Bridging Disciplinary Boundaries (January 11 - 14, 2007)

This presentation depicts the findings of a study that combined the use of three distinct research methods: quantitative, qualitative and intervention. Utilizing quantitative and qualitative research together with clinical knowledge and experience, we examined the phenomenon-at-focus from various perspectives, thereby, allowing for the development and evaluation of an effective intervention, based on empirical data. Our study on immigrant adolescents-at-risk residing in Israel provides an illustrative example of this type of research.

During the study's first phase, we assessed the psycho-social functioning of 200 immigrant adolescents at two time-periods: the beginning of the school year and 12 months later. We examined the factors that contributed to an improvement or deterioration in the adolescents' psycho-social functioning (quantitative study). During the second phase, based on the empirical results from the quantitative study, we used qualitative research techniques by which we selected and interviewed the ten families (adolescents, parents) and their teachers who improved the most and the ten families and their teachers who deteriorated the most. The purpose of this qualitative component was to comprehend the means by which those facing difficulties are capable of improving their situations, and the factors that might transform into barriers to success. Currently, we are in the midst of the study's third phase, namely, the development, implementation and evaluation of interventions with five families, who are at the extreme range of deterioration. This intervention study utilizes the knowledge gained from the second stage. If proven effective, this intervention may be used with other families at risk and may be disseminated to other social practitioners working with immigrant adolescents and their families.

Based on this research experience, the presentation will address tentative questions and issues that were raised regarding the combining of different research methods in one project, such as: 1. The researcher does not always find an adequate synchronization between quantitative and qualitative results. In our study, for example, members of a family that was considered "most improved" based on standardized measurements complained about deterioration in their child's condition, and vice versa. We will present such examples and discuss the issue of "subjective" versus "objective" meaning of improvement and deterioration, and the "truth" that is hidden in between. 2. Can we really base our intervention on data obtained from quantitative and qualitative results -- as we planned to do originally -- or do the expressed needs and concerns of the family at the time of the intervention overshadow previous results? An example of one family will be described. 3. Can we claim that we have one research project in which each part feeds the other? Or, in fact three separate studies that do not interact with one another? Is it possible to have a circular interaction between the various research components, rather that the current linear progress (first quantitative, than qualitative, and then intervention, or the other way around)?

These issues will be discussed from perspectives gleaned from the philosophy of the social sciences.