Mixing Methods & Questioning Foundations: Exploring the Relation between Design & Theory

Mixing Methods & Questioning Foundations:Exploring the Relation between Design & Theory

Kevin L. Ladd18 May 2010

Conference on Faith and Health

Syddansk Universitet, Odense, Danmark

18 May 2010Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory

BeginningsRoots in philosophy & theology

Wide conversations

The life of philosophy is necessarily the life of leisure.

Broad concern for multiple levels of knowledge

individual, societal, beyond

general principles & specific experiences

18 May 2010Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory

A Lab DividedEmphasis moves toward “science”

Dividing notions of logical & magical

Growth of medicine / decline of theology

Psychology adopts the separation

“physics envy”“losing its mind”

Dividing notions of quantitative & qualitative

18 May 2010Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory

Entrenchment“TRUE” “HARD” science

Captures funding

Why bother with soft, quantitative approaches?

individualized (no mass market application)time consuming

too:

lengthy for print publication

18 May 2010Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory

Results?Techniques become statementsExperiment = New Queen of Science

top down dissemination

driven via theory (individualized origins)

also specialized knowledge (design, analysis)

highly specialized knowledge (gnosis)

Survey = generalized findings

18 May 2010Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory

And the lowly other…

Interviews

bottom up origin (subversive)

applicable to solitary individual

emphasizing single voice

open content in understandable language

18 May 2010Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory

Even worse than interviews!Non-verbal data (e.g. Rasa painting)

18 May 2010Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory

Why didn’t qualitative crawl away & die?Challenges to authority

Experimental logic under fire

Confidence intervalsNull hypothesis testing

Is theory possible AT ALL in psychology?Point predictions

18 May 2010Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory

The Soft Fights BackCreative muses

Dissatisfaction with inexorable “tail chasing”

Violent

Excessive caveats

Not predictable

Articles looking similar

More noise than signal

Real Paradigm Challenge

18 May 2010Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory

Cautions:Status Quo rarely embraces change

“methodological chauvinism”

Necessity of constant protocol revisionLess formal control

On both sides!

Intrapersonal costs

More chance of “stuckness”Necessity of honest collaboration

An Example in Prayer Research:A typically intentional

attemptto establish or maintaina sense of connectivity

with the self,with the surrounding physical world,

or with the perceived supraphysical world.

18 May 2010Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory

Physical Aspects

Embodied Cognition

18 May 2010Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory

Movement Mental

Physical AspectsMental & Movement: Mannequins

18 May 2010Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory

How do people perceive

spirituality in others via

bodily cues and do the perceptions align with

bodily experience?

Physical AspectsMental: Visual

18 May 2010Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory

How do people literally see the

world in reference to their

spirituality?

Physical AspectsMovement: Labyrinths

18 May 2010Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory

To what extent does

physical movement influence spiritual

experience?

18 May 2010Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory

Issues of Physical Context:

1. Body at rest

2. Body in motion

Free form

Simple

Structured

Complex

18 May 2010Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory

Experimental Approach

Avoid reductionism

Emphasize individual experience

N = 14372% female82% White

Mean age = 50 yrs

18 May 2010Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory

Tests:1. Differences in minutes spent in activity?

Yes.

Labyrinth Ribbon Free Walk Seated02468

1012141618

18 May 2010Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory

Tests:2. Differences in reported engagement of prayer

Yes.

Systematically lower amounts of prayer during conditions

(compared to self-reported typical).

18 May 2010Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory

Tests:3. Differences in content?

No.

Consistent between self-reported typical & post condition.

18 May 2010Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory

Tests:4. Differences in pre / post condition emotions?

Yes.

Main effects of emotional state:Higher positive Lower negative

18 May 2010Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory

Tests:5. Differences in post-condition interviews?

Yes.

Longest interviews from labyrinth participants.

18 May 2010Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory

Labyrinth Summary

Duration was present, but not important:More not necessarily better, contra intercessory studies

People prayed in personally consistent ways:Good, non-invasive experimental realism

Labyrinth power?Unique demarcation of space engenders enthusiastic practice

18 May 2010Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory

Overall SummaryWhy quantitative first?

Most quick

Qualitative not “secondary”Equally important because of both content & physical reactions

Qualitative analyses not just “clarifying”Provide critical insight into personal level of experience

Acknowledgement

This work supported in part by grant # 12282 from the John Templeton Foundation.

18 May 2010Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory

Mixing Methods & Questioning Foundations:Exploring the Relation between Design & Theory

Kevin L. Ladd18 May 2010

Conference on Faith and Health

Syddansk Universitet, Odense, Danmark