Difference between revisions of "Westerman2011"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Michael A. Westerman |Title=Conversation analysis and interpretive quantitative research on psychotherapy process and problematic interp...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Michael A. Westerman | |Author(s)=Michael A. Westerman | ||
|Title=Conversation analysis and interpretive quantitative research on psychotherapy process and problematic interpersonal behavior | |Title=Conversation analysis and interpretive quantitative research on psychotherapy process and problematic interpersonal behavior | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Psychotherapy; conversation analysis; dyselaboration; interpersonal defense; interpretation; patient coordination; qualitative research; quantitative methods; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Psychotherapy; conversation analysis; dyselaboration; interpersonal defense; interpretation; patient coordination; qualitative research; quantitative methods; |
|Key=Westerman2011 | |Key=Westerman2011 | ||
|Year=2011 | |Year=2011 | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Volume=21 | |Volume=21 | ||
|Number=2 | |Number=2 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=155–178 |
| − | | | + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0959354310394719 |
| + | |DOI=10.1177/0959354310394719 | ||
|Abstract=In this article, I examine conversation analysis, a fruitful area of qualitative research, in order to extend my prior explorations of the idea that quantitative methods can and should be part of the repertoire of interpretive approaches employed by investigators committed to treating psychological phenomena as irreducibly meaningful. My examination includes considering several lines of research by investigators who are not practitioners of conversation analysis in which quantitative methods were employed to study patient behavior in psychotherapy and defensive behavior more generally. These lines of inquiry show that (a) quantitative research methods have a good deal to offer practitioners of conversation analysis as they endeavor to advance our understanding of the organization of interactions, and (b) we can employ quantitative methods and continue to embrace a commitment to interpretive inquiry. I also offer a critique of fundamental methodological precepts associated with conversation analysis, which differ notably from the precepts guiding most qualitative research efforts in psychology. In a fascinating twist, these precepts, which include discomfort with interpretive research procedures, have resulted in limitations in very recent attempts by some practitioners of conversation analysis to employ quantitative methods in their investigations. | |Abstract=In this article, I examine conversation analysis, a fruitful area of qualitative research, in order to extend my prior explorations of the idea that quantitative methods can and should be part of the repertoire of interpretive approaches employed by investigators committed to treating psychological phenomena as irreducibly meaningful. My examination includes considering several lines of research by investigators who are not practitioners of conversation analysis in which quantitative methods were employed to study patient behavior in psychotherapy and defensive behavior more generally. These lines of inquiry show that (a) quantitative research methods have a good deal to offer practitioners of conversation analysis as they endeavor to advance our understanding of the organization of interactions, and (b) we can employ quantitative methods and continue to embrace a commitment to interpretive inquiry. I also offer a critique of fundamental methodological precepts associated with conversation analysis, which differ notably from the precepts guiding most qualitative research efforts in psychology. In a fascinating twist, these precepts, which include discomfort with interpretive research procedures, have resulted in limitations in very recent attempts by some practitioners of conversation analysis to employ quantitative methods in their investigations. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:22, 27 November 2019
| Westerman2011 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Westerman2011 |
| Author(s) | Michael A. Westerman |
| Title | Conversation analysis and interpretive quantitative research on psychotherapy process and problematic interpersonal behavior |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Psychotherapy, conversation analysis, dyselaboration, interpersonal defense, interpretation, patient coordination, qualitative research, quantitative methods |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2011 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Theory & Psychology |
| Volume | 21 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 155–178 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/0959354310394719 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
In this article, I examine conversation analysis, a fruitful area of qualitative research, in order to extend my prior explorations of the idea that quantitative methods can and should be part of the repertoire of interpretive approaches employed by investigators committed to treating psychological phenomena as irreducibly meaningful. My examination includes considering several lines of research by investigators who are not practitioners of conversation analysis in which quantitative methods were employed to study patient behavior in psychotherapy and defensive behavior more generally. These lines of inquiry show that (a) quantitative research methods have a good deal to offer practitioners of conversation analysis as they endeavor to advance our understanding of the organization of interactions, and (b) we can employ quantitative methods and continue to embrace a commitment to interpretive inquiry. I also offer a critique of fundamental methodological precepts associated with conversation analysis, which differ notably from the precepts guiding most qualitative research efforts in psychology. In a fascinating twist, these precepts, which include discomfort with interpretive research procedures, have resulted in limitations in very recent attempts by some practitioners of conversation analysis to employ quantitative methods in their investigations.
Notes
