VEHÍCULOS DE TRANSPORTE PÚBLICO 1 Circulación

The debate about the efficacy of qualitative versus quantitative methodologies from a CoP vantage point (and in other applied psychologies) is a long-standing one. In the case of CoP, it echoes its often-discussed identity complications and oscillations between the scientist-practitioner and reflective-practitioner positions (that is, between the human and the natural sciences). The conflicted epistemological and ontological positions that CoP is called to contain within both research and practice has given rise to discussions about the pluralistic stance CoP should endorse in both arenas. It suggests that CoPts could effectively use quantitative and qualitative approaches by engaging with methodological pluralism (Hanley, Cutts, Gordon, & Scott, 2013) but also considers how research findings come together with theories of psychological practice (Cooper & McLeod, 2001). The relational and dialogical approach to research and practice which CoP emphasises seems to fit well with the philosophical underpinnings of both methodological and therapeutic pluralism. As Manafi (2010) stressed, CoP has always been tightly grounded in a philosophy that endorses dialectic ways of practising and relational ways of doing research. In other words, I suggest that we are invited to engage our own and other epistemological and ontological assumptions in a dynamic dialogue. This does not negate the possibility of the emergence of incongruity, conflict, and uncertainty. On the contrary, it brings to the fore a vibrant tension with which we are called to engage constructively and creatively by embracing a critical and evaluative stance towards others and our assumptions. As Downing (2000) suggested, this dialectical initiative brings to the surface dilemmas that are not always resolved and the possibility that agreements or synthesis between viewpoints will not always take place.

This project with its emphasis on intersubjectivity from an E-P vantage point employed throughout (understanding of phenomena and therapeutic process, personal reflexivity, collecting data, etc.), endorses a pluralistic philosophy by acknowledging otherness in all its forms. With pluralism suggesting that any significant question can be approached and answered differently (Rescher, 1993), I also acknowledge that different therapeutic approaches have different – of equal value – stories to narrate (hence, the participants of this project practise different therapeutic modalities). With

relevance to methodological pluralism, I acknowledge the otherness of quantitative designs, which have contributed to both counselling and psychotherapy (McLeod, 1994) and therefore respect the usefulness of quantitative approaches for particular types of investigations, for instance when a research question invites large sample sizes and generalisable results with an emphasis on cause-effect relationships. However, the deep exploration of the diversity of meaningful intersubjective experiences this project aspired to engage with invited the consideration of a qualitative investigative position. My decision to employ a qualitative approach was therefore mainly informed by the nature of my research question (what are the lived- experiences of therapists working intersubjectively with psychosis?). Additionally, my personal experiences and values and my training in E-P CoP and its core philosophical values have influenced the genesis of my research question.

CoP is strongly related to the E-P paradigm, which provides a foundation in qualitative research methodologies and their relational epistemologies (Thayer-Bacon et al., 2003). For these reasons, in the next sections I engage with an exploration of the epistemological, ontological, axiological and methodological grounds on which qualitative methods rest, and how these are compatible with E-P CoP, and also whether they fit well for the purposes of my research question. It is important to elucidate that the exploration of the literature also informed the choice of methodology, in the sense that the sophisticated and idiographic nature of intersubjectivity – as the literature indicated – which this project engaged with, could not be explored in quantitative operational terms, hence a qualitative exploration of the subjective nature of the multiplicity of participants’ experiences justified the adoption of a qualitative design. Some brief definitions will be useful before delving into the topic. While epistemology is concerned with how we know what we know, ontology is concerned with the nature of reality and being and what can be known about reality. Methodology refers to the process and procedures of research, and axiology is concerned with the role and values of the researcher in the research process (Ponterotto, 2005).

Epistemology

Qualitative methods are based on the interpretive research paradigm, which assumes different points of view that provide distinctive characteristics of a subjectively experienced reality (Kiddler & Fine, 1997). This reminds us of Kierkegaard’s (1844/1973) suggestion that we should hold a subjective position towards knowledge of the world and others. Similarly, I make the assumption that the experiences that my participants shared in this study are subjective and therefore the knowledge generated through results provides a subjective knowledge of intersubjective approaches to psychotherapy. Quantitative research methods’ positivistic paradigm would have been inappropriate for this project’s research question and also incompatible with my personal epistemological positioning, as it assumes that through precise methods the researcher can reveal objective data for an objective reality (McLeod, 2001). The subjectivist epistemology that qualitative methods are based on assumes instead that it is not possible to quantify the subjective nature of feelings, thoughts, and behaviours and considers knowledge to be subjective and contextualised (Langdridge, 2007). This echoes Nietzsche’s (1873/1962) criticism of objectivity and truth when he strongly asserted that truth is relational and that we cannot approach any form of absolute truth. Moreover, the researcher is expected to interact with and affect participants and results while being affected herself in the process (Richardson, 1994), which resonates with Buber’s (1921/1996) notion of mutuality and intersubjective processes taking place within and between people. This embedded notion of intersubjectivity in the formation of knowledge and the process of research fits well with the second person approach to intersubjectivity upon which this project places emphasis. Moreover, it is incompatible with quantitative methods’ objectivist epistemology, which considers that any form of knowledge can be measured in objective terms, with the world experienced and described objectively and the researcher independent from the phenomena of investigation.

Ontology

Ontologically, qualitative methods maintain a relativist approach by rejecting the existence of absolute truth, and assume reality to be subjective, multiple, meaningful and intersubjectively constructed by people (McLeod, 2001; Langdridge, 2007). Husserl (1925/1977) insisted that scientific knowledge cannot be separated from our subjective way of understanding phenomena of the lived-world and therefore implied that our understanding of phenomena is not separated from our own lived experiences. As I have already described in the preface, my own experiences in working with psychosis affected my understanding of psychosis and this influenced the formation of my research question. I am therefore well aware that my assumptions related to the psychotherapy of psychosis have affected my personal style in the interviewing process and the formation of my results. Quantitative methods take a completely different turn with the researcher adopting an ontological position that makes her assume that to avoid biasing the results she needs to remain objectively detached from her participants. This project’s research question and my personal epistemological and ontological positioning assume an intersubjective construction of research findings and therefore a research methodology advocating that the researcher should adopt a detached approach towards participants was rejected.

Axiology

The constructivist-interpretivist nature of axiological assumptions in qualitative methods considers the research process and outcomes as value-laden. The implication of considering the researcher’s values as an inextricable part of the research process is that it provides the space for their comprehension and challenge (Willig, 2008). E-P thinking places a considerable emphasis on how our speaking position and our values affect the understanding of phenomena under investigation (e.g. Deurzen, 2002). On the contrary, quantitative research’s axiological assumptions – which seemed incompatible for this project – assume that the researcher should strive for a value-free and unbiased approach since it views values as emotive and therefore outside of the sphere of scientific interest (Mcleod, 2001).

Methodology

Methodologically, qualitative approaches follow an inductive process of research. They therefore take into consideration the effects of the context throughout the research process while they also assume that both researcher and participant shape the form the results take (Ponterotto, 2005). On the contrary, the deductive process of quantitative methods is involved instead with cause and effect relationships without being sensitive enough to context issues (McLeod, 2001). Instead, this project’s emphasis on intersubjective dynamics maintained sensitivity to contextual issues throughout. For example, both my personal and participants’ social contexts and the relationships between the two have been considered as significant in the analysis and interpretation of the data which emerged. Along these lines, Heidegger (1926/2001) and Merleau-Ponty (1945/1962) emphasised the importance of context when exploring phenomena by placing particular emphasis on culture, history and time and understood them as the basic structure of human understanding. Moreover, Sartre (1939/1962) has also emphasised the social and political dimension of human understanding.

To conclude, the purpose of this research is to explore the intersubjective experiences of practitioners who work with psychosis. The epistemological, ontological, axiological and methodological stance of CoP (particularly from an E-P perspective), the objectives of this research and the literature review, justified the adoption of a qualitative approach, whereby the generated knowledge was grounded in the subjective and diverse intersubjective experiences of participants.