Overcoming the false dichotomy of quantitative and qualitative research: The case of criminal psychology

Transcription

1 Overcomingthefalsedichotomyofquantitativeand qualitativeresearch:thecaseofcriminalpsychology Candidate:SamuelGunn Supervisor:ProfessorDavidD.Clarke Degree:BScPsychology WordCount:3864 1

2 Contents 1.Introduction 3 2.Overcomingthedichotomy 3 3.Quantitativeandqualitativeapproachesincriminalinvestigation 7 i.jean PierredeWaele 7 ii.davidcanter 9 4.Ispsychologystillascience? 12 5.Conclusion 14 6.References 15 2

3 1.Introduction: It is argued in this essay that too sharp a distinction has been drawn between quantitativeandqualitativeapproaches.usingtheexampleofthepsychologyof criminal behaviour, it will be argued that this dichotomy is not a useful one. However, it will also be suggested that bringing quantitative an qualitative approaches together is not simply a matter of methodological eclecticism, and the final section of this essay will suggest an approach which provides a clear theoreticalfoundationfortheintegrationofthetwoapproaches. 2.Overcomingthedichotomy: In the history of psychology there have been two broad perspectives. One has taken the view that humans should be understood using the methods of the naturalsciences;withinmuchofmodernpsychologythishastakentheformofa positivistic commitment to experimental approaches and the use of statistical methods. The other view asserts the distinctiveness of human beings from natureandtheneedtounderstandhumanactionintermsoftheideas,concepts and beliefs expressed in it. The debate betweenthese two traditions and their associated epistemologies has sometimes misleadingly taken the form of a debatebetweenquantitativeandqualitativemethods(e.g.lincoln&guba,1985; Potter&Wetherell,1987). Following from the existence of these two traditions, there is a view that quantitative and qualitative approaches are fundamentally at odds with one another because they stem from different and incommensurable philosophical paradigms.bryman(1988),forexample,pointsoutthatthosewhosubscribeto this paradigmatic view believe that quantitative and qualitative approaches should be seen as deeply embedded in their respective epistemological roots. Quantitative research is seen to be influenced directly by positivism whereas qualitativeresearchreflectsanti empiricistassumptionsandfindsexpressionin, for example, phenomenology, symbolic interactionism, and discourse theory. Thus quantitative and qualitative methods are taken to be paradigmatically incommensurable(e.g.guba,1985;guba&lincoln,1994). 3

4 Ifquantitativeresearchistakentorestonaviewthattheonlyvalidknowledgeis thatwhichcanbeobserved,countedandthesubjectofempiricalgeneralisations, then such a position clearly is incompatible with the alternative idea that understanding human action involves the interpretation of meanings and concepts.equally,iftheonlyvalidknowledgeofhumanactionistakentobethat whichrelatestothehermeneuticinterpretationofconceptsandmeaningsthere islittleornoscopeforquantitativeevidence.itis,however,importanttodetach quantitative and qualitative methods from association with their respective traditional epistemologies and to move beyond the constraints which the associationwiththemimposes.asmcgrath&johnson(2003)haveputit: We willtry notonlytopointoutthewaysinwhichthedominantparadigm,withits strongpreferenceforquantitativeevidence,shapesandconstrainstheempirical evidencethatcanbeobtainedbyit,butalsotopointouttheparallelwaysthat exclusive use of alternative paradigms, with equally strong preferences for qualitativeevidence,shapeandconstraintheevidenceaswell (p.32). In contrast to the paradigmatic conception of incommensurable epistemologically grounded methods, there is the view that the distinction between quantitative and qualitative methods is a technical one in which methods are chosen on pragmatic grounds as governed by the nature of the investigationbeingundertaken(bryman,1988).thatis,researcherstakingthis view do not have an allegiance to a specific epistemologically grounded approach; rather, the selected method of enquiry is determined by the requirements of the investigative situation not the underpinning epistemology. For reasons that will be explained later, this pragmatic and methodologically eclectic approach has limitations, but it does usefully break the connection betweenepistemologyandmethodandopensthedoortoresearchwhichbrings together the two types of approach. As McGrath & Johnson (2003) put it, the fieldneedsmoreuseofbothqualitativeandquantitativeapproaches (p.32). In liberating quantitative methods from their historical connection with positivism there are no longer reasons of principle for seeing them as incompatible with qualitative methods, and therefore the two methods can be 4

5 aligned. This alignment is necessary because fruitful psychological research needstorecognisethatpsychologystudieshumanbeingswhohavethepowerof agency,andwhoseactionsneedtobeunderstoodintermsoftheconceptsand meaningsexpressedinthem(harré&secord1979).philosophersofmindsuch as Stuart Hampshire (Hampshire, 1970) and John Searle (Searle, 1994) have plausibly argued against mechanistic views of human action, and in the social andpsychologicalsciencesphenomenology,symbolicinteractionism,ethogenics, and discourse theory have all argued for the idea of active subjects who make sense of their own experience by drawing on concepts and meanings. And in their major work on investigative psychology Canter& Youngs(2009) claim in theprefacethattheirapproachputs activehumanagencyatthecore. Thisfocusonagency,conceptsandmeaningshasledtothefurtherclaimthatit iscriticaltoengagewithactors ownaccountsandtorejectthesimplepositivist causal model of human behaviour. As Harré & Secord (1979) put it, It is an essential principle of the approach to psychology we are advocating that all or verynearlyallthekindsofthingsweordinarilysayaboutourselvesandabout otherpeopleshouldbetakenseriouslyasreportsofdatarelevantinascienceof psychology (p.105). A further and related issue is that the positivist model of explanation requires reference to law like generalisations as the basis for predictions. As a consequenceofthis,atthemethodologicallevel,thereisadriveforaggregated data.inmodernpsychologythishasresultedinwhatdanzigercallsthe Triumph of the aggregate (Danziger, 1990, p. 68). Danziger shows how earlier experimentalpsychologistssuchaswundtandtitchenertooktheindividualas their object of study, and notes that individual attribution does not by any meansexcludetheuseofstatistics (Danziger,1990,p.73).Yetmuchofmodern positivisticpsychologyhasrestedonthegaltonianviewthatindividualsshould be characterisednotbyanythingactuallyobservedtobegoingonintheirminds ororganismsbutbytheirdeviationfromthestatisticalnormestablishedforthe populationwithwhichtheyhadbeenaggregated (Danziger,1990,p.77). 5

6 It follows from the above points that psychology must engage with people as agents expressing meanings in their actions, and therefore with their own accountsofthoseactions.itmustbeabletostudyindividualcases.and,having brokenthelinkwiththeirhistoricepistemologicalparadigms,itisalsopossible to see how quantitative and qualitative approaches can be combined. Bryman (1988) usefully makes the following point: The field of cognitive social psychology provides a contrasting example of a subject which is explicitly concerned with meaning but which relies heavily upon quantitative experimental research as a prominent data gathering procedure (p. 121). We cansee,therefore,thatremovingquantitativeandqualitativemethodsfromtheir historic epistemological roots allows the two approaches to be used in combination which, arguably, will offer considerably more to psychological enquirythaneitherapproachalone(brewer&hunter,1989).gonzalezcastroet al (2010), for example, say that it would be advantageous to have a truly integrative methodology (p. 350), and Gelo, Braakman & Benetka (2008) suggest that an adequate theory of mind requires cycling between approaches which,strivingforintegration,avoiddichotomousandthereforepartialaccounts ofphenomena (p.273). Insomeinstancestheremaybeverygoodreasonsforcombiningstatisticaland qualitative approaches. Actors own accounts may be a necessary condition of explanation in some cases but they may not always be a sufficient condition. Actors accounts need to be subject to critique, and further evidence derived fromstatisticalgeneralisationsmaybeimportantinthatcritiqueandmayhelp toexplainwhythoseaccountswereheldinthefirstplace.afocusonactors own accounts does not, therefore, rule out the independent perspective of the researcherinmakingsenseofthoseaccounts,andpartofmakingsenseofthem may be to locate them in the context of statistical generalisations about their distributionamongsocialgroups.ashammersley(1992)says itisveryrarefor qualitative research to restrict itself to documenting the native point of view and there are good reasons for doing this Even those approaches that restricttheresearchfocustoparticipants perspectivesdonotsimplyreproduce these,butseektoanalysetheirstructureandproductioninwaysthatarelikely 6

7 tobealientothepeoplestudied (p.45).psychologicalenquirycan,therefore,be both quantitative and qualitative, and the articulation between them provides thebasisforaconstructiveandcriticalapproachtotheunderstandingofhuman actionandthelayaccountsassociatedwithit. It will be seen in the next section how in the field of criminal psychology the alignmentofquantitativeandqualitativeapproachescanbeachieved,andhow the study of individual cases can integrate both quantitative and qualitative evidence. 3.Quantitativeandqualitativemethodsincriminalinvestigation The functions of, and interrelationships between, quantitative and qualitative approaches can be seen in the field of criminal psychology, and the similarities anddifferencesbetweentworesearchersinthefieldbringthesedifferencesout. The first to be discussed is the Belgian psychiatrist Jean Pierre de Waele who used predominantly qualitative methods in the form of autobiographies to determine whether particular criminals, usually murderers, were suitable for parole release. The second researcher to be discussed is the forensic psychologist David Canter whose work illustrates the effectiveness of bringing togetherquantitativeandqualitativeresearchincriminalinvestigation. i.jean PierredeWaele As a colleague of Harré, de Waele s work is part of a tradition which rejects positivism and the dependence on nomothetic explanation. It focuses on the recoveryandinterpretationofmeaningsandconceptsembeddedinlifehistories using an idiographic biographical approach the so called psycho biography (Clarke&Crossland,1985).ThismethodwasappliedbydeWaeletotheanalysis of parole decisions in ways that distanced it from actuarial type approaches (Clarke & Crossland, 1985) which rely on statistics to form law like generalisations which, in turn, are used to predict behaviour at an individual level (Dawes, Faust & Meehl, 1989; Meehl, 1996). Basing predictions of behaviour on these types of generalisations is a risky strategy, especially when the decisions made could involve life or death. This is because whatever 7

8 generalisationsmaybemade,andwhateverthefitbetweenanindividualandthe availablegeneralisations,reliablepredictionatanindividuallevelcanneverbe made(smith,harré&langenhove,1995).asdewaeleandharrésay, thereis no transindividual covering law from which the intelligibility of an event in particularconditionscanbederived (dewaele&harré,1979,p.191).therefore, as de Waele & Harré argue, an idiographic approach is essential, and they suggest that one of the most effective ideographic approaches is the autobiography. Thecreationoftheautobiographyisseenasacollaborativeprocessinwhichthe offender takes an active role. The offender does not merely write an autobiographywhichisthenpassedtoagroupofexpertstointerpretawayfrom the offender. Rather, the process is an interactive one in which regular negotiations between the offender and the specialists, and indeed between the specialists themselves, are requirements of the process. As Clarke & Crossland (1985) show, the construction of the autobiography allows the offender to rethink and re articulate their life story and the result of this is an extremely detailedaccountoftheindividual slife.fromthis,theaimofthespecialistsisto delineate the underlying generative mechanisms influencing the individual s actions, and on the basis of these decide whether the individual is suitable for parole. In this way ordinary commonsense mentalism can be used quite rigorouslyinaformofpsychologicalenquirywhichisricherandmorerelevant than most laboratory studies, but is none the less thorough (Clarke and Crossland, 1985, p.83). This results in a rigorous scientific analysis of the mechanisms and processes shaping a unique individual s life, and an in depth understandingofthatindividual slikelyfuturebehaviourwhichdoesnotrelyon nomotheticgeneralisations. Therearetwofurtherpointsthatneedtobestressedabouttheautobiographical approach, both of which anticipate the following discussion of Canter s work. One is that an autobiography must be understood in terms of the context in which a life has been led. The individual cannot be abstracted from social role/rule systems. (de Waele & Harré, 1979, p.201). Second, and relatedly, an 8

9 autobiographycannotbeseenasfixedintime.indeed,theveryactofproducing an autobiography is itself something that can change the subject. Individuals thereforehavehistoriesandthesemustbeunderstoodwheninterpretingtheir autobiographies.(dewaele&harré,p.206). The autiobiographical method powerfully conveys the ways in which in depth enquiry into qualitative evidence can produce systematic scientific accounts of individuals and their likely future behaviour. This does, though, raise the questionofwhetherforthepurposesoftheunderstandingofotherdimensions ofcriminalpsychologytheautiobiographicalapproachissufficient,andwhether it is necessary to combine it with other statistical methods. De Waele and Harréhintatthiswhentheysay itisonlyonconditionthattheautobiography be integrated with other conceptually homogeneous data, that it is possible to performthecomparisonsandchecksnecessarytoestablishthemeaningofthe informationitconveys.(dewaele&harré,1979,p.179).howquantitativeand qualitative methods can be brought together to understand unique criminal eventscanbeseeninthefieldofinvestigativepsychology(ip). ii.davidcanter Investigative psychology (IP) is concerned with the analysis of how offenders interact with their surroundings and their victims. In order to make sense of theseactionsipusesmethodsrootedinscientificinvestigationanddrawsona rangeofpsychologicaltheoriestogenerateinferencesaboutthecharacteristics oftheindividualwhichmayprovidecrucialinformationleadingtotheoffender s apprehension. By the use of rigorous scientific principles IP can be contrasted withotherapproachesthatrelyonthehighlysubjectivespeculationsofexperts who are attempting to think like a criminal, such as those used in the FBI approach(ainsworth,2001). Central to Canter s approach is the use of models. Wide ranging models of inferenceneedtobedevelopedthathelpusbothtounderstandcrimesandthat, although general, can still be drawn on to illuminate any particular crime (Canter&Youngs,2009,p.117).OneofthecentralmodelsusedwithinIPisthe 9

10 Radex model (figure 1). This was originally developed by Guttman (1954), however it was taken by Canter and his colleagues and applied to criminal psychology(canter,2000).themodelrepresentstwomainfeaturesofcriminal behaviour;thespecificityandthethemeofthecrime.atthecentreofthemodel are the general features of criminal behaviour; that is, the features of criminal behaviour that are very common amongst all groups of criminals and are therefore not specific. However, features of behaviour that are located at the outeredgeofthemodelrepresentbehaviourthatisparticularlyuncommonand therefore likely to be specific to a particular offender group. These different themesofcriminalbehaviourarerepresentedbydifferentpositionsaroundthe circumferenceofthecircle. Figure1.Canter sradexmodel. Inordertotestandcreatehypothesesregardingcriminalbehaviour,Canterand colleagues use a non metric multidimensional scaling analysis referred to as smallestspaceanalysis(ssa)(lingoes,1973,1979).essentially,thisisaprocess that computes the correlations between the coefficients of the variables being examined and then plots them on a statistically derived geometric space (Canter&Youngs,2009,p.102).Theanalysiscomputesthecorrelationssothat there is an inverse relationship between the size of the correlation of two variables and the distance in notional space; that is, the higher the correlation 10

11 thecloserthevariablesaretoeachother.inlinewithfacettheory(canter,1985; Shyeetal.,1994),whichisusedtodifferentiatebetweenclustersofcontiguous variables, the groups of variables are classified into distinct themes of criminal behaviourwhichprovidessupportforpotentialunderlyingdifferencesbetween certaintypesofoffender. It is crucial to appreciate the extent to which Canter incorporates theories and models relating to the thought processes of criminals within the inferential process. He addresses this issue through the concept of narratives, and his startingpointforthislineofanalysisistheassumptionthatcriminalsareagents who are capable of expressing meaning in their lives. As Canter explains, it is throughhisactionsthecriminaltellsusabouthowhehaschosentolivehislife. Thechallengeistorevealhisdestructivelifestory;touncovertheplotinwhich crime appears to play such a significant part (Canter, 1994, p. 299). Furthermore,theimportanceofusingnarrativesarisesbecauseoftheinherent weaknesses within the radex model and inferences based entirely on statistics. This is because the model and its related statistics lacks an obvious dynamic quality and is limited in its psychological richness (Canter & Youngs, 2009, p. 122).Therefore,usinganarrativeapproachmovesbeyondjustexaminingwhat theoffenderhasalreadydone;instead,itallowsresearcherstoconnectwiththe criminal sownpersonalnarrativeandthereforetoanunderstandingofwhatthe criminalislikelytodonext. Canter & Youngs (2012) suggest that in order to understand the narratives of criminals and how these are likely to impact on behaviour it is important to understand the core themes underpinning them, and to do this requires an elementofmeasurementandthus,theuseofquantitativeanalysis.todelineate thecorethemesunderpinningthenarrativesofcriminalaction,canter&youngs (2012) developed the Narrative Roles Questionnaire(NRQ). This questionnaire was constructed by conducting detailed interviews with criminals of varying backgrounds to understand the roles they believed they were playing when committing a crime. The questionnaire was then given to a sample of 71 offendersincarceratedoffenderstocomplete.usingsmallestspaceanalysisand 11

12 then subsequent interpretation using facet theory (Canter, 1985) four core themesofoffenderrolewereidentified:professional,revenger,victimandhero (McAdams, 2001). Being able to analyse criminals in terms of these differing themesasdevelopedfromquantitativeandqualitativeapproaches,researchers are in a much better position to understand what drives and shapes offending behaviour.insummary,canter sapproachcreatessignificantexplanatorypower byharnessingbothquantitativeandqualitativeevidence. 4.Ispsychologystillascience? Inintegratingqualitativeandquantitativemethodsitwassuggestedabovethat it is necessary to move beyond pragmatic methodological eclecticism; research methodologiesshouldhavefirmtheoreticalfoundations.itisarguedherethata strongfoundationformethodologicalalignmentcanbefoundintherealistview of science and scientific explanation, a view associated with Bhaskar (1975; 1979),Harré&Secord(1972),Manicas&Secord(1983),andlaterdevelopedin the context of the social sciences by Manicas (2006). Realism enables the incorporationofqualitativeevidenceintoexplanatoryframeworkswhileatthe same time providing a justification for those frameworks as properly scientific. AsManicas&Secord(1983)putit Rejectionofamisguidedidealforpsychology doesnotmakepsychologyasascienceimpossible (p.405). Akeyfeatureofrealismisitsanti Humeanconceptionofcausality.TheHumean view is powerfully critiqued by many researchers (Harré & Secord, 1972; Manicas & Secord, 1983) and results in the alternative view that the idea of causalityrelatestothe causalpropertiesofstructuresthatexistandoperatein theworld (Manicas&Secord,p.410).Explanationisnotthesubsumptionunder a causal law but an account of the complex ways in which causally effective structuresandmechanismsareconfiguredtoproduceanevent.giventherealist view of causality, Manicas & Secord (1972) argue that consciousness and the domain of concepts and meanings is not a problem for scientific explanation. Thusthehumanistsaswellasthepositivistsareincorrectinbelievingthatthe explanation of consciousness is incompatible with scientific psychological explanation when that is understood as involving statements about the causal 12

13 properties of psychological structures (Manicas& Secord, p. 406). Realism is a solution to the inadequacies of the positivist view of explanation and humanism santi sciencestandpoint(ratner,1997). The link between the idea of causality and psychological explanation is made throughtheidentificationofmeaningsystemsasgenerativecausalmechanisms. We see nothing unscientific in the explanation of certain classes of human actions as lying in the following of action generating rules by conscious selfmonitoring agents (Harre & Secord, p. 142). Thus, Canter & Youngs focus on criminals narratives can be understood as evidence of generative mechanisms resultingincertainkindsofcriminalactions. Getting to grips with complex phenomena requires in psychology, as it does in thenaturalsciences,themeticulousdescriptionofparticularphenomena.thus understandingpresupposesgooddescription,bothquantitativeandqualitative (Manicas,2006,p.75).HarreandSecordmakethepointthatthedetailedstudy of rule systems can be seen as of the same kind as the study of chemically interactingmaterials(harre&secord,1972,p.145). Thereisafurtheraspectoftherealistapproachtoscientificexplanationwhich has strong resonances with Canter s work, namely the role played by models. Realism differs from empiricist positivism in claiming that there can be processes and mechanisms which may not be directly perceived but which are nevertheless real and knowable. Thus, there may be instances of observed behaviour,butunderstandingthatbehaviourrequiresexplainingthegenerative mechanisms producing it; and those are not directly observable. They can, however, be grasped through the use of models in which analogies, icons and paramorphs play a part (Clark & Crossland, 1985). Harré & Secord are clear abouttheroleofmodelsandthesimilaritywiththenaturalsciences: Weshall find that both creative model building and the identification of powers and natures must form essential parts of the methodology of the social sciences (Harré&Secord,p.82).Thus,inCanter,criminals narrativesandthecomplexes 13

14 of meanings underpinning them cannot be directly perceived, but the use of modelsprovidesascientificwayofapprehendingthem. 5.Conclusion Thisessayhasdemonstrated,bydrawingonresearchconductedinthedomain of criminal psychology, that psychological enquiry can be greatly facilitated by the integration of quantitative and qualitative methodologies. This is because thesemethodsallowresearcherstomovebeyondstatisticalgeneralisationsand insteadtounderstand,ingreatdetail,thegenerativemechanismsthatunderpin individualhumanaction.however,itisnotjustenoughtocombinequantitative and qualitative approaches for pragmatic reasons; instead, these approaches needtobecombinedinsuchawaythatissupportedbyastrongtheoreticalbase. Therefore,thisessayhasarguedthatanapproachofmethodologicalintegration underpinnedbytherealistphilosophyofnaturalandpsychologicalexplanation developedby,forexample,harré,secordandmanicas,providesthemostpower ininvestigatingpsychologicalphenomena.futureresearchusingthisintegrated approach should seek to continue the work of developing imaginative models thatcombinebothtypesofevidence. 14

15 References Ainsworth,P.B.(2001).Offenderprofilingandcrimeanalysis.Portland:Willan Publishing. Bhaskar,R.(1975).Arealisttheoryofscience.Leeds:LeedsBooksLtd. Bhaskar,R.(1979).Thepossibilityofnaturalism.Sussex:JohnSpiers. Brewer,J.,&Hunter,A.(1989)Multimethodresearch:Asynthesisofstyles. NewburyPark,CA:Sage. Bryman,A.(1988).Quantityandqualityinsocialresearch.Worcester:Routledge. Canter,D.V.(1985)Facettheory:Approachestosocialresearch,SpringerVerlag, NewYork. Canter,D.(1994).CriminalShadows,HarperCollins:London. Canter,D.(2000).Offenderprofilingandcriminaldifferentiation.JournalofLegal andcriminologicalpsychology,5, Canter,D.&Youngs,D.(2009).Investigativepsychology:Offenderprofilingand theanalysisofcriminalaction.chichester,england:wiley. Clarke,D.D.,&Crossland,J.(1985).ActionSystems.London:Methuen. Cohen,L.,Manion,L.&Morrison,K.(2000).Researchmethodsineducation(5th Ed.).London:RoutledgeFalmer. Danziger,K.(1990).Constructingthesubject:Historicaloriginsofpsychological research,newyork:cambridgeuniversitypress. Dawes,R.A.,Faust,D.,Meehl,P.E.(1989).Clinicalversusactuarialjudgement. Science,243, DeWaele,J P.andHarré,R.(1979).Autobiographyasapsychologicalmethod.In Ginsburg,G.P.(ed.)Emergingstrategiesinsocialpsychologicalresearch. London:Wiley. Gelo,O.,Braakman,D.,&Benetka,G.(2008).Quantitativeandqualitative research:beyondthedebate.integrativepsychological&behavioral Science,42, GonzalezCastro,F.,Kellison,J.G.,Boyd,S.J.,&Kopak,A.(2010).Amethodology forconductingintegrativemixedmethodsresearchanddataanalyses. Journalofmixedmethodsresearch,4(4),

16 16 Guba,E.G.(1985).Thecontextofemergentparadigmresearch.InLincoln,Y.A. (ed.),organisationaltheoryandinquiry:theparadigmrevolution(pp ),BeverlyHills:Sage. Guba,E.G.,&Lincoln,Y.S.(1994).Competingparadigmsinqualitativeresearch. InLenzin,N.K.,&Lincoln,Y.S.Handbookofqualitativeresearch(pp ).London:Sage. Guttman,L.(1954).Anewapproachtofactoranalysis:Theradex.In Mathematicalthinkinginthesocialsciences,Lazerfeld,P.R.(Ed.),Glencoe: FreePress. Guttman,L.(1982).Facettheory,smallestspaceanalysisandfactoranalysis. Perceptualandmotorskills,54(2), Hammersley,M.(1992)Deconstructingthequalitative quantitativedivide.in Brannen,J.(Ed.).Mixingmethods:Qualitativeandquantitativeresearch. Aldershot:Avebury. Hampshire,S.(1959)Thoughtandaction,London:Chatto&Windus. Harré,R.,&Secord,P.F.(1972).Theexplanationofsocialbehaviour,Oxford: Blackwell. Harré,R.,Smith.J.andVanLangenhove,L.(Eds)(1995).Rethinkingmethodsin psychology.london:sage. Lincoln,Y.S.,&Guba,E.G.(1985).Naturalisticinquiry.BeverlyHills,CA:Sage. Lingoes,J.(1973).TheGuttman Lingoesnon metricprogramseries,annarbor, Michigan:MathesisPress. Manicas,P.T.(2006).Arealistphilosophyofsocialscience.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress. Manicas,P.T.,&Secord,P.F.(1983).Implicationsforpsychologyofthenew philosophyofscience.americanpsychologist,38, McAdams,D.(1985).Power,intimacyandthelifestory:Personologicalinquiries intoidentity.newyork:guilford. McAdams,D.(2001).Thepsychologyoflifestories.ReviewofGeneralPsychology, 5, McGrath,J.E.,&Johnson,B.A.(2003).Methodologymakesmeaning:Howboth qualitativeandquantitativeparadigmsshapeevidenceandits interpretation.incamic,p.,rhodes,j.r.,&yardley,l.(eds.)qualitative researchinpsychology,washingtond.c.:apapublications.

17 Meehl,P.E.(1996).Clinicalversusstatisticalprediction:Atheoreticalanalysisand areviewoftheevidence.northvale,nj:jasonaronson. Potter,J.,&Wetherell,M.(1987)Discourseandsocialpsychology:Beyond attitudesandbehaviour,london:sage. Ratner,C.(1997).Culturalpsychologyandqualitativemethodology.NewYork: PlenumPress. Searle,J.R.(1994).Therediscoveryofthemind.Cambridge,MA:MITPress. Shye,S.,Elizur,D.,&Hoffman,M.(1994).Introductiontofacettheory:Content designandintrinsicdataanalysisinbehaviouralresearch,sage:london. Smith,J.,Harré,R.andVanLangenhove,L.(1996).RethinkingPsychology. London:Sage Youngs,D.,&Canter,D.(inpress)Offenderscrimenarrativesasrevealedbythe narrativesrolequestionnaire.internationaljournalofoffendertherapy andcomparativecriminology. 17