling psychologists would erroneously be carrying out qualitative researches through a quantitative lens, on the other hand, this indicates the increasing awareness of and interest in, qualitative research methods. Since developing expertise in any philosophy of science or research method takes time, in a most cases, several years of study, it is apparent that this quantitatively trained counseling psychologist would become better qualitative psychologist with time. In sum, Ponterottos claim that the field of counseling psychology is in the middle of a paradigm shift is premised on these observations and perceptions. Fortunately, he is not alone in this thought; there are several observations from numerous authors to strengthen his contention. For example, Howard (1983) contends that there is a growing consensus that the prevailing concept of what constitute a good research is problematic, and that the problem calls for urgent solution. In the same light, Goldman (1976), declaring the need for a complete overhauling of counseling research pointed out that published research in counseling has, on the whole, been of little value as a base or guide for professional practice. Tied to largely inappropriate models derived from the physical sciences, much of the research has been trivial, atomistic, and obsessed with statistics and technical matters of research design (p. 543). Support for Ponterotto’s Argument In order to adequately explain Ponterottos idea of counseling psychologys shift from primary reliance to a more balanced reliance on qualitative and quantitative research methods, Rennie, Watson, and Monteiro (2002) set forth a couple of questions that should be answered. These questions include: when did the turn to qualitative research methods started in counseling psychology started? How much emphasis has been placed on qualitative research methodology? And most importantly, what should be made of the surge in interest in qualitative research methods with respect to the pre-dominance of quantitative methods? Is the presence of qualitative research methods now large enough to be considered a paradigm shift, as Ponterotto suggested, or alternatively, is it the case that the interest in qualitative method is still too low to be considered to have impacted counseling research significantly?. To answer these questions, the authors conducted a review of all the psychological literatures published throughout the 20th century. Although, as mentioned earlier, Gordon Allport is said to have made the first call to psychologists to adopt alternative research methods, and the social turbulence of the 1960s is known to have further aggravated the discontent with quantitative methods in counseling research, the 100year literature review carried out by Rennie, Watson, and Monteiro (2002) indicated that there were virtually no psychological literature related to qualitative research methods prior to 1970, with the exception of a some references to phenomenological psychology that appeared in some literatures. Apparently, with respect to the first question above, i. e. when the turn to qualitative methods started, once can infer that practical attempts to adopt qualitative research methods did not take form until in the 1970s and then 1980s and 1990s, although the discontent with quantitative methods could have started earlier. Portraying the gravity of the discontent with quantitative research methods that followed the social turbulence of the 1960s, Fishman (1999) observed that practitioners were caught between irrelevant and ineffective guidance from science and inviting courses of action suggested by reflection in the field but without justification by rational science (p. 371). The author observed that criticism of positivism and its associated quantitative methods developed independently from both the post-positivist and the phenomenological–hermeneutic–post structural schools of thought. Criticism from both angles pointed out that the continuous application of statistical and laboratory experimentation methods to social problems was not yielding the expected outcomes and that the over-reliance on theory testing and the hypothetico-deductive measures inherent in quantitative methods to real world situations that require context-sensitive methods, have considerably contributed to this failure. Again, the origin of the interest in, and application of qualitative research methods can be located in the increased social phenomena that psychologist had to explain and contain, starting the 1960s. While this did not immediately translate into the publication of qualitative papers, as the Rennie, Watson, and Monteiros study revealed, it provided the foundation for the growth experienced in the succeeding decades. Ponterotto attempted to indicate how much emphasis has been placed on qualitative studies in counseling psychology when he reported the Delphi poll of counseling psychology training directors conducted in the United States in which directors identified qualitative sophistication and methodological diversity as the two top trends for the next decade. While this alone is not enough to justify the increasing interest in and emphasis on qualitative research, the explosion of texts on qualitative methods and reports of qualitative studies add weight to the argument that increasing emphasis is being placed on how qualitative methods can better improve the field of counseling psychology. For example, Robins and others (2008) reported more psychology related journals have paid increasing attention to the potential contribution that qualitative studies can impact on the field of psychology. The authors suggest that as a result of this increasing support, increasing number of researchers have included qualitative research methods in their research programs and most of these studies have been able to highlight some very important and previously un-recognized factors that affect counseling practice. Although, there is no denying the fact that the attention and emphasis received by qualitative methods is still relatively low compared to the dominance quantitative method still enjoy; however, the growing interest and the fact that several quantitatively trained researchers have gone ahead to adopt qualitative methods either in isolation or by inviting and including qualitative researchers in their program points to a gradual shift towards balance emphasis on both research methods, as Ponterotto has suggested. Despite the potential shift towards a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods in counseling psychology researches, one important issue that has generated hot debate and that could potentially hinder this paradigm shift is the paradigm-method fit known as the ‘paradigm debate’ (Hanson, et al. , 2005). The paradigm-method fit debate first surfaced in the 1970s and 1980s as the popularity of qualitative methods in counseling psychology became topical issue for discussion. The debate relates to the question â€Å"Do philosophical paradigms (e. g. , positivism, constructivism) and research methods have to fit together? † (p. 225).