The increasing turn to qualitative research in health psychology raises a number of issues about the appropriate use and relevance of qualitative methods in this field. In this article I raise concerns about methodolatry: the privileging of methodological concerns over other considerations in qualitative health research. I argue that qualitative researchers are in danger of reifying methods in the same way as their colleagues in quantitative research have done for some time. Reasons for the pre-eminence of methods are discussed briefly and their consequences considered. The latter include: a concern with ‘proper’ or ‘correct’ methods; a focus on description at the expense of interpretation; a concern with issues of validity and generalizability; an avoidance of theory; an avoidance of the critical; and the stance of the researcher. I offer some suggestions for avoiding methodolatry and some opinions on how we might develop and use qualitative research more effectively in health psychology.
Anderson, G. (1998). Creating moral space in prenatal genetic services. Qualitative Health Research, 8,168–187.
2.
Barnard, A., McCosker, H., & Gerber, R. (1999). Phenomenography: A qualitative research approach for exploring understanding in health care. Qualitative Health Research, 9, 212–226.
3.
Becker, H. (1993). Theory: The necessary evil. In D. J. Flinders & G. E. Mills (Eds.), Theory and concepts in qualitative research: Perspectives from the field (pp. 218–229). New York: Teachers College Press.
4.
Becker, P. (1993). Common pitfalls in published grounded theory research. Qualitative Health Research, 3, 254–260.
5.
Collaizzi, P. F. (1978). Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. In R. Valle & M. King (Eds.), Existential phenomenological alternatives for psychology (pp. 48–71). New York: Oxford University Press.
6.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research. Melbourne: Allen & Unwin.
7.
Curt, B. C. (1994). Textuality and tectonics: Troubling social and psychological science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
8.
Danziger, K. (1985). The methodological imperative in psychology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 15,1–13.
9.
Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
Donmoyer, R. (1990). Generalizability and the singlecase study. In E. W. Eisner & A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate (pp. 175–200). New York: Columbia University Teachers College.
12.
Glaser, B. G. (1992).Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence versus forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
13.
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29, 75–92.
14.
Janesick, V. J. (1994). The dance of qualitative research design: Metaphor, methodolatry, and meaning. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 209–219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
Koch, S. (1981). The nature and limits of psychological knowledge: Lessons of a century qua ‘science’. American Psychologist, 36, 257–269.
16.
Marks, D. F. (1996). Health psychology in context. Journal of Health Psychology, 1, 7–21.
17.
Murray, M., & Chamberlain, K. (1999). Health psychology and qualitative research. In M. Murray & K. Chamberlain (Eds.), Qualitative health psychology: Theories and methods (pp. 3–15). London: Sage.
18.
Parker, I. (1992).Discourse dynamics:Critical analysis for social and individual psychology. London: Routledge.
19.
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology. London: Sage.
20.
Richards, L. (1998). Closeness to data: The changing goals of qualitative data handling. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 319–328.
21.
Romanyshyn, R. D. (1971). Method and meaning in psychology: The method has been the message. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 2, 93–113.
22.
Schatzman, L. (1991). Dimensional analysis: Notes on an alternative approach to the grounding of theory in qualitative research. In D. R. Maines (Ed.), Social organization and social process (pp. 303–314). New York: Aldine.
23.
Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Osborne, M. (1997). Interpretive phenomenological analysis and the psychology of health and illness. In L. Yardley (Ed.), Material discourses of health and illness(pp. 68–91). London: Routledge.
24.
Smith, J. A., Jarman, M., & Osborne, M. (1999). Doing interpretive phenomenological analysis. In M. Murray & K. Chamberlain (Eds.), Qualitative health psychology: Theories and methods (pp. 218–240). London: Sage.
25.
Spicer, J. (1995). Individual discourses in health psychology. Psychology and Health, 10, 291–294.
26.
Spicer, J. & Chamberlain, K. (1996). Developing psychosocial theory in health psychology: Problems and prospects. Journal of Health Psychology, 1, 161–171.
27.
Stainton Rogers, W. (1996). Critical approaches to health psychology. Journal of Health Psychology, 1,65–77.
28.
Stainton Rogers, W. (1999). Thoughts, words and deeds. Paper presented to the First International Conference on Critical and Qualitative Approaches to Health Psychology, St John’s, Canada, July.
29.
Stam, H. J. (2000). Theorizing health and illness: Functionalism, subjectivity, and reflexivity. Journal of Health Psychology, 5(3), 267–277.
30.
Stiles, W. B. (1993). Quality control in qualitative research. Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 593–618.
31.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
32.
van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Toronto: Althouse.
33.
Wilson, H. S., & Hutchinson, S. A. (1996). Methodological mistakes in grounded theory. Nursing Research, 45, 122–124.
34.
Wolcott, H. (1990). On seeking—and rejecting—validity in qualitative research. In E. W. Eisner & A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate (pp. 121–152). New York: Columbia University Teachers College.
