Quantitative and qualitative social psychology - Looking into discrimination
Nina Kjar, stud.psych. and Maria Valeur, stud.psych.
In this interview we focus on different approaches in the social sciences. As psychology students we would like to know more about the implications of quantitative and qualitative research within this field. So we asked our new coordinator in Social Psychology Thomas Morton and Iram Khawaja associate professor at Aarhus University in Emdrup, and in the following we invite you to compare their respective approaches.
Thomas Morton is a quantitatively trained social psychologist within the experimental tradition, while Iram Khawaja represents a qualitative approach drawing on a poststructuralist and feminist tradition among others.
We sent out identical interview-guides via email. Our questions cover their respective theoretical scope, their methodological approaches, their view on research aimed at political change, and lastly their approach to discrimination and how discrimination affects the ways in which we deal with the corona-crisis. We’ve highlighted some interesting points of comparison showing where the two researches diverge or express interesting similarity. The juxtaposition of their answers to our questions is a choice made by us.
Reading the answers, made us wonder how one field of research can be defined by such different methodological approaches. We ask the reader to ponder whether Thomas Morton and Iram Khawaja are actually studying the same social phenomena. We could say yes, but from very different – though both important – positions! We want to encourage insight into both approaches, and to advocate for a humble and respectful approach to who or what you’re studying, by reflecting on what sort of knowledge your method is producing and what you are using it for.
Question #1 – The theoretical scope
Firstly, we would like to know a bit more about your theoretical point of view. In a few lines, would you explain which theories you are mainly inspired by in your research? As we are studying psychology, we would specifically like to know, what constitutes the subject/actor within your theoretical scope?
Thomas Morton:
My education as a social psychologist was embedded in the tradition of Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and its “sister theory” Self-Categorization Theory (Turner, 1985). As a general perspective, these theories emphasize the role of salient identities in structuring the ways we view the world and act and interact in it. Although I studied in Australia, it’s a distinctly European theoretical tradition that emphasizes the socially-situated nature of the self, and the role of societal conditions (like status differentials between groups, the stability and legitimacy of these, and the presence of intergroup conflicts) in guiding exactly how people experience group membership and therefore behave in the pursuit of a sense of self that is both positive and distinct in the world they inhabit. Part of the “agenda” of this theoretical perspective is to provide a counterpoint to more individualistic analyses of things like stereotyping, prejudice, group processes and intergroup behaviour.
All that said, in my own work as a student I diverged a bit from what other people around me were doing, and I didn’t work directly on social identity theory. At the time, I was instead quite interested in the role of media in influencing people’s broad beliefs about society, and the communication processes that translated abstract ideas gleaned from the media into more concrete realities that individuals take action on (i.e., when does something go from being a “social problem” that affects other people, to something I personally worry and do something about?).
A lot of time has passed since then, and my interests have grown and changed. Over time, I’ve become more interested in identities that are marginalized, stigmatized, or otherwise devalued in society, and the ways in which people from those groups navigate their sense of self and express it to others. At the moment, I’m also becoming interested in how people understand the physical environments they inhabit (e.g., neighbourhoods, university campuses) and the role of identity cues in the environment (who else is there, who does this place “belong to”) in shaping their experiences of place. So, I still continue to be influenced by ideas about identity, and in some ways also by things connected to communication – what the world communicates to us about who we are, and also how we communicate that sense of self to others.
Iram Khawaja:
I draw on a poststructuralist tradition mainly drawing on Michel Foucault’s concepts on discourse, power and subjectification. Bronwyn Davies, Dorthe Staunæs, Dorte Marie Søndergaard and Lynn Fendler can be mentioned as researchers who have brought ideas on how the subject is formed in and through discursive and power relational processes into a psychological sphere. The focus is to examine how social categories such as gender, age and ethnicity makes a difference in processes of becoming. This focus is also represented in postcolonial theory which is also a theoretical tradition I work with. Within this tradition, we see concepts such as otherness/firstness, power and a focus on how subjects’ create a sense of belonging and identity. Søndergaard has for example looked into how gender plays into the subject’s possibilities for becoming an accepted and valued subject in academia. How there might be certain ways of doing gender that makes one (un)desirable or (un)intelligible in regard to the dominant discursive understandings of what it means to be a female student/male student. I have been looking into how categories such as religiosity and ethnicity can mark one as different/other – and how it affects the subject’s possibilities of positioning oneself as someone who truly belongs or does not belong in the Danish society. When focusing on processes of becoming we are working with a fluid concept of subjectivity and looking into the discursive premises for becoming who and what we think we are as human beings.
Question #2 – Methodology
Now we move on to the methodological aspects of your research. Which methods do you use, can you give an example of or explain how you operationalize variables and research objects?
Thomas Morton:
In general, I find methods really interesting and I’m pretty open to all kinds of methods. Over my career, I’ve been involved in everything from tightly-controlled behavioral experiments in labs, psycho-physiological measures, large-scale surveys, qualitative interview-based studies, and applied work to test the effectiveness of interventions in organizations.
I do tend to be drawn to experiments though. There is something I find quite satisfying in trying to keep everything the same except for the thing you’re interested in testing, and in finding ways to carefully manipulate that thing in ways that will feel natural to the people who will be research participants in the experiment. For that to all work, I think it is important to have a good understanding of the cultures that your research participants are embedded in – manipulations only really “work” if you’re speaking the language of your participants (metaphorically as well as literally). Here you can maybe see my communication background coming in again – I tend to think of surveys and experiments as conversations that you’re engaged in with a participant, and for things to work the conversation needs to flow and make sense to both parties.
Iram Khawaja:
I work with qualitative methods - specifically using qualitative interview techniques and participant observation to follow subjects in their everyday lives and activities. The observations follow an ethnographic approach and the interviews I conduct are most often formed as narrative interviews aimed at exploring the ways in which the subject construct herself and her life story. In my Ph.D. dissertation from 2010 on young Muslims in religious communities in Copenhagen, I followed different religious organizations in their different activities, such as meetings, debates and seminars over a period of 2 years. I participated as a researcher but most often blended in as a participant amongst the other participants, and over time I gained access to many of the interviewees who are part of the study. There is thus an overlap of knowledge and context between the participant observations and the narrative interviews conducted. I describe the interviews as being narrative because they were aimed at gaining insight into the subject’s discursive and embodied construction of her-/himself, using techniques of questioning aimed at the everyday life and self understanding of the individual. This form of methodological approach where you move close to the subject’s world and self understanding gives the researcher a very rich, detailed and textured form of knowledge of how, in my case, religiosity, community and identity intersect in the young Muslims’ narratives on home and belonging.
Question #3: Forms of knowledge
What kind of knowledge do you obtain with the approach described above, and what advantages does it have? Do you think there are assumptions within qualitative and quantitative social sciences respectively that are incompatible/compatible?
Thomas Morton:
As might be clear from the above, I see qualitative and quantitative approaches as very compatible. I know that some people think that quantification, especially experimentation, is artificial and that this loses meaning and separates experimental insights from reality. To me, that misses the point – experiments are useful for exploring the possibilities for how people think and behave under specific conditions and for addressing questions about causality. Experiments don’t describe reality. But, good experiments are somehow connected to, or informed by, a careful understanding of the social reality that surrounds them. To paraphrase Tajfel, experiments don’t occur in a social and political vacuum – whether we plan it or not, the results of an experiment is influenced by what is happening in the world around it. With that in mind, when I’m moving into a new area or toying with a new idea, I tend to read a lot of popular media, commentary, and qualitative research to try and understand the social and political context that surrounds any experimental work that I might want to do.
Another criticism I often hear about quantitative work is that it incorrectly assumes that researchers have direct access to what people “really think” (e.g., based on what they say in a survey) and that it is possible to reduce those thoughts to simple numbers. I don’t make either of those assumptions, even when I’m doing experiments. In line with my approach to experiments as conversations, I see the answers that people give as highly contextualized expressions (i.e., what they were saying to me in that moment, not what they ‘generally believe’) and I am very aware of how their ability to express themselves is constrained by what I ask and who they think I am (actually, sometimes that’s exactly what I am interested in).
Iram Khawaja:
The knowledge obtained through the abovementioned methods is a subjective, in depth and contextual form of knowledge. It gives insight into how subjects and subjectivity is formed in and through different contexts, discourses and categories. The poststructuralist qualitative approach to knowledge is based on the premise that knowledge is always produced from a specific perspective with a certain interest. In that way one can say the focus is more on the premises for knowledge production and is thus very much an epistemological project of exploring how we come about the knowledge we believe we have.
Even though I do not work within the field of quantitative methods I do believe the traditional divide between qualitative and quantitative approaches as two incompatible methodological spheres should be and can be challenged. A mixed methods approach has great potential because it can combine the in-depth subjective focus on how subjects create meaning and position themselves with a broader quantitative focus on scope, general tendencies and patterns.
Question #4: What problems are you trying to solve?
Then we move on to the practicalities: What application does your research have? Which problems does your research aim to solve?
Thomas Morton:
Over the years, I’ve been involved in a number of projects that have applied relevance. One of the projects that I’m most proud of was a project in which I worked with a care provider in the UK to explore the effects of training their clients in how to use the internet for social purposes. In terms of experimental design, this was really simple – just two groups, one who got training and one that didn’t. But in terms of actually doing it, it was really challenging! I learned a lot about the strength, resilience, and vulnerabilities of older adults in care, as well as about the motivations and dedication of those who work in the care sector. Ultimately, the results of the project were very interesting, and the organization implemented a job for ‘care technologists’ in their homes to support clients to maintain their connections online, as well as offline – so the research directly informed their policy and practices.
I’ve been involved in a number of other projects on this broad theme – social connectedness, health, and well-being – and I think what interests me most about this area is that it is at once an important theoretical question (exactly how and why do social connections affect our physical and mental health?) but also one with such an obvious applied relevance (how can we help people to maintain their social connections, especially when their capacity to do that is challenged by the circumstances of their lives?).
Iram Khawaja:
I have been concerned with exploring questions pertaining to the often marginalized or othered subjects and groups in society, with a specific focus on ethnic and religious minoritized groups in Denmark. The ambition with my research is to foreground the subjects’ own voices and narratives – their ways of understanding and positioning themselves, and hereby deconstruct the existing, often stereotypical and othering images of e.g. young Muslims.
Question #5 - A focus on discrimination
How would you explain or operationalize discrimination of ethnic minorities? How could your research method contribute to an understanding of this issue?
Thomas Morton:
Discrimination is both easy and hard to define. “To discriminate” simply means to distinguish between two things. So, when we treat people differently because of who they are, we are discriminating. But discrimination as a social phenomenon is ambiguous – it’s not definitively revealed in every single instance in which someone is treated differently from someone else. Instead discrimination is revealed in patterns of differential treatment across situations and in society. As members of society, we also don’t always agree on what constitutes problematic differential treatment versus differential treatment that is somehow justified and legitimate. This ambiguity is actually something that is really interesting to social psychologists and raises lots of questions about things like: when do we think we have been the target of discrimination (and how that thought affects our sense of self and well-being)?; how do people justify the negative treatment of others and maintain an image of themselves as “unprejudiced”?; and, how can we bridge the diverging perspectives on prejudice and discrimination between dominant/majority groups and subordinated/minority groups?
In terms of the research that I think helps to address these questions, there are just too many examples to summarize; and the examples that spring to my mind cover all kinds of methods, from qualitative studies on discourses of racism/sexism and the language people use to construct/maintain an unprejudiced self-image, to surveys that establish the different standards by which prejudice and discrimination are judged, as well as work exploring the ways in which targets of prejudice do or do not cope with this experience and what this means for their well-being, to experiments that look at exactly what happens in the moment when people interact across group lines. I think all these methods have something important to contribute to the understanding of prejudice and discrimination as social phenomena.
Iram Khawaja:
In my approach to exploring discrimination I focus on processes of othering and minoritization. When we speak of processes of othering or minoritization we adopt a power relational and constructionist focus on norms and discourses in society in regard to how certain subjects and groups are positioned as different. To be an “Other” is to be power relationally positioned as different. A focus on “the Other” at the same time entails a focus on the position as First – which can be defined as the norm, what we take for granted and do not question. The Othered position can be defined and marked according to different categories, such as age, gender, race, religiosity and ethnicity. In my opinion, it is important not to isolate the categories but look into how they play into each other in creating more or less socially advantaged positions in society. Here it is also important to look into processes of othering as not only subjective experiences – the subjective experiences are linked to structurally and historically situated positionalities and references.
Question #6 – Psychologists and ethnic minorities
Why do you think it is important for psychologists to know about discrimination of ethnic minorities?
Thomas Morton:
A core insight of the social identity approach is that all societies are structed by group memberships, those groups are organized in society in ways that create status and power hierarchies, and that the reality of hierarchical differentiation has consequences for people’s sense of self and for their social behaviour. From this perspective, it can sound like discrimination is inevitable, and indeed reality shows us that discrimination exists and persists, and therefore powerfully structures the lives and experiences of many people. For that reason alone, we should study it. But we should also study it to find ways of changing it – theoretically at least, prejudice is not an inevitable consequence of group membership, but rather of the social processes through which we attach meaning to groups. Related to your questions below, I think a lot of social psychological research is motivated by a change agenda, and research on prejudice and discrimination is a very good example of that.
Iram Khawaja:
Firstly, the society we live is in increasingly becoming diverse and globalized. We need theoretical tools and ways of understanding diversity and difference as a basic premise for how we participate and create meaning in the world. Secondly, as professionals in different fields of work within the profession of psychology we will encounter and have to deal with subjects who are dealing with issues of not being recognized, accepted and understood. Some of these issues will be linked to broader structural issues of discrimination and othering, which needs to be addressed in our work with clients, students, informants etc. As psychologist we bear a certain responsibility as well in regard to raising and dealing with issues concerning discrimination.
Question # 7: Political motivation
Do you see your research in general as having political impact? This could for example be in the sense of changing interventional practice or informing policy makers. If not, how do you imagine your research could achieve political impact?
Thomas Morton:
I think I’ve already alluded to this in my answers to some of the previous questions: yes, I believe that policy should be informed by good research, and that good research should have social relevance and impact. I also think that pushing ourselves as researchers into the “real world” and testing the usefulness of our theories is an opportunity for personal and collective growth. Manipulating something in the controlled environment of the lab is one thing, showing that it matters in the messier reality of people’s everyday lives is quite another. But, ultimately our theories do need to matter when it comes to understanding, explaining, and positively changing people’s realities too.
That said, doing properly rigorous yet also impactful applied work is also really challenging. And I think we need to be careful about jumping too quickly from what we think we know to what we think other people should do based on that. There is a lot of pressure – both from researchers themselves and from politicians/media/organizations – to give simple answers and clear advice. But a lot of the things were interested in as psychologists are really complicated. We need to be aware of that and maybe a bit humble before we start telling people what they should do.
Iram Khawaja:
Research, is in my view always politically motivated on some level – driven by a quest to make a difference. In my case, the quest has firstly been to try to nuance the often problematizing images and understandings of ethnic and religiously minoritized subjects, and secondly to directly point towards discriminatory practices and work towards ways of working with practice and education to overcome processes of othering. This means looking into your own positionality as a researcher, therapist or educator and creating spaces where it is possible to critically reconstruct and destabilize your own assumptions and prejudices.
Question #8: Corona and discrimination
In the light of recent events, we would like to ask how you think discrimination is affecting the way in which we deal with the corona-crisis?
Thomas Morton:
There is a lot of evidence for health-related inequalities between different groups in society. Those inequalities are multiply determined, but include the pressures of structural disadvantage as well as the experience of prejudice and discrimination that produce stress in their own right as well as affecting which kinds of treatment people receive. So, if the question was a more general one of whether discrimination is relevant to understanding people’s health outcomes, I think the answer is an obvious “yes”.
In relation to corona virus specifically, the impression that I’m getting (from US and UK data at least) is that this pattern is replicated here too: any health inequalities that exist prior to corona virus are exacerbated by it. Disadvantaged/ marginalized groups in society seem most exposed to the negative effects of the virus itself, as well as to the indirect effects of the virus on society, including things like unemployment as well as the pressures of physical confinement and social isolation. This is not just about discrimination in the moment, but also about structural inequality and the social patterning of things like job security, the capacity for remote work, and access to living space. I’ve also heard stories of corona virus activating/legitimizing certain prejudices, for example towards people of Asian origin and the elderly. I don’t have any data to speak to the extent of that phenomenon, but I don’t doubt that this happens.
What I think these things show is that how we respond to something like a virus is not just a bio-medical question. It’s also a question about our societies, how they are structured, and how we understand the relationship between events, people, and the groups that make up the world we live in. Discrimination and prejudice, advantage and disadvantage, are of course connected to these questions, and therefore part of the situation we are all now experiencing.
Iram Khawaja:
In these trying times of Corona and the fear of COVID-19, we see how the structural aspects of being positioned in more or less advantaged positions in society is becoming increasingly visible. The structural difference in who is most in risk of contracting the virus due to living and work condition is intersecting with ethnicity. In UK as well as in the US the ethnic minoritized populations are the ones most hardly hit by the virus – both in regard to health but also in regard to their financial situation. Another aspect is the increasing number of cases of racism and discrimination targeting ethnic minoritized subjects and groups in society with the allegations of bringing Corona to the country – this is especially seen in regard to subjects with South-Asian background. The corona-crisis is in this way making existing stereotypes and prejudices more visible.