TOK Essay

              Both qualitative and quantitative data can be used to support studies in psychology. Because qualitative data is defined by the observable qualities of change or in a specific case itself, it can be the most useful in areas that do not require measurable variables.  For example, psychology cannot measure most of its variables in quantifiable ways, thus it must use qualitative data as support for its knowledge claims pertaining to human behavior. Psychology looks at all possible reasons for why humans act the way they do, and how we can fix the emotional and behavioral flaws of humanity.  Even in psychology, though, separate divisions of study, known as perspectives, are categorized as to how qualitative or quantitative they are. In psychology class last year, I learned the different perspectives. Ranging from most qualitative to most quantitative are the: cognitive perspective, social perspective, behavioral perspective, biological perspective, and evolutionary perspective. These areas of psychology are different in the way they evaluate a person’s behavior, and how flaws can be treated. On the qualitative side, cognitive psychology is the study of internal mental processes used in order to understand behavior. Cognitive psychologist Aaron T. Beck developed a theory that depression and anxiety disorders are caused by cognitive distortions (errors of thinking) such as; selective abstraction (one only focuses and judges themselves on their failures, not their successes), overgeneralization (apply one failure to all situations), magnification (one exceedingly focuses on or emphasizes one failure), and absolutist thinking (perfectionist, never satisfied with oneself). This theory has been supported with qualitative data, though cannot be supported with quantitative data. You cannot measure “failure” on a universal scale, and neither can you measure the problems of “depression” or “anxiety” on a universal scale, so the type of data fits with the type of problem. The strengths of qualitative data, then, lie in its ability to look beyond measurable, concrete data, into abstract data such as thought processes and emotion, but it is so ambiguous that it could be left to anyone’s personal interpretation. Personal interpretation is the last thing you want to support a claim as true, because some could agree and some could disagree, though no concrete “truth” is really reached. An immense amount of persuasive evidence is needed to validate a knowledge claim adequately, because humans can always find questionable weak points in an argument. Biological psychologists, on the other hand, would say that anxiety and depression disorders are caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain and that they can be treated with medication. Many empirical studies have provided convincing evidence toward the idea that chemical imbalances do correlate with emotional disorders, and that medication does improve the severity of the disorders. This biological interpretation is limited in that the entire cause of the disorders is not explored. Questions are then raised as to just how far qualitative data can support this claim. What caused these chemical imbalances? How do we know that the chemical levels of the brain are not effected by our emotions, instead of the other way around? By using both qualitative and quantitative, we can further understand the complexities of anxiety and depression disorders, meaning we can treat them more effectively as well.

              Psychology, being one of the most controversial human sciences, has been trying to gain credibility in the field of empirical studies by using quantitative data more effectively as evidence to support knowledge claims. Natural sciences, however, mostly use quantitative data to support knowledge claims, so in my eyes it limited in its support of knowledge claims. The modern western society seems to think that natural sciences are more reliable and credible than human sciences. I disagree. Without a substantial amount of qualitative data, natural sciences become too detached for relevant human interpretation. Quantitative data is difficult to relate to “the real world” without the use of qualitative connections and classifications. Because human sciences encompass both qualitative and quantitative data as evidence, their findings are more valuable to aid in the progression of humankind, and thus their statements of knowledge follow my definition of a well-supported knowledge claim. Human sciences can. Therefore, provide more sufficient and better developed argument to support its knowledge claims.

              Natural sciences do use qualitative data, to an extent. Chemistry, for example, is defined as “a science that deals with the composition, structure, and properties of substances and with the transformations that they undergo.” Chemistry generally observes measurable aspects of substances (qualitative data), though from the definition, it also uses qualitative data to categorize substances by their properties and to observe the chemical changes substances can undergo. I am determined to point out, though, that some of this qualitative data is still recorded in quantitative ways. The substances are categorized by properties such as pH level, water solubility, or the number of different types of molecules. This makes chemistry a very detached subject from human relevance. Sure, we can go on to make different compound and create new substances, but until that substance is tied to a significant human interpretation of its use, I do not feel that the substance is very valuable or relevant to me or to humanity in its progression. Qualitative data, such as the usefulness of a substance, or the emotional impact of the substance, would help to emphasize the usefulness of the substance to humanity.

              Though quantitative data can be useful in the field of empirical studies and technological advances, it does not easily relate to humanity, and thus alone, it is not strong enough to support a knowledge claim. In contrast, qualitative data is very useful in supporting abstract ideas and concepts, though alone it is too ambiguous to effectively support a knowledge claim. My experience in the American education system has been that teachers will reinforce the idea that quantitative and qualitative data should not be used together to support an argument. We are taught that these two forms of data are not compatible with one-another, and thus we shy away from utilizing their joint potential. The modern western world needs to understand that, together, qualitative and quantitative data can create the most difficult to disprove evidence that supports valuable information that aids in the progression of humankind.

Bibliography

Tavris, Carol, and Carole Wade. Psychology in Perspective. 3rd ed. NJ: Prentice Hall,

2000. Print.

"Abnormal Psychology: Cognitive Perspective: Beck’s & Ellis’ Cognitive." IB

Psychology. 01/03/2009. Web. 28 Jan 2010. <http://www.mrcaro.com/psychology>.

"CHEMISTRY." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Merriam-Webster Online. 2002.

Web.