Cooper 

Stress.This can be seen as a long-lasting strain that has both physiological and psychological effects. Physiologically, the hormonal and nervous system changes caused by stress ultimately undermine the functioning of the immune system. Psychologically, stress can lead to chronic anxiety and reduce the capacity of the individual for coping with the demands of their life. The stress involved in a situation is a product both of the objective circumstances and the way the individual responds to them. Hence what is highly stressful for one individual, may be relatively unstressful, or even enjoyable, by another person. 

Humanistic. Psychologists such as Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers developed humanistic psychology in the late 1950's as a 'third force' in reaction to the then prevailing disciplines of behaviourism and psychoanalysis. Humanistic psychology shared the rejection by psychoanalysis of the behaviourist insistence on studying only those aspects of human psychology which were open to precise observation and measurement. Also like psychoanalysis, humanistic psychology wished to examine subtleties of what it feels like and means to be human which are difficult (if not impossible) to capture in experimental settings. However, unlike psychoanalysis, humanistic psychologists took a much more optimistic viewpoint on people's capacity to be consciously aware of themselves, and of their capacity for agency (i.e. to consciously initiate change in their lives). It also takes a holistic approach, attempting to study the 'whole person' – thoughts, feelings, and bodily awareness. Humanistic psychology has developed or influenced a wide range of methods for facilitating personal growth, such as: Bioenergetics, Rebirthing.; Rogerian counselling, Encounter groups, Gestalt therapy, Co-counselling, Personal Construct therapy, Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Rational-emotive therapy; Psychosynthesis and many others. Research methods used by humanistic psychologists typically take an 'inside' viewpoint (in contrast to the 'outside' viewpoint of many other perspectives in psychology), using qualitative methods to try to understand people's subjective experience. They also take an 'idiographic' approach, in that they typically try, as much as possible, to understand people in terms of each person's unique way of viewing themselves and their world. So instead of experiments or psychometric measures, humanistic psychologists might use methods such as depth interviews. There is a considerable focus on helping people achieve their full potential, or self-actualization, in Abraham Maslow's term ('becoming all one is capable of becoming'). This is a quite different aim for psychology than, say, an experimental focus on eliciting reliable, 'scientific' data about cause-effect relationships. The best way to understand why different perspectives in psychology have such different methodologies, and focus on such different subject areas, is to ask, quite simply, what their aim is. There have been many critiques of humanistic psychology. As mentioned above, it is criticised for its lack of experimental methodology. Another criticism is that although it does acknowledge the existence of social influences, it arguably underplays the extent to which these construct many aspects of human experience (and, indeed, the way humanistic psychology itself can be seen as a product of postwar US culture, in its individualism and optimistic focus). It does not attempt to provide, as psychoanalysis does, a comprehensive theory of why we are as we are. Although, like the psychoanalytic perspective, humanistic psychology has had limited influence within academic psychology (because of its non-experimental focus), it has had a great influence in counselling and the various 'human potential' therapies. I has also had influence on teaching, and with aspects of work (e.g. some methods used in managementtraining and the development of interpersonal skills). At its best humanistic psychology provides conceptual frameworks and methods for encouraging personal growth that many people have found extremely valuable in their everyday lives. Ultimately, not unlike psychoanalysis, it takes an essentially pragmatic viewpoint in seeing the value of humanistic ideas and methods in their practical efficacy in helping human beings to lead more fulfilled lives. 

The 1980s. In 1979 a hitherto little noticed former minister of education, who had become leader of the Conservative party after Edward Heath in 1975, led the party to general election victory. Margaret Thatcher became the first woman to be British Prime Minister, and remained at the head of the UK government and parliament until her resignation in November 1990. She is widely credited with changed the political and cultural face of Britain, and of being the defining figure of the decade of the 1980s. In the 1970s there was a world recession and it was felt by all economies and people. This produced social and political unrest in its wake, and created the context for a driven ideologue of traditional conservative values and beliefs. Margaret Thatcher set out upon a programme of privatisation of public services (which she famously termed 'rolling back the state'), and legislation designed to minimise or even destroy the power of the Trades Unions. She redefined the political terrain of the UK by claiming that there was no area of life that is not political, and by defining political activity as necessarily adversarial. In 1983 she initiated and won a patriotically fuelled war with Argentina over possession of the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic. In 1984 she interpreted a strike by miners over pay and conditions as a challenge to government, and used legislation and troops quell it; in the same year the IRA bombed the conference where the Conservative party was holding its annual conference and killed 5 people. Her most controversial innovation, occasioning demonstrations around the country and contributing in no small measure to her eventual resignation, was the introduction of the so-called 'Poll Tax' – a per capita tax applied to all those on the electoral roll and replacing another tax ('the Rates') which had been based only on the value of owned property. Her influence on other politicians and the politics of the US and other European countries was substantial. She was extremely close personally and politically to Ronald Reagan, President of the USA for nearly the entire decade (1981-1989) .\nIn 1985 Mikhail Gorbachev took over as leader of the Soviet Union. A reformer, he introduced the concepts of glasnost and perestroika, and the idea of reconstructing the communist system. This reached its climax in 1989 when the East and West German authorities reached agreement on pulling down the Berlin wall. After this, Czechoslovakia, Romania and the rest of Eastern Europe initiated a flurry of reforms that were to lead in the next decade to the complete collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. However the remaining major world communist power, China, responded to this perceived threat to its political ideology with a wave of domestic political repression, culminating in the Tiananmen Square massacre when hundreds of demonstrating students were killed and thousands injured – and seen to be so on televised news around the world. \nArtistically and culturally this decade began the post-modernist trend. In youth culture the decade belonged to Punks – a style of dress and behaviour modelled on anarchism, and styled as anti-authority, traditional values and organised society. Popular music was dominated by punk, and new romanticism – which positioned itself in opposition to punk. 

Occupational/Organisational. This approach is a branch of applied psychology that looks at people's performance and well-being in work environments, and at factors affecting their capacity to function effectively. 

Qualitative Research. The main focus of qualitative research is on making sense of the meanings of psychological phenomena, rather than the quantitative focus on discovering cause-effect relationships using statistical analyses. In some research qualitative research studies can be combined with quantitative methods. However, many qualitative approaches tend to be critical of the concept of 'objectivity', seeing all research as constructed by the methods, theoretical background and overall viewpoint of the researcher. With these approaches, it is therefore seen as important for researchers to be reflexive about how their experiences impact on their interpretations (to the extent this is possible), and to be transparent in communicating this as part of the reporting of their research results.\nWithin the broad field of qualitative research, there are many different methods, some of which are now described: Collecting accounts. Accounts are collected in different ways, recorded differently and transcribed differently depending on the type and aims of the research. Usually qualitatively based, research involves collecting accounts of people's experiences or behaviour within a certain topic area or focus (e.g. dreaming, experiences of altered states, becoming a mother) and analysing the resulting material, looking for common themes. Discourse analysis. Discourse Analysis argues that language and the way in which it is used play a major role in how we behave and make sense of our social world. Our talk is not seen as a purely private, individual production, but as part of our shared, public and collective realities. Our most fundamental psychological processes, such as our identity, are not seen as something 'intrinsic' but as constructed and negotiated through talk. For example, even the very concept of being a 'unique, autonomous individual' might be seen by Discourse Analysts as a particular construct of Euro-American society, emerging through talk (as compared to the very different conceptions of the self from Japan or India, say). All data are seen as constructions: This methodology falls within the social constructionist tradition (see 'perspectives'). In common with all social constructionist approaches, it rejects the idea that language is a purely 'passive' medium that we use to describe our world. Instead, it argues that language plays a very active role in constructing our world. This construction occurs by way of a number of factors, including: • How we select what is to be discussed (i.e. what is, or is not, seen to be relevant). • The particular way in which what is being discussed is framed – the idea that some ways of making sense of things are 'objectively true', whereas others are 'subjective', is rejected. All are seen as particular constructions of the author, rather than as neutral unbiased 'facts'. One way of making sense of this idea is to imagine yourself making an observation of some interaction. Then imagine observing the same interaction, but through focussing on different aspects (selection), and making sense of them in terms of a different theoretical framework (framing), you could write down a quite different account. For example, the first observation could be made by a psychoanalyst who is primarily looking at how people's body language might reveal internal conflicts and defence mechanisms. The second observation could be made from a researcher interested in the content of the verbal interactions, and how society influences the way people discuss things. Clearly these two observations will produce very different data! Yet both could be argued to be perfectly reasonable ways of observing the situation. So can you say that one is 'right' (and 'objective'), and another is 'wrong', (or 'subjective')? People's accounts are seen as based on their particular ways of making sense of things, and the rhetorical strategies they might use (i.e. the way people will frame their accounts to make them as coherent and convincing as they can). This also applies to psychological research, even discourse analysis itself, which leads to an interesting question: A phrase from the Roman playwright Juvenal's Satires is 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?', or 'Who guards the guardians?' In this context, this question can become, 'who analyses the discourse of the discourse analysts'? Discourse analysts have to be sensitive to the way in which their own research is itself a construction, based on particular theories, making use of rhetorical strategies, and so on. For the social constructionist, this is not seen as a weakness, but rather a strength, in that the researcher is encouraged to be reflexive (in trying to be aware, as much as possible, of their own ways of framing things), and transparent –- in communicating this as clearly as possible to the reader when reporting their research results. Social constructionists would, of course, claim that this idea of research as construction is true of all psychological methodologies, criticizing many quantitative/experimental approaches for not acknowledging the extent to which their research is constructed. Social constructionists reject the very concept of 'unbiased, objective' research.\nThe actual methodology of discourse analysis is based on the interpretation of texts, which often make use of transcripts of talk (broadly interpreted to mean pretty much any kind of utterance/conversation/writing). This material is nearly always taken from naturally-occurring talk of some kind (compare this naturalistic focus with laboratory-based research, for example). Material might come from observation of normal everyday encounters between people, interviews, or published material such as newspaper articles. These texts are then analysed to try to reveal the social context from which they emerge. Speakers' accounts of events are seen not simply as passive reports of the 'facts' of what happened, but highly active ways of putting across the way they wish to construct those 'facts'. A good way of making sense of this idea in practise is to look at politicians from rival political parties frantically 'spinning' to get across what may be diametrically opposed ways of making sense of some particular event (e.g. publication of some new statistics on crime or the economy). Rhetorical strategies could be based on trying to show their opponents to be fools and/or knaves, while their own party is the supreme repository of wisdom and skilful policy-making. From this point of view, the 'spin' IS the reality, in that it is people's eventual constructions of an event that tend to have the ultimate impact on a political party's fortunes. Conversation Analysis\nConversation Analysis (CA) has some similarities with discourse analysis, in its even stronger emphasis on using naturally-occurring talk, but tends to focus on highly detailed analysis of smaller samples of language. As its name suggests, CA has a particular focus on how people interact with their talk. The ways in which conversations are socially organised are revealed by a detailed analysis of tape recordings (audio or video) and transcriptions made from such recordings. Although the way we talk with others in conversation may seem very 'natural', CA reveals the ways in which it is based on particular interactional skills. Some of these skills seem to be quite general, others are found more within particular cultures. This method insists on staying very close to the prime data (the tape recordings). However, transcriptions are also used, to show how conversations develop as an interactional sequence. Analysing biography. This approach uses individual biographical details as sources of data. These can then be used to try to make sense of the different psychological aspects of the individual in question. The analysis would often take place from within a particular theoretical context (e.g. Freudian or Jungian psychoanalytic), or might also draw on a combination of theories to help provide insight into different psychological processes. \nInterviewing\nInterviews involve a researcher asking a participant (or informant) for information about a particular research question. This question could be tightly focused, such as 'experience of a particular train journey, or more loosely focussed, such as 'what it means for you to be alive as a human'. The participants would be chosen in terms of their likelihood of having something relevant to say about the research question. \nInterviews can produce both quantitative and qualitative data, and can be structured or unstructured. With structured interviews, there is a detailed checklist of questions to be asked, with little deviation allowed from this. Data are often coded into numbers so that statistical analyses can be done. Unstructured interviews, in their 'pure' form, have no prepared list of questions, in fact nothing apart from an initial focus or topic (e.g. 'experience of motherhood'). From this, the interviewer will try to be very sensitive to what is important to the respondent, in deciding which questions to follow up on or expand. In practise, many interviews lie somewhere between the purely structured and the unstructured format. The interviewer may start off with some prepared topics in an 'interview guide' designed to cover particular themes, but will be quite open to exploring material the respondent comes up with from outside this. This would be called a semi-structured format. (In fact, even 'unstructured' interviews must inevitably involve some choices on the part of the interviewer on what question to ask or topic to follow up at any point). Regardless of format, the resulting data are then analysed to come up with central themes and issues. This analysis looks for the meanings through which people make sense of their lives and experiences. Sometimes, the initial analysis may be offered back to the respondent, for their comments as to how well they think it represents their views. Whether this is done may depend on the theoretical background of the interviewer – humanistic psychologists, for example, place great importance on representing interviewees in terms of the interviewee's own unique worldview. Ethnographic methods\nEthnographic methods originated with anthropology, looking at various aspects of different ethnic groups, or communities in countries other than the anthropologist's own. The focus was frequently culture (meaning everyday practices), history, myths and traditions. This approach makes use of a whole range of methods, based on 'naturalistic' observation techniques, such as recording natural conversations. Often the investigator will themselves become part of the grouping, for periods varying from relatively short time periods up to several years. However, the aim is to participate without altering the situation excessively (it is acknowledged that it is impossible to have no effect at all), in order to discover the viewpoints and activities of the people being observed. This approach has formed the basis for more recent research in social psychology. The basic method, as described above, is that the psychologist participates in the everyday lives of the people being observed, making notes about what is said and the activities that take place. In addition to this 'outside' viewpoint, ethnographers may well also ask individuals to talk about their experiences, providing an 'inside' viewpoint and inner experience data. Another source of data may come from documents or other information sources relevant to the setting being observed. This emphasis on multiple methods is characteristic of ethnography. In the early stages of data collection, ethnographers would try to be as 'unstructured' as possible in their observations, limiting the extent to which their own preconceptions/background influenced what is observed (this cannot be done entirely, but great effort could be made towards trying to be sensitively attuned to the viewpoints and overall worldview of those being observed). This approach will help the central issues involved to start to emerge, through the early stages of analysis. Qualitative observation\nObservation is one of the most basic methods of data collection in psychology. It involves careful attention to some particular aspect of the world. It can take place in the laboratory, during experiments or observations of people interacting or doing particular tasks, or may focus on people engaged in some aspect of their everyday lives, so generating naturalistic data. Examples could be students and teachers in the classroom, people shopping or using a cash machine, mother-child interaction etc. Sometimes video recordings may be made, in other circumstances this may not be possible (or ethical), and data will consist of the observer's own notes of what he or she observed. The essential distinction between an observation and an experiment is that an observation doesn't involve the deliberate manipulation of a particular variable. However, experimental psychologists have to observe the effects of their manipulations and some forms of observation can involve some potential 'interference' with what is being observed. This is particularly true for the method known as participant observation, in which the observer also participates in the activities engaged in by those under observation. The discussion on how all data is seen as constructed in the section on discourse analysis is just as relevant to observational data.