Discussion Response Chelsea We want to ensure we are able to gain insight and depth to the approach being studied. It is important to see how each person is their own being and their own reality of the way they view things. A descriptive research design would be best fit to answer the additional questions that instructors are wanting to find. Utilizing a more in-depth participant approach/interaction approach, such as, direct observation. We can also look into more of a historical research design which can examine evens the participant has experienced for present or future effects tot the study. We can formulate research questions, journals, audio/videotape or data collecting. There are ethical issues that can arise in the study. It is important the psychologist be well trained to understand the multiple factors that can arise when conducting a study and having questions answered. As stated in Ponterotto (2013) article “It may be possible to do good quantitative research without knowing much about epistemology of the philosophy of (social) science, but good qualitative research requires an informed awareness of philosophical perspectives” (Ponterotto, J. G., 2013) which is a characteristic of ontology. We also have a characteristic of epistemology, which contributes to the relationship between the participant and the researcher, as well as, rhetorical structure, which is the language they use to explain the research findings to the participant. As in any study, we want to ensure the participants privacy is respected and kept confidential. Any form of recording or data collecting will require the participants consent via verbal and in writing. Much of the quantitative approach and paradigm differ due to it being more data and statistical collecting. The methods require a more structured approach than what a qualitative approach requires. In our qualitative approach, we are wanting to know more about the participant and how we can develop our hypothesis and collect our data, with the right approach. Discussion Response 2   Randolph Varying paradigmatic approaches to psychology research are only just recently demonstrating elevated measures of refinement. There is some contention among practitioners regarding mixed-method research models, because they are known for, “[…] combining qualitative and quantitative paradigms” (Frost, 2011, p. 9). Sociologist Dr. Ann Oakley (1944 - ) of London University’s Institute of Education terms the current debate, “paradigm wars,” (Oakley, 1999, p. 247), even calling the discourse a, “battle” (p. 248). As more and more technological and psychometric advances emerge, past discursive discourse has effectively morphed into healthy debate as to the myriad research modalities available in the exploration of analytical latencies of human behavior. A systematic mixed-method (qualitative and quantitative) strategy may be the appropriate course in the Murphy (2014) Scenario, as examiners are seeking objective ( ...

1. Discussion Response
Chelsea
We want to ensure we are able to gain insight and depth to the
approach being studied. It is important to see how each person
is their own being and their own reality of the way they view
things. A descriptive research design would be best fit to
answer the additional questions that instructors are wanting to
find. Utilizing a more in-depth participant approach/interaction
approach, such as, direct observation. We can also look into
more of a historical research design which can examine evens
the participant has experienced for present or future effects tot
the study. We can formulate research questions, journals,
audio/videotape or data collecting.
There are ethical issues that can arise in the study. It is
important the psychologist be well trained to understand the
multiple factors that can arise when conducting a study and
having questions answered. As stated in Ponterotto (2013)
article “It may be possible to do good quantitative research
without knowing much about epistemology of the philosophy of
(social) science, but good qualitative research requires an
informed awareness of philosophical perspectives” (Ponterotto,
J. G., 2013) which is a characteristic of ontology. We also have
a characteristic of epistemology, which contributes to the
relationship between the participant and the researcher, as well
as, rhetorical structure, which is the language they use to
explain the research findings to the participant. As in any study,
we want to ensure the participants privacy is respected and kept
confidential. Any form of recording or data collecting will
require the participants consent via verbal and in writing.
Much of the quantitative approach and paradigm differ due to it
being more data and statistical collecting. The methods require

2. a more structured approach than what a qualitative approach
requires. In our qualitative approach, we are wanting to know
more about the participant and how we can develop our
hypothesis and collect our data, with the right approach.
Discussion Response 2
Randolph
Varying paradigmatic approaches to psychology research are
only just recently demonstrating elevated measures of
refinement. There is some contention among practitioners
regarding mixed-method research models, because they are
known for, “[…] combining qualitative and quantitative
paradigms” (Frost, 2011, p. 9). Sociologist Dr. Ann Oakley
(1944 - ) of London University’s Institute of Education terms
the current debate, “paradigm wars,” (Oakley, 1999, p. 247),
even calling the discourse a, “battle” (p. 248). As more and
more technological and psychometric advances emerge, past
discursive discourse has effectively morphed into healthy
debate as to the myriad research modalities available in the
exploration of analytical latencies of human behavior. A
systematic mixed-method (qualitative
and
quantitative) strategy may be the appropriate course in the
Murphy (2014) Scenario, as examiners are seeking objective
(statistical) and subjective (intuitive) conclusions/results.
Qualitative and quantitative models are likely superior apposite
analytic methods as there are explorations/analyses of multi-
directional (intuition/statistics) components taken into
consideration. Ponterotto (2013) breaks the directionality factor
down (elaborates) even further by positing a “[…]
constructionist-interpretivist” (p. 21) paradigm by introducing
interrogative protocol as a construct of the research design (p.

3. 23). With a constructionist approach, protocol assigns values to
variables, and is rooted in “valid potential” (p. 24). This is
actually a suitable strategy for patients, as variables are
expressly controlled. From applicable matrices germane to the
Murphy (2014) Scenario, this allocates a basis of relative
probability, using tried-and-true, peer-reviewed statistical math
to arrive at calculable conclusions. Math is written in stone,
and
in the vernacular, and thus opens the door for more speculative
idealistic (from the mind) ways to render generalization extinct
from the paradigm. Nothing is flawless &/or perfect; & no thing
is written in stone.
There may be no all-inclusive way to assign
fundamentally and wholly valid data to a functionally
qualitative investigative model. The design cancels itself, in
terms of the scaffolding (framework) of assigning margin-for-
error. This aids in the development of more sophisticated
Likert-Scale questionnaires, as attitudes and emotions can be
challenging to quantify.