Teaching Qualitative Research in Psychology: A Look at the Portuguese Reality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Qualitative research has been increasingly used in the field of psychology. Consequently, concerns about the development of students’ skills in qualitative research have arisen. The main goal of this paper is to characterize the current state of art of the qualitative research teaching in Portuguese bachelor’s degrees in psychology. A documentary analysis was performed, and the data collection was conducted through an online search: first on the website of the General Directorate of Higher Education, and afterwards on the online sites of each of the Portuguese universities where the first cycle of psychology is taught. A content analysis was made by two coders and a discussion about categories was made until a consensus was reached. The data revealed the existence of 31 undergraduate courses in psychology at 31 Portuguese teaching institutions. There were 12 undergraduate courses at 12 public universities, and 19 undergraduate courses at 19 private universities. Despite the diversity in the study plans in the degree of psychology, most of them included qualitative research methodology teaching. However, the data analysis revealed different designations of the curricular units (CUs) related to qualitative research, as well as a different number of credits (European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System—ECTS). In addition, there were variations in the academic year in which the qualitative research CUs were taught and registered in their syllabi. This study indicates that undergraduate Portuguese psychology students generally have some training in qualitative research but the way it is carried out and the training contents are not uniform for all the existing degrees. It is important to reflect on the importance of qualitative research in psychology and further studies on qualitative methods teaching practices are still needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".