1. THE FUNDAMENTAL GOALS OF BOTH NATURAL SCIENCE AND HUMAN SCIENCE ARE THE SAME.

Ultimately, both seek a better understanding of action and experience, the reduction of suffering, and the promotion of well-being. The expressions of the specific goals of these two views of psychological research often differ. For instance, psychological research based on a natural science model focuses more on behavior while human science focuses more on experience. Human science also includes the growth and self-realization of the scientist as a possible, desirable, or even necessary goal of scientific research.

Nevertheless, it seems that at their deepest, natural science and human science converge. Because of this convergence, I see natural science and human science as being complementary. Some questions (such as causal relationships) call for natural science methods, while other questions (such a the quality of experiences) call for human science methods.

2. SCIENTIFIC ADEQUACY IS IMPORTANT TO BOTH VIEWS.

Qualitative research has been criticized for being less rigorous than natural science, and thus not adequate to the scientific task. However, it is only the standards of rigor (or the term I prefer, adequacy) that differ, not the goal of rigor. Adequacy is as important to human science research as it is to experimental research. Human scientists argue that standards of rigor for research on physics are not appropriate for research on human action and experience and that new standards are necessary. Similarly, the goals of natural science to establish cause-and-effect relationships are not relevant to all scientific research and thus are not a suitable basis for judging scientific research methods. That is, just because qualitative research is not suitable for establishing cause-and-effect laws does not mean it is unsecientific or unsuitable.

3. ALL RESEARCH IS DONE IN A SOCIAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT.

The values of the culture as well as the values of the researcher influence all stages of research. The selection of research questions and methods is guided not just by the researcher's interests, training, and model but by funding agencies and journal editors. These, in turn, are influenced by cultural and political factors. It is becoming clear that all research, from whatever approach, is shaped by the surrounding culture. This is one of the contributions of Kuhn's work on scientific paradigms. Science is inseparable from its paradigms and scientific paradigms are intrinsically historical, that is, they are inseparable from their historical and cultural contexts.

Human science researchers have recognized the paradox of trying to remove their bias even as they recognize it. While one's own values, past experience, and theoretical models influence one's research, it is necessary to attempt descriptions that go beyond promoting one particular view and that are faithful to the phenomena being researched. Science should not be a vehicle for propaganda or proselytizing. This situation is similar to that of a clinician who must recognize personal feelings yet set them aside to relate to the client non-judgmentally. This is similar to phenomenological "bracketing," recognizing one's own labels and evaluations and bracketing them off from reports of immediate experience.

4. THE GOAL OF HUMAN SCIENCE IS TO CONSTRUCT AND VINDICATE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE WORLD THAT ARE DEEPER, RICHER, AND MORE USEFUL.

Vindication here means showing that a particular conclusion or description is better than others that have been proposed. Better, in this context, refers to three dimensions. Depth refers to the match between a description and the experience or action being described. A deeper description is one that comes closer to the phenomenon. Richness refers to the connections with other phenomena. A richer description provides more links to other phenomena, revealing more of the network in which the phenomenon is embedded. Usefulness refers to practical applications. A more useful description provides more ways to alleviate suffering and promote well-being.

5. THESE TWO VIEWS SEE THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE DIFFERENTLY.

According to the principles of operationism, natural science seeks to give a single meaning to the concepts used in research. This operational definition is judged not by how it relates to other uses of the term but by how well it reduces the term to one and only one meaning. The human science approach, on the other hand, recognizes that language is over-determined and flexible. That is, important psychological concepts have multiple levels of meaning and are dependent on their context. This is one of the important insights of hermeneutics.

Thus, for example, an experiment on test anxiety would begin by establishing an operational definition, perhaps measuring physiological arousal or responses on a standardized test of anxiety such as the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. A phenomenological study of anxiety would focus on the experience of test anxiety, exploring the interplay of physiological, emotional, and existential levels of anxiety at once. Its goal would be to stay open to all aspects of the experiences of test anxiety.

6. AN EXAMPLE COMPARING A NATURAL SCIENCE APPROACH TO A HUMAN SCIENCE APPROACH.

Consider some recent research on meditation. In the first approach, using experimental techniques in a reductionist framework, meditation is approached in terms of quantifiable variables such as physiological arousal levels. It has been shown to be as effective as but not better than progressive relaxation and napping. Thus, it was concluded that meditating is not different from taking a nap (Holmes, 1984). However, a human science approach has included not only quantitative data but qualitative, phenomenological data as well. Thus, the effects of meditation include altered states of consciousness, ego-dissolution, personal growth, and spiritual transformation as well as relaxation and self-regulation. The effects of meditation are clearly distinguishable from those of napping and other self-regulation or behavior modification practices (Shapiro, 1985; 1992)

Here, the human science approach provides a description of meditation using both quantitative and qualitative research methods. This description is deeper in that it comes closer to the experiences of the many people who, for thousands of years, have used meditation as part of a spiritual practice. It is richer in that it connects meditation to other spiritual and personal growth practices such as prayer and ritual as well as to relaxation. And it is more useful in that it "translates" meditation from a context that is primarily Eastern and religious into a context that is Western and sectarian, making it more accessible to our culture and time. This description is also more useful in that is shows the potential dangers of meditation to those for whom altered states of consciousness and ego-dissolution might be problematic.

For more detailed discussion of some of these issues, go to

Personal Comments On Human Science Research
and
An Integrated Approach to Scientific Research Methods