![Sample our Behavioral Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110801/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Behavioral-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article summarises the standpoint of the Qualitative Methods in Psychology Section of the British Psychological Society regarding the current position of qualitative research in psychology in the United Kingdom. The article is in three parts. Part one documents the historical development of the section, outlining its rationale, remit, and current activities. These activities aim to champion and develop qualitative methods in psychology, supporting high quality work regardless of epistemological or ontological position. Part two considers the current context of our work, describing not only how qualitative methods are valued in the United Kingdom but also how this recognition is undermined, particularly through the operationalisation of our national research assessment (the Research Excellence Framework). We also consider the challenges that Open Science poses for qualitive researchers. Part three highlights some of the significant contributions of UK-based qualitative researchers to psychology, with a particular focus on feminist-informed research, discourse analysis, and interpretative phenomenological analysis, before pointing to future exciting possibilities based on research exploring the affordances of digital technologies and innovative synthesising across epistemologies and disciplinary boundaries.
Notes
1. Such as the ESRC Identities and Social Action Programme led by Margaret Wetherell, information and evaluation found at https://www.researchcatalogue.esrc.ac.uk/grants/RES-065-27-0007/read and https://esrc.ukri.org/files/research/research-and-impact-evaluation/identities-and-social-action-programme/
2. The BPS was formed in 1901 and is now a registered charity acting as the central “representative body for psychology and psychologists in the UK,” with responsibility for “the promotion of excellence and ethical practice in the science, education, and application of the discipline” (British Psychological Society n.d.-a).
3. Our next conference is in 2019 in Cardiff; for details see www.bps.org.uk/events/qualitative-methods-psychology-history-philosophy-psychology-conference-2019 or follow #qmip on twitter.
4. See, for example, our recent publication on writing for the UK’s national research assessment https://www1.bps.org.uk/system/files/user-files/Qualitative%20Methods%20in%20Psychology%20Section/public/Writing%20for%20the%20REF.pdf
5. Along with text books, TQP developed video resources for teaching discourse analysis https://wordpress.aber.ac.uk/discourse-analysis; and are currently developing an online hub for teaching resources information, please follow us on twitter for further updates #qmip.
6. This is not to say these people are anything but well-respected, exceptional researchers with a wealth of experience and expertise. Just not, in the opinion of the current chair of QMiP who has lobbied hard with the BPS on this issue, in the areas needed to have qualitative research by psychologists submitted to this panel reviewed fairly.
7. In principle, the psychology REF review panel can recruit more people if it feels wider expertise is required for a fair evaluation of research out of their experience. Our first concern is we need to trust they recognise any lack of experience; in the past we have been told this group of positive researchers have experience in qualitative methods such as content analysis, a method that quantifies qualitative data, which makes us doubtful of this. Our second concern is very little research outside of their expertise will be submitted because cautious HEIs will choose to submit qualitative research in psychology to other panels or not submit it at all.
8. Although the open science crisis is also evident in other domains from clinical medicine (Ioannidis Citation2016) to marketing (Hunter Citation2001).
9. See https://www1.bps.org.uk/what-we-do/bps/governance/boards-and-committees/research-board/research-board-resources/replicability-and-reproducibility-debate/replicability-and-reproducibility-debate and https://www.bps.org.uk/news-and-policy/moving-psychological-science-forward-videos-replication-event-now-online
12. Also see Button’s talk explaining how she has conducted such studies collaboratively with undergraduate students https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5x-oFJp-bw.
13. For details of the project, see https://radssite.wordpress.com/2017/01/10/introducing-bodies-in-translation-activist-art-technology-and-access-to-life/and to watch the keynote see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwJ6K6eQyrs
15. details of the journal’s focus see the current editors discussion at doi/full/10.1177/0959353513515308
16. http://impact.ref.ac.uk/casestudies2/refservice.svc/GetCaseStudyPDF/44615. Note this is an example of exemplary qualitative research conducted by a psychologist but submitted to a REF panel other than psychology.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Sarah Riley
Sarah Riley is a Reader in critical psychology at Aberystwyth University, United Kingdom, and the lead for the Centre for Critical Psychology at the university. Her research uses qualitative methods to explore the psychological impact of neoliberalism, addressing questions of gender, embodiment, health, youth culture, and citizenship. Her co-authored books include Critical Bodies (Palgrave/MacMillan, 2008), Doing Your Qualitative Research Project (Sage, 2012), Technologies of Sexiness: Sex, Identity and Consumer Culture (Oxford University Press, 2014), Postfeminism and Health (Routledge, 2018), and Postfeminism and Body Image (Routledge, forthcoming). She is the current chair of the British Psychology Section Qualitative Methods in Psychology.
Joanna Brooks
Joanna Brooks is a Chartered Psychologist and a Lecturer in psychology at the Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, University of Manchester. Her research focuses especially on the management and psychological impact of chronic and palliative illness conditions, and her work is informed by a particular interest in the development of novel and inclusive approaches to applied qualitative research. She is co-author (with Nigel King) of Applied Qualitative Research in Psychology (Palgrave, 2017), Template Analysis for Business and Management Students (Sage, 2017), and (with Nigel King and Christine Horrocks) of Interviews in Qualitative Research (Sage, forthcoming 2018, 2nd ed.). She is a committee member and Chair Elect of the British Psychological Society‘s Qualitative Methods in Psychology section.
Simon Goodman
Simon Goodman, PhD, is a Research Fellow at Coventry University. His research uses discursive psychology to address a number of issues, including the discursive construction of asylum seekers and refugees. His work focuses on what is, and what is not, considered to be racist particularly with regard to asylum seeking. His other interests include the British public’s understanding of income inequality, the far right, and political discourse.
Sharon Cahill
Sharon Cahill is the Head of the Department of Psychological Sciences, School of Psychology, University of East London. Sharon’s research interests involve exploring women’s (and vulnerable people’s) experiences of life, mental health, emotions, work, and the body using qualitative research methods. She is co-author of several recent peer-reviewed journal articles, including “Life after stroke: Coping mechanisms among Caribbean women,” Health and Social Care in the Community (2015), and “Dilemmas of long-term unemployment: Talking about constraint, self-determination and the future,” International Journal of Education and Psychology in the Community (2014).
Peter Branney
Peter Branney is Senior Lecturer in social psychology at Bradford University and a Fellow of the British Psychological Society, Higher Education Academy, and the Royal Society of Arts. He has undertaken a programme of award-winning, internationally leading work exploring how men and women engage with healthcare, how they experience threats to their health, and how to improve their experience of healthcare. Dr. Branney co-authored the UK Department for Health report The Gender & Access to Services Study and led the first national study of Patients’ Experiences of Penile Cancer (PEPC), published on www.healthtalk.org and featured on BBC Radio 4‘s Inside Health, the BPS Impact Portal, and The Guardian.
Gareth J. Treharne
Gareth J. Treharne is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Psychology at the University of Otago in Aotearoa/New Zealand. He applies a range of critical methods to explore diverse issues in relation to health, disability, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality. He is a co-editor of The Palgrave Handbook of Ethics in Critical Research (2018) and a contributor to The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Ethics (2018) and Qualitative Research in Clinical and Health Psychology (Palgrave MacMillan, 2015). He is an Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society and a member of the committee of the Qualitative Methods in Psychology section. He is also a longstanding member of the International Society of Critical Health Psychology and is the current Chair of the society.
Cath Sullivan
Cath Sullivan is a Senior Lecturer in psychology at the University of Central Lancashire, Preston. Her research interests are mainly focused on social psychology, gender, qualitative methods, and mindfulness. She is currently the Honorary Secretary of the Qualitative Methods in Psychology section of the British Psychological Society. She is co-editor of two qualitative methods textbooks: Doing Qualitative Research in Psychology (SAGE, forthcoming) and Doing Your Qualitative Psychology Project (SAGE, 2012), and has recently published qualitative research on topics including mindfulness, work-life balance, and lecturers’ experiences of supervising qualitative dissertations.