Self-Esteem Research, Theory, and Practice Toward a Positive ...

52 SELF-ESTEEM RESEARCH, THEORY, AND PRACTICEparadoxes mentioned earlier are more likely to show themselves as theyare actually lived, which gives us the opportunity to study them better.Another reason to use such qualitative methods is that these data can bemore “objective” than expected. For example,Self-report estimates are usually based on impressions gained overrepeated observations, whereas laboratory studies usually investigateresponses in a single setting on a single occasion. On this basis alonethere is reason to suspect that laboratory findings, as customarilyobtained, are often low in replicability and generality, and cannottherefore establish strong relationships with findings obtained on otheroccasions by other means. (1979, p. 52)It is also worth noting that Epstein fully recognized the limits ofusing self-reports as data. In spite of them, he concluded that researchbased on self-reports should not be so readily dismissed.In general, the qualitative approach is capable of putting us in closeproximity with the link between self-esteem and behavior as it actuallyoccurs, which is something that more traditional work seems to find so elusive.For instance, Tafarodi and Milne (2002) asked 244 participants torecord negative experience over a 4-week period. They were asked to fillout the Life Events Record (LER) at the beginning and end, and thoserecords were analyzed by judges who were trained to look for the effect ofnegative experiences on self-esteem. Similarly, Scheff and Fearon, Jr. (2004)take the fascinating approach of combining both qualitative and quantitativetechniques. This work involves asking participants to take a standardself-esteem test and then interviewing each person about how theyanswered the questions. This technique can result in a measurable evaluationof self-esteem and the reasons for it because discussing the meaning ofeach response through the interview method takes us to the one place moretraditional or objective methods cannot go, which is the lived world.Clearly, just because the qualitative approach is experiential rather thanexperimental in nature does not mean that it is methodologically undisciplined:Qualitative work simply has different strengths and weaknesses.Phenomenological psychologists also investigate real-life humanexperiences, such as various emotional states, certain types of decisions,and even learning and thinking (Aanstoos, 1984; Colaizzi, 1973; Costall& Still, 1987; Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986; Giorgi, 1970, 1975, 1984;Wertz, 1984). The basic form of this method involves what can bethought of as a stepwise process. Typically in this format, the researcherbegins by identifying the phenomenon to be studied, then finds suitablesubjects for its investigation. The study might simply be a retrospectivelook at experience or it could involve a host of contrived situations or