mixing methods & questioning foundations: exploring the relation between design & theory
DESCRIPTION
Mixing Methods & Questioning Foundations: Exploring the Relation between Design & Theory. Kevin L. Ladd. 18 May 2010. Conference on Faith and Health Syddansk Universitet , Odense, Danmark. Beginnings. Roots in philosophy & theology. Wide conversations. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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