Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses of Historical Data

Abstract

Although the typical study in psychology involves the quantitative analysis of contemporary research participants, occasionally psychologists will study historical persons or events. Moreover, these historical data may be analyzed using either qualitative or quantitative techniques. After giving examples from the subdisciplines of cognitive, developmental, differential, abnormal, and social psychology, the distinctive methodological features of this approach are outlined. These include both data collection (sampling, unit definition, etc.) and data analysis (both qualitative and quantitative). The discussion then turns to the advantages and disadvantages of this research method. The article closes by presenting the reasons why (a) psychologists will probably continue to use historical data and (b) quantitative analyses may eventually replace qualitative analyses in such applications.

Why do English players fail in soccer penalty shootouts? A study of team status, self-regulation, and choking under pressure

“…It could be that goalkeeper differences are responsible for differences between the teams, and this should also be addressed in future studies. Finally, although we think that the conclusions that are drawn from these data are logical, the indirect correlational measures that characterize all historical data (Simonton, 2003) make some speculation necessary when interpreting our findings. Thus, it is imperative that researchers collect data that can more directly illuminate the mechanisms at play in these situations, by for example interviewing players from different countries or experimentally manipulating these variables in more controlled laboratory settings.…”

“…Thus, it is imperative that researchers collect data that can more directly illuminate the mechanisms at play in these situations, by for example interviewing players from different countries or experimentally manipulating these variables in more controlled laboratory settings. On the other hand, the large advantage of historical data is that they have intrinsic meaning and high external validity making the results relatively easy to communicate outside of the academia and potentially, easier to apply back to the real world (Simonton, 2003).…”

What makes articles highly cited?

“…Thus, we hope to see more mixed-methods research that uses qualitative data in a content analytic-type framework that allows for quantification and later testing (cf. Simonton, 2003). We believe that our recommendations would not be too taxing to undertake and may help make qualitative research findings more valid and impactful, at least in our field of study.…”

“…In addition, we think that it would be best for researchers to quantify their qualitative data, to the extent that it is possible (Eagly & Antonakis, in press;Maxwell, 2010;Simonton, 2003), and to then use these data to test hypotheses (e.g., as can be done when content analyzing data, see Study 2 in Antonakis, Fenley, & Liechti, 2011). Doing so will allow qualitative researchers to employ counterfactual conditions.…”

Considering context in psychological leadership research

“…Conducting research that integrates individual and group levels of analysis, although still difficult, is more easily attainable, as researchers need access to only one organization if an adequate sample of groups is available to participate in the research. Alternatively, instead of accessing companies directly, researchers could find creative ways of studying leaders at a distance particularly for modeling organizational-level phenomena (e.g., see Simonton, 2003;Winter, 1991) To conclude, we trust this special issue helps to advance the boundaries of leadership; future work should consider context in leadership research.…”