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

1. Mixing Methods & Questioning Foundations:Exploring the Relation between Design & Theory Kevin L. Ladd 18 May 2010 Conference on Faith and Health SyddanskUniversitet, Odense, Danmark

2. Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory Beginnings Roots in philosophy & theology Wide conversations The life of philosophy is necessarily the life of leisure. Broad concern for multiple levels of knowledge general principles & specific experiences individual, societal, beyond

3. Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory A Lab Divided Emphasis moves toward “science” Dividing notions of logical & magical Growth of medicine / decline of theology Psychology adopts the separation Dividing notions of quantitative & qualitative “losing its mind” “physics envy”

4. Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory Entrenchment “TRUE” “HARD” science Captures funding Why bother with soft, quantitative approaches? too: time consuming individualized (no mass market application) lengthy for print publication

5. Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory Results? Techniques become statements Experiment = New Queen of Science highly specialized knowledge (gnosis) driven via theory (individualized origins) Survey = generalized findings also specialized knowledge (design, analysis) top down dissemination

6. Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory And the lowly other… Interviews open content in understandable language applicable to solitary individual emphasizing single voice bottom up origin (subversive)

7. Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory Even worse than interviews! Non-verbal data (e.g. Rasa painting)

8. Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory Why didn’t qualitative crawl away & die? Challenges to authority Experimental logic under fire Null hypothesis testing Confidence intervals Is theory possible AT ALL in psychology? Point predictions

9. Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory The Soft Fights Back Creative muses Dissatisfaction with inexorable “tail chasing” Articles looking similar Excessive caveats More noise than signal Real Paradigm Challenge Not predictable Violent

10. Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory Cautions: Status Quo rarely embraces change “methodological chauvinism” On both sides! Intrapersonal costs Less formal control Necessity of constant protocol revision More chance of “stuckness” Necessity of honest collaboration

11. Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory An Example in Prayer Research: A typically intentional attempt to establish or maintain a sense of connectivity with the self, with the surrounding physical world, or with the perceived supraphysical world.

12. Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory Physical Aspects Embodied Cognition Movement Mental

13. Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory Physical Aspects Mental & Movement: Mannequins How do people perceive spirituality in others via bodily cues and do the perceptions align with bodily experience?

14. Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory Physical Aspects Mental: Visual How do people literally see the world in reference to their spirituality?

15. Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory Physical Aspects Movement: Labyrinths To what extent does physical movement influence spiritual experience?

16. Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory Issues of Physical Context: 1. Body at rest 2. Body in motion Free form Structured Simple Complex

17. Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory Experimental Approach Avoid reductionism Emphasize individual experience N = 143 72% female 82% White Mean age = 50 yrs

18. Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory Tests: 1. Differences in minutes spent in activity? Yes.

19. Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory Tests: 2. Differences in reported engagement of prayer Yes. Systematically lower amounts of prayer during conditions (compared to self-reported typical).

20. Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory Tests: 3. Differences in content? No. Consistent between self-reported typical & post condition.

21. Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory Tests: 4. Differences in pre / post condition emotions? Yes. Main effects of emotional state: Higher positive Lower negative

22. Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory Tests: 5. Differences in post-condition interviews? Yes. Longest interviews from labyrinth participants.

23. Mixed 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

24. Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory Overall Summary Why 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

25. Mixed Methods, Design, & Theory Acknowledgement This work supported in part by grant # 12282 from the John Templeton Foundation.

26. Mixing Methods & Questioning Foundations:Exploring the Relation between Design & Theory Kevin L. Ladd 18 May 2010 Conference on Faith and Health SyddanskUniversitet, Odense, Danmark