Are Qualitative Methods Always Best for Humanistic Psychology Research? A Conversation on the Epistemological Divide Between Humanistic and Positive Psychology

Abstract

The role of qualitative methods within humanistic psychology research is explored though a Web-based dialogue among the authors expressing varying, and often quite diverging, views on assorted concerns about research methodologies and their underlying epistemologies. Specifically explored is whether qualitative methods are inherently better for capturing an understanding of human experience congruent with a human science approach to research or, alternatively, whether both qualitative and quantitative approaches simply offer different, and often complementary, advantages and disadvantages. The divisiveness between humanistic and positive psychology is also explored in relationship to the former field's frequent preference for qualitative methods within a human science paradigm, in contrast to the latter field's frequent preference for quantitative methods within a positivistic science paradigm.

Acknowledgments

Originally the plan for this article was to have all three authors offer summaries but, because Mike is no longer present and a majority of the issues debated was between Mike and Harris, Harris has declined to offer any summary, allowing his comments in the discussion to speak for him so that his and Mike's views, which often are in disagreement, remain on equal footing. Consequently, Zeno has written the introduction and conclusion in an attempt to provide balance among the diverse views shared.