Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dissonance in Participant Voice

Research Strategies That Harmonise Distortions in Participant Data

  • Chapter
Echoes

  • 728 Accesses

Abstract

The production of trustworthy research is an essential goal for researchers to aspire to, regardless of whether a quantitative or a qualitative approach is adopted as the mode of inquiry. While trustworthiness as a concept has customarily been associated with the qualitative tradition (Shenton, 2004), the notion of producing research that can be trusted is also fundamental to quantitative inquiry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Anderson, J. R. (2000). Cognitive psychology and its implications (5th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Towards a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 82(2), 191–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beard, C. (2011). Cognitive bias modification for anxiety: Current evidence and future directions. Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics, 1(2), 299–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bless, H., Fiedler, K., & Strack, F. (2004). Social cognition: How individuals construct social reality. Hove, UK and New York, NY: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, L., Westen, D., & Kowalski, R. (2013). Psychology: 3rd Australian and New Zealand Edition. Milton, Qld, Australia: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., Wong, I., Klassen, R. N., & Kates, A. D. (2010). The relationship among school types, teacher efficacy beliefs, and academic climate: Perspectives from Asian middle schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 103, 183–190. doi: 10.1080/00220670903382954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (1995). On being a scientist: Responsible conduct in research (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobelli, R. (2013). The art of thinking clearly. London, UK: Sceptre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, M. W., & Keane, M. T. (2005). Cognitive psychology: A student’s handbook (5th ed.). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, M., Duka, T., Tyler, E., & Schoenmakers, T. (2009). Attentional bias modification in tobacco smokers. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 11(7), 812–822. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntp067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research (4th ed.). London, UK: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forlin, C., Keen, M., & Barrett, E. (2008). The concerns of mainstream teachers: Coping with inclusivity in an Australian context. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 55(3), 251–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardman, M.L., Drew, C. J., & Egan, M. W. (2011). Human exceptionality: School, community and family. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, N. (2001). Studying judgment: General issues. Thinking and Reasoning, 7, 103–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R. (2001). Problems for judgment and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 653–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschy, A. J., & Morris, J. R. (2002). Individual differences in attributional style: The relation influence of self-efficacy, self-esteem, and sex role identity. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(2), 183–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K., Miller, S., Velasquez, N., & Wann, C. (2013). The effect of investor bias and gender on portfolio performance and risk. The International Journal of Business and Finance Research, 7(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leighton, J. P. (2010). Cognitive biases. In A. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 159–162). London, UK: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Towards a unifying theory of social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 45(1), 79–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2000). Contextual supports and barriers to career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(1), 36–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDougall, C., & Baum, F. (1993). The devil’s advocate: A strategy to avoid groupthink and stimulate discussion in focus groups. Qualitative Health Research, 7(4), 532–541. doi: 10.1177/104973239700700407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, J. R., Trimmer, P. C., Houston, A. I., & McNamara, J. M. (2013). On evolutionary explanations of cognitive biases. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 28(8), 469–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathews, A., Mackintosh, B., & Fulcher, E. P. (1997). Cognitive biases in anxiety and attention to threat. Trends in Cognitive Science, 1(9), 340–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McHugh, R. K., Behar, E., Gutner, C. A., Geem, D., & Otto, M. W. (2010). Cortisol, stress, and attentional bias towards threat. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 23(5), 529–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (2005). Attentional bias in generalized anxiety disorder verses depressive disorder. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29(1), 29–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, S. A., & McDonald, R. A. (2013). The role of moral intensity in moral judgments: An empirical investigation. Advances in Business Ethics Research, 2, 463–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oswald, M. E., & Grosjean, S. (2004). Confirmation bias. In R. Pohl (Ed.), Cognitive illusions: A handbook of fallacies and biases in thinking, judgment and memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peturson, E. D., Crammer, K. M., & Pomerleau, C. M. (2011). Attributional errors and gender stereotypes: Perceptions of male and female experts on sex-type materials. Current Research in Social Psychology, 18(1). Retrieved from http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc/crisp/crisp18_1.pdf

  • Pope, M. L. (1982). Personal construction of formal knowledge. Interchange, 13, 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahi, S. K., Arora, A. P., & Dhameja, N. (2013). An exploratory inquiry into the psychological biases in financial investment behaviour. Journal of Behavioural Finance, 14(2), 94–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schacter, D. (2001). The seven sins of memory: How the mind forgets and remembers. New York, NY: Houghton Miller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N. (1996). Cognition and communication: Judgmental biases, research methods and the logic of conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaddish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental design for generalized casual inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Miller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22, 63–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2009). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1059–1069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, P. Y., & Anderson, M. H. (2012). The importance of attributional complexity for transformational leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 49(6), 1001–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J. (2011, July 18). Cognitive biases v.s. common sense: Can you resist the pull of cognitive biases? Psychology Today. Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-power-prime/201107/cognitive-biases-vs-common-sense

  • Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, B. (2000). Attributional thoughts about consumer behaviour. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3), 382–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia

    Mark E. Oliver

Authors
  1. Mark E. Oliver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Southern Queensland, Australia

    Warren Midgley

  2. Sidra Medical and Research Center, Qatar

    Andy Davies

  3. University of Southern Queensland, Australia

    Mark E. Oliver

  4. University of Southern Queensland, Australia

    Patrick Alan Danaher

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Sense Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Oliver, M.E. (2014). Dissonance in Participant Voice. In: Midgley, W., Davies, A., Oliver, M.E., Danaher, P.A. (eds) Echoes. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-491-8_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation