I Think I Can! I Think I Can! Reconsidering the Place for Practice Methodologies in Psychological Research

Psychologists have an array of research methodologies at their disposal as they seek to answer theoretical or applied questions. Methodologists often describe reasons why one methodology is superior to another. Such discriminations are only true in general, and with respect to a certain perspective on scientific acceptability (e.g., in controlling threats to internal validity, cf. Campbell & Stanley, 1963 ). But one research method's superiority to another may vanish in certain circumstances, with particular populations, for use with practical problems and so forth. Recent research using alternative ("softer") research methodologies (i.e., self-report measures of behavior, retrospective pretests, autobiographies) yield results demonstrably superior to those of studies using more traditional methods. Given these somewhat surprising findings, arguments are offered as to why 2 other underused research methods (i.e., clinical case studies, self-experimentation) might also be seriously considered in psychology's empirical efforts. Greater use of such methods could lead to what Hoshmand and Polkinghorne (1992) refer to as practicing knowledge.