2.2.2. Alternative Paradigms of Research

Psychologists suggest that human behaviour can and should be studied following the methods adopted by sciences like physics, chemistry, and biology. The key assumption of this view is that human behaviour is predictable, caused by internal and external forces, and can be observed, measured, and controlled. In order to achieve these goals, the discipline of psychology, for larger part of the twentieth century, restricted itself to the study of overt behaviour, i.e. the behaviour that could be observed and measured. It did not focus on personal feelings, experiences, meanings, etc.

In the traditional scientific approach, psychology is treated like a natural science. This means psychologists used methods from physics or chemistry to study behaviors, viewing them as predictable and measurable. For example, just as a chemist might study the reaction between elements, a psychologist might study a person's responses to stressors using controlled experiments. However, for a long time, this approach didn't account for deeper aspects of human experience, like emotions or thoughts that can't be easily measured or observed.

Essentially, the focus was primarily on visible behavior rather than understanding the underlying feelings or motivations. This meant that many aspects of human psychology, which are crucial for understanding why people behave in certain ways, were overlooked.

Imagine a weather scientist studying a storm by only looking at rain measurements and wind speeds, without considering what people feel or do during the storm. This is similar to early psychology focusing only on observable behaviors without understanding inner feelings.

In recent years, a different method known as interpretive has emerged. It emphasises understanding over explanation and prediction. It takes the stand that, in view of complex and variable nature of human behaviour and experience, its method of investigation should be different from the method of investigation of the physical world. This viewpoint emphasises the importance of how human beings give meaning to events and actions and interpret them as they occur in a particular context.

The interpretive method marks a significant shift in psychology. Instead of just observing behaviors, this approach focuses on understanding the meanings behind those behaviors. For example, if a person reacts angrily in a social situation, rather than just recording this reaction, an interpretive psychologist would want to know about the person's past experiences, emotions, and the context of that situation to comprehend why they reacted that way.

This method acknowledges that human experiences are complex and subjective. Each person's perspective can vary greatly, making it crucial to explore how they interpret their experiences in their unique contexts.

Think of a storyteller who doesn’t just tell you what happened in a story but explains why characters acted in certain ways according to their backgrounds. This is similar to how interpretive psychology works, focusing on the 'why' behind people's actions.

Let us take the experiences that may occur in some unique contexts, such as persons experiencing suffering due to external factors (for example, people affected by tsunami, earthquake, cyclone) or internal factors (for instance, prolonged illness, etc.). In such types of situations, objective measurement is neither possible nor desirable. Everyone interprets reality in her/his own way based on past experiences and contexts.

In situations of extreme experiences, such as natural disasters or prolonged illness, objective measurements (like numbers or scales) can't capture the depth of human experience. For instance, two survivors of a tsunami might each process their trauma differently based on their personal histories, support systems, and coping mechanisms. One might find solace in community support, while the other could struggle with feelings of isolation.

Therefore, purely quantitative methods do not do justice to the complexity of how individuals interpret and respond to these types of events. Instead, understanding these subjective experiences offers deeper insights into human behavior.

Imagine two friends who witnessed the same car accident but react completely differently. One might be shaken and start avoiding driving, while the other remains unbothered. Their reactions depend on individual feelings and past experiences, illustrating how subjective interpretation can differ greatly even in shared events.

Both scientific and interpretive traditions are concerned with studying behaviour and experiences of others. What about our own personal experiences and behaviour? As a student of psychology, you may ask yourself the question: why am I feeling sad? Many times you take a pledge that you will control your diet or devote more time to studies. But when it actually comes to eating or studying you forget this.

This chunk highlights the importance of self-reflection in psychology. While science studies the behavior of others, interpretive methods encourage us to examine our own feelings and behaviors. This introspection can lead to better self-understanding. For instance, a student might think they’re sad and want to change their habits but struggle to do so.

This disconnect between intention and action is a common issue. It encourages students of psychology—like yourself—to reflect on your own emotions and behaviors, helping you gain insights into why you might behave in ways that don’t align with your intentions.

Consider a student who vows to study every evening but often finds themselves distracted by social media. This realization—a struggle between intention and action—can lead to finding solutions, like setting boundaries for study times, connecting self-reflection to positive behavior change.

--