Background
The substantial impact of philosophical and ethical frameworks on psychological research procedures highlights the necessity to examine their effects on research integrity and quality thoroughly. From the formulation of research questions to the interpretation of data and the publication of conclusions, these guiding principles form the foundation of the entire research process. The fundamentals of research methods and the researcher’s viewpoint on knowledge can be shaped by philosophical perspectives, which range from empirically driven positivism to more interpretive constructivism and critical theory (Levitt, Morrill, Collins, & Rizo, 2021). A positivist approach, for example, emphasizes objectivity and empirical observation in pursuing an objective truth, whereas constructivism recognizes various realities and values people’s subjective interpretations. Meanwhile, ethical considerations are the moral compass that guarantees researchers maintain integrity while navigating the frequently challenging landscape of human interaction and data processing. Ethical research is based on fundamental principles, including beneficence, informed consent, and secrecy. A breach of these ethical guidelines may have severe repercussions and jeopardize the reliability and validity of the research findings.
Hypothesis:
Adopting a positivist philosophical framework in psychological research will increase emphasis on empirical objectivity and the pursuit of a single, objective truth, leading to a preference for quantitative research methodologies.
Proposed Explanation: We postulate that researchers who adhere to a positivist theoretical framework will see objectivity and empirical observation as essential tenets that direct their methods. Due to its suitability for gathering actual, numerical data, quantitative research approaches will be more frequently employed due to this preference for objectivity. The reasoning behind the suggested explanation is based on the idea that a researcher’s policy—in this case, a preference for quantitative research methods to arrive at a clear and objective understanding of phenomena—is greatly influenced by the philosophical framework they choose (Levitt et al., 2022). This, in turn, enhances the overall quality and dependability of psychological research.
Methods
The study will use a mixed-methods approach, beginning with a thorough literature assessment to comprehend how common sense psychology and scientific reasoning differ in psychological research. A survey and questionnaire will then be created to evaluate people’s perceptions of and use of scientific reasoning in daily decision-making. A varied sample will be given to these devices, allowing for the collection of quantitative and qualitative data. While qualitative analysis offers more in-depth insights into participants’ thought processes, quantitative analysis will measure the influence of scientific reasoning on decision-making (Mulisa, 2021). This mixed-methods approach will offer a thorough examination of psychology’s scientific methodology while highlighting how it differs from common sense psychology.
Participants
Psychologists and other mental health professionals will be the study’s participants. Academic researchers, working professionals, psychologists from various subfields (e.g., clinical, cognitive, social), and others will be recruited from a varied pool of persons (Miles & Fassinger, 2021). We hope to gather insights from individuals actively involved in psychological research and application by bringing this diverse group into our fold. Their varied experiences and backgrounds will offer a wealth of information for analyzing how ethical and philosophical frameworks influence their research approaches. Understanding the entire range of viewpoints within the discipline and how they affect psychological research procedures will be made possible by this diversity.
Instruments/Materials:
The research will utilize qualitative and quantitative tools to thoroughly investigate the influence of ethical and philosophical frameworks on psychological research methodologies. In-depth interviews with researchers will be used to collect qualitative data, providing more nuanced insights into how ethical and philosophical factors influence their decision-making (Bleiker, Morgan-Trimmer, Knapp, & Hopkins, 2019). Furthermore, systematic questionnaires will be created to assess participants’ quantitative adherence to particular ethical guidelines and philosophical paradigm congruence. These surveys will address a variety of subjects, such as research methods, ethical standards, and philosophical viewpoints. Together, the qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys will yield a thorough picture of how ethical and philosophical frameworks influence psychologists’ research techniques.
References
Bleiker, J., Morgan-Trimmer, S., Knapp, K., & Hopkins, S. (2019). Navigating the maze: Qualitative research methodologies and their philosophical foundations. Radiography, p. 25. doi:10.1016/j.radi.2019.06.008
Levitt, H. M., Morrill, Z., Collins, K. M., & Rizo, J. L. (2021). The methodological integrity of critical qualitative research: Principles to support design and Research Review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68(3), 357–370. doi:10.1037/cou0000523
Levitt, H. M., Surace, F. I., Wu, M. B., Chapin, B., Hargrove, J. G., Herbitter, C., … Hochman, A. L. (2022). The meaning of scientific objectivity and subjectivity: From the perspective of methodologists. Psychological Methods, 27(4), 599–605. doi:10.1037/met0000363
Miles, J. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (2021). Creating a public psychology through a scientist-practitioner-advocate training model. American Psychologist, 76(8), 1237–1247. doi:10.1037/amp0000855
Mulisa, F. (2021). When does a researcher choose a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed research approach? Interchange, 53(1), 113–121. doi:10.1007/s10780-021-09447-z
write