Kennismaking met onderzoeksmethoden en statistiek
Research Methods
Kwalitatief
Chapter One: Psychology Is a Way of Thinking
Psychological science is based on studies-on research- by psychologists. Like other scientists,
psychologists are empiricists. Being an empiricist means basing one’s conclusions on
systematic observations.
Research Producers, Research Consumers
Producers of research are fascinated by the research process and do the research, they
develop the ability to work in research laboratories and make new discoveries. Consumers of
research are interested in the information, they are interested in reading about the
research. They need to be able to find, read, and evaluate the research behind important
policies, therapies, and workplace decisions. In practice, many psychologists engage in both
roles. When they are planning their research and creating new knowledge, they study the
work of others who have gone before them. Psychologists in both roles require a curiosity
about behavior, emotion, ang cognition. Research producers and consumers also share a
commitment to the practice of empiricism- to answer psychological questions with direct,
formal observations, and to communicate with others about what they have learned.
Understanding research methods enables you to ask the appropriate questions so you can
evaluate information correctly.
Evidence-based treatments: therapies that are supported by research.
How Scientists Approach Their Work
Psychological scientists are defined by what they do and how they think. Psychologists
approach their work in fundamental ways:
1. They act as empiricists in their investigations, meaning that they systematically observe
the world.
2. They test theories through research and, in turn, revise their theories based on the
resulting data.
3. They take an empirical approach to both applied research, which directly targets real-
world problems, and basic research, which is intended to contribute to the general body of
knowledge.
4. They go further: Once they have discovered an effect, scientist plan further research to
test why, when, or for whom an effect works.
5. Psychologists make their work public. They submit their results to journals for review and
respond to the opinions of other scientists. Another aspect of making work public involves
sharing findings of psychological research with the popular media, who may or may not get
the story right.
,Empiricism (empirical method/ empirical research): Using evidence from the senses (sight,
hearing, touch) or from instruments that assist the senses (such as thermometers, timers,
photographs, weight scales and questionnaires) as the basis for conclusions.
Empiricists aim to be systematic, rigorous, and to make their work independently verifiable
by other observers or scientists.
In the theory-date cycle, scientists collect data to test, change, or update their theories.
The cupboard theory is a theory about mother-infant attachment, it says that a mother is
valuable to a baby mammal because she is a source of food.
Another theory is the contact comfort theory. Here babies are attached to their mothers
because of the comfort of cozy touch.
Harlow used the two theories to make two specific predictions about his research. Then he
used the data he recorded to support only one of the theories, the contact comfort theory.
This is the theory-data cycle in action.
Theory: A set of statements that describes general principles about how variables relate to
one another.
Hypothesis (prediction): The specific outcome the researcher expects to observe in a study if
the theory is accurate.
Data: A set of observations.
Depending on whether the data are consistent with hypotheses based on a theory, the data
may either support or challenge the theory. Data that match the theory’s hypotheses
strengthen the researcher’s confidence in the theory. When the data do not match the
theory’s hypotheses, however, those results indicate that the theory needs to be revised or
the research design needs to be improved.
The theory-data cycle.
,Good scientific theories are supported by data from studies, are falsifiable, and are
parsimonious.
- The most important feature of a scientific theory is that it is supported by data from
research studies. A theory that is supported by a large quantity and variety of evidence is a
good theory.
- A second important feature of a good scientific theory is falsifiability: A theory must lead to
hypotheses that, when tested, could actually fail to support the theory.
- A third important feature of a good scientific theory is that it exhibits parsimony: Theories
are supposed to be simple. If two theories explain the data equally well, most scientists will
opt for the simpler, more parsimonious theory.
The word prove is not used in science. Researchers never say they have proved their
theories. At most, they will say that some data support or are consistent with a theory, or
they might say that some data are inconsistent with or complicate a theory. But no single
confirming finding can prove a theory.
Rather than thinking of a theory as proved or disproved by a single study, scientists evaluate
their theories based on the weight of the evidence, for and against.
Applied research: Research done with a practical problem in mind. The researchers conduct
their work in a particular real-world context.
Basic research: Research that isn’t intended to address a specific, practical problem. The goal
is to enhance the general body of knowledge.
Translational research: The use of lessons from basic research to develop and test
applications to health care, psychotherapy, or other forms of treatment and intervention. It
represents a dynamic bridge from basic to applied research.
Psychological scientists rarely conduct a single investigation and then stop. Instead, each
study leads them to ask a new question.
When scientists want to tell the scientific world about the results of their research, they
write a paper and submit it to a scientific journal: Like magazines, journals usually come out
every month and contain articles written by various qualified contributors. But unlike
magazines, the articles in a scientific journal are peer-reviewed. The journal editor sends the
submission to three or four experts on the subject. The expert tell the editor about the
work’s virtues and flaws, and the editor, considering these reviews, decides whether the
paper deserves to be published in the journal.
Journalism includes the kinds of news and commentary that most of us read or hear on
television, in magazines and newspapers, and on Internet sites. These sources are usually
written by journalists, not scientists, and they are meant to reach the general public; they
are easy to access, and understanding their content does not require specialized education.
Psychologists can benefit when journalists publicize their research:
- By reading about psychological research in the newspaper, the general public can learn
what psychologists really do.
, - Those who read or hear the story might also pick up important tips for living: They might
understand their children or themselves better; they might set different goals or change
their habits.
Benefits of science writing depend on two things.
- Journalists need to report on the most important scientific stories.
- Journalists must describe the research accurately.
When journalists report on a study, have they chosen research that has been conducted
rigorously, that tests an important question, and that has been peer-reviewed? Or have they
chosen a study simply because it is cute or eye-catching?
Even when journalists report on reliable, important research, they don’t always get the story
right. Some science writers do an excellent, accurate job of summarizing the research, but
not all of them do. Perhaps the journalist does not have the scientific training, the
motivation, or the time before deadline to understand the original science very well. Maybe
the journalist dumbs down the details of a study to make it more accessible to a general
audience. And sometimes a journalist wraps up the details of a study with a more dramatic
headline that the research can support.
Chapter 2: Sources of Information: Why Research Is Best and How to Find It
Many sources of information promote the idea that venting your frustrations work. You may
hear from guidance counselors, friends, or online sources that venting negative feelings is a
healthy way to manage anger. But is it accurate to base your conclusions on what
authorities- even well-meaning ones- say? Should you believe what everyone else believes?
Does it make sense to base your convictions on your own personal experience?
This chapter discusses three sources of evidence for people’s beliefs- experience, intuition,
and authority- and compares them to a superior source of evidence: empirical research. We
will evaluate a particular type of response to the question about handling anger: Is the idea
of releasing bottled-up tension a healthy way to deal with feelings of anger and frustration?
How could you find credible research on this subject if you wanted to read about it? And
why should you trust the conclusions of researchers instead of those based on your own
experience or intuition?
The research vs. your experience
When we need to decide what to believe, our own experiences are powerful sources of
information. Often, too, we base our opinions on the experiences of friends and family. Why
shouldn’t you trust your own experience- or that of someone you know and trust- as a
source of information?
The most important reason not to base beliefs solely on personal experience is because
when we do so, we usually don’t take a comparison group into account. Research, by
contrast, asks the critical question: Compared to what? A comparison group enables us to
compare what would happen both with and without the thing we are interested in. To reach
Research Methods
Kwalitatief
Chapter One: Psychology Is a Way of Thinking
Psychological science is based on studies-on research- by psychologists. Like other scientists,
psychologists are empiricists. Being an empiricist means basing one’s conclusions on
systematic observations.
Research Producers, Research Consumers
Producers of research are fascinated by the research process and do the research, they
develop the ability to work in research laboratories and make new discoveries. Consumers of
research are interested in the information, they are interested in reading about the
research. They need to be able to find, read, and evaluate the research behind important
policies, therapies, and workplace decisions. In practice, many psychologists engage in both
roles. When they are planning their research and creating new knowledge, they study the
work of others who have gone before them. Psychologists in both roles require a curiosity
about behavior, emotion, ang cognition. Research producers and consumers also share a
commitment to the practice of empiricism- to answer psychological questions with direct,
formal observations, and to communicate with others about what they have learned.
Understanding research methods enables you to ask the appropriate questions so you can
evaluate information correctly.
Evidence-based treatments: therapies that are supported by research.
How Scientists Approach Their Work
Psychological scientists are defined by what they do and how they think. Psychologists
approach their work in fundamental ways:
1. They act as empiricists in their investigations, meaning that they systematically observe
the world.
2. They test theories through research and, in turn, revise their theories based on the
resulting data.
3. They take an empirical approach to both applied research, which directly targets real-
world problems, and basic research, which is intended to contribute to the general body of
knowledge.
4. They go further: Once they have discovered an effect, scientist plan further research to
test why, when, or for whom an effect works.
5. Psychologists make their work public. They submit their results to journals for review and
respond to the opinions of other scientists. Another aspect of making work public involves
sharing findings of psychological research with the popular media, who may or may not get
the story right.
,Empiricism (empirical method/ empirical research): Using evidence from the senses (sight,
hearing, touch) or from instruments that assist the senses (such as thermometers, timers,
photographs, weight scales and questionnaires) as the basis for conclusions.
Empiricists aim to be systematic, rigorous, and to make their work independently verifiable
by other observers or scientists.
In the theory-date cycle, scientists collect data to test, change, or update their theories.
The cupboard theory is a theory about mother-infant attachment, it says that a mother is
valuable to a baby mammal because she is a source of food.
Another theory is the contact comfort theory. Here babies are attached to their mothers
because of the comfort of cozy touch.
Harlow used the two theories to make two specific predictions about his research. Then he
used the data he recorded to support only one of the theories, the contact comfort theory.
This is the theory-data cycle in action.
Theory: A set of statements that describes general principles about how variables relate to
one another.
Hypothesis (prediction): The specific outcome the researcher expects to observe in a study if
the theory is accurate.
Data: A set of observations.
Depending on whether the data are consistent with hypotheses based on a theory, the data
may either support or challenge the theory. Data that match the theory’s hypotheses
strengthen the researcher’s confidence in the theory. When the data do not match the
theory’s hypotheses, however, those results indicate that the theory needs to be revised or
the research design needs to be improved.
The theory-data cycle.
,Good scientific theories are supported by data from studies, are falsifiable, and are
parsimonious.
- The most important feature of a scientific theory is that it is supported by data from
research studies. A theory that is supported by a large quantity and variety of evidence is a
good theory.
- A second important feature of a good scientific theory is falsifiability: A theory must lead to
hypotheses that, when tested, could actually fail to support the theory.
- A third important feature of a good scientific theory is that it exhibits parsimony: Theories
are supposed to be simple. If two theories explain the data equally well, most scientists will
opt for the simpler, more parsimonious theory.
The word prove is not used in science. Researchers never say they have proved their
theories. At most, they will say that some data support or are consistent with a theory, or
they might say that some data are inconsistent with or complicate a theory. But no single
confirming finding can prove a theory.
Rather than thinking of a theory as proved or disproved by a single study, scientists evaluate
their theories based on the weight of the evidence, for and against.
Applied research: Research done with a practical problem in mind. The researchers conduct
their work in a particular real-world context.
Basic research: Research that isn’t intended to address a specific, practical problem. The goal
is to enhance the general body of knowledge.
Translational research: The use of lessons from basic research to develop and test
applications to health care, psychotherapy, or other forms of treatment and intervention. It
represents a dynamic bridge from basic to applied research.
Psychological scientists rarely conduct a single investigation and then stop. Instead, each
study leads them to ask a new question.
When scientists want to tell the scientific world about the results of their research, they
write a paper and submit it to a scientific journal: Like magazines, journals usually come out
every month and contain articles written by various qualified contributors. But unlike
magazines, the articles in a scientific journal are peer-reviewed. The journal editor sends the
submission to three or four experts on the subject. The expert tell the editor about the
work’s virtues and flaws, and the editor, considering these reviews, decides whether the
paper deserves to be published in the journal.
Journalism includes the kinds of news and commentary that most of us read or hear on
television, in magazines and newspapers, and on Internet sites. These sources are usually
written by journalists, not scientists, and they are meant to reach the general public; they
are easy to access, and understanding their content does not require specialized education.
Psychologists can benefit when journalists publicize their research:
- By reading about psychological research in the newspaper, the general public can learn
what psychologists really do.
, - Those who read or hear the story might also pick up important tips for living: They might
understand their children or themselves better; they might set different goals or change
their habits.
Benefits of science writing depend on two things.
- Journalists need to report on the most important scientific stories.
- Journalists must describe the research accurately.
When journalists report on a study, have they chosen research that has been conducted
rigorously, that tests an important question, and that has been peer-reviewed? Or have they
chosen a study simply because it is cute or eye-catching?
Even when journalists report on reliable, important research, they don’t always get the story
right. Some science writers do an excellent, accurate job of summarizing the research, but
not all of them do. Perhaps the journalist does not have the scientific training, the
motivation, or the time before deadline to understand the original science very well. Maybe
the journalist dumbs down the details of a study to make it more accessible to a general
audience. And sometimes a journalist wraps up the details of a study with a more dramatic
headline that the research can support.
Chapter 2: Sources of Information: Why Research Is Best and How to Find It
Many sources of information promote the idea that venting your frustrations work. You may
hear from guidance counselors, friends, or online sources that venting negative feelings is a
healthy way to manage anger. But is it accurate to base your conclusions on what
authorities- even well-meaning ones- say? Should you believe what everyone else believes?
Does it make sense to base your convictions on your own personal experience?
This chapter discusses three sources of evidence for people’s beliefs- experience, intuition,
and authority- and compares them to a superior source of evidence: empirical research. We
will evaluate a particular type of response to the question about handling anger: Is the idea
of releasing bottled-up tension a healthy way to deal with feelings of anger and frustration?
How could you find credible research on this subject if you wanted to read about it? And
why should you trust the conclusions of researchers instead of those based on your own
experience or intuition?
The research vs. your experience
When we need to decide what to believe, our own experiences are powerful sources of
information. Often, too, we base our opinions on the experiences of friends and family. Why
shouldn’t you trust your own experience- or that of someone you know and trust- as a
source of information?
The most important reason not to base beliefs solely on personal experience is because
when we do so, we usually don’t take a comparison group into account. Research, by
contrast, asks the critical question: Compared to what? A comparison group enables us to
compare what would happen both with and without the thing we are interested in. To reach
