Can Qualitative Social Science Make it in the Health Research Field?

Mathieu AlbertWilson Centre

University of Toronto

• Two PapersAlbert, M., Laberge, S., & Hodges, Brian D. (2009) Boundary work in the health

research field: Biomedical and clinician scientists’ perceptions of social science research. Minerva. A Review of Science, Learning and Policy. 47(2): 171-194.

Albert, M., Laberge, S., Hodges, B.D., Regehr, G. & Lingard, L. (2008). Biomedical scientists’ perception of social science in health research. Social Science & Medicine, 66: 2520-2531.

• Personal experience

Interdisciplinary Research

Organizational Boundaries

• Semi-structured interviews

Members of peer review committees at the

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Exert influence on scientific activities

Embody an institutionalized definition of scientific excellence

Opinions concerning the value of the social sciences

Appraisal of different research methods

(experimental, quasi-exp., qualitative and quantitative survey approaches)

1

Clinician scientists

Biomedical scientists

Ambivalence zone 3.3

4.6

2

2.22.3

2.52.6

2.8

3

3.5 3.6

3.8

4

4.34.4

1.21.3

1.41.5

1.61.7

1.8

2

2.2

2.3 2.4

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

3.8

4

4.2

1.2

1.6

1.8

5

4.54.6

1.5

Highly unreceptive

Highly receptive

1

Clinician scientists

Biomedical scientists

Ambivalence zone

1.2

5

4.6

Clinician scientists

Biomedical scientists

Ambivalence zone

4.6

3.8

4

4.34.4

5

Highly unreceptive

3.8

4

4.2

4.54.6

1

Clinician scientists

Biomedical scientists

Ambivalence zone

1.21.3

1.41.5

1.61.7

1.8

2

2.2

2.3 2.4

Highly receptive

2

2.22.3

1.2

1.6

1.8

1.5

Clinician scientists

Biomedical scientists

3.3

2.52.6

2.8

3

3.5 3.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

Highly unreceptive

Highly receptive

The questions are just as relevant

The methods are just as scientific & rigorous

Some aspects of health can only be

studied by the Social Sciences

Depends on its capacity to

adequately respond to a research question

Not the degree to which it

conforms to a given scientific paradigm

There are no universal criteria that would make it possible

to determine a priori the superiority of one method

over another

“The choice of a method depends exclusively on the research question.

Certain questions can only be studied using qualitative methods;

one must therefore use them without asking oneself if they are less

rigorous than quantitative methods. All methods are rigorous; it depends on the way in which they are used.”

“It’s not fair to critique the social sciences by saying they interpret data because we do that all the time in basic science when we

get data that doesn’t fit with what we expect. When that happens, we start looking at

alternative explanations. So, my first answer would be that there is more bias in social

science, but if I were really thinking critically – which we don’t often do – I might probably

be willing to sit on the fence and say it is probably the same in basic science.”

Although half of the clinician scientists appeared to be receptive to social science...

... are they actually receptive to the kind of science that social scientists do?

good methodology=good qualitative research

• Multiple coding• Purposive sampling• Sample saturation• Triangulation• Member checking• Peer debriefing• Audit trail

The best science must involve the

performance of an intervention on variables

This intervention must be done in a controlled environment or with a

randomized sample in order to permit the establishment of a causal relationship or

a correlational relationship

Results must be reproducible to ensure that they

are not due to chance

Social Science is not a legitimate scientific practice

Hierarchy among research methods

“Experiments where there is perturbation of some parameters and measures to establish

causality is sort of the highest level of scientific research, and then the next level is looking at relationships, and this would be

quantitative surveys and epidemiology. Interviews and focus groups? They’re

anecdotes. They’re opinions. And opinions are not science.”

A cautious acceptance of the

Social Sciences

Reservations regarding

qualitative research

No ExposureExposure

“Like most of my colleagues in the biomedical sciences, I thought that rigor and

logic were the characteristics of the basic sciences. But when I got to know the social

sciences better, I realized that logic and rigor actually constitute one of their

strengths. And that, for me, was a real shock. ”

The perception of social science research differ importantly both among Biomedical scientists and Clinician scientists.

Clinician scientists seem to be more receptive

Biomedical scientists seem to be more unreceptive

It could be worthwhile to put in place educational mechanisms to better educate health scientists about the usefulness and rigor of social science research

Can Qualitative Social Science Make it in the Health Research Field?

•Comments inspired by my professional experience

• Yes and No

• Yes, if you follow the rules of the game in Health Research

• No, if you persist in playing the scientific game according to the rules in SSC

What are the rules in the (medical) Health domain?

• 3000 words paper (clinical journals)

• Often to provide useful information (problem-solving)

• No theory (descriptive analysis)

• No thorough review of the literature

• No comprehensive discussion (data, interpretation and theoretical implications)

• Limited contribution to (basic) knowledge-building

• Productivity (3000 words versus 10000 words papers)

• Books, book chapters, reports

If you don’t play the scientific game according to the (medical) Health Research rules, it is unlikely that you will be successful in the Health domain...

A potential strategy:

Have a dual production, one for the community of social scientists and one for the community of health scientists.

Thank you

Questions?Comments?