In the next section, Prof. Gonzalez discusses research methods in studying youth mental health and how quantitative and qualitative methods complement each other to uncover insights of health disparities.
This is Part 2 of our interview with Dr. Marybel R. Gonzalez, a professor at Ohio University’s School of Medicine. Missed Part 1? Read it here.
4. Your research utilizes both quantitative and qualitative methods. Can you share how these two approaches complement each other in your studies?
So, I think I'll spend a little time answering this question, and then we can open it up for other questions. Feel free to start putting them in the chat if you're curious about anything I've mentioned. We’d love to hear those extra questions.
So, yeah—this whole research project has two sides. We are conducting both a qualitative study and a quantitative study. The difference is that quantitative research involves big data—we analyze variables, test hypotheses, run statistical analyses, and apply strict criteria to determine whether a hypothesis is supported. This is often referred to as statistical significance. We look at things like p-values to assess whether a phenomenon is statistically valid within the area of research I work in.
Historically, quantitative research has been considered the gold standard—the benchmark for "real science." If you're proposing a study, it's often expected to be quantitative because it follows the scientific method and emphasizes rigor. However, what some of us in the field have realized is that qualitative research also has immense value.
Qualitative studies are different because they involve in-depth exploration of people's experiences. For example, instead of just analyzing numerical data, you might sit down and conduct an interview—similar to what we're doing right now. Victoria asking me these questions could be considered a qualitative study.
Each approach has its pros and cons. In qualitative research, you may conduct interviews, but then you face the challenge of how to translate those responses into measurable variables. The truth is, you really can’t—and that’s the point. Qualitative research is designed to capture rich, contextual details about individuals—aspects that are often missing from quantitative studies, which typically rely on structured yes/no questionnaires.
For example, if you ask someone on a quantitative survey, “Have you ever used a nicotine product (e.g., vape, cigarette, cigar)?” the response options would simply be yes or no. However, in a qualitative study, you could ask follow-up questions like, “Tell me more about that experience,” which might reveal deeper insights—such as why they tried it, where it happened, or how they felt about it. These are the kinds of contextual details that quantitative data alone cannot capture.
In my research, we use both approaches. Quantitative data helps us examine broad patterns and relationships—such as whether there is a connection between mental health and vaping. But qualitative research helps us interpret those patterns. Did we even ask the right question? Did we frame the topic correctly? Maybe we assume there’s a direct link between mental health and vaping, but qualitative findings might suggest otherwise. That’s why qualitative research helps fill in the gaps, providing the depth and nuance that big data alone cannot offer.
5. What role do you see community engagement playing in your research, particularly when working with underrepresented populations?
Yeah, so I think that’s a great question, and I can probably answer it with a little bit more background about research in general. I don't know if you all have all taken any classes where they’ve talked about the research process.
I will give you my experience. When I was getting my undergraduate degree in cognitive science at Berkeley, I thought, well, science is neutral because you're using a scientific method, so there shouldn't be any biases, and there shouldn't be any opinions because you have a scientific test that you conduct, or you do a study and follow the procedure that gives us neutral results.
That's method that I was taught, and even going into grad school, the scientific method was upheld as the gold standard. But I think there are two things about psychological research that we have now come to acknowledge: that it is a science that is very white-centric, and that, it is also very western.
We conceptualize psychological behavior and anchor that to Western culture. And that becomes very problematic, right? Where is the role of cultural identity or cultural background? And how you interpret psychological behaviors? If you were to describe some of the practices in your own culture to others, they may be like, “Oh my gosh, this sounds so strange.” There is a history of psychology pathologizing, meaning when you pathologize something, you make it into a disease or a disorder, things that the Western culture does not understand.
I have some lived experience growing up in Los Angeles in a neighborhood that didn't have a lot of resources, but I’m also a product of a high school that had a lot of resources, including many AP classes. We had a rich legacy of the Jaime Escalante Program. So if you have ever seen the movie Stand and Deliver. It's like a super, super old movie based on Jaime Escalante and his work with the AP students at Garfield High School. That is actually the high school I went to, so the whole Stand and Deliver movie based on that high school. I was definitely part of that legacy of like enrichment and programs.
With that said, when I was trained as a neuroscientist, I was like, “Okay, great, we have this method that's completely neutral and not biased.” But then again, as I looked around and observed how my colleagues were interpreting results, I realized that their interpretation didn't sound like what somebody in my neighborhood would say what was happening.
In the beginning, I thought, “Okay, maybe I just have it wrong. Maybe I'm just not thinking about it correctly, and that's how psychological science and neuroscience work. But after being exposed to other disciplines, like public health, and sociology, which really values input of communities. I realized, oh no, we could actually get this wrong. As scientists, we can get it very wrong if we make our own assumptions and our own conclusions about what other people are thinking or what other solutions should be appropriate for people, especially if we don't live in those communities.
And so this is why I've brought in community-engaged research approaches into my research program. I will tell you that it's not a natural thing to do. And a lot of people have kind of said, “Oh, that's cool that you're doing that." But have not really understood the value of it until I'm able to demonstrate it with using the scientific method of saying, “look, I've got these like novel results with an interpretation that's backed by the community's perspective and the community's voice.” And that gives it much more value to the science that you're producing, because the science you're producing is informed by the community, and then hopefully can go back to communities and be helpful.
We are often referred to as the ivory tower, meaning that we, as privileged scientists, sit above and look down at people that we're studying. But we don't bother to have conversations with people. We just think of them as subjects and populations that come in and do our task. And I think probably 90% of my field, probably even 95%, do not have a community engaged research approach in neuroscience, and so they're designing these tests that they say, “Oh, this is going to test cognition.” And then they make these big inferences about those tests that they give to people when they have never actually even, had a conversation with the person that they're going to give that test to. So I think it's just kind of a thing that we see a lot with the science. We also see it in medicine. We're trying to change that in medicine right now, because we've become so disconnected that the physicians that we're training don't know how to intact with their patients, and there's really a lack of human side of it. And so this is why I thought community-engaged research was so crucial. It's not easy, because neuroscience and community engagement don't really exist in the procedures and the processes are not in place to make those things go well together very easily, especially at the institutional level. But I have found that it's really rewarding to think about us producing scientific results that could actually be useful and helpful, rather than just going to a journal or a conference where people may say, “Oh, this is brilliant.” But then it actually doesn't do anything in the real world. So I really do see community-engaged research as a way to produce meaningful science that can hopefully impact the lives of the people.
6. How do you engage youth in your research? Are there any methods for them to share their own experiences?
Part of the community-engaged research plan in my lab is to include the representation and voices of youth, and that’s because my lab focuses on adolescent health. I could ask parents, “What do you think about adolescent health?” but I would only get the perspective of the parents, which doesn’t always align with that of the youth.
Fun fact: In almost every major research study we’ve conducted, youth disagree with their parents on the exact same question 50% of the time. It could be about anything. For example, if we ask, “Does your child feel sad?” the youth might say, “Absolutely,” while the parent says, “No, not at all.” Or if we ask, “Does your child have favorite foods?” the parent might say, “No, they’re kind of a picky eater,” while the youth responds, “Oh no, I actually really love burritos.” These discrepancies arise because perspectives differ depending on who you ask.
This is why I don’t just ask parents—I want to incorporate the voices of youth. However, I can’t simply present the same scientific talks I give to other scientific audiences. I have to tailor the content in a way that is interesting and relevant to youth. Hopefully, some of what I’ve shared today has been engaging for you.
Being creative in how we present information is important, and a lot of this has also involved teaching—introducing you to the research process. What is research? How do you conduct research? Why is it important? What kinds of questions should we be asking? The goal is to give you a platform to start thinking critically. If you know Dr. Gonzales is asking you these questions, now you can answer with a little more understanding of what research is.
The idea behind this research internship is to create a space where there’s both learning and an opportunity for you to provide input and share your perspectives. Some parts may feel like homework or assignments, but we’ve found that this structure makes it easier to get you engaged. Because of that, we’ve started incorporating more assignments, but at the same time, we can showcase and evaluate the work you’re producing.
This is Part 2 of our interview with Dr. Marybel R. Gonzalez, a professor at Ohio University’s School of Medicine. Missed Part 1? Read it here.
