These two epistemologies use two research methods to look at different ways to try and explain the same social behaviours and still satisfy their respective theoretical position. One such research question that essentialists and social constructionist social psychology strive to explain is that of “self”. In quantitative methods the empirical psychologist will provide evidence in numerical form to either support or refute their hypothesis. For example when investigating the “embodied self” Toates, (1996) explored biological aspects looking for functional explanations to support his ideas. Whereas, in qualitative methods researchers such as Neimeyer, (2000) describes the “self” in narrative terms of our experiences and he argues that we attempt not only to impart continuity to the story of our lives, but also to position ourselves with reference to others.
Social constructionists argue that the empirical data in quantitative analysis does not lend itself to exploring why we exhibit particular social behaviours because they suggest the influences of time and environment are not taken into consideration, which qualitative analysis does take account of. For example Herzog, Sharon, & Leykin, (2008) used discourse analysis to examine when and how the concept of racism was introduced into local media towards the Palestinian people in the Israeli situation. In their study they included all texts with the words race, racism, whites, blacks or Nazism, whether the authors were defending or promoting positive behaviour, which would justifying it as non-racist, or wether the authors were attacking policy or behaviour, and therefore defining it as racist. In their study Herzog et al., (2008) worked on the assumption posited by Condor, (1988) that having race as a categorisation of civilisation actually leads to racism, because it adopts us to think in race terms, even though (Herzog et al., 2008) failed to elucidate in their study whether the references to race actually lead to racial thinking and therefore racial actions. However, Nayak, (2006) goes further to suggest that if race is an arbitrary parameter used to divide up the human population, and therefore an empty category that holds no value, then social constructionists should not be writing, researching and conducting ethnography in the name of race.
In contrast to the Herzog et al., (2008) study one of the most significant empirical studies of racism by Adorno et al (1950 cited in Sanford, 1956) provided quantitative evidence that racism is actually psychodynamic and it is our internal emotional dynamics that are responsible for racism. Paradoxically, however, this study does not fit the epistemology of the psychodynamic perspective as this study concluded that the racism was a product of an authoritarian childhood and therefore not inherent within the individual. There have been many criticisms of the Adorno et al (1950 cited in Sanford, 1956), study one of the most fundamental is that the researchers did not follow an quantitative methods approach, in that they did not start with a hypothesis and the racist perspectives were never explicitly expressed but were derived from a succession of partial perspectives (Smith, 1950).
The above examples show that the different research methods produce different kind of evidence to provide different explanations for the same phenomena. It could be argued that Adorno et al made their evidence fit their theory and thus invalidates it. However relativists would argue that if the methods and type of evidence serves the purpose of investigation then it is valid. They also recognise the researchers affect on evidence in both quantitative and qualitative studies and argue for a critical consensual approach to evidence and research findings. In essence, this is the subjective equivalent of objective experimental controls. Although qualitative evidence cannot be systematically reproduced for any given research subject or participant Strauss & Corbin, (1998) posit that qualitative methods can be used to better understand any phenomenon about which little is yet known.
From a realist perspective it could be argued that one case study in a qualitative study should not be firm foundation to suggest a theory upon. But this can be counter argued in that if recognised behaviour can be reproduced consistently over time and people, then it is reasonable to accept this as evidence for a relationship between interpretation and outcome. One such example of this is that of Melaine Klein (cited in Warshaw, 1994) who developed her part objects theory by applying subjective interpretations from observations in therapeutic play sessions with young children. She achieved this by using patterns of meanings derived from qualitative clinical evidence gained over numerous therapeutic sessions. Qualitative evidence produced from play therapy serves to elicit rich information about the children's internal worlds and their issues. In comparison it could be suggested that by repeating quantitative studies by making small changes in the hypothesis also helps to develop theories that can be eventually used to help people. One such example is the theory that children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) have deficit working memory. This theory has been achieved over many quantitative studies and the knowledge can now be used to assist such children (Klingberg, Forssberg, & Westerberg, 2002). If a child were asked how they felt about their working memory they would not be able to respond to this as it is very much relative. Therefore, it is important that researchers are willing to embrace both research methods of quantitative and qualitative and use the more appropriate one in respect to their hypothesis or research question.
This essay has provided an overview with comparisons and contrasts of the two epistemologies of essentialism and social constructionism and their respective research methods of quantitative and qualitative methods. From an outsiders perspective it must be hard to comprehend why social psychologists defend their own particular view so strongly, but thankfully the trend is heading towards collaborative investigations (Huang & Nakazawa, 2010) and adopting more flexible approaches. Social psychological issues such as racism; do involve observable measurable behaviours, are influenced by our personal histories, pertain to the particular time and social context and are mediated by cultural norms and social discourses. To unravel the complex interactions and meanings involved, social psychologists must utilise all methods to gain diverse evidence in order to provide well rounded accounts for social psychological phenomena.
References
Allport, G. W. (1985). The historical background of social psychology. In G. Lindzey, and E. Aronson, (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, 1, (3), 1-46.
Burr, V. (1995). An Introduction to Social Constructionism (First Edition.). Routledge.
Condor, S. (1988). “Race stereotypes” and racist discourse. Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 8, 69-90. doi:10.1515/text.1.1988.8.1-2.69
Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 309-320. doi:10.1037/h0034436
Herzog, H., Sharon, S., & Leykin, I. (2008). Racism and the politics of signification: Israeli public discourse on racism towards Palestinian citizens. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 31, 1091-1109. doi:10.1080/01419870701692583
Hosking, D.-M., & Morley, I. E. (2004). Social constructionism in community and applied social psychology. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14(5), 318-331.
Huang, W.-H. D., & Nakazawa, K. (2010). An empirical analysis on how learners interact in wiki in a graduate level online course. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(3), 233-244. doi:10.1080/10494820.2010.500520
Klingberg, T., Forssberg, H., & Westerberg, H. (2002). Training of Working Memory in Children With ADHD. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology (Neuropsychology, Development and Cognition: Section A), 24, 781-791. doi:10.1076/jcen.24.6.781.8395
Maltby, J. (2010). Personality, Individual Differences and Intelligence (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.
Nayak, A. (2006). After race: Ethnography, race and post-race theory. Ethnic and Racial Studies, Writing Race: Ethnography and Difference, 29(3), 411-430.
Neimeyer, R. A. (2000). Narrative disruptions in the construction of the self. In R. A. Neimeyer & J. D. Raskin (Eds.), Constructions of disorder: Meaning-making frameworks for psychotherapy. (pp. 207-242). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Sanford, N. (1956). The approach of the authoritarian personality. In J. L. McCary (Ed.), Psychology of personality: Six modern approaches. (pp. 253-319). New York, NY, US: Logos Press.
Smith, M. B. (1950). Review of The authoritarian personality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 45, 775-779. doi:10.1037/h0051166
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE.
Toates, F. (1996). The Embodied Self: A Biological Persepective. Understanding the self. SAGE.
Warshaw, S. C. (1994). Whatever Happened to Kleinian Child Analysis? Psychoanal. Psychol., 11, 401-406.