Scholarlink

<p>Single-case experimental design (SCED) has historically dominated applied behavior analytic research methodology. While valuable for establishing functional relations, this reliance limits the breadth of evidence available to inform practice. Qualitative methods, underutilized and frequently misunderstood by behavior analysts, offer a valuable and complementary approach to research that can deepen understanding of phenomena beyond observable behavior. This paper critically examines five prevalent myths about qualitative research among behavior analysts: (1) qualitative methods are not behavior-analytic, (2) qualitative methods have limited external validity, (3) qualitative methods are subjective and biased, (4) qualitative research lacks rigor, and (5) qualitative methods are only relevant for studying social validity. We assess the accuracy of each myth and provide necessary clarifications from our perspective as behavior analysts with formal training in qualitative methods and conclude by advocating for the expansion of behavior analysts’ methodological repertoires to include qualitative approaches.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Addressing Pervasive Myths About Qualitative Research to Promote Methodological Diversity in Applied Behavior Analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月6日

查看全文
  • Ryan J. Martin,
  • Elizabeth M. Kelly

摘要

Single-case experimental design (SCED) has historically dominated applied behavior analytic research methodology. While valuable for establishing functional relations, this reliance limits the breadth of evidence available to inform practice. Qualitative methods, underutilized and frequently misunderstood by behavior analysts, offer a valuable and complementary approach to research that can deepen understanding of phenomena beyond observable behavior. This paper critically examines five prevalent myths about qualitative research among behavior analysts: (1) qualitative methods are not behavior-analytic, (2) qualitative methods have limited external validity, (3) qualitative methods are subjective and biased, (4) qualitative research lacks rigor, and (5) qualitative methods are only relevant for studying social validity. We assess the accuracy of each myth and provide necessary clarifications from our perspective as behavior analysts with formal training in qualitative methods and conclude by advocating for the expansion of behavior analysts’ methodological repertoires to include qualitative approaches.