Author(s): Davin Sharp, Ben Thomas
Mentor(s): Jamie Hansen
Institution BYU
Within the field of psychology, most researchers default to quantitative and experimental methodologies while minimizing or completely neglecting other forms of inquiry (especially those drawn from theoretical, historical, and qualitative perspectives). This emphasis is prevalent not only within professional psychological practice (e.g., research, clinical work, etc.) but also in higher education (i.e., psychology as it is taught to students in academic programs both at the undergraduate and graduate levels). Thus, for students and early career researchers hoping to chart a career course on these less-traversed paths, the way forward may be shrouded in mystery and difficulty. This is significant because it stifles the possibility— or at least lessens the likelihood— of meaningful scientific inquiry. According to Husserl, a well-known philosopher of science, science began in the original spirit of philosophy, seeking to answer ultimate and higher questions; but science, as we know it today, seems to be but a mere residual of that original spirit. Thus, to fulfill the true potential of science requires exploring other possible methods and perspectives of inquiry. We posit that an in-depth examination of the experiences and perspectives of established academic psychologists whose major body of scholarship has been outside of the methodological mainstream is warranted and would serve to provide important insight into the less traditional (and less visible) research processes and professional development of these scholars, fulfilling Husserl’s vision of science. This poster frames a study currently underway in which we conduct semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of late-career theoretical and qualitative psychologists. We anticipate that our findings will capture and make available the collective wisdom of a group of established scholars who successfully forged unconventional paths in their scholarship, thus providing insight into their research, writing, and collaborative processes, as well as illuminating how they navigate and overcome institutional and disciplinary obstacles within a field that tends to minimize their approach.