After the American Psychological Association, which was formed in 1892, proceeded in 1944 with the approval to establish the initial divisions, Division 5 came into being as “Evaluation and Measurement” as one of these first divisions. In this organizational structure, Division 5, now with the name “Quantitative and Qualitative Methods,” was and remains a foundational place within the APA structure for the discussion about and advancement of methodological and methods research and practice (see American Psychological Association, 2024; Beaujean, 2022; Pek & Bauer, 2024).
As the set of methodologies and methods for psychology have expanded and increasing numbers of psychologists acknowledge and incorporate these approaches and techniques, the division has expanded its mandate. In so doing, the Division has strived to create and encourage spaces where inquiry into multiple methodologies and methods can be valued and thrive with the eye toward the development and sharing of a broader relevant methodologies and methods for the advancement of psychological science and research practices (e.g., Beaujean, 2022; Wertz, 2024; Fouladi et al., 2024).
At present, in its current form, the Division 5 is home to methodologists, scholars, and practitioners who identify across a number of subdisciplines, including evaluation, measurement, statistics, assessment, and qualitative methods. The division has awards competitions to honor contributions towards advancing methods quantitative or qualitative approaches and most recently, as of the call for the APA Division 5 2025 competition, in mixed methods approaches (c.f., APA Division 5 Awards Committee, 2024). Recent collaborations with APA and other organizations (c.f., Fouladi, 2024)) and call for the upcoming APA Annual Convention (c.f., Call for Proposals Division Requirements - APA Convention 2025opens in new window) highlight the division’s valuing of innovations in diverse and inclusive methodologies and methods.
2025 conference call extract:
The APA Division of Quantitative and Qualitative Methods invites proposals on innovations in methodology and methods for psychology in measurement, statistics, evaluation, assessment, qualitative and mixed methods. We encourage proposals related to inclusive work grounded in Indigenous, quantitative, critical, and/or mixed methodologies. Potential synergistic areas of proposals could include (but are not limited to):
- Integrating intensive longitudinal data with qualitative inquiry;
- Consequential validity of different approaches;
- Indigenous methodologies in assessment;
- Use/misuse of artificial intelligence, such as ChatGPT;
- Causal inference and evaluation; and
- Pedagogy on methodological pluralism.
In this work, we further advance teaching, research, and practice across the spectrum of methodologies/methods for psychology and related fields with an eye toward methodological pluralism and research justice. It would be nice to think that a more inclusive but rigorous approach toward methodology/methods, (e.g., structured analysis/critique of questionnaires and/or surveys for community/construct relevance) would be considered, by most if not all, as best practice. However, we must be humble in recognizing that psychology and its methodologists have not always been the most inclusive in their (our) world views and approaches.
It is no secret that, currently, the primary approaches in psychology textbooks map to a conceptualization of “psychology as a science” based in research methodologies which prioritize (or are almost exclusively based on) quantitative methods. Required curriculum in Departments of Psychology continue to include statistics coursework, with few including qualitative methods courses. Although consistent with Aiken, West, and Milsap (2008), Aiken (2020), and others, I agree and argue that there are too few quantitative methods courses that are available to and expected of psychology students, it is also critical for students to have coursework in additional methodologies/methods at the undergraduate and graduate level beyond just standard statistics courses, including but not limited to qualitative methods. Although, there are programs particularly in Colleges of Education, where qualitative and mixed methods courses are regularly available, this is not common in Psychology programs that are outside Colleges of Education. Unfortunately, in times of budget cuts, hiring of methodologists may not be a priority or even a possibility for Departments. If “psychological science” is to be relevant, students and professionals must have necessary training through textbooks and curriculum in multiple methodologies and methods beyond what is current practice.
There have been multiple instances over the years, where testing and assessment research and practices, researchers and practitioners, have been identified for making inappropriate claims of applicability beyond the groups with whom methods were developed (c.f., APA’s Historical chronology, 2021/2024). The Canadian Psychological Association and Canadian Psychological Foundation’s (2018) document “Psychology’s Response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Report” (PDF 533KB)opens in new window, repeatedly highlights the harms of psychology in research and treatment of Indigenous Peoples with repeated reference to problematic and harmful assessment practices Importantly and unfortunately, the foundations of psychology were built by many of the leaders in psychological methodologies and methods, including statisticians are psychometricians, who were major contributors to eugenics (Yakushko, 2019). These are our academic and professional ancestors. Although there is continued work towards improved practices in testing and assessment with the collective work of the AERA, NCME, and APA (2014) on “The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing”, and APA along with other professional associations have acknowledged their role in historical and current harms, perhaps it is time for Division 5 to formally do the same and to continue to take action to do and be better.
The call to do better is not new (e.g., Naglieri, 2020). The continued calls suggest that there is the continued need to do the work. There is the continued need to learn and to strive to do better. We hope that the way that we move forward as methodology and methods researchers, practitioners, and teachers, that we can be more transparent about the origin stories of our discipline, that we develop and promote better and more inclusive methodological pedagogies and practices, and that as methodologists we can conduct ourselves in a better way and hopefully in what will be perceived and judged as a good way in our academic and host communities where we live and do our work.