Contrast the kinds of evidence produced by different research methods in social psychology. Which do you consider to be the most fruitful in developing our understanding of social behaviour and experience?
Debates about research methods and what constitutes useful evidence have ebbed and flowed throughout the history of social psychology as a discipline. Epistemological arguments as to what should be studied, and how, serve to define different perspectives with clear and distinct borders. In this essay I will argue that; although there are still clear divisions between particular methodologies and types of evidence they produce, segregation of these in the study of social psychology is a mistake that will only serve to limit our understandings. An integrative study of social psychology will be more fruitful than blindly following philosophical epistemological dictums. To this end I will draw on examples from experimental social psychology, social constructionist, psychodynamic and experiential perspectives. Trimodal theory will be used to support arguments for an integrative approach.
Psychology ‘s birth as a science set the initial parameters, methods had to be scientifically grounded giving good reliable and valid evidence. Like physicists or biologists; psychologists sought generalised universal laws describing the workings of our mind. The experimental design ruled, quantitative methods provided good reproducible evidence for theories to be based on. Mathematicians produced a plethora of statistical tools with which to warrant evidence. The mind was likened to a machine, partitioned into conceptual areas of study such as memory, perception, attitudes and behaviour. All of whose outputs could be observed and measured. This nomothetic approach was championed as essential to social psychologist’s needs. "The scientific approach is pragmatically the best way of making definite progress in the study of social behaviour" (McGhee 2001, in Wetherell et al 2001...