The distinction you are making, Jeff, is somewhat simplistic, BUT as as
introduction to research methodology presented in an Intro to Psych
class, I think it's a nice approach. Can I have your permission to use
it? :)
I would recommend that you add a discussion of a
historical/political/social perspective (for lack of a better
label...). Your "subjective tradition" is one that has been looked upon
with skepticism by many in the field: if the data are too personalized,
too emotionally-based, and not controlled, then they are not useful,
i.e., scientific. But there are advantages to taking this approach, and
not just in clinical work.
Feminist scholars have, quite successfully, combined this approach with
the more "objective tradition" to provide rich insights about human
behavior. One could justifiably ask, exactly where do we find the truth
about human behavior: from a standardized survey, or from subjective
experience? (Please don't ask me to define what I mean by "truth"! :)
) Your students should be aware of sexist and racist attitudes that
might underlie the disparagement of the "subjective tradition," in some
cases.
In short, provide your students with a taste of the controversies
surrounding your distinction. I think they'd appreciate it.
Barbara Watters
Mercyhurst College
Erie, PA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In my intro-psych classes, I try to make sense of the enormous diversity in
> psychology, as well as possible causes of the controversies that sometimes rage
> in our discipline, by contrasting two scientific traditions that seem to me to
> be solidly established. By the term "scientific tradition," I am referring to
> a fundamental approach to scientific research that involves: (1) a basic set of
> goals (motivations) for that research; (2) a general way of asking questions
> and of testing tentative answers in that research. In other words, a scientific
> tradition involves a set reasons for doing research as well as the manner in
> which one performs that research. I distinguish between what I call the
> "subjective" and "objective" traditions in psychology. Let me quote from s
> discussion of this that I hand out to students:
>
> "In Chapter 2, we used the word "subjective" to refer to what is personal--to
> an individual's thoughts and feelings about the world. Researchers from the
> subjective tradition, therefore, attempt to know the thoughts, emotions, and
> desires of individuals because they want to help individuals to achieve the
> fullest expression of their potential. In trying to accomplish this goal, these
> researchers tend to study individuals in uncontrolled research situations (for
> example, in their clinics, clinical psychologists describe and treat people
> suffering from mental disorders). In Chapter 2, we used the word "objective" to
> refer to what is impersonal--to what is true about objects in the universe
> independently of our thoughts or feelings about them. Researchers from the
> objective tradition, therefore, attempt to describe and discover the causes of
> mental events and behavior because they want to understanding the workings of
> psychological phenomena as completely as possible. In trying to accomplish this
> goal, these researchers tend to study groups of individuals in controlled
> research situations (for example, in their laboratories, experimental
> psychologists investigate rat learning in a maze)."
>
> I then try to describe, in more detail, several characteristics of these
> traditions. With respect to the subjective tradition, I state the following:
>
> "The subjective tradition in psychology is characterized by the following: (a)
> There is a focus on individuals. Thus, the data collected are most likely to
> involve case studies involving single subjects. For example, clinicians tend to
> focus on case studies of people with mental disorders. (b) There is little
> control of the research situation. In fact, research often occurs in the
> natural situations of everyday life where manipulation and control of possible
> causal variables generally can not be performed. (c) There is a focus on
> unobservable phenomena. Because they are most interested in the thoughts and
> feelings of individuals, subjective researchers tend to study mental events
> that are not directly expressed in behavior. (d) There is a strong motivation
> to apply research findings to everyday life. Subjective researchers are not
> very interested in performing "basic research" designed only to satisfy the
> curiosity of the researcher. (e) There is a focus on the ultimate causation of
> phenomena. That is, subjective researchers often study causes that are distant
> in time from the phenomenon being investigated."
>
> I then use the work of Sigmund Freud to illustrate the subjective tradition. On
> the other hand, the objective tradition has the following characteristics
> (again I am quoting from my handout):
>
> "The objective tradition in psychology is characterized by the following: (a)
> There is a focus on group averages. Thus, the data collected are most likely to
> involve the measurement of large numbers of subjects. Correlational and
> experimental studies are typically performed within the objective tradition.
> (b) There is at least a moderate amount of control of the research situation.
> In fact, research often occurs in laboratory situations where manipulation and
> control of possible causal variables can more easily be performed. (c) There is
> a focus on observable phenomena. In fact, objective researchers typically
> prefer operational definitions that specify the observations we must make when
> measuring a phenomenon. (d) There is a strong motivation to develop basic
> knowledge. Although objective researchers prefer that their research findings
> have applications to everyday life, they are more motivated by simple
> curiosity: they desire to know the causes of a phenomenon. (e) There is a focus
> on proximate causation of phenomena. That is, objective researchers often study
> causes that are very close in time to the phenomenon being investigated."
>
> I use B. F. Skinner to illustrate the objective tradition. Although I make the
> point that it is not always a simple matter to classify a PARTICULAR RESEARCHER
> as being within one or the other tradition, it seems to me that these
> characteristics do paint a portrait of two fundamental kinds of research that
> are performed within our discipline.
>
> What do you think about this distinction? Is it a valid one? Is it too
> simplisitic? Is it leaving out other variations?
>
> Jeff Ricker
> Scottsdale Community College
> Scottsdale AZ
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
