Mapping qualitative research in psychology across five Central-Eastern European countries: Contemporary trends: A paradigm analysis

Abstract

This study describes the current state of qualitative psychology and gives an overview of the philosophical paradigms used in English language qualitative psychology studies from the post-socialist countries of Central Eastern Europe. For political and historical reasons, academic life of this area is unique, providing a special field for investigation. This study explored the following research questions: Which philosophical paradigms are used in qualitative psychology? What kind of methods are applied? What kind of fields in psychology are examined? Thirty-five articles were analysed from five countries. Articles were examined through their paradigmatic considerations, using a dichotomous qualitative quasi-testing to distinguish positivist/postpositivist from interpretive/constructivist paradigms. We examined the methodology and content of various articles and analysed the keywords to explore common themes of interest. A dominant constructivist philosophical approach was present. Pure positivist articles were found to be quite rare, but mixed paradigms seemed to be frequent. Most of the methodologies were not specified. In terms of interest, the most commonly examined field was found to be social psychology. In the postsocialist era, mixed paradigms were conspicuous since culture and tradition might have had a significant effect on ontology, epistemology, and knowledge of the researcher.

Experiences of Stress and Help-Seeking Behaviors in Filipino Americans

“…Because constructivism typically embraces multiple voices, the depth and elaboration of participants’ experiences are paramount to provide a much more intricate description of social realities (Guba & Lincoln, 1994 ). To this end, constructivism relies on subjective meanings to connect similarities and differences and convey the uniqueness of each social reality (Kovàcs et al, 2019 ; Lincoln et al, 2011 ).…”

‘Just keep taking them, keep hoping they’ll work’: A qualitative study of adhering to medications for multimorbidity

“…Specifically, while the interviews explored illness representations, beliefs about medications, and treatment burden, the analysis did not aim to fit results into a pre‐determined framework. Analysis was conducted through a constructivist paradigm, wherein reality is considered to be constructed from individual influences and contexts, with an emphasis on subjective interpretations (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Kovács et al., 2019). The chosen paradigm guided what could be inferred from the data and focussed the analysis on participants’ own accounts of reality (Burr, 2003), within the social and cultural conventions that influence meaning (Wilson, 2000).…”

Intersubjective recognition as the methodological enactment of epistemic privilege: A critical basis for consensus and intersubjective confirmation procedures.

“…As the use of qualitative methods across many subdisciplines of psychology has continued to increase (Kovács et al, 2019; Ponterotto, 2010), questions have arisen about how to improve their rigor. There have been numerous sets of guidelines and standards put forward for qualitative research (e.g., Elliott et al, 1999; Levitt, Motulsky, et al, 2017; Morrow, 2005; Parker, 2004; Stiles, 1993) and its varied forms (e.g., Braun & Clarke, 2020; Fine, 2013; Hill, 2012; Wertz, 2005) that demonstrate the interest in providing direction in this regard.…”

“…Instead of material objects, they are meanings and human processes that are influenced by social contexts, self-awareness, agency, and the ability to interact with the researchers and research questions in complex ways (see Levitt, Surace, et al, 2020 for a critical examination of the historical and contemporary role of scientific objectivity in psychology). These procedures, with this justification, likely were useful in establishing qualitative methods within a context where realist perspectives were dominant (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Lincoln & Guba, 1985); however, approaches to inquiry have shifted and diversified, with the rise of constructivist (i.e., approaches that seek to understand the development of interpersonal and social meanings) and critical approaches (i.e., approaches that examine how power influences knowledge creation) to qualitative research (Grzanka & Moradi, 2021; Kovács et al, 2019; Levitt, Pomerville, et al, 2017).…”

“…These perspectives are central in qualitative methods. Indeed, constructivist epistemological approaches have been found to be the most commonly used within qualitative articles in psychology (e.g., Kovács et al, 2019; Levitt, Pomerville, et al, 2017) and critical approaches appear to be rapidly gaining traction (e.g., Grzanka & Moradi, 2021; Levitt et al, 2021). In the next section, we propose an approach to inter-researcher collaboration that may mitigate these concerns.…”