Validity analysis by modern researchers. Encyclopedia of Marketing

There are enough questions in my mail where there are requests for advice on how to ensure the reliability and validity of a qualitative study. When in the 90s we began regular field studies using a qualitative approach, the very question of their validity and reliability was unexpected, because these concepts were used mainly for quantitative research.

In a broad sense and most often, validity is understood as the degree of compliance of everything that the researcher does while studying his subject with what actually happens with this subject (phenomenon). In quantitative studies, this means the correctness of the measurement (construct validity) and the intelligibility of logical connections between causes and effects (external and internal validity).

Those who have connected validity and reliability in their question may be interested in getting acquainted with the views of well-known methodologists of the qualitative approach, for example, Lincoln, Guba or Patton, who interpreted validity in qualitative research as reliability. True, it is impossible to completely identify validity and reliability because of the different approaches of the authors to the understanding of reliability. For example, internal validity can somehow be attributed to conventional reliability, as a result of the convention of different researchers regarding the compliance of their chosen methods with the goals and objectives of the study, or general agreement with the operationalization of the basic concepts and with the interpretation of the meaning of the data obtained.

Another approach to ensuring reliability already claims to be objective, since it requires confirmation of the results of the study with information obtained from various sources, including documents, statistics, or "testimony of independent experts." mechanisms and implications for a broader social context.

Let us analyze the issue of validity and reliability using an example that somehow took root in our “school-studio of a field researcher”.

Example.

The research group was tasked to study the case of ill-treatment of the staff of the orphanage with the wards, to understand the reasons and, if possible, to give a forecast about the likelihood of this negative phenomenon spreading to other institutions. For researchers, this topic is new, only one of them had experience of participating in the study of the causes of "hazing" in the army. The study period is 2 months. The group chooses a qualitative research method - interviews and observation, because. there is practically no knowledge of the subject of research and productive hypotheses suitable for testing in a questionnaire survey.

Let's look at the research process in terms of ensuring the validity of the results and their conformity with "reality" as a picture of the unfolding of the symptoms of "invalidity" and "invalidity" of qualitative research. reliable and valid.

Symptom 1.

The first thing that can create problems with validity and reliability from the very beginning is the lack of convention in the research group regarding terms and concepts, their operationalization, theoretical framework for understanding the social mechanisms of cruelty, the factors of its occurrence, ideas about the institutional structure of the orphanage, sampling issues, etc. Usually, this is a problem of inability or unwillingness to engage in methodological reflection of one's ideas on the topic of research before entering the "field".

No matter what the supporters say to go into the field without hypotheses, “from scratch”, it is impossible to imagine their complete lack of ordinary and scientific ideas about this phenomenon. It is especially touching when they present a guide before entering the field. Imagine a list of questions that do not contain any assumptions about the phenomenon being studied. Why, then, in the guide questions about the control of the work of staff, about the material support of the institution or about the contingent of pupils?

This means that we see the first symptom of the development of "unreliability". It turns out that without understanding the essence of the problem, researchers rush into the field without having sufficient scientific and research baggage on this issue. They did not agree on key research questions and initial hypotheses, and did not build sampling models to avoid a "false snowball". Onine worked out the skills of conducting interviews, observing, fixing questions, taking into account the specifics of the object, etc.

Most often, this symptom manifests itself in the difficulty of the researcher to explain why he asks these questions, and what he will do with the answers, why he decided to interview these particular respondents and not others. If the time of the field stage was not limited to a couple of weeks, then anthropological the method of "getting used to", i.e. gradual, unhurried acquaintance with the object of study. Systematic observations, multiple interviews, random conversations, field diaries would help build hypotheses, select adequate research tools, think about theory, outline a sample, and so on.

But since there is no time for this, then as a result we see that the researcher composes a questionnaire like a list of going to the supermarket "so as not to forget to ask, it will suddenly come in handy." Moreover, each member of the group, despite the presence of a "common guide", often asks his own questions, calling all this an in-depth interview. The sample, in this case, is random "captures" of the respondent according to the principle "whom we find - who agreed to answer." As a result, there is a high risk of “false snowballs” and “false saturation”, when at the end of the study it turns out that the wrong people were interviewed or key respondents on this topic were missed. For example, there are many interviews with pupils and administration, but there is no opinion of members of the council, the investigator who conducted the investigation, representatives of the social authorities. protection - institution curators, etc.

Patton calls the first problem the problem of methodical rigor (rigorous methods). In our case, it is the transparency of the logic of using research methods, compliance with the rules of application and the general principles of the chosen method in accordance with the time resources, goals and objectives of the study.

And the second problem is the problem of the availability of the necessary knowledge, skills, abilities, experience, productivity of the researcher himself. Patton accurately designated the presence of such a “background” as the “credibility of the researcher” (credibility of the researcher). This is very important for understanding the specifics of the concept of reliability in qualitative research, because gives an answer to the question on the basis of which we should trust the subjectivity of the researcher;

Symptom2

Let us assume that all the difficulties of the field stage have been overcome. The researchers interviewed all "players in this field" according to their model (for example, such as our "eight-window sample"). They interviewed experts on child abuse, the administration of the orphanage, educators, guardians, the children themselves, law enforcement officials, etc. As a result, the social mechanism that led to this case became clear. The main factors: weak control of the supervisory authorities over the educational work of the staff, violations in the selection of educators, budget cuts for the maintenance of pupils, the closedness of the institution from the public, the inability to isolate (transfer) pupils with deviant (deviant) behavior due to psychosomatic disorders.

Can these results be trusted? The answer is negative. according to K. Popper, the theory is not falsified. Evidence is needed that these factors are associated with a case of cruelty. How to get them? Obviously, we will have to go to an orphanage where there were no such cases and make sure that the factors we have identified are absent there. If they are not detected or are manifested to a much lesser extent, then the level of conventional reliability to the results will increase significantly. By the way, Maxwell called such an establishment of the relationship between the concepts used "theoretical validity".

Symptom 3.

Establishing a stable relationship between these factors, found in two cases, is an important step to ensure the reliability of the entire study, but not sufficient to extend to other objects. We can consider that we have a middle-level theory, but we need to test it with other methods. Ideally, this should be a methodical triangulation using a quantitative-qualitative approach. For example, the analysis of statistics on criminal cases in similar cases, the analysis of feature articles in the media and the Internet, the study of specialized literature, an expert survey. In general, we must achieve confirmation of our results with data from other sources, i.e. "confirmability" and the possibility of transferring this explanatory model to other objects (transferability) according to Guba and Lincoln.

Symptom 4.

Suppose that the analysis of secondary data and expert opinion confirmed our conclusions regarding this case, but one of the objectives of the study is to predict the likelihood of new cases in various regions of the Russian Federation. To make such a forecast is to subject your “theory” to the most stringent verification of reliability.

To do this, we go to the officials from the Ministry of social welfare. politics, finance, etc. central state institutions supervising children. at home and ask them not about “cases of cruelty”, but about changes in the planned budget, control, resolving personnel issues, i.e. according to the factors that we have identified. If we find out that in fact everything will remain at the same level, then we go to experts who are able to comment on this situation and give their forecast for its development. Experts can be not only civil servants, but also representatives of NGOs, journalists who are competent in this topic .

By combining these data, we make a prediction that can claim the reliability of the study. If the prediction is confirmed, this can be considered an important evidence of the validity of the research procedures and the reliability of the data and conclusions obtained. In the case when the forecast was not confirmed at all or partially, then one should reconsider their approaches and existing models.

1) However, it happens that methodically everything is done “strictly” and the “reliability of researchers” is sufficient to solve these problems, but new circumstances have appeared, new factors that did not exist during the period of the study or were of little significance at that time. It is important to find out , not only to assess the productivity of the study, but also to so that, as Patton wrote, not to lose "philosophical belief in the value of qualitative inquiry". The researcher's conviction in the correctness of the methodological positions of the qualitative approach in research, his full acceptance of the theoretical paradigms on which these methods are based, according to Patton, is also a condition for the reliability of qualitative research.

method validity. The validity of the method of research and diagnostics (literally means “full-fledged, suitable, appropriate”) shows the extent to which the quality (property, characteristic) for which it is intended is measured. Validity (adequacy) indicates the degree of conformity of the method to its purpose. The closer the sign, for which the method is intended to be detected and measured, is revealed in the diagnostics, the higher its validity.

The concept of validity refers not only to the methodology, but also to the criterion for assessing its quality, validity criterion. This is the main sign by which one can practically judge whether this technique is valid.

There are several types of validity of diagnostic methods.

Theoretical (conceptual) validity is determined by the correspondence of the indicators of the quality under study, obtained using this method, to the indicators obtained by other methods (with the indicators of which there should be a theoretically substantiated dependence). Theoretical validity is checked by correlations of indicators of the same property obtained using different methods associated with the same theory.

Empirical (pragmatic) validity is checked by the correspondence of diagnostic indicators to real life behavior, observed actions and reactions of the subject. If, for example, with the help of a certain methodology, we evaluate the character traits of a given subject, then the applied methodology will be considered practically or empirically valid when we establish that this person behaves in life exactly as the methodology predicts, i.e. according to his personality trait.

Internal validity means the compliance of the tasks, subtests, judgments, etc. contained in the methodology. the overall goal and design of the methodology as a whole. It is considered internally invalid or insufficiently internally valid when all or part of the questions, tasks or subtests included in it do not measure what is required from this methodology.

External validity- this is approximately the same as empirical validity, with the only difference that in this case we are talking about the relationship between the indicators of the methodology and the most important, key external features related to the behavior of the subject.

Apparent validity describes the subject's idea of ​​the method, i.e. this is validity from the point of view of the subject. The technique should be perceived by the subject as a serious tool for understanding his personality, something similar to medical diagnostic tools.

predictive validity is established using the correlation between the indicators of the methodology and some criterion that characterizes the measured property, but at a later time. L. Cronbach considers predictive validity to be the most convincing evidence that the technique measures exactly what it was intended for.

Content validity is determined by confirming that the tasks of the methodology reflect all aspects of the studied area of ​​behavior. Content validity is often referred to as “logical validity” or “validity by definition”. It means that the technique is valid according to experts. Usually it is determined by achievement tests. In practice, to determine content validity, experts are selected to indicate which area(s) of behavior is most important.

From the description of the types of validity, it follows that there is no single indicator by which the validity of a diagnostic technique is established. Nevertheless, the developer must provide strong evidence in favor of the validity of the proposed methodology.

It is easy to see a direct relationship between validity and reliability. A technique with low reliability cannot have high validity, because the measuring instrument is incorrect and the trait that it measures is unstable. Such a technique, when compared with an external criterion, can show high coincidences in one case, and extremely low ones in another. It is clear that with such data it is impossible to draw any conclusions about the suitability of the method for its intended purpose.

The derivation of the coefficient of validity is a time-consuming procedure that is not necessary in cases where the technique is used by the researcher to a limited extent and its application on a large scale is not expected. The same requirements are imposed on the validity coefficient as on the reliability coefficient: the more methodologically perfect the criterion, the higher the validity coefficient should be. A low coefficient of validity is most often noted when focusing on secondary aspects.

Reliability of the research method. Reliability is one of the criteria for the quality of the result in diagnostics, referring to the degree of accuracy and stability of the indicators of the diagnosed trait. The greater the reliability of the technique, the freer it is from measurement errors. In its broadest sense, reliability is a measure of the extent to which the differences found in test subjects as a result of a technique are a reflection of actual differences in the measured properties and to what extent they can be attributed to random errors.

In the theory of diagnostics, the concept of reliability has two meanings: the reliability of a technique as a specific tool (for example, using a meter, we are sure that it remains unchanged, no matter what measurements we make) and the relative immutability of the diagnostic object (we must be sure that under normal conditions, the measured value will remain unchanged).

The concept of reliability is associated with the accuracy of measurements, or rather, with the assessment of the error and the determination on this basis of the true value of the quantity.

There are three main techniques for evaluating the reliability of a diagnostic technique.

retest acceptance, or repeated diagnostics, allows you to process the same tasks performed by the same subjects at different times, and calculate the relationship of results, expressed in the self-correlation coefficient.

Halves- a selection of once completed tasks is divided in half (for example, the first semi-test includes tasks with an odd serial number, and the second semi-test with an even one), then the results of each test subject are established for both semi-tests and the correlation coefficient between the results obtained is calculated.

Taking a Parallel Test - to measure the same knowledge, two different sets of tasks are constructed, which in their content resemble twins; both parallel sets of tasks are offered directly one after the other or at a convenient time.

In all cases, with the method correlation coefficient r> 0.7, the technique is considered reliable (for the correlation coefficient, see Section 4.2).

In the test method, it is customary to take into account three reliability factors:

1) stability factor, or constancy, - an indicator of the correlation between the results of the first and repeated tests with one test of the same sample of subjects;

2) equivalence ratio, or correlation coefficient, the results of testing the same contingent of subjects using variants of the same test or different, but equivalent in form and purpose, tests;

3) coefficient of internal constancy, or internal homogeneity, which corresponds to the correlation of the results of parts of the test shown by the same subjects.

3. Classifications of pedagogical research methods

There are several classifications of pedagogical research methods. Depending on the basis of classification, research methods in pedagogy are divided into:

Empirical and theoretical;

stating and transforming;

Qualitative and quantitative;

private and public;

methods for collecting empirical data, testing and refuting hypotheses and theories;

methods of description, explanation and forecast;

special methods used in individual pedagogical sciences;

Methods for processing research results, etc.

To general scientific methods (used by different sciences) include:

· general theoretical(abstraction and concretization, analysis and synthesis, comparison, opposition, induction and deduction, i.e., logical methods);

· sociological(questionnaires, interviews, expert polls, rating);

· socio-psychological(sociometry, testing, training);

· mathematical(ranking, scaling, indexing, correlation).

To concrete-scientific (concrete-pedagogical) include methods, which in turn are subdivided into theoretical and empirical (practical).

Theoretical Methods serve for interpretation, analysis and generalization of theoretical provisions and empirical data. This is a theoretical analysis of literature, archival materials and documents; analysis of the main concepts and terms of the study; the method of analogies, the construction of hypotheses and a thought experiment, forecasting, modeling, etc.

empirical methods are designed to create, collect and organize empirical material - facts of pedagogical content, products of educational activities.

Empirical methods include, for example, observation, conversation, interviewing, questioning, methods for studying the products of students' activities, school documentation, assessment methods (rating, pedagogical council, self-assessment, etc.), measurement and control methods (scaling, sections, testing etc.), as well as a pedagogical experiment and experimental verification of the findings of the study in a mass school. Both theoretical and empirical methods are usually used in combination with mathematical and statistical methods that are used to process data obtained during the study, as well as to establish quantitative relationships between the studied phenomena.

Mathematical Methods are used to process the data obtained by the methods of interrogation and experiment, as well as to establish quantitative dependencies between the studied phenomena.

The most common mathematical methods used in pedagogy are:

· registration - identifying the presence of a certain quality in each member of the group and the total count of those who have or do not have this quality (for example, the number of students actively working in class and the number of passive ones);

· ranging (rank assessment)- the arrangement of the collected data in a certain sequence (in descending or increasing order of some indicators) and, accordingly, determining the place in this row for each student (for example, compiling a list of the most preferred classmates);

· scaling - the introduction of digital indicators in the assessment of certain aspects of pedagogical phenomena; for this purpose, the subjects are asked questions, answering which they must choose one of the indicated assessments (for example, in the question of engaging in any activity in their free time, choose one of the evaluative answers: I am fond of, I do it regularly, I do it irregularly, I do nothing).

Statistical methods are used in the processing of bulk material- determination of the average values ​​of the obtained indicators: the arithmetic mean, the median - the indicator of the middle of the series, the calculation of the degree of dispersion around these values ​​- the dispersion, the coefficient of variation, etc.

The question of the degree of confidence in the results obtained in the study worries not only the researchers themselves, but also practitioners of education. In the methodology of psychology and pedagogy, many criteria and methods for assessing the quality of the research process and the results of the research have been developed.

Criteria and indicators in the evaluation of research methods. The reliability of the methods of psychological and pedagogical research largely depends on the criteria and indicators by which the study of the educational phenomenon chosen for the study takes place.

Criterion(from Greek. criterion- a means for judgment) is a sign on the basis of which an assessment, definition or classification of something is made. In diagnostics, a criterion is a variable that takes on different values ​​in different cases or at different points in time within the same case. Criteria make it possible to judge the state of the object of study.

Indicator (indicator- something that is accessible to perception, something that “shows” the presence of something) is a certain value or quality of a variable (criterion) that can manifest itself in a particular object, i.e. this is a measure of the manifestation of the criterion, its quantitative or qualitative characteristic, by which the various states of the object are judged; it is an outwardly well distinguishable feature of the measured criterion. We can say that the indicator plays the role of an empirical indicator of the criterion.

It is generally accepted that the number of criteria should be at least three, and for each criterion at least three indicators should be allocated. Only then can we talk about the complete display of the object and subject of diagnostics and the manifestation of each corresponding criterion.

Determination of the criteria and features of an object allows the transition from the abstract level of its description to specific observations.

General requirements for research methods. To ensure that research does not become an end in itself, but becomes a means of improving educational practice, each methodology should have the following components:

- a description that ensures its adequate use in strict accordance with the standards: the subject of diagnosis, scope, contingent of subjects, application procedure;

– details of the methodology development procedure, resulting data on reliability and validity;

- an unambiguous description of the standardization sample and the nature of the diagnostic situation in the survey;

– the procedure for scoring and interpretation should be described with unambiguous clarity, allowing to obtain identical results when processing the same protocols by different users of the manual.

At the beginning of the XX century. in psychology, the requirements for the concepts and methods of research and diagnostics in the most developed modern sciences were officially recognized and accepted - the requirements for operationalization and verification.

Under operationalization the requirement is understood according to which, when introducing new scientific concepts, it is necessary to clearly indicate specific procedures, techniques and methods by which you can practically make sure that the phenomenon described in the concept really exists. Operationalization implies an indication of practical actions or operations that any diagnostician can perform in order to make sure that the phenomenon defined in the concept has exactly the properties that are attributed to it.

Requirement verification means that any new concept introduced into scientific circulation and claiming to receive the status of a scientific one must necessarily be tested for the presence of a methodology for experimental diagnostics of the phenomenon described in it. The quality of diagnostic results is usually assessed according to generally accepted criteria of objectivity, reliability, validity, etc.

Objectivity characterized by correlation (coincidence or consistency) between the results obtained by two raters. It is necessary that the correlation coefficients in this case be close to unity (r = 1).

For greater objectivity of data processing, it is recommended to use indirect (diagnosed facts are not named, but assumed), alternative (with several answers) questions in questionnaires, testing, and observation. In order to ensure objectivity, the conduct, processing and interpretation (evaluation) of the results of work must be strictly standardized.

Standardization is the uniformity of the procedure for conducting and evaluating the performance of a diagnostic method. Standardization in diagnostics is the invariability of the questions and tasks asked, the accuracy of the subjects' compliance with the instructions, and the diagnosticians' methods of calculating and interpreting the obtained indicators. Comparability in pedagogical diagnostics allows a broader comparison of test results with data from other scientific and practical methods: observation, conversation, analysis of activity products (written work, drawings, crafts), behavior and communication.

The objectivity of measurements requires, for example, that all students be subjected to the same test under similar conditions (the test should last the same amount of time for everyone; it is necessary to ensure that students do not cheat from each other in the process of doing work, etc. .).

Standardization provides for the unification of instructions for work forms, methods for recording results, and conditions for conducting a survey. Unified tasks for all subjects, the same period of time for diagnosing, a clear description of the evaluation criteria, equal conditions for the interaction of subjects with a diagnostician are the basis for the objectivity of diagnostic results.

The objectivity of the interpretation can be said if several persons describe the same results in the same way when processing data, establish the same relationships, since when different people evaluate the same work of the subject with open questions (free form of designing response) subjectivity of data processing may differ.

Reliability of the research method. Reliability is one of the criteria for the quality of the result in diagnostics, referring to the degree of accuracy and stability of the indicators of the diagnosed trait. The greater the reliability of the technique, the freer it is from measurement errors. In the broadest sense, reliability is a measure of the extent to which the differences found in subjects as a result of a technique are a reflection of actual differences in the measured properties and to what extent they can be attributed to random errors.

There are three main reception to assess the reliability of the diagnostic technique.

1.retest acceptance, or repeated diagnostics, allows you to process the same tasks performed by the same subjects at different times, and calculate the relationship of results, expressed in the self-correlation coefficient.

2.Halves- a selection of once completed tasks is divided in half (for example, the first semi-test includes tasks with an odd serial number, and the second semi-test with an even one), then the results of each test subject are set for both semi-tests and the correlation coefficient between the results obtained is calculated.

3.Taking a Parallel Test- to measure the same knowledge, two different sets of tasks are constructed, which in their content resemble twins; both parallel sets of tasks are offered directly one after the other or at a convenient time.

In all cases, when the correlation coefficient of methods r > 0.7, the method is considered reliable.

In the test method, it is customary to take into account three reliability factors:

– stability factor, or constancy, - an indicator of the correlation between the results of the first and repeated tests with one test of the same sample of subjects;

– equivalence ratio, or correlation coefficient, the results of testing the same contingent of subjects using variants of the same test or different, but equivalent in form and purpose, tests;

– coefficient of internal constancy, or internal homogeneity, which corresponds to the correlation of the results of parts of the test shown by the same subjects.

method validity. The validity of the method of research and diagnostics shows the extent to which the quality (property, characteristic) for which it is intended is measured. Validity (adequacy) indicates the degree of conformity of the method to its purpose. The closer the sign, for which the method is intended to be detected and measured, is revealed in the diagnostics, the higher its validity.

The concept of validity refers not only to the methodology, but also to the criterion for assessing its quality, validity criterion. This is the main sign by which one can practically judge whether this technique is valid.

These criteria could be the following:

- behavioral indicators - reactions, actions and deeds of the subject in various life situations;

- achievements of the subject in various types of activities - educational, labor, creative, etc.;

- self-organization, data indicating the performance of various control samples and tasks;

- data obtained using other methods, the validity or relationship of which with the tested method is considered to be reliably established.

The higher the correlation coefficient of the method with the criterion, the higher the validity.

There are several species validity of diagnostic methods.

1.Theoretical (conceptual) validity is determined by the correspondence of the indicators of the quality under study, obtained using this method, to the indicators obtained by other methods (with the indicators of which there should be a theoretically substantiated dependence). Theoretical validity is checked by correlations of indicators of the same property obtained using different methods associated with the same theory.

2.Empirical (pragmatic) validity is checked by the correspondence of diagnostic indicators to real life behavior, observed actions and reactions of the subject. If, for example, with the help of a certain methodology, we evaluate the character traits of a given subject, then the applied methodology will be considered practically or empirically valid when we establish that this person behaves in life exactly as the methodology predicts, i.e. according to his personality trait.

3.Internal validity means the compliance of the tasks, subtests, judgments, etc. contained in the methodology. the overall goal and design of the methodology as a whole. It is considered internally invalid or insufficiently internally valid when all or part of the questions, tasks or subtests included in it do not measure what is required from this methodology.

4.External validity- this is approximately the same as empirical validity, with the only difference that in this case we are talking about the relationship between the indicators of the methodology and the most important, key external features related to the behavior of the subject.

5.Apparent validity describes the subject's idea of ​​the method, i.e. this is validity from the point of view of the subject. The technique should be perceived by the subject as a serious tool for understanding his personality, something similar to medical diagnostic tools.

6.Competitive Validity is evaluated by the correlation of the developed methodology with others, the validity of which has been established with respect to the measured parameter.

7.predictive validity is established using the correlation between the indicators of the methodology and some criterion that characterizes the measured property, but at a later time.

8.incremental validity is of limited value and refers to the case where one test from a battery of tests may have a low correlation with a criterion, but not overlap with other tests from this battery. In this case, the test has incremental validity. This can be useful when conducting professional selection using psychological tests.

9.Differential validity can be illustrated by the example of tests of interest. Interest tests usually correlate with academic performance, but in different ways for different disciplines. The significance of differential validity, as well as incremental validity, is limited.

10.Content validity is determined by confirming that the tasks of the methodology reflect all aspects of the studied area of ​​behavior. Content validity is often referred to as "logical validity" or "validity by definition". It means that the technique is valid according to experts. Usually it is determined by achievement tests. In practice, to determine content validity, experts are selected to indicate which area(s) of behavior is most important.

11.Construct validity demonstrated as complete as possible by a description of the variable that the technique is intended to measure. Construct validity includes all the approaches to determining validity that have been listed above.

There is a direct relationship between validity and reliability. A technique with low reliability cannot have high validity, because the measuring instrument is incorrect and the trait that it measures is unstable.

S.A. Belanovsky, [email protected]

In the broad sense of the word, validity, i.e. the validity of the method means the correspondence of the empirical data obtained with its help to the main objectives of the study. The question of the validity of qualitative methods in previous years was greatly confused by mathematical statisticians, who extended very specific statistical validity criteria to classes of problems and research situations that have nothing to do with ideal objects such as colored balls taken out of a basket, which are operated by probability theory.

Before proceeding to the description of qualitative research, especially group research, it is necessary to characterize their differences from quantitative research. To understand these differences more fully, it is necessary to understand what, in fact, is the "error" of the study.

Quantitative sociological research is a type of research based on the mathematical theory of probability. Among the axiomatic premises of this theory there is a very important premise that the differences between the analyzed objects are limited to a fixed set of discrete features. For example, the balls in the basket differ in color, size and numbers drawn on them. People, therefore, may differ in their demographic characteristics, attitudes, etc., and it is important to note that in any particular questionnaire, the set of features is limited to the number of quantified questions in the questionnaire, and all other possible features are assumed to be identical.

The main criterion that characterizes a study of a statistical type is reliability, i.e. reproducibility of the obtained results. If you conduct a second survey using the same methodology in the same social group, and the results of both surveys are identical, then they are reliable. Today, no one disputes the fact that with a properly conducted mass representative survey using formalized questionnaires, a high degree of reproducibility of results is automatically achieved. However, the question of their validity is far from exhausted by this.

In mathematical sociology, the validity of a study is usually interpreted as the degree to which the means of measurement correspond to what was to be measured. The dictionary further explains that in the strict sense of the word, validation is possible only in the presence of an independent external criterion, but this situation is rare in sociology. In all other cases, the validity of the results of quantitative surveys is nothing more than a hypothesis, the assessment of the degree of likelihood of which has nothing to do with mathematical and statistical procedures. The low degree of plausibility of many implicit substantive hypotheses latently put by researchers into the formulations and structure of formalized questions, and sometimes the complete absence of such plausibility, is a very serious and poorly understood problem.

Thus, the statistical reliability of the results of quantitative studies should not be confused with their reliability and validity in the broad sense of the word. Strictly speaking, quantitative studies are reliable only to the extent that the very problem of reliability can be reduced to its statistical interpretation. If such a reduction fails or is impossible in principle, quantitative data becomes a highly unreliable basis for conclusions.

Comparing quantitative and qualitative methods in terms of their validity, it should be noted first of all that the areas of their valid application do not coincide with each other. This makes a generalized comparison of them according to the criterion of validity meaningless. There are classes of problems in which quantitative methods have high validity and qualitative methods have low validity. At the same time, there are - and this aspect is usually weakly emphasized even in the specialized literature - other classes of problems in which the indicated relation is directly opposite.

It is not the task of our textbook to deal with questions of the methodology of qualitative methods in general. The specificity of focus groups, as well as individual in-depth interviews, if they are conducted in large series, is that, at least theoretically, statistical validity criteria are also applicable to them, although they are different from those in quantitative studies.

Text transcripts of a series of group interviews conducted on a particular topic form an array of primary data with a volume of several hundred pages. This array is quite suitable for analysis using statistical methods, both in terms of its size and in terms of heterogeneity. The heterogeneity of the array is ensured by the participation of several dozen respondents, which already gives grounds for an approximate distribution of the same type of answers on a three-term or five-term scale: a clear minority, a minority, approximately equally, a majority, a clear majority. The main thing, however, is not this. The specifics of the primary data array of group interviews is that:

1. The unit of analysis is not the respondent, but the statement. Since each respondent is a carrier of many statements, this increases the array of primary analytical units by at least an order of magnitude, making it statistically significant.
2. The task of qualitative research does not include determining the number or proportion of carriers of a particular point of view in society or its segment. In relation to this class of problems, qualitative methods are invalid.

The task of qualitative methods is to form a list of so-called "existence hypotheses", i.e. a list of opinions, ratings or statements, existing in society and, presumably, having a non-zero degree of distribution. At the same time, as D. Templeton notes, it is preferable to make a mistake by identifying a non-existent or insignificant factor than to miss a highly significant one.

The mathematical apparatus adapted for solving problems of this type is, in principle, well known. It is used in linguistics when compiling lists of sounds and syllables, as well as frequency dictionaries of words and phrases. The same apparatus is also used in sociological research carried out with the help of content analysis. In relation to the latter case, the mathematical formulation of the problem looks something like this: “There is a presidential candidate A, who is written about in the newspapers. It is required to compile as complete a list of epithets as possible, with which the authors of the articles characterize this candidate. What volume of newspaper texts should be studied so that with a probability of 95% the number of unidentified epithets does not exceed 5%?

Like the vast majority of applied statistical problems, this problem cannot be solved without certain prior knowledge about the nature of the frequency distribution of the desired epithets, as well as without some a priori assumptions. Depending on the practical convenience of choosing one or another system of assumptions, the very formulation of the problem may vary. Deepening into this issue is beyond the scope of our topic, since in applied research carried out using the focus group method, a statistical apparatus similar to the one described above, if used somewhere, is only in highly specialized studies that are far from the scope of marketing focus. groups. There seem to be two main reasons for this. First, the use of such a device greatly increases the cost of research, and a commercial customer is not inclined to pay for mathematical "beauties" if they do not affect the final conclusions in any way. For a number of reasons, which will be described below, both customers and researchers consider it quite sufficient to focus on the following subjective criterion: if the amount of new information received from each subsequent group has dropped sharply, the study should be terminated.

The second reason is much more fundamental. It is connected with the fact that today a strictly operational and automated isolation of semantic units from texts is possible only at the level of words and set phrases. Isolation, grouping and topologizing of more complex semantic units, carried out at the analytical stage of a qualitative sociological research, can only be carried out by a person on the basis of unconscious intellectual algorithms that have not yet been studied. The rapid progress in the development of computer-aided translation programs suggests that, over time, automated recognition of increasingly complex semantic units will become feasible. However, this work has not yet had any effect on the practice of focus group research. When studying the literature on marketing focus groups, we have never come across a mention of the use of content analysis in any form. In the field of academic research, there are such references, but the study of this issue requires special work. We note here that in the early 90s, the most modern work on the methods of computer content analysis was considered to be the work of Weber .

In summary, let us turn to the question of determining the areas of validity for quantitative and qualitative research. It was shown above that these areas are fundamentally different, since the classes of problems they solve are radically different. The area of ​​valid application of formalized surveys only at first glance seems to be unlimited or very wide. In fact, it is limited to revealing the degree of prevalence of certain knowledge, opinions or attitudes that:

a) must be known in advance, i.e. before the survey;

b) should not be a fiction or pseudo-judgments imposed on the respondent that are not characteristic of his consciousness.

To reveal the very fact of the existence of knowledge, opinions or attitudes, quantitative methods are unsuitable, which is clearly seen from the following comparison of the survey results.

A. Quantitative research

Question: What do you prefer - apple pie or chocolate muffin? (% of respondents)

Apple pie - 26%

Chocolate cupcake - 22%

Both - 43%

Difficult to answer - 9%

B. Qualitative research

Question: What do you prefer - apple pie or chocolate muffin?

Answer: I don't know. I love both.

Question: Well, if you need to take one thing, what will it be? Think.

Answer: Of course, pies are different. If I get a chance to take my mom's apple pie, I'd prefer it to any chocolate muffin. If it is necessary to take some kind of apple pie, then I don’t know for sure.

Question: What else can influence your choice?

Answer: For example, it depends on what I eat for lunch. If I have a full lunch, I think I'll take an apple pie. Apple pie is a big delicacy in my family. But if for lunch I ate something light, like fish, then it is better to take a cake. If it's cold, I won't refuse chocolate cake [b3] .

The dialogue above illustrates well the fact that the simple answer “I choose apple pie” depends on many factors, in this case, who made this pie, the degree of hunger, the density of the dinner, the ambient temperature. This list can probably be continued. But, as in many other cases, the number of such factors, or at least the most common of them, does not seem to be very large. The task of qualitative research, as already mentioned, is to identify a list of these factors with a reasonable degree of completeness. In this area, qualitative research has a high degree of validity. Determining the frequency distribution of the action of the identified factors in the studied population is a matter of quantitative research. However, two caveats are important:

a) from a practical point of view, the costs of conducting a quantitative study may exceed the expected risk from making a volitional decision based on less accurate information;

b) an adequate transformation of the identified factors into questions of a formalized questionnaire is often difficult or impossible, and it is often extremely difficult to even determine the possible degree of this inadequacy.

These circumstances often reduce the validity of quantitative studies to such an extent that their conduct becomes impractical.

Only in cases where the hypothesis of the validity of the wording of the questions of formalized questionnaires looks reasonable or plausible, quantitative research can give a valid result, allowing you to make a decision based on more accurate information.

§ 2.2. The group as a model of society

In most of the studied human problems, the social aspect is dominant. People can be understood either through their relationships with each other or through their own inner content as individuals. The individual interview method, under certain conditions, can minimize the effect of the first factor, prompting the interviewee to peer into himself. In contrast, groups provide mostly social contact. In research devoted to the study of the ways in which people and ideas interact, this aspect becomes especially important. Even at the dawn of its existence, sociology showed that people's personal opinions are not formed in isolation, and a huge role in their formation is played by primary groups, face-to-face communication.

The interview group is, of course, a very artificial model of society, but group interaction still obliges participants to express their opinions while responding to the opinions of others. This is a very significant factor where most (including researchers themselves) have a limited capacity for introspection and introspection, as well as a limited capacity for verbalizing their understanding of the problems they have. Often in interviews, people form responses to questions that they have never really asked themselves. There is so much organized and motivated in everyday behavior on a subconscious or semiconscious level, and so much habitual and automatic in it, that even an organized thinker has very limited insight into his own attitudes and motivations. In a group, people can be helped, on the one hand, by their own interaction with other members of the group, and on the other, by observing and listening to other interacting of people.

The sociodynamics that governs the group process is described by the psychologist Werner, who developed a model for this process. According to Werner, it includes three stages: 1) undifferentiated community; 2) differentiation; 3) hierarchical integration.

When the group meets for the first time, its members are considered by the moderator and the participants themselves as an undifferentiated whole. The group consists of 8-10 people sitting around a table without any social structure organizing personal interactions. There is no difference between the members of the group except for their appearance. At this stage, the group is a collection of people not identified by individual characteristics or relationships to each other.

From the stage of undifferentiated generality, the process very quickly passes to the fact that each member of the group becomes distinguishable from the others. Group members are asked to identify themselves in relation to their view of the product or service being discussed; they can act as supporters, opponents, or occupy a middle position between these roles.

Differentiation inevitably occurs also in terms of characteristics that are not directly related to the issue under discussion. Differences associated with personal characteristics of dominance or compliance are identified fairly quickly between members of the group; open or closed; aggressiveness or shyness. Differences related to the attitude to the subject under discussion, together with personality differences, form the basis on which the final stage of the process is built.

After the members of the group have differentiated, one can see the gradual emergence of the true face of the group, i.e. systems of relationships that form a certain social structure. Dominant group members who aspire to leadership roles may make the strongest arguments for or against the product being discussed. The rest of the members will try to express their opinion in a less direct and categorical way. The most accommodating will not speak at all until they receive approval from the leaders. Gradually, the participants become aware of their similarities with some of the other participants and unite on this basis. There are usually two or three such informal associations. Each of them has its own leader. The process of structuring a group is called hierarchical integration.

A hierarchically integrated group always puts forward both leaders and their followers, both among supporters and among their opponents. This models the process of interaction taking place in the wider social environment outside the group. As already mentioned, one of the core values ​​of the group interview is that the group, as a microcosm, models a large society. Leaders in a group interview are likely to be leaders in their own social environment as well; followers of leaders in this group are likely to be followers of similar leaders in their social environment.

Thus, two important processes take place in a group interview:

1. Differentiation of participants in connection with their attitude to the subject under discussion.
2. The integration social processes by which these relations are formed become obvious, visible, and not implied.

The mechanisms described above allow the moderator, when conducting a group interview, not to make any special efforts to develop the hierarchical structure of the group. Opinion leaders should naturally appear on their own when they are allowed to. The process of nomination of leaders must be controlled, as the pressure of dominant behavior can undermine the development of the group, which is necessary for obtaining objective information.

The concept of hierarchical integration, which emphasizes the positive role of leadership, comes into conflict with the previous system of views on the group process, in which leadership was viewed as a harmful phenomenon, and each participant should have received equal time and equal opportunities. This view is now considered obsolete. Blocking the processes of the hierarchical organization of the group destroys the methodological grounds for its implementation. Only when hierarchical integration occurs is it possible to test the strength of the structure of consumer attitudes in an environment that is closest to the situation when people express their opinions to each other and make decisions in accordance with it. The individual interview procedure does not usually subject the respondent's views to such a harsh and realistic test. Compared to individual interviews, a hierarchically integrated group creates an environment in which, as Axelrod notes, unexpected revelations are combined with the freedom of respondents to support each other.

Moderators and experienced observers often point out that the result of hierarchical organization is the manifestation of recognition of social roles within each group. Respondents may adopt these roles based on their personality traits and the social position they occupy outside the group, often accompanying the role they are about to play with expressive comments and gestures. Since each group is a newly emerging microcosm in which two or three individuals may compete for leadership, the dynamics of the group process must surely shape these roles in the course of the discussion. Each individual receives his place in the emerging structure of relations, and this place is recognized by other participants.

There is another aspect of group interaction that is important from a methodological point of view. In individual interviews, the language used by the respondent is often very different from natural language. This effect is more pronounced, the greater the social distance between the interviewer and the respondent. Efforts to minimize this distortion are generally ineffective. In a group interview, this problem is removed by itself. The language of a group discussion is always natural and the interview cannot change it.

So, the emergence of leaders in group interviews is a normal process and should not be suppressed. At the same time, it should be emphasized that qualified group management requires continuous management of its developing social structure. The moderator must see which relationships develop naturally, but he must not give up the right to be an arbiter in doing so. Unlike the anthropologist, who tries to look at culture from an almost invisible vantage point (playing the role of a non-participating observer), the moderator of the group must exercise his authority, i.e. to intervene from time to time in the process taking place in the group so that its informational value is not minimized. The chapters that describe the specific technique of leading groups provide guidance on how to use this authority.

§ 2.3. Approaches to the analysis of group interviews

The basis for understanding and analyzing focus group materials and most other qualitative methods is the so-called conceptual triangulation, i.e. correlation with each other of different systems of views. Conceptual triangulation should not be confused with methodical triangulation, which refers to the combination of different methods while investigating the same specific problem.

The number of possible conceptual triangulations depends on the number of points of view on the respective question. These points of view, or systems of views, can belong to either ordinary or scientific thinking, i.e., following the terminology of B. Halder, represent conceptual constructions of either the first or second order [b8] . Ordinary points of view differ depending on the belonging of people to different subcultures, as well as depending on other factors, up to individual thinking styles. Scientific points of view, or, to put it better, conceptual interpretations developed by science, also differ, first of all, depending on the affiliation of the scientist to one or another scientific discipline, then to this or that school, and, finally, depending on the individual system of scientific views. If we consider conceptual interactions at the level of differences in individual styles of thinking, then the number of such interactions will turn out to be infinite, resulting in the term "infinite triangulation" . If we limit consideration in ordinary thinking only to the interactions of cultures and subcultures, and in scientific thinking - to related disciplines and scientific schools, then the number of possible conceptual interactions will sharply decrease, but still remain quite large. But if we reduce the question to the problem of the interaction of thinking styles characteristic of various subcultures (both ordinary and scientific), to the exchange of opinions on a particular subject, then the number of relevant points of view becomes observable and usually even small.

When two or more points of view collide in a group discussion, this process can be called triangulation between competing or coexisting points of view in ordinary consciousness. The process of such interaction has already been described by us above. In this section, we will conditionally consider the group point of view as a single one in order to determine from the positions of what other systems of views it can be studied.

There are three main roles in marketing focus group research: respondents, client organization, and researcher. Researchers, as already mentioned, may belong to different scientific schools. Equally important, the same researcher can analyze the results of the discussion from the point of view of different non-overlapping frames of reference (for example, psychological theory and marketing). In addition, the researcher has his own component of everyday thinking, which is also involved in the analysis. The interaction between the client's and the researcher's belief systems is an undoubted and very important element that plays a significant role throughout the entire focus group study. Below we will show exactly how this manifests itself. However, here we will limit ourselves to describing the interactions between the thinking of the customer and the researcher and the thinking of the respondents. Since these interactions are one-sided (the views of the respondents are the object of study from the perspective of external observers), we will call these belief systems analytical approaches to the study of opinions, or simply approaches. Let us list the main approaches from the standpoint of which the opinions of group members are analyzed,

managerial approach. B. Kalder inaccurately calls it “phenomenological”, denoting by this term the analysis of the views of consumers from the point of view of the producers or, in a broader sense, from the point of view of the customers of the study. The researcher in this case performs the function of a repeater, providing communication between these belief systems. According to Axelrod's figurative expression, focus groups give the manufacturer a chance to be in the flesh and blood of the consumer, put himself in his place and look at his products through his eyes. Since the main aspects of ordinary knowledge are divided in society according to social classes and groups, many features of this knowledge are not uniform. In most cases, both the customer and the research specialists belong to social strata whose intersubjectivity (socially conditioned opinions) does not coincide with that characteristic of representatives of the studied segments of the market or electoral space.

An illustration of what has been said, as well as an example illustrating the power of the focus group method, can be Templeton's statement that if the language and thinking of respondents are not too polluted by the expectations of researchers, then many of their words can make a shock impression on customers. For example, a manufacturer of expensive cosmetics intended for middle-aged women was literally shocked to hear how one of the participants in the discussion called his moisturizer “fat”. Greenbaum reports another case in which a high-ranking corporate manager was so outraged by the statements of one respondent that, in violation of all rules, he ambushed her at the exit and gave her a big dressing down [b5] . The actions of this manager, of course, cannot be called an effective marketing strategy, but they show that due to the processes of triangulation for developing such strategies, quite strong motivations can arise that need only be directed in the right direction. In relation to his example, Templeton puts the question this way: “What do consumers need to know about this product so that they stop calling it fat?”.

marketing approach. Although it is difficult to say whether marketing is a scientific discipline, it, in any case, includes a certain system of ideas about the toponomy of the market space, i.e. about competing human needs, demand dynamics, market segments, competition between and within product categories ("interspecies" and "intraspecies" struggle), etc. In our opinion, the specific angle of view on marketing problems that is being formed by researchers who work directly with focus groups of consumers is not sufficiently represented in textbooks on marketing and, in general, seems to be poorly reflected. The latter gives reason to attribute marketing knowledge not to scientific, but rather to very specific everyday knowledge, spontaneously formed in the "moderator subculture". In any case, the interviewed moderators and focus group textbook authors are unanimous in their opinion that, on the one hand, the growth of their general qualifications depends to a very large extent on the growth of their understanding of marketing problems; on the other hand, that standard marketing courses are judged to be useful but not qualified.

One way or another, marketing qualification helps the researcher to adequately understand both the customer and the respondents, serve as an effective communicator between them (this is akin to the work of a translator) and, finally, contribute to the final conclusions. This "mite" is not information received from respondents or customers, but rather is the accumulated experience of the past work of moderators.

political approach. This approach is used instead of the marketing approach in cases where the subject of research is not related to goods, but to the images of political figures and political advertising. This perspective of political science is a system of ideas about the toponymy of the electoral space. The structure and functional properties of the electoral and marketing spaces have both similarities and differences. This issue is one of the understudied.

Not being able to describe in detail the system of politological views on political processes, we will quote a quotation that to a certain extent characterizes the specifics of these views.

"The most important feature of a political leader is that his communication with his followers is rarely direct. This means that such a specific element as the image appears between the leader and the public. Thus, as a leader, we have not some real personality, but some artificial construct which can have virtually any given characteristic that meets the expectations of the public.The task of a political consultant working on the formation of the image of a leader is to identify and stimulate desirable associations so that voters believe that the candidate will fulfill their dreams, hopes and needs.Political campaigns as a way to build The image of a politician is organized in such a way that at the end he is endowed in the eyes of the public with a certain set of qualities that make him worthy of a leadership position.

Clinical Approach This approach is based mainly on the use of projective techniques aimed at identifying unconscious forms of motivation. These methods, in turn, are based on a set of psychological theories formed mainly in clinical psychology and psychiatry and then transferred to the area of ​​normal functioning of the psyche. The term "clinical approach" itself arose as a reflection of the connection of this approach with these theories, as well as with the practice of clinical psychotherapy.

The specificity of the clinical approach lies in the fact that it relies not on any one scientific theory and not even on one scientific tradition, but on a complex conglomerate of heterogeneous concepts and systems of views overlapping each other. Objective verification of these concepts and the conclusions drawn on their basis is very difficult, which introduces a noticeable element of subjectivity into the work of a clinical psychologist and replaces the analysis of respondents' statements with an analysis of elements of their own system of motivations.

Interpreting the statements of the respondents from the standpoint of a clinical approach is therefore associated with a certain risk, but from a practical point of view, this risk can be justified if it becomes necessary to generalize cases of behavior that cannot be directly explained on the basis of the self-report of the interviewed persons. The Freudian thesis that self-reporting is often just a screen hiding the true causes of behavior finds its support in various cases of marketing and advertising practice. In any case, the fact remains that the clinical approach has a profound effect on practitioners conducting market research using qualitative methods, including those who initially had no experience in clinical psychology. The influence of the clinical approach on the style of conducting focus groups and on the interpretation of results has increased greatly over the past decade.

sociological approach. The existence of such an approach is not mentioned in any textbook and in any publication, which raises the question of its very existence. In the case of a negative answer, a paradox arises: the method of group interviewing, genetically related to the methodological tradition of sociological surveys, turns out to be in no way connected with the tradition of theoretical sociology.

In marketing focus groups, the interpretive role of sociological theories undoubtedly manifests itself less clearly than the role of managerial, marketing and clinical approaches, although the influence of theories of small groups and the sociology of knowledge, incl. phenomenological, in our opinion, can be traced. The influence of other areas of sociological theory seems to be more indirect, but it also seems to exist. The presence of such an indirect influence is evidenced by the fact that for the work of a moderator or focus group analyst, a basic education in both a sociologist and a psychologist is equally considered desirable.

The limited list of analytical approaches when using focus groups is due, in our opinion, to the limited scope of this method. In particular, this is confirmed by the fact that the number of areas of application of individual interviews is larger, and the list of conceptual approaches that perform an interpretive function is correspondingly larger. Depending on the direction of the research, this function can be performed by a variety of sociological, psychological, linguistic and other approaches, including various subsystems of everyday knowledge.

If in the future the focus group method is extended to new subject areas, including within the framework of academic research, the number of possible conceptual triangulations will increase accordingly.

-- [ Page 1 ] --

Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution

higher professional education

Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov"

As a manuscript

Khoroshilov Dmitry Alexandrovich

CRITERIA FOR THE VALIDITY OF A QUALITATIVE STUDY

IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

19.00.05 - Social psychology (psychological sciences

i) Thesis for the degree of candidate of psychological sciences

supervisor:

doctor of psychological sciences, professor Melnikova Olga Timofeevna Moscow – Table of contents INTRODUCTION

1. CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE AND THE PROBLEM OF THE VALIDITY OF QUALITATIVE

RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

1.1. Methodological specifics and validity of a qualitative study .................................. 1.1.1. Historical and psychological prerequisites for formulating the problem of the validity of a qualitative study

1.1.2. The subject of qualitative research and the problem of its validity

– Social representations

– Social identity

– Social memory

– Attitudes, values ​​and ideologies

1.1.3. The problem of polyparadigmality in psychology and changes in ideas about the criteria for scientific knowledge in the 20th century

1.1.4. The problem of defining the concepts of truth, objectivity and validity of a qualitative study

1.2. Philosophical guidelines for discussing the problem of validity in qualitative methodology

1.2.1. Level approach to the construction of the methodology of socio-psychological research

1.2.2 Phenomenology - hermeneutics

1.2.3. Positivism - constructionism

1.3.4. Realism - relativism

1.2.5. Philosophical orientations and the problem of the validity of a qualitative study....... 1.3. Principles of qualitative methodology that set the context for considering the problem of validity

1.3.1. The problem of conceptual unity of qualitative methodology

1.3.2. The principle of "contextual sensitivity"

1.3.3. The principle of understanding

1.3.4. The Principle of Interpretive Reconstruction

1.3.5. The principle of reflexivity

2. CRITERIA FOR THE VALIDITY OF A QUALITATIVE STUDY

2.1. Validity Criteria in Theoretical Approaches Focused on Qualitative Research Methodology

2.1.1. Non-classical approaches in social psychology and qualitative methodology .................. 2.1.2. Ethnomethodology

2.1.3. Phenomenological psychology

2.1.4. existential psychology

2.1.5. Late psychoanalysis

2.1.6. Narrative psychology

2.1.7. Discursive psychology

2.1.8. Conclusions on theoretical approaches

2.2. Criteria systems for the validity of a qualitative study

2.2.1. Openness of criteria systems for the validity of a qualitative study ........... 2.2.2. Project of a realistic criteria system

2.2.3. Design of a constructionist criteria system

2.2.4. Critical criteria system project

2.2.5. Criteria system aestheticization project

2.2.6. The project of abandoning the criteria system

2.2.7. Conclusions on Criteria Systems and Rationale for Moving to Qualitative Research Validation Strategies

2.2.7. Criteria for the validity of a qualitative study, formulated based on the results of the theoretical and methodological analysis

2.3. Triangulation as the main strategy for validating a qualitative study

2.3.1. Qualitative Research Validation Strategies

– “Long dive” (prolonged engagement)

– "Stable observation" (persistent observation)

– “Partner debriefing” (peer debriefing)

– “Analysis of negative cases” (negative case analysis)

– “Referential adequacy”

– Member checking

- "Thick descriptions" (thick descriptions)

– “Research audit” (audit trail)

– “Keeping a reflective journal” (reflexive journal writing)

– “Theoretical sampling” (theoretical sampling)

– Structural Relationships

2.3.2. Definition of triangulation

2.3.3. Etymology of the concept of triangulation

2.3.4. Implicit use of triangulation in social psychology

2.3.5. Introduction of triangulation into the context of qualitative methodology

2.3.6. Triangulation - a strategy for validating a qualitative study (N. Denzin's symbolic-interactionist concept)

– Theoretical triangulation

– Exploratory triangulation

– Methodical triangulation

– Data triangulation

2.3.7. Triangulation is a strategy for comparing respondents' interpretations of their actions (ethnomethodological concept of A. Sikurel)

2.3.8. New private types of triangulation

2.3.9. Triangulation - a strategy for systematic comparison of cognitive perspectives (constructionist concept of W. Flick)

2.3.10. Conclusions on Qualitative Research Validation Strategies and Rationale for Moving to Empirical Research

3. EMPIRICAL APPROBATION TRIANGULATION AS THE MAIN STRATEGY

VALIDIZATION OF A QUALITATIVE STUDY

3.1. Research problem

3.2. Research program

3.3. Data triangulation results

3.4. Results of methodical triangulation

3.5. Results of theoretical triangulation

3.6. findings

CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPS

INTRODUCTION

Relevance research. At present, qualitative research constitutes a completely independent area in psychology, whose development is determined not only by the rethinking of the rich scientific and historical heritage, but also by its position in the general intellectual and philosophical panorama of the 20th century, interdisciplinary relations with other humanities (sociology, anthropology, linguistics) . In a sense, qualitative research is being rediscovered in social psychology, because its first historical forms as an independent science were associated mainly with descriptive and speculative methods: the psychology of peoples (W. Wundt), the psychology of the masses (G. Lebon, Z. Freud, N.K. Mikhailovsky), imitation theory (G. Tarde), understanding sociology (M. Weber), formal sociology (G. Simmel) and others.

In modern literature, the methodological foundations of qualitative research have been repeatedly discussed and analyzed in detail [Belanovsky, 2001ab, Busygina, 2005ab, 2009ab, 2010, Voiskunsky, Skripkin, 2001, Kornilova, Smirnov, 2011, Masalkov, Semina, 2011, Melnikova, 2007, Semina, 2010 , Semenova, 1998, Ulanovsky, 2008, 2009, Steinberg, Shanin, Kovalev, Levinson, 2009, Yadov, 2007, Denzin, 2009, Flick, 2007, 2009, Gergen, 2010, Harr, 2004, Hesse-Biber, Leavy, 2010 , Patton, 2002, Packer, 2011, Prasad, 2005, Seale, 1999, Silverman, 2006, 2010]. It seems that the theoretical and epistemological side of qualitative methodology has been disclosed in great detail today - as is well known, the fundamental principles of hermeneutic interpretation, the dialogic nature of cognition, the explication of its value prerequisites, come to the fore in qualitative methodology, which entails the traditional reproach of "subjective"

the nature of its studies, which raises the question of validating the latter and finding a standard for empirical and expert evaluation of their quality.

“Subjectivity” is taken here in quotation marks both because of the vagueness of the concept itself and the need for its critical reflection, and due to the fact that this characteristic, usually attributed to qualitative research, is not a methodological flaw, but their inherent property [Melnikova, 2007] . It should be noted that the formulation of the question of the validation of qualitative research is by no means characteristic of modern foreign psychology, which, over thirty years of intense discussions, has come to more or less clear standards for assessing the quality of qualitative research, although there is still no conceptual unity in resolving this issue.

The expert community today is guided by the criteria derived from the experience of the researchers themselves in various areas of quality practice, and today constituting a kind of professional consensus. The very problem of the validity of qualitative research should first of all be discussed from an epistemological point of view - through changes in the understanding of the nature of scientific objectivity, broadcast by the philosophical movements of the 20th century: constructionism, poststructuralism and postmodernism.

Thus, the problem of objectivity - reliability - the quality of a qualitative study (for now we use these concepts as synonyms, without theoretically loading them in any way) requires a thorough methodological analysis, which would include various sections of its consideration. The significance of such an analysis for modern social psychology can be revealed at least at three methodological levels:

– theoretical – when it comes to the conceptual structure of socio-psychological research – in the paradigm of social cognition (G.M. Andreeva), descriptive epistemology of social sciences (D.T. Campbell), meta-discourse of social sciences (R. Harre), constructionist social epistemology (K. Gergen) - one way or another, the question of the relationship between theory and method always arises, and therefore the question of assessing the validity of studies carried out in one or another theoretical concept.

Given that modern approaches to discursive and narrative psychology have developed with a clear focus on qualitative research methods, this point is of particular importance.

- methodological - the solution of the issue of criteria for assessing the validity (or quality) of a qualitative study allows us to identify explicit methodological standards that are designed to legitimize qualitative methods in the research field; make the process and results of qualitative research more valid and accurate; to develop and creatively improve qualitative methods of working with data through a set of original orienting recommendations and applications.

In addition, the widespread use of qualitative research has led to the problem of quality control due to the fact that the educational interest of students in some cases outstrips their real ability to peer review the analysis.

- practical - the question of the validity (or quality) of qualitative research can also be considered from the standpoint of various categories of users, social groups that contribute to their development: the researchers themselves, who are interested in evaluating their work as "good" or "bad"; social institutions that provide scientific grants and subsidies for research; publishers deciding what they should publish and what not; potential readers who need guidance to determine which research can and cannot be trusted.

The three identified aspects of the problem of the validity of a qualitative study allow us to state its importance for both academic and practical social psychology. Based on the above, it is possible to formulate goals and tasks of the present dissertation work.

The purpose of the dissertation research is to develop and methodologically substantiate scientific criteria and strategies for the validation of qualitative research in social psychology.

To achieve this goal, a number of theoretical tasks have been formulated:

(1) to analyze the subject specifics of qualitative research as a basis for formulating the problem of their validity;

(2) categorize and critically examine epistemological landmarks to discuss the issue of the validity of qualitative research;

(3) highlight the conceptual criteria for working with data that are common to modern qualitative methodology, setting the context for the discussion of validity;

(4) to analyze the validity criteria in theoretical and psychological approaches oriented towards qualitative research methodology;

(5) to classify and conduct a comparative analysis of various criteria systems (concepts) of the validity of qualitative research in psychology;

(6) highlight the main strategies for validating qualitative research;

(7) to develop criteria for the empirical testing of these validation strategies.

Empirical tasks:

(1) test validation strategies for qualitative research in psychology (using the triangulation strategy as an example);

(2) design a qualitative study to include these types of validation strategies;

(3) identify a subject area suitable for testing strategies to improve the validity of qualitative research;

(4) conduct research based on the developed design, including validating strategies and techniques;

(5) to evaluate the conducted study according to the validity criteria developed in the theoretical section of the dissertation work.

The object of the dissertation research is qualitative methodology in social psychology.

The subject is the validity of qualitative research in social psychology.

Research hypotheses. Due to the fact that the main goal of this work is theoretical and methodological (development and conceptual justification of an integral criteria system for the validity of qualitative research in psychology), hypotheses in the strict sense of the word were not put forward. It is more appropriate to single out a kind of theoretical guidelines - theses of a general nature.

(1) The criterion of objectivity and validity is a single scientific standard for natural science and humanities knowledge.

(2) The problem of the validity of qualitative research in psychology can be, in a sense, reformulated as the problem of explication of the analytical process and ensuring the maximum degree of its "transparency" and "openness", which corresponds to the philosophical ideas of M.K. Mamardashvili about scientific verification as a method of controlled reasoning.

(3) The criteria for the validity of qualitative research can be presented as a clear standard or set of rules that implements the specific features of qualitative methodology, allowing it to be considered as an independent methodological trend or an interdisciplinary approach in modern social psychology.

Theoretical and methodological foundations of the dissertation work were:

phenomenological approach (E. Husserl, A.F. Losev), hermeneutic approach (G.-G.

Gadamer, P. Riker, J. Habermas), a number of ideas of the philosophy of consciousness and human thinking (M.K.

Mamardashvili, A.M. Pyatigorsky, S.L. Rubinstein), the main provisions of social constructionism (K. Gergen, W. Barr), descriptive research epistemology (D.

Campbell), ideas about the levels of the methodology of psychological research (G.M.

Andreeva, T.V. Kornilova, R. Harre), the theoretical provisions of the psychology of social cognition (G.M. Andreeva, S. Moskovisi, W. Flick), the ideas of understanding and interpretive sociology (M. Weber, A. Schutz, E. Giddens), as well as interpretative anthropology (K.

Girtz), cultural-historical approach (L.S. Vygotsky, A.R. Luria, A.A. Leontiev, Yu.M.

Lotman, V.P. Zinchenko), concepts of dialogue and translation (N.S. Avtonomova, M.M. Bakhtin, K.

Gergen, Yu. Kristeva, I. Markova), the concepts of modern non-classical aesthetics (S.S.

Averintsev, V.V. Bychkov, N.B. Mankowska, M. Serre, J.-B. Lyotard), the theory of discursive psychology (J. Potter, M. Weatherell, M. Billig, D. Edwards, J. Parker, R. Harre).

Research methods. Within the framework of the theoretical part of the study, methods of historical reconstruction of scientific and psychological knowledge, systemic and complex, critical-reflexive and comparative analysis of scientific concepts were used. Of particular note is the theoretical method of the unity of the historical and the logical - the specificity of this method lies in the fact that "the study of the history of the development of an object makes it possible to identify its essential characteristics and patterns," while "recreating the logic of a developing system opens up opportunities for a more accurate and deep understanding and description of the historical process” [Koltsova, 2008, p. 353]. Thus, any reconstruction of the historical development of any scientific problem (including the problem of the validity of a qualitative study) is at the same time a reconstruction of its internal logic and structure.

The empirical study used socio-psychological methods for collecting documentary material, qualitative methods of data analysis - qualitative content analysis and discourse analysis (in the tradition of J. Potter and M. Weatherell), as well as special strategies and techniques for validating qualitative analysis. The study, which aimed to methodically test triangulation as a validation strategy for qualitative research, consisted of five phases.

At the first stage, the design of a qualitative study was developed with the inclusion of validation strategies and techniques (three main forms of triangulation: methodical, theoretical, data).

At the second stage - the stage of data triangulation - qualitative data were collected according to the theoretical and target sample of the study (articles in the media and comments on them in Internet blogs and forums).

At the third stage - the stage of methodical triangulation - the data obtained were analyzed by the methods of content and discourse analysis, and each block of data was analyzed simultaneously by two designated approaches.

At the fourth stage - the stage of theoretical triangulation - the results of the analysis were considered from the standpoint of socio-psychological theories (social representations and discourse).

At the fifth stage, the study was evaluated according to the validity criteria formulated in the theoretical part of the work.

Scientific novelty dissertation research lies in the fact that for the first time in domestic science a comprehensive theoretical and methodological analysis of the problem of the validity of qualitative research in social psychology was carried out; specific scientific criteria for their validity are formulated in accordance with the level structure of a qualitative study (levels of design, collection, analysis, interpretation and presentation); proposed and empirically tested practical technologies for validating qualitative research and triangulation as the main strategy for validating qualitative research.

Theoretical significance work is that:

the problem of the subject of qualitative research in modern social psychology is revealed: the methodological principles of the qualitative analysis of social representations, social identity, collective memory, attitude, value and ideological dispositions of the individual are substantiated;

the specificity of understanding validity in qualitative methodology is shown:

validity is determined not by an externally set standard, which is applied to the final conclusions of the post factum study, but by direct inclusion - "weaving" special control technologies into the research process; Validity criteria are a practical convention of the scientific community on what should be considered "good"

research; checking and evaluating the validity of qualitative research is a form of action research and the result of decision making;

(3) the fundamental principles of qualitative methodology are formulated, which are common to various areas (phenomenology, narrative and discourse analysis, ethnography, the method of substantiating theory, and a number of others) - we are talking about the principles of contextual sensitivity, understanding, interpretive reconstruction and reflexivity;

(4) a cultural-historical approach to the study of the problem of validity in qualitative methodology within the framework of the Russian psychological tradition is substantiated.

Practical significance determined by the fact that it offers clear criteria for peer review of practical and applied qualitative research in social psychology, as well as methodological techniques and strategies to improve their quality. The subject of the dissertation work has access to a number of tasks related to the development of quality practice in various fields (marketing, management, consulting, and others).

The results of the work can also be used in the development of educational programs and training courses on qualitative methods of socio-psychological research.

The reliability of the study is ensured by a systematic theoretical analysis of the problem of validity in the historical, psychological and interdisciplinary perspective of its development. With regard to empirical research, data reliability is achieved through the use of methods adequate to the goal, as well as special strategies and techniques for validating qualitative analysis (data triangulation, methodological and theoretical triangulation).

1. Determining the meaning of the problem of validity in the epistemological context of modern social psychology. The problem of the validity of qualitative research should be considered in a single problem space of modern psychology - through the definition of relations with "non-classical" and "post-non-classical" trends in social psychology, associated primarily with the understanding of methodological pluralism and the polyparadigmatic nature of its development, as well as with an increase in the critical reflexivity of researchers.

2. Specificity of the criterion of validity in qualitative methodology. The problem of the validity of a qualitative study is revealed in three key aspects:

as a consistent explication and documentation of the process of interpretive reconstruction of psychological reality by formulating inductive-analytical typologies and generalizations;

as ensuring the "transparency" and "openness" of the analytical process for potential readers of a scientific report, as well as the obligatory breeding of the reflexive positions of its author and the positions of the respondents;

as an appeal to several expert positions and opinions to form a professional consensus, which can be considered “correct” and “competent”

quality research.

The principle of cultural-historical understanding of validity. The conditional "subjectivism" of qualitative research, associated with the problem of the influence of the analyst's personal and theoretical views on the results of the study, representing the "subjective" dimension of the latter, is the main characteristic of qualitative methodology in general; semantic, value and theoretical ideas mediate the entire process of qualitative analysis and are its tool (“tool”, in the terminology of L.S. Vygotsky).

4. Specifics of strategies for validating a qualitative study. Validation strategies are included directly in the research process and represent a number of techniques that allow both explicating and deepening the analyst's reflexive positions (that is, actually controlling and stimulating the ongoing analysis).

5. Triangulation is the main strategy for validating a qualitative study.

Triangulation is a special kind of above-standard activity of a researcher, which involves turning to additional data, methods, theories and experts, due to which a more complete and comprehensive consideration of the subject under study is achieved.

Approbation of results research. Theoretical provisions and empirical results of the dissertation work were discussed at postgraduate seminars at the Department of Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov (2009 - gg.), at the faculty scientific seminar on qualitative methods under the guidance of O.T.

Melnikova and A.N. Krichevets (2010 - 2012), were repeatedly presented at conferences: "Psychology of communication XXI century: 10 years of development" (Moscow, 2009), "International perspectives of qualitative research in social sciences (London, 2010)," Lomonosov "(Moscow, 2010-2012)," Ananiev Readings-2011. Social psychology and life” (St. Petersburg, 2011), V Congress of the RPO (Moscow, 2012). The results of the dissertation research are used in special courses taught at the Department of Social Psychology: "Methodology and methods of qualitative research", "Methods and techniques of focus group research", "Psychology of marketing", "Workshop on social psychology" (topics: "Focus groups" , "Interview", "Discourse Analysis"), as well as in the special course "Conflictology" at the Faculty of Geography of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov.

Thesis structure. The dissertation consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion, a bibliography (including 392 sources, 219 of which are in English and German) and 8 appendices. The main text of the thesis is 202 pages and is accompanied by tables.

1. CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE AND THE PROBLEM OF VALIDITY

OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

1.1. Methodological specificity and validity of qualitative research 1.1.1. Historical and psychological prerequisites for formulating the problem of the validity of a qualitative research Qualitative methodology has almost always been between the scylla of searching for a unified standard for assessing the reliability of one's own research and the charybdis of a very critical attitude towards traditional validity criteria - and this historical circumstance has become an important condition for its development. Despite such a skeptical, sometimes militant attitude towards the classical (“positivist”) ideas about scientific character, the study of the issue of assessing the quality of the data and interpretations received has always looked more than an attractive prospect for qualitative methodology, because, without having such evaluating exact technologies and criteria, practice qualitative research partly lost its authoritative status in the scientific community. In addition, within the methodology itself, as it develops and becomes more complex, the need to control the correct execution of analytical work and determine the criteria system for assessing its quality has become obvious.

A discussion of the question of the methodological status of qualitative research in social psychology requires an appeal to the logic of the latter's historical development. Modern concepts of the development of scientific and psychological knowledge take into account such criteria as the transformation of its subject area, the influence of related disciplines, the development of an invariant categorical system, the social situation in the development of science [Zhdan, 2008, Martsinkovskaya, 2008, Martsinkovskaya, Yurevich, 2011]. An important vector of analysis is the historical study of the methodological and operational aspect, which embodies the methods of psychological cognition as the transformation of the subject in theory and research strategy [Koltsova, 2008]. In the socio-psychological perspective, it seems particularly relevant to consider the nature of "the relationship between social psychology and society in a period of radical social change" [Andreeva, 2009, p. 71]. This theme of the relationship between psychological theories and the society in which they were created is the subject of a "social history of psychology" that is actively developing today. Based on the foregoing, let us designate the main aspects of the historical development of social psychology as a science.

The historical specificity of the development of social psychology is due, according to a number of authors, to the dual nature of understanding the subject and its “splitting” into two independent research traditions of American and European psychology [Andreeva, 2005, 2009, Shikhirev, 2000, Farr, 1996, Jahoda, 2007]. As an independent science, social psychology was formed in the 19th century in the bosom of philosophical thought. In the early socio-psychological concepts - the psychology of peoples (M. Lazarus, G. Steinthal, W. Wundt) and the psychology of the crowd (G. Tarde, G. Lebon) - the subject of research was revealed in the logic of studying culture and large social groups [Introduction to social psychology: European approach, 2004]. In this sense, social psychology has become a form of cultural sciences that are guided by the idiographic, descriptive method of scientific knowledge. However, at the end of the 19th century there is a turn towards the natural sciences and a restructuring of the discipline around experimental methodology - later this "branch" will be associated with the American tradition of research (and the natural sciences, with their orientation towards a nomothetic, generalizing method).

It is believed that qualitative methodology adheres to the idiographic method [Dorfman, 2005] and can be called a modern form of cultural science. The philosophical substantiation of this method was given in the Baden school of neo-Kantianism by W. Windelband and G. Rickert at the dawn of the 20th century. As is known, the classification of sciences proposed by them in terms of method - idiographic or nomothetic - was based on the position of I.

Kant about a priori forms or schemes of reason, which streamline and construct the reality cognized by man. This principle is defended today in social constructionism [Harre, 2009]. The idiographic method ascribes significance to certain cultural phenomena through their correlation with values ​​[Smirnova, 2008], and here values ​​are understood as universal norms and categories of culture. Values ​​- as a priori forms of cognition - determine the attitude of the researcher to the facts that he considers "significant" or "insignificant" in a particular context, and in general to the cognized reality.

In qualitative research, if we consider values ​​as ideological universals, the question of consistent dilution of the “sphere of value influences” is relevant.

and "fields of analyzed facts", although they are closely related. An appeal to values ​​in itself, “one or another axiological aspect does not provide possible assessments of the quality of the work carried out by a psychologist” [Kornilova, 2009, p. 123], but the explication of this aspect allows us to reveal those worldview, theoretical and personal guidelines that guided the researcher in your work. The fulfillment of the latter condition is considered important for assessing the quality of qualitative research.

The discussed old philosophical dichotomy between the sciences of culture and the sciences of nature, being projected onto the level of specific scientific methodology, is expressed in a complex relationship between the traditions of European and American psychology, based on one method or another - “describes and understands” or “law-setting and explaining” . The interaction between the two traditions should be recognized as ambiguous:

for example, K. Levin and F. Haider, who emigrated from Europe to the USA, had an important influence on the development of American psychology, because they introduced innovative ideas about the perception of a normative field within a group and a person’s desire to maintain a balanced cognitive structure - and thereby broadcast to the New World German Gestalt Theories. In addition, criticism of the American research model is heard in the works of its followers before the famous “manifesto” of European social psychology in 1972, calling for the withdrawal of scientific knowledge from laboratories (“vacuum”, according to Taschfel’s well-established metaphor) into a social context. Thus, making a distinction between the two designated traditions requires not only a certain accuracy and caution in our assessments, but also the obligatory consideration of their historical specifics.

As an independent research trend, qualitative methodology emerged in the 60s and 70s. XX century [Ulanovsky, 2008, Denzin, Lincoln, 2005], i.e. chronologically coincides with that historical stage in the development of social psychology, which is usually called the crisis [Andreeva, Bogomolova, Petrovskaya, 2001]. In short, this crisis finally formalized the division of the European - American traditions as two independent research models [Shikhirev, 2000]. It seems that the crisis phenomena are associated with the rethinking of a number of intradisciplinary problems along three main lines: (a) epistemological - through the definition of relationships between the categories of personality and group, individual and social, (b) subject - through updating the subject field of research, set by new theories of the upper level in social psychology (social identity of A. Taschfel and D. Turner, social representations of S. Moskovisi, ethogenics of R. Harre, early version of social constructionism of K. Gergen), (c) methodical - involving the development of research tools that would cover the macropsychological level of functioning society.

The last of these lines is connected, among other things, with the development of the methodology of qualitative research in social psychology - to a certain extent, qualitative methodology is associated with the European tradition, although this thesis is not so unambiguous and requires a separate historical analysis.

Modern literature [Ulanovsky, 2008, 2009; Steinberg, Shanin, Kovalev, Levinson, 2009; Yadov, 2007; Ashworth, 2008; Flick, 2009; Polkinghorne, 2010; interpretive sociology of M. Weber, A. Schutz and E. Giddens, the symbolic interactionism of G. Mead and the Chicago school, as well as within the framework of ethnography and social anthropology (the British school of functionalism, the school "Culture and Personality" and the interpretive anthropology of K. Girtz) . When considering these directions, it should be remembered that the tradition of qualitative research in the history of psychology in the first half of the 20th century is often presented in an implicit form, i.e. without consistent reflection and marking the instrumental side of the study as a specially-qualitative one.

To substantiate the last thesis, it is enough to point to the classical works of V.

Wundt on the psychology of culture and W. James on the study of religious and mystical experience, clinical observations and cases analyzed by Z. Freud, early studies on the psychology of art and aesthetics by L.S. Vygotsky. From a retrospective point of view, all these works are perceived or “read” as examples of high-quality design, although, for quite understandable historical reasons, the classics of psychology could hardly speak or suggest a single trend in qualitative research, which, as already mentioned, was formed only in the second half of the XX century.

In addition, it seems historically erroneous to separate the experimental and qualitative methods. Qualitative methods underlie many classic experimental studies in social psychology - they were addressed, in particular, by J. Dollard in his study of race and class, K. Levin - in works on group dynamics, M. Sheriff - in the study of intergroup conflict, L.

Festinger - cognitive dissonance, F. Zimbardo - the process of deindividualization. These works are rarely called “qualitative” by their authors, but all of them are based on qualitative experimental and quasi-experimental designs and the corresponding methods of data processing and analysis [on the illegality of contrasting qualitative and experimental research, see: Kornilova, 2007, 2010, 2012, Kornilova, Smirnov, 2011].

Further consideration of the historical logic of the development of qualitative methodology in social psychology presupposes, however, the definition of not instrumental, but primarily the subject specificity of research (because the question of how to research simultaneously implies an answer to the question of what exactly to research), which is set by the paradigm of social cognition.

1.1.2. The subject of qualitative research and the problem of its validity In social psychology, an important place belongs to the so-called paradigm of social cognition, which originally originated in cognitive psychology and today is understood quite widely. The paradigm of social cognition raises the question “not about how to cognize the social world surrounding a person, but about how an ordinary person practically does this in everyday life” [Andreeva, 2005, p. 43] – because in itself “society is a concept of common sense” [Moskovisi, 1998, p. 355].

The subject of the psychology of social cognition is ordinary knowledge. Ordinary knowledge is a complex semi-structured set of opinions, beliefs and ideas that are irrational, contradictory in nature and are fixed in social relations in society [Ulybina, 2001]. The main function of ordinary knowledge is to transform unknown and frightening events - a social situation of uncertainty - into something familiar and easily explainable. Ordinary knowledge acts as an intermediary for organizing individual and social experience and, in this sense, helps to communicate between people. It is believed that ordinary knowledge is a form of archaic and mythological understanding of the world, which is partly replaced in society by scientific and expert knowledge - but it is never completely ousted. Unlike common sense or practical sense, everyday knowledge is influenced by scientific rationalizations and judgments and adapts - redesigns them according to its internal logic. Epistemologically, human cognition of the social world is conditioned by the intersections of scientific-objective and ordinary-subjective knowledge, because “objectivity in cognition not only has to coexist and reckon with what is usually called the subjective factor, but is also conditioned by it” [Novikov, 2008, p. 87].

Ordinary knowledge is one of the central categories of social representation theory and the social constructionist movement; both of these areas are largely focused on qualitative methods and have had a significant impact on their development.

In view of the fact that the subject of qualitative research is rarely defined in the scientific literature [Melnikova, 2007], and in modern manuals and monographs it is often replaced by a discussion of the epistemological panorama and criterion of scientific truth, we consider it necessary to dwell on the main socio-psychological phenomena and mechanisms that come under the focus of qualitative analysis. To analyze the subject field of the latter, it is appropriate to turn to the theories of social cognition (or "tools for the analysis of social phenomena", according to G.M. Andreeva). The orientation of modern socio-psychological research to the study of everyday knowledge logically raises the question of finding new research tools and scientific reflection of its validity.

In connection with the foregoing, two events in the history of social psychology acquire significant significance, which became a reflection of its crisis in the 60s and 70s. twentieth century, as mentioned above. These events are called cognitive and language turns.

The cognitive turn in psychology, sometimes referred to as the "first cognitive revolution" [Harre, 1996], is associated with the classical studies of social perception by J. Bruner and the New Look school. As R. Harre showed, Bruner's experiments and cognitive psychology proceeded from the hypothesis that there are unobservable cognitive processes that are not realized by a person and can be modeled as a computer information processing system. According to Harre, the assumption of some abstract level of mental activity and mental states that are not obvious to a person fails in answering questions about the role of meanings and intentionality in the organization of the mental, and on this basis must be rejected. The psychic is the practical thinking and subjective experiences of people, which, although they cannot be observed directly, are expressed in discursive activity and acts of social interactions (mediated by sign and symbolic structures).

The linguistic turn in psychology, following the same logic of Harre, is associated with the emergence of discursive psychology, which postulated the possibility of studying the subjective experience of a person through the analysis of language and conversational practices - how people talk about certain social events and rhetorically construct them in their communications with each other. with a friend [Andreeva, 2009; Noels, Giles, Le Poire, 2003]. In modern discourse-analytical studies, the main focus of interest is how a person talks about himself and the world around him, what language means and styles he uses, what linguistic practices fixed in culture he refers to. The psycholinguistic orientation of these studies is evident. From this point of view, language is a mediating tool – a “tool” for social cognition and the acquisition of new knowledge by society [Leontiev, 2005, 2007].

If we ignore discursive psychology, which became the herald and the most striking embodiment of the linguistic turn, and return to the problems of qualitative methodology, then the following should be said. Qualitative methodology proceeds from the basic premise that a person's subjective experience can be adequately reconstructed and studied primarily through reference to natural language data and linguistically-oriented tools for its analysis. Thus, language in qualitative research has a dual status: it is both an empirical space and an instrument of scientific knowledge at the same time, which naturally constitutes a number of methodological difficulties.

From the point of view of this problem of dual understanding of language in qualitative methodology, it seems promising to comprehend the classical studies of A.R. Luria on the ethnopsychological determination of linguistic thinking, carried out in the mountainous regions of Uzbekistan in 1931-1932. The results of the research were reflected in the famous book "On the Historical Development of Cognitive Processes" [Luriya, 1974]. By the way, these works are now perceived as an early implementation of quality design. Indeed, when discussing the research procedure, A.R. Luria writes the following: “we abandoned the use of any psychometric tests and built studies on specially designed samples that could not be regarded by the subjects as meaningless and at the same time allowed for several decisions, each of which would be a sign of a certain structure of cognitive activity ... The presence several solutions made it possible to conduct a qualitative analysis of the data obtained” [Luriya, 1974, p. 28-29].

The above fragment is interesting not only because it once again demonstrates the implicit nature of the development of qualitative research in the psychology of the first half of the 20th century, but also opens up new perspectives for their rethinking in the context of the ideas of A.R.

Luria about the importance of language for the formation of consciousness and the construction of the entire conscious life of a person as a whole - language "doubles the perceived world, allows you to store information received from the outside world and creates a world of internal images" and thereby transfers the functioning of our psyche to a different level of organization [Luria, 2004 , p.68]. Language is a special coding system that designates objects and their relationships, introduces them into known systems or categories. Thus, abstract thinking and the formation of a “categorical” structure of consciousness are formed [Luriya, 1998]. In our opinion, an appeal to the heritage of A.R. Luria in the context of discussing the problem of language in qualitative methodology is a resource for its future development and strengthening of the scientific status in the space of psychological traditions.

Cognitive and linguistic turns are reflected in a number of concepts of social cognition, which can be called the theories of the "upper level" - they set the subject field of modern socio-psychological research. Their theoretical categories are not subject to direct verification by empirical methods, but are realized in certain empirical hypotheses about specific psychological patterns and mechanisms. Such "top-level" theories in social psychology include theories of social representations, social identity, and discursive psychology. These concepts are especially sensitive to the problems of the language, linguistic and cultural context of the implementation of social relations and people's knowledge of the world.

What is the importance of considering the subject of qualitative research in terms of the problem of assessing its validity? To answer this question, a very serious epistemological analysis of the relationship between the method and empirical evidence, the theoretical concept behind it, and the psychological reality reconstructed in it is required. As V.P. Zinchenko and M.K. Mamardashvili [Zinchenko, Mamardashvili, 2004], such an analysis involves the development of “limiting representations based on the properties of the subject area that have already been discovered, but bringing them to a conceivably possible maximum form. This creates a logical space of theory, a fairly homogeneous and closed universe of the possible, allowing (in principle) to consider the description of individual empirical manifestations of a given subject area complete and uniform. ”, “empirically occurring event”, “empirically verifying the basis of statements” in the study.

This means that the verification of data and their subsequent interpretations is closely related to the theoretical and methodological approach used, which in one way or another sets the coordinates for determining the subject space. It seems that since the formation of a qualitative methodology is largely determined by both the development of new theoretical concepts in social psychology and the revision of the nature of scientific knowledge in the philosophical movements of postmodernism and constructionism, consideration of the problem of assessing the validity of qualitative research requires an understanding of their subject specificity. In the most general form, it can be assumed that this very subject specificity correlates with the “language turn” in psychology and the tendency towards its “textualization”, expressed in the presentation of the subject of research as a text (sign system). In qualitative methodology, the text is understood in three dimensions: as (a) empirical material, the "substrate" of analysis, (b) an instrument of interpretation; (c) a facilitator for the presentation and discussion of scientific discoveries. This means that qualitative research is particularly sensitive to the discursive and rhetorical components of the analysis.

Based on the foregoing, we allow ourselves to briefly characterize the subject field of qualitative research in terms of the designated theoretical concepts of social cognition: social representations, social identity and discourse (in the logic of the previously cited monograph on the psychology of social cognition). This series can be supplemented by two more concepts: the value and ideological dispositions of the individual and social (collective) memory, which, although not yet formed into separate theoretical approaches, have been actively developed in recent decades and apply qualitative research methods to solve their problems.

In fairness, we note that we often have to deal with various theoretical and methodological intersections of these concepts and the interpenetration of their subject categories, which allows us to speak of the conceptual unity of modern social psychology. So, discussing the similarities and differences of modern socio-psychological concepts, T.P. Emelyanova rightly concludes that despite the “struggle for primacy” between the theories of social representations and discursive psychology, they are united by a single methodological platform, which is expressed in their common interest in everyday knowledge and the principles of constructionism [Emelyanova, 2006]. We would add one more aspect - the focus on qualitative research methods. It is the methodological side that constitutes the unity of the conditionally called new research "paradigm" in psychology, which is built on pluralistic foundations and proceeds from various theoretical positions.

Four key principles of this paradigm are called:

research is conducted in the "real world";

the central role in it belongs to the linguistic and discursive component;

life and research are seen as processes or as a set of dynamic interactions between people;

the emphasis is more on real persons and individuals than on statistics and psychological variables.

The historical logic of development, subject originality and methodological principles of the paradigm of social cognition determine the directions of qualitative research in the following areas.

– Social representations S. Moskovisi identifies four methodological principles for studying social representations: conversations that people exchange in society constitute empirical material for analysis; social representations are a means of creating reality; their meaningful character is revealed in times of crisis and peaks, when social groups are going through changes; the people who produce the performances act as non-professional scientists. It would seem that these principles set the vector for the development of qualitative research, which allows revealing the deep symbolic layers of representations, however, “despite the fact that social representations are better assessed using qualitative methodologies, a review of the English-language literature on social representations reveals only a few real qualitative studies” .

D. Jodelet's study of social perceptions of mental illness can be considered classic qualitative work (methods of participant observation, in-depth interviews, questioning and analysis of documents were used); E.

Joffe - perceptions of the psychological risk of contracting HIV infection (semi-structured interviews with 60 British and South Africans, followed by computerized qualitative content analysis of the data); G. Ignatov and J. Jost - compensatory function of representations in Silicon Valley (qualitative content analysis of computer jargon and metaphors about life and death, including analysis of novels, dictionaries, Internet content); G. Duven and B. Lloyd - ideas about the gender identity of children (ethnographic techniques, a method of structured observation of interactions in the classroom). In recent years, qualitative methods have been actively used to analyze social perceptions of health and disease [Bovina, 2007, Flick, Foster, 2008].

As can be seen, the various subject categories in these studies correlate with each other; As for the methodological aspect, we can say about the well-developed side of collecting qualitative data and the preference for more formal analysis strategies aimed at identifying the content structure of social representations and its sign-symbolic components. Appeal to the theory of social representations is promising not only because of the convenience of its practical implementation, but also because of the opportunities being opened up for using the so-called triangulation strategy (correlation of different types of data and analysis methods), which is considered a traditional technology for validating qualitative research (see about this in the third chapter of this work).

– Social identity In modern qualitative research, two main methodological lines of elaboration of the topic of identity can be distinguished: within the framework of narrative psychology and R. Harre's positioning theory. Both lines are actively comprehended today in social psychology [Belinskaya, Tikhomandritskaya, 2009]. Note that these approaches are oriented towards constructionist methodology and make significant changes to the cognitive understanding of identity, which was formulated by A. Taschfel and J. Turner; in addition, speaking of social identity, we are of the opinion that it cannot be separated from the study of personal identity, because they constitute a psychological unity, and the emphasis on one or another of its aspects is purely methodological.

Methods of positional identity analysis. Positioning theory, which is not only intended to explain the process of identity construction, but sometimes replaces the concept of the latter, is an independent section of the discursive psychology of R. Harre.

"Deliberate self-positioning occurs in every conversation where someone wants to express his/her personal identity". A person constructs an identity in relations with the audience, revealing their so-called "subjective positions" - cultural and role models, unspoken rules of interaction between people, "storylines" of events that are supposed to take place in this interaction. Examples of this kind of plot-role models include the positions of the victim-aggressor, strong-weak, prince-princess, which depend both on the political and ideological context of a given society, and on the specific situation of interaction and the available internal resource of a person. Currently, positioning theory, as an original variation of the method of narrative and discourse analysis, constitutes a completely independent direction of qualitative research of identity [see. for more details: Harr and Moghaddam, 2003].

Methods of narrative analysis of identity. Narrative is an explanatory principle that answers the question of how human experience is organized – “people think, perceive, imagine and make moral choices according to narrative structures” [Sarbin, 2004, p. 12-13]. J. Bruner expands this principle to a narrative type or mode of thinking along with logico-scientific [Bruner, 2004].

Narrative is the presentation of oneself (perfomance of the self) as a story or a story about one's own identity. A story is understood as a presentation of a specific, specific event that has a beginning - middle - end, an active protagonist and a kind of the highest moment of the dramatic climax of the story.

The function of the narrative is to organize individual experience into integral semantic structures - the construction of identity is built around a "story" or "story" about one's Self in an autobiographical and existential perspective. The structure of a narrative or life story can be analyzed from various points of view: its plot - plot, narrative tone, figurative content and main themes, or according to the main elements and their functions in the structure of the narrative, borrowed from the structuralist works of V.Ya. Propp and A. J. Greimas. In general, theories of positioning and narrative psychology look like promising directions for the development of qualitative research - not only identity, but also social representations and memory.

– Social memory An extremely interesting area of ​​socio-psychological research, partly due to the development of the theory of social representations, is associated with the study of collective (social) memory; collective memory is a kind of common resource that allows one to gain identity by internalizing common traditions and ideas shared by the group, to reconstruct the past in accordance with the goals of the present [Emelyanova, 2006, 2009]. This subject area is still at the stage of its formation, hence its position in the structure of social psychology and the methodological possibilities of its study are not very clear and may vary depending on the specific theoretical approach. An example of a qualitative study of collective memory is the study of traumatic memories of the Spanish Civil War. The authors used qualitative content analysis of films, and thus anticipated the modern trend of qualitative research of visual (video, photo) data.

– Attitudes, values ​​and ideologies In social psychology, attitudes, values ​​and ideologies are considered to be dispositions that differ in the level of abstraction: for example, attitudes are aimed at a specific object, values ​​reflect personal ideals, and ideologies are some supra-individual sets of values ​​and attitudes. As is known, in the domestic psychological tradition, special attention is paid to the study of the value orientations of the individual - but, unfortunately, the methodological aspect of their study is covered in the literature more than modestly. Turning to qualitative methods like projective and biographical techniques allows us to analyze the in-depth consideration of the motivational plane of a person's value orientations, as well as the figurative and symbolic content and the nature of the subjective representation of specific values ​​[Erokhin, 2011].

But in fairness, we note that in foreign literature, interest in this issue is not so high and is more focused on the next subject area - ideology. Under the ideology it is customary to understand those beliefs, opinions and social practices that support specific ideas and constructions of the world and which, in turn, serve to rationalize, legitimize, maintain and reproduce institutional agreements, socio-economic and power relations in a given society. The study of ideology involves an analysis of how some social groups control others.

The study of ideology today is closely connected with the theories of discourse, which constitute a very influential trend in modern psychology. Discourse is more of a theoretical explanatory principle than a subject of study, and allows us to consider classical socio-psychological mechanisms from the point of view of their construction in everyday language. If we try to define the concept, we can agree with the following formulation: discourse is “a sociocultural context expressed through the possibilities of language and influencing a person’s comprehension of the world around him and his positioning of his self” [Trufanova, 2009, p. 296].

The uncertainty of the concept has forced various researchers to look for structural units of discourse, which, however, are not the ultimate task of analysis, but act as auxiliary tools designed to answer questions about what versions of the social world people create in their conversational practices, how reality becomes thanks to these constructed categories. stable and hassle-free? Interpretive repertoires, rhetorical figures, scripts, "rods" (stakes) can be attributed to such auxiliary structural components of discourse. Those socio-psychological categories and constructs that are usually studied within the framework of cognitive psychology - identity, relations between groups, attraction, social cognition, attribution, attitudes, prejudices, aggression - are being actively revised today from a linguistic, discursive point of view [see. most comprehensive review: Mckinlay, Mcvittie, 2008].

Unlike theories of social representations and identity, where both quantitative and qualitative methods are used, supporters of discursive psychology use a special qualitative method of discourse analysis in a variety of variations - depending on the auxiliary structural units briefly listed above. Classical discourse-analytic works include studies of the behavior of football fans, the language of scientists [Gilbert, Mulcay, 1987], racism in New Zealand, and attitudes towards the English royal family.

The traditional source of data for discourse analysis is either an interview or a recording of naturally occurring speech (for example, telephone conversations or radio speeches), but recently, in part due to the development of the method of discourse analysis in the tradition of M. Foucault, textual material is also used (newspaper, magazine articles, books, media). Thus, discourse analysis as a method of qualitative research focuses as much as possible on the language component of the analysis and the real life space for the implementation of interactions between people.

Ideology becomes the subject of research in special types of discourse analysis - critical discourse analysis [Busygina, 2010, Plekhanova, 2011, Dijk, 2003], as well as discourse analysis in the tradition of M. Foucault. Critical discourse analysis is used to explore gender inequality, media, politics, and racism. It should be noted that the development of critical discourse analysis introduces serious changes in the understanding of the criterion of validity of acquired knowledge, which in this context is understood as “psychopolitical validity” – an assessment of how open the theme of power is in understanding the psychological political influence on well-being. Qualitative research becomes an active agent of social change in society, is declared a tool for the functioning of an open society and its democratic institutions. The development of the sphere of critical discourse-analytical research is largely due to the social situation in the development of scientific knowledge in general.

In our opinion, with all the diversity of the subject field of qualitative research, it can still be defined as the study of subjective semantic formations and the process of their construction in language and explication in colloquial practices. The basis for such a definition are those historical prerequisites that are associated with the development of new socio-psychological concepts that emphasize discursive forms of cognition and reconstruction of psychological reality. Moreover, we are talking not only about discursive psychology - theories of social representations, memory and identity are also being revised today in the context of the general “language turn”, which we spoke about above.

At a higher level of philosophical generalization, the text becomes the subject of qualitative research - the text is not as a realization of a message in any language, a single translation of a message from one sign system to another, but as a complex device capable of transforming received messages and generating new ones, having the features of "intellectual » personality [Lotman, 1970]. From this point of view, the problem of the validity of qualitative research epistemologically becomes the problem of the reader's communication with the text, not just the translation of messages from one sign system to another, but an active-dialogical understanding of the subject under study [Bakhtin, 1979], or, as Yu. Kristeva showed in her work , not only subjective, but also communicative, intertextual, ambivalent beginning of understanding of the text [Kristeva, 2000].

What does this thesis give us in a psychological context? He leads us to the problems of polyparadigmality (various "coding systems", "metatexts" in the terminology of Yu.M. Lotman) and methodological pluralism of modern psychology as an implementation of the principle of "dialogical ambivalence" in the coexistence of various scientific and theoretical concepts and the research areas defined by them, which, according to Apparently, it should also affect the ideas about the criteria for scientific character and validity of the knowledge obtained. Thus, the general diversity (“mosaic”, “collage”) of the subject space of qualitative research is dialectically related to the problem of revising the nature of scientific truth and validity, to which we now turn.

At the same time, the relationship between the “paradigm” of social cognition and qualitative methodology should be formulated. In modern social psychology, the focus has shifted from the study of a sustainable and stable society to the study of society in a situation of social change, which raises the methodological question of improving research tools and adapting them to the new conditions of a changing social world [Andreeva, 2009]. In other words, it is appropriate to consider qualitative methodology as a specific scientific methodology of the paradigm of social cognition and the main practical tool for analyzing social changes.

1.1.3. The problem of polyparadigmality in psychology and changes in ideas about the criteria for the scientific character of knowledge in the 20th century The complex and multifaceted process of critical rethinking of a wide range of theoretical and methodological problems presented in new theories of social cognition, today correlates with the historical change of research paradigms in psychology. Recall that in the logic of T. Kuhn's reasoning, a paradigm is a model from which follow the traditions of scientific research, which attract for a long time groups of supporters from competing directions and at the same time open, so that new generations of scientists can find within them unresolved problems [Kun, 2009] – a system of rules prescribing how to study and explain reality, what methods of identifying and asserting intradisciplinary rationality should be used [Yurevich, 2001].

M.S. Guseltseva believes that in psychology it is more appropriate to talk not about changing paradigms, as described in the natural science concept of T. Kuhn, but about changing intellectual styles, about the ideals of rationality [Guseltseva, 2009]. She distinguishes only four stages of development (paradigms, such as rationality) in psychology: (a) the pre-paradigm state associated with the development of psychological knowledge in the bosom of philosophy; (b) classical rationality, which made itself known as psychology's claim to the status of an independent science and ended in the so-called "open crisis"; (c) non-classical rationality, represented by the rise of the psychological schools of the 20th century; (d) post-non-classical rationality - the modern stage, the features of which include a critical rethinking of the discipline, interdisciplinary discourse, the network principle of knowledge organization, and the hermeneutic orientation of research. Post-nonclassical rationality is being actively discussed today in the general context of the problems of methodological pluralism and polyparadigm in the development of psychology [Kornilova, 2007, Martsinkovskaya, 2007, Smirnov, 2009, Yurevich, 2007].

The ideal of scientific rationality is objectivity as a value setting, which is realized not just in stating the real conditions of the cognitive situation and getting rid of prerequisite subjective factors, but primarily in the development of a critical-reflexive mechanism aimed at their analysis, expansion and deepening of the research subjective position [Shvyrev, 1995].

The problem of scientific rationality and objectivity of cognition underwent serious changes and transformations in the 20th century, which marked the birth of the so-called non-classical picture of the world associated with the philosophical movements of psychoanalysis, phenomenology, existentialism and structuralism.

A number of works by M.K. Mamardashvili, in which he undertakes the experience of critical reflection of the new European philosophy as a single way of thinking, which then makes it possible to discover the prerequisites for the formation of non-classical ideas about the world. The philosophical analysis of the classical and non-classical picture of the world, as it was done by Mamardashvili, was considered in detail in the literature - therefore, we consider it possible only to briefly outline its key points [Kalinichenko, 2004, Kornilova, Smirnov, 2011, about non-classical psychology, in particular, see: Asmolov , 2002].

The classics pursued the goal of “desubjectivization of internal experience, exposure of its generally significant, reproducible, reasonably controlled content, which, precisely because of this, was considered objective” [Mamardashvili, Solovyov, Shvyrev, 2004, p.112].

In accordance with this view, Mamardashvili critically assesses the main line of psychology of the 20th century, which tried to explain mental phenomena objectively, reproaching it for excessive adherence to deterministic explanations, according to which events, including mental ones, are generated by a chain of events and mechanisms - on the contrary, the world is continuously created, it cannot be perceived as already happened, ready, permanent [Leontiev, 2011]. The non-classical ideal of rationality, as it is formulated in the works of M.K. Mamardashvili is not directly connected with the development of the so-called non-classical psychology, but he was given “connecting threads”, those principles that “necessarily change the ideas about explanatory principles in relation to the level of basic categories” of modern psychological knowledge [Kornilova, Smirnov, 2011, p. 130].

Non-classical psychology denies the natural-science, mechanistic understanding of subject-object relations in cognition and recognizes their interacting nature - it turns to the humanitarian paradigm and focuses on the cultural, historical and social plans for studying a person, his internal, “subjective” activity, the ability to self-determine his actions ; a distinctive feature of such concepts is their orientation towards qualitative research methods [Leontiev, 2007].

We will talk separately about non-classical and post-non-classical psychology in the corresponding chapter about historical and theoretical approaches addressed to qualitative research methodology, but for now we will limit ourselves to pointing out its proximity to those changes in the understanding of scientific rationality and objectivity that are reflected in Mamardashvili’s philosophy - as a refusal from recognizing once and for all the given structure of the world, which can be rationally and extra-personally known, and emphasizing the significance of the reflexive effort of the person himself, in which he understands himself, “what he is in his inner content” [Mamardashvili, Solovyov, Shvyrev, 2004] .

It must be said that in social psychology the concepts of classical and non-classical rationality are used extremely rarely, giving way to a discussion of research paradigms, behind which one can see different understandings of the scientific nature of the knowledge and discoveries received. Thus, in the literature there are discussions of a single “new paradigm”, which is closely connected with the European tradition in social psychology [Andreeva, 2009]; a new research paradigm aimed at studying the semantics of social acts and the syntax of social episodes; three paradigms of "explanation", "understanding" and "transformation", which correlate with the American, European and domestic models of science [Shikhirev, 2000]; even as many as five "epistemological" paradigms - already in the context of problems of qualitative methodology - positivist, post-positivist, critical, constructionist and participatory, each of which sets its own standard for assessing the quality of research.

The issue of comparability of paradigms at the philosophical level seems debatable: for example, in early publications E. Guba and I. Lincoln argued that positivism and postpositivism cannot be compared with each other, but within each paradigm separately, the use of mixed strategies for working with data (mixed methods research in modern terminology) is quite justified. In the cited edition of 2005, to the question of whether these paradigms are compatible, the answer is given as a "cautious yes", accompanied by a discussion of the axiological and spiritual dimensions of research practice - while recalling that for T. Kuhn, it is the incommensurable nature of paradigms replacing each other that is essential. Thus, the concept of a paradigm in psychology is each time supplemented by one or another methodological emphasis on the epistemological and procedural originality of a certain research tradition or model. Apparently, a common feature for various and sometimes not fully justified uses of the concept under discussion is the focus on the philosophical nature and criteria for the scientific nature of psychological knowledge, their development and areas of application.

The criteria for the scientific nature of psychological knowledge were considered in detail and systematized in the historical and analytical review by V.A. Koltsova [Koltsova, 2008].

The discussion of various ideas about scientificity allows her to come to the conclusion that there is a certain invariant for various scientific theories, which boils down to the following key aspects: science is a sphere of rational knowledge, which is characterized by evidence, logical validity, systematization of conceptual constructions, as well as the interconnectedness of scientific and non-scientific fields of knowledge and recognition of the possibility of accumulation of rational knowledge in everyday thought.

The last aspect is reflected in the theory of social representations of S. Moskovisi.

Let's summarize. It is clear that new foundations of thinking as such are being formed in the 20th century, and the main focus of these changes is the recognition of a different role of the cognizing subject than in classical modern European thought, and the desire to get out “from the pluralism of logics, subjects, contexts, from the multiplicity of components of these contexts, to find response to the threats of relativism, rethink the role and place of truth, the objectivity of knowledge” [Markova, 2010, p. 254] - approximately the same logic of reasoning is typical for foreign social philosophy. Until now, the process of revising the empiricist philosophy of science and the search for alternative forms of scientific realism continues, because positivist attitudes, obviously, have been overcome only within the framework of philosophical knowledge and continue to have a certain influence on the development of social sciences. In addition, the academic community is increasingly sympathetic to radical postmodern ideas that the very idea of ​​science as such is inherently erroneous - and this makes it necessary to substantiate science on fundamentally new methodological principles of cognition.

It seems that in psychology today methodological pluralism becomes such a principle, practically synonymous with the concept of polyparadigmality - understood as “a system of views according to which the adequacy of certain methodological means of psychological analysis (including psychological theories proper at the level of specific scientific methodology) can only be assessed during the “methodological experiment”, and there cannot be a theory of even the highest (or deepest) level, which would be a priori suitable for overcoming a newly emerging cognitive difficulty” [Smirnov, 2009, p.195]. The principle of methodological pluralism is expressed, among other things, in the multi-vector nature of qualitative research and the many theoretical orientations behind it - as can be seen already from the scheme of five paradigms of Guba and Lincoln.

It should be especially noted that the adoption of the principle under discussion does not remove the problem of the criterion of scientificity of the acquired knowledge, but sharpens it even more - because now the question arises whether supra-paradigm criteria are possible for assessing the scientific character and critical reflection of research within certain psychological areas [Kornilova, 2009]. In relation to qualitative methodology, the experience of formulating such a conceptual, “cross-cutting” structure that could unite various theoretical positions that define the diverse subject area of ​​qualitative research was carried out by R. Harre. Harre tends to believe that qualitative research is a concrete scientific methodology of realistic discursive psychology, which corresponds to modern scientific canons.

The logic of his reasoning is as follows. Harre believes that qualitative research fully meets modern scientific criteria in its essence, in contrast to the old laboratory-experimental "paradigm" of research in psychology - "pre-scientific", because its supporters find it difficult to resolve the issue of studying a person's ability to reflect (the reflexive capacity of human being) and the nature of the meanings that people attach to their actions and statements.

The main criterion of being scientific is the researcher's ability to meta-reflection (in Harre's terminology, second-level reflection). In qualitative research, we explicate the rules and meanings of interactions between people, which are far from always realized by the participants in communication - and thus we focus on the study of subjective experience and actions, the human ability to reflect one's behavior and actions, and moreover, to the meta-reflection of these their reflections. Thus, the key characteristic of qualitative research is its reflexivity, which is rather not an attribute of the cognizing subject, but a tool for its analysis.

For comparison, we can recall the later ideas of S.L. Rubinstein, who singled out two types of being, two main ways of human existence and his attitude to life.

The first is “a life that does not go beyond the limits of direct connections in which a person lives ... here a person is completely inside life” [Rubinshtein, 2012, p. 90]. The second mode of existence is associated with the appearance of reflection, which, as it were, “suspends, interrupts this continuous process of life and takes a person mentally beyond its limits” and helps to take a position above it - to make a judgment about it.

So, the development of the practice of qualitative research in psychology is closely related to the methodological issues of determining research paradigms and the criteria systems they set for evaluating the data obtained in terms of their compliance or non-compliance with accepted standards of scientific validity and reliability, which have undergone major changes in the 20th century in connection with the formation of a non-classical type of rationality and an increase in the role of the cognizing subject in science (his ability to critically reflect on his actions and conclusions).

1.1.4. The problem of defining the concepts of truth, objectivity, and validity of qualitative research on the basis of the analysis carried out, to develop general principles for its practical assessment. We will return to these works and discuss them in detail, but for now we will try to outline the key aspects.

Kirk and Miller acknowledge that although the concept of objectivity comes from positivist methodology, it is nevertheless basic for any scientific research and is the same for both natural and social sciences. For them, objectivity is achieved by empirical testing of theories by the real world and a special kind of agreements within the scientific community (about the rules and standards of scientific knowledge of empirical reality). The criterion of objectivity is the simultaneous realization of the highest possible degree of validity and reliability. If validity indicates the correctness of the procedure, analysis and interpretation of the study, then reliability reports the degree of stability and independence of the result from the random circumstances of the study. By the way, the implementation of one criterion does not necessarily mean the automatic achievement of another - in this sense, they are not symmetrical.

K. Seale proposes to go a completely different way and completely replace the criteria (and corresponding concepts) of objectivity and validity with a single criterion of research quality as more neutral and theoretically not loaded with any associations with one or another methodological position. In view of the fact that qualitative research is carried out within various "paradigms" and "schools", attention should be focused on theoretically non-specific, general criteria for assessing their quality. At the same time, it is noted that quality is not guaranteed by the mechanistic imposition of a criterion, “tracing paper of quality”, but only draws the attention of researchers to certain problems of their work, helps to become more “sensitive” to them. Seale turns to interpretivist and constructionist concepts and, following N. Denzin, suggests using the criterion of reliability (trustworthiness) of research, which, in turn, is implemented in the principles of reliability and credibility (plausibility and credibility). In addition, quality is assessed on the basis of the analyst's story about his work and, interestingly, the aesthetic expressiveness of the data obtained. The trend towards the aestheticization of qualitative research is considered in the context of postmodern philosophy.

Finally, W. Flick goes even further in his reasoning and proposes to consider the issue of assessing the quality of a qualitative research mainly from a practical point of view. He expresses a skeptical attitude towards quality criteria - while referring to the specific range of tasks characteristic of various areas of quality practice: health care, management, expertise in general. Instead, one should focus on specific strategies for improving the quality of analysis, which, according to Flick, are an alternative to countless criteria systems. Such strategies are included directly in the research process, because quality is a certain property inherent in all analytical work. Particular preference is given to the triangulation strategy, which involves the combination of various technologies for collecting and analyzing empirical data, while emphasizing the topics of ethics and transparency of the study (as a demonstration to readers and customers of what exactly was done to improve the quality of the study and what results it led to).

Thus, already during the initial analysis of the literature on the topic of interest to us, not only a very ambiguous and contradictory understanding of the problem of the objectivity of qualitative research is revealed, but also a clear trend towards terminological innovations and practical orientation towards specific procedures for improving the quality of analytical and interpretive work. Based on the domestic psychological tradition [Busygina, 2010, Kornilova, 2010, Kornilova, Smirnov, 2011, Melnikova, 2007], we do not consider it necessary to cancel the concepts of objectivity and validity of a qualitative study, which, being the unified standards of scientific knowledge, are filled depending on of this or that methodological context with a special content. But in order to understand the content of these concepts, we should turn to their epistemological background and how it is revealed in modern psychology.

Epistemologically, the problem of the objectivity of scientific knowledge is connected with the categories of truth and validity. Let's try to define the general philosophical contours of these categories and trace their refractions in the context of qualitative methodology.

Truth is “knowledge that corresponds to the fundamental aspects of reality, brought into the system through theories and received a rigorous justification in the sense of the standard of rigor that is accepted in this science at this stage of its historical development” [Chudinov, 1977, p.3]. From a philosophical point of view, truth is the ideal of scientific and theoretical knowledge and has a regulatory function, without offering an operational basis for a specific study; truth is a holistic result of the reflection of the context, problem, panorama of knowledge; it does not create normative prescriptions, a standard for evaluating scientific research [Kasavin, 2011].

Qualitative methodology rejects the classical understanding of truth as correspondence (an unambiguous correspondence or non-correspondence of our knowledge of reality, “the established order of things once and for all” - recall the type of classical picture of the world according to M.K. Mamardashvili) and asserts the multiple nature of social reality. The principle of “many worlds” was borrowed from the phenomenological sociology of A. Schutz – individual individuals focus their attention on various aspects of social reality and thereby create their own unique worlds (“life worlds”) [Pigrov, 2005; about the evolution of the concept of the life world in philosophy, see: Farman, 2008]. This principle naturally raises the question of the limits of the cognizability of the real world and the status of our knowledge about it, which is further sharpened due to the relativistic setting of social constructionism and its consistent assimilation by qualitative methodology - the problem indicated now is analyzed in detail below.

The next concept of interest to us is the objectivity of scientific research.

Objectivity, in contrast to truth, is a normative criterion of cognition, which means the ability to represent an object as it exists in itself, independently of the cognizing subject; objectivity means liberation from the observer, who makes a judgment about the surrounding world, from the internal and subjective point of view from which cognition is carried out [Ivin, 2008]. It is clear that the complete elimination of the subjective position of the observer is impossible, which raises the question of the degree of inclusion of the value-semantic orientations of a person in the process of research activity carried out by him and his peculiar subjectivization - and this issue is of particular importance in the field of humanitarian knowledge.

The debatability of the topic of the influence of value preferences on the choice of one or another research method and the formulation of theoretical generalizations in psychology, apparently, is determined by its historical border position between the humanities and natural sciences [Leontiev, 2009]. In our opinion, the measure of the objectivity of knowledge - as a measure of its remoteness from the subject or a measure of rigor when taking into account the corrections that its presence requires, the position of the observer not being included and possibly withdrawing him from the studied fragment of the world - is a single research standard and is applicable both for the natural sciences, and for humanitarian knowledge - in the latter, the question of “methods of manifestation” and “perspective” is of particular importance

personal involvement, a view of the world around [Avtonomova, 1995].

The norms of the objectivity of scientific knowledge as a whole are implemented in a specific empirical study as criteria for its validity. This criterion came from the field of psychodiagnostics, where it is a complex characteristic of a methodology that shows the adequacy of the applied model of reality in terms of reflecting the studied psychological characteristics and the representativeness of the diagnostic procedure [Burlachuk, Morozov, 2006]. It can be seen that this definition reflects the same corresponding concept of philosophical truth as the correspondence of knowledge to psychological reality.

Within the framework of the experimental methodology, the validity of the study is considered in relation to analytical conclusions and conclusions - here are several possible definitions of it:

assessment of the conducted empirical research in terms of "correctness"

(biological sciences and) Thesis for the degree of candidate of biological sciences Supervisor:...»

“Martirosova Natalya Veniaminovna Psychological support for the placement of personnel in the public order protection units of the internal affairs bodies 19.00.06 – legal psychology Dissertation for the degree of candidate of psychological sciences Supervisor: candidate of psychological sciences, associate professor Pryakhina M.V. St. Petersburg – 2014 2 CONTENTS Introduction.. CHAPTER 1. Theoretical and methodological analysis of the problem...»

«Grigorenko Elena Leonidovna THE INFLUENCE OF INDIVIDUAL FEATURES OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT ON THE MASTERING OF READING AND WRITING SKILLS IN YOUNGER SCHOOLCHILDREN 19.00.07-Pedagogical psychology (psychological sciences and) Dissertation for the degree of doctor of psychological sciences Moscow - 2012 2 Table of contents Introduction to the study Chapter 1. spelling in domestic psychology § 1.1 .... "

«vy vy from the FOUNDATIONS OF THE RUSSIAN STATE LIBRARY Stepanova^ Elena Vasilievna 1. Communicative readiness of a preschooler for learning activities 1.1. Russian State Library diss.rsl.ru 2003 Stepanova^ Elena Vasilievna Communicative readiness of a preschooler for educational activity [Electronic resource]: Dis. cand. psychol. Sciences: 19.00.07.-M.: RSL, 2003 (From the funds of the Russian State Library) Pedagogical psychology Full text: littp: //diss. rsl...."

"Merzlyakova Dina Rafailovna Influence of professional burnout of a teacher on personal characteristics and success of educational activity of a junior schoolchild 19.00.07 - pedagogical psychology Dissertation for the degree of candidate of psychological sciences Supervisor doctor of psychological sciences, professor ..."

Burelomova Anastasia Sergeevna SOCIAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL FEATURES OF THE VALUES OF MODERN ADOLESCENTS 19.00.05 – Social psychology (psychological sciences and) Dissertation for the degree of candidate of psychological sciences Supervisor: doctor of psychological sciences, professor, academician of the Russian Academy of Education Sobkin V.S. Moscow - 2013 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Chapter 1. Socio-psychological features of value ... "

"KOVALSKAYA ELENA VIKTOROVNA PSYCHOLOGICAL SUPPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTEGRAL INDIVIDUALITY OF STUDENTS WITH A LOW LEVEL OF CREATIVITY 19.00.07 - pedagogical psychology (psychological sciences) Dissertation for the degree of candidate of psychological sciences Supervisor candidate of psychological sciences, ... "

"Stefanenko Ekaterina Aleksandrovna PSYCHOLOGICAL FEATURES OF GELOTOPHOBIA (FEAR OF MISKERY) IN SCHIZOPHRENIA AND AFFECTIVE DISORDERS 19.00.04 - Medical psychology (psychological sciences and) Dissertation for the degree of candidate of psychological sciences Supervisor: candidate of psychological sciences, associate professor Enikolopov S. N. head of department Medical Psychology FGBU Scientific Center...»

“Kobzova Maria Petrovna Cognitive and personality traits in young men with schizotypal disorder who fell ill in adolescence. (Medical psychology - 19.00.04) Thesis for the degree of candidate of psychological sciences Supervisor - candidate of psychological sciences N.V. Zvereva St. Petersburg 2014 Table of contents INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1. COGNITIVE DISORDERS AND...»

« Dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Psychology Moscow - 2014 1 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION..4 CHAPTER 1. The corpus callosum in normal and pathological conditions.25 § 1.1. The structure and formation of the corpus callosum. § 1.2. Individual differences and...»

«Chistyakova Natalia Viktorovna MOLECULAR-GENETIC PREREQUISITES FOR CONTROL OF BEHAVIOR AS A FACTOR OF PSYCHOLOGICAL READINESS FOR BIRTH Specialty 19.00.13 – Developmental Psychology, Acmeology (Psychological Sciences) DISSERTATION for the degree of Candidate of Psychological Sciences Scientific supervisors: Doctor...»

"Uddin Md. Akther COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PERSONAL AND MOTIVATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FULL-TIME AND DISTANCE LEARNING STUDENTS (on the example of psychology students) 19.00.07 – pedagogical psychology DISSERTATION for the degree of candidate of psychological sciences Supervisor: candidate of pedagogical sciences,...»

«Burovikhina Irina Aleksandrovna SOCIAL SITUATION OF DEVELOPMENT AS A CONDITION FOR FORMING THE IMAGE OF THE WORLD OF A MODERN TEENAGER 19.00.13 – Psychology of development, acmeology (psychological sciences and) Dissertation for the degree of candidate of psychological sciences Supervisor: candidate of psychological sciences, associate professor Liders A.G. Moscow - Contents Introduction Chapter 1. Theoretical and methodological ... "

«vy \_/ from the FUNDS OF THE RUSSIAN STATE LIBRARY Uspenskaya, Yulia Mikhailovna 1. The activity of a school psychologist in the prevention of child and adolescent crime 1.1. Russian State Library diss.rsl.ru 2003 Yulia Mikhailovna Uspenskaya Activities of a school psychologist in the prevention of child and adolescent crime [Electronic resource]: Dis. cand. psychol. Sciences: 19.00.03.-M.: RSL, 2003 (From the funds of the Russian State Library) Psychology of work; engineering...»

«vy vy from the FUNDS OF THE RUSSIAN STATE LIBRARY Darovskaya^ Nadezhda Dmitrievna 1. Individual features of the mental adaptation of a person in dangerous professions 1.1. Russian State Library diss.rsl.ru 2003 Darovskaya^ Nadezhda Dmitrievna Individual features of the mental adaptation of a person in dangerous professions [Electronic resource]: Based on the activity of collectors: Dis. cand. psychol. Sciences: 19.00.03.-M.: RSL, 2003 (From the funds of the Russian State Library) ... "

«Pankratov Alexander Valerievich PRACTICAL AND EVERYDAY THINKING: POLIO-MEDIATION, SUBJECT AND STRATEGICITY 19.00.01 - general psychology, personality psychology, history of psychology Dissertation for the degree of Candidate of Psychological Sciences Supervisor: Candidate of Psychological Sciences, Professor Kornilov Yu.K. Yaroslavl CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Chapter 1. THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEM 1.1. Development..."

“Kovyazina Maria Stanislavovna NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL SYNDROME IN PATIENTS WITH PATHOLOGY OF THE CALLOSUM 19.00.04 – Medical psychology (psychological sciences) Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Psychology Moscow – 2013 1 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION..4 CHAPTER 1. The corpus callosum in normal and pathological conditions. § 1.1. The structure and formation of the corpus callosum. § 1.2. Individual differences and...»

"Degtyarenko Ivan Aleksandrovich Ergonomic assessment of user satisfaction with the interface of software tools when working on the Internet 19.00.03 - Psychology of work, engineering psychology, ergonomics (psychological sciences and) Dissertation for the degree of candidate of psychological sciences Scientific ... "

«FROM THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE RUSSIAN STATE LIBRARY Antonenko, Irina Viktorovna Social Psychology of Trust Moscow Russian State Library diss.rsl.ru 2007 Antonenko, Irina Viktorovna. Social psychology of trust [Electronic resource]: dis. . other psychol. Sciences: 19.00.05. M.: RSL, 2006. (From the funds of the Russian State Library). Full text: http://diss.rsl.ru/diss/07/0309/070309029.pdf