COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH METHODS: QUALITATIVE APPROACHES

2y ago
34 Views
1 Downloads
2.22 MB
26 Pages
Last View : 2m ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Madison Stoltz
Transcription

4CHAPTERCOUNSELING PSYCHOLOGYRESEARCHMETHODS: QUALITATIVEAPPROACHESSusan L. Morrow, Carrie L. Castaneda-Sound, and Elizabeth M. AbramsQualitative research methods have gained increasingacceptance and popularity in counseling psychologysince early calls (e.g., Hoshmand, 1989; Howard,1983; Neimeyer & Resnikoff, 1982; Polkinghorne,1984) for methodological pluralism and alternativeresearch approaches. Although for many years coun seling psychology literature was characterized by ahandful of methodological guides and research arti cles, the 1990s saw a serious response to those ear lier visions of a multiparadigmatic, multimethodbody of inquiry. In 1994, the Journal of CounselingPsychologypublished a special section on qualitativeresearch, in which eight studies using variationson grounded theory approaches were published.Polkinghorne's (1994) reaction to these studies fore shadowed future assessments of the state of thequalitative art and science in counseling psychology.Although he commended the authors on a numberof points, notably the rigorous processes used by theinvestigators to analyze the data, he expressed con cern about the limitations of data gathered and theabsence of theoretical sampling. These concerns per sist in counseling psychology qualitative research inthe 21st century.In 2000, Brown and Lent's third edition of theHandbookof CounselingPsychologyincluded a chap ter on qualitative research methods (Morrow &Smith, 2000), a comprehensive introduction toqualitative research methods that drew from thelarger body of qualitative methodological literature,particularly in education. Given the diversity andcomprehensiveness of the qualitative writings ineducation and the location of many counselingpsychology programs in colleges of education, theeducational literature remains an important ground ing for our work as counseling psychologists. Ouraim in this chapter is to address qualitative researchin counseling psychology from the larger perspec tive of qualitative methodology in education andother disciplines to avoid the encapsulation thatmight result from too narrow an ideological andmethodological base. For this reason, we urge quali tative researchers in counseling psychology toembrace a multiparadigmatic and multidesignapproach to conducting, writing, and reviewingqualitative work.Further milestones in qualitative researchincluded numerous textbooks by counseling psy chologists as well as published studies. A key textused by many students of qualitative research hasbeen Creswell's (2007) iveApproaches,now in its second edition. In this text, the authorused five published qualitative studies to demon strate the underlying paradigms and designs of fivequalitative approaches to inquiry: narrative, phe nomenological, grounded theory, ethnography, andcase study. Although not all of these approaches arecommonly used by counseling psychology research ers, all have relevance and might be consideredmore broadly in our field. In addition, this is not acomprehensive list of qualitative designs used incounseling psychology because consensual qualita tive research ( CQR; Hill, Thompson, & Williams,1997) is one of the most commonly used qualitativeapproaches, and participatory action research (PAR;DOI: 10.1037/13754-004APAHandbookof CounselingPsychology:Vol. 1. Theories,Research,and Methods,Nadya A. Fouad (Editor-in-ChieOCopyright 2012 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.93

Morrow, Castaneda-Sound,and AbramsKidd & Kral, 2005) is receiving increasing attentionas counseling psychologists explore more effectiveways of pursuing our multicultural and social justiceresearch agendas.In 2005 and 2007, respectively, the journal ofCounselingPsychology(]CP) and The CounselingPsychologist(TCP) published special issues on quali tative research.JCP (Haverkamp, Morrow, & Pon terotto, 2005) addressed foundational elements ofqualitative methodology, including qualitativeresearch paradigms (Ponterotto, 2005a), data collec tion (Polkinghorne, 2005), ethics (Haverkamp,2005), and trustworthiness (Morrow, 2005). It alsocontained articles on various research designs,including grounded theory (Fassinger, 2005), phe nomenology (Wertz, 2005), narratology (Hosh mand, 2005), PAR (Kidd & Kral, 2005), CQR (Hillet al., 2005), ethnography (Suzuki, Ahluwalia, Mat tis, & Quizon, 2005), and action-project method(Young, Valach, & Domene, 2005). Three mixed method articles were included in this issue, includ ing a conceptual introduction to mixed methods(Hanson, Creswell, Plano Clark, Petska, & Creswell,2005), ideographic concept mapping (Goodyear,Tracey, Claiborn, Lichtenberg, & Wampold, 2005),and ethnographic decision tree modeling (Beck,2005). In addition to the individual articles in thisjournal issue being useful resources for students, thespecial issue is readily available and has been usedas a text in qualitative methods courses in counsel ing psychology.In 2007, two special issues of TCP (Carter &Morrow, 2007) were dedicated to the best practicesin qualitative methods, with articles that comple ment theJCP special issue. These two TCPissuesinclude a "comprehensive textbook . at the inter section of counseling psychology and qualitativeresearch" (Fine, 2007, p. 460). In this issue, Morrow(2007) addressed the conceptual foundations ofqualitative research, followed by the selection andimplementation of qualitative research designs(Creswell, Hanson, Plano Clark, & Morales, 2007).Haverkamp and Young (2007) articulated anapproach to conducting the literature review inqualitative research and formulating the rationalefor a qualitative study. Next, Suzuki, Ahluwalia,Arora, and Mattis (2007) explored strategies for94qualitative data collection, and Yeh and Inman(2007) identified best practices in qualitative dataanalysis and interpretation. Ponterotto and Grieger(2007) addressed issues of effectively communicat ing qualitative research, including a special focuson writing qualitative theses and dissertations. Pou lin (2007) rounded out the series with her articleon teaching qualitative research, and Fine (2007)offered a critical review in which she acknowledgedthe tensions between counseling psychology, a tra ditionally postpositivist discipline, and qualitativeresearch traditions that have been grounded more inconstructivist and critical traditions. In our opinion,she correctly framed the terrain of qualitatively ori ented counseling psychologists as a "borderland"(Anzaldua, 1987) venture-adventure in which wework to resist the inevitable pull of a dominantresearch paradigm to conform to its standards whileeducating and stretching "between 'both shores atonce,' inventing a language of translation bridgingpostpositivism to critical, qualitative work" (Fine,2007, p. 460).Over the years, counseling psychologists haveconducted qualitative research on a wide variety oftopics relevant to our field. Ponterotto (2005b)examined qualitative studies that had been pub lished over a 15-year period in the Journalof Coun selingPsychology.Hoyt and Bhati (2007) built onPonterotto's work, focusing more specifically on thedegree to which these studies reflected the underly ing principles of qualitative research in the largerqualitative arena. More recently, Ponterotto, Kuria kose, and Granovskaya (2011) have conducted aninvestigation of qualitative studies published inNorth American counseling journals (JournalofCounselingPsychology,Journalof CounselingandDevelopment,and The CounselingPsychologist)from1995 through 2006. The findings of these three stud ies provide an overview of how qualitative researchis conducted in counseling and counseling psychol ogy as well as raise questions about the directionsthat qualitative researchers in our field are going.The questions raised by these three studies areanchored in an understanding of research para digms; thus, in this chapter, we first identify theparadigmatic issues that form the foundation ofqualitative inquiry. Building on this framework, we

roachesdescribe the current status of the genre by reviewingcontent analyses of qualitative research in counsel ing and counseling psychology. Next, we turn ourattention to qualitative research designs and modesof inquiry that are relevant to counseling psychol ogy, providing an overview of phenomenology,grounded theory, CQR, PAR, and mixed methods.In keeping with counseling psychology's values andpriorities regarding diversity, we address multicul tural and social justice issues in qualitative researchas well as international and cross-cultural qualitativeresearch. We end the chapter with sections on qual ity and trustworthiness in qualitative research andwriting and on publishing qualitative research incounseling psychology.PARADIGMATIC UNDERPINNINGSQUALITATIVE RESEARCHOFQuantitative researchers often scratch their heads inconfusion when qualitative researchers insist on dis cussing paradigms. Those new to the qualitative"culture" (Hoyt & Bhati, 2007) may find qualitativeresearchers' forays into philosophy of science to beunnecessarily heady. Because the predominant para digm underpinning quantitative methods has tradi tionally been positivist or postpositivist, it has notbeen necessary for conventional researchers to dis cuss their paradigmatic underpinnings. However,qualitative research is characterized by numerousparadigms and research designs, and failure tounderstand at least some basic issues across theseparadigms leads to unnece sary confusion, such aswhen a reviewer applies standards of one paradigmto research conducted in another. There are manydifferent philosophical and paradigmatic taxono mies, but one that has been .cited frequently in thequalitative research literature was defined by Gubaand Lincoln (1994) and articulaq::d for counselingpsychologists inJCP by Ponterotto (2005a). Wehave taken some liberties in the brief description ofparadigms that follows, partly for simplicity's sakeas well as to lend further clarity and expansion.Ponterotto's (2005a) Primer is required reading forwould-be qualitative researchers.A paradigm may be viewed as an umbrellacontaining the researcher's views of reality, howknowledge is acquired, the values that guide theresearch, the methods used to conduct the research,and the language used to communicate the researchprocess and findings. The paradigms articulated byPonterotto (2005a) include positivism, postpositiv ism, constructivism-interpretivism, and critical ideological. In our brief explanation, we haveseparated interpretivism and constructivism andhave added a pragmatic paradigm.Although early anthropological qualitativeresearch may be said to have been guided by the val ues of positivism, qualitative research over time anddiscipline has largely dismissed positivism as a real istic possibility in the qualitative endeavor. Postposi tivists, like positivists, adhere to an objective realitybut realize that such a reality can be only imper fectly apprehended. Postpositivist researchers valueobjectivity as well as maintaining a detached role asresearchers.Ponterotto (2005a), like other theorists, com bined constructivism and interpretivism. Othershave found it useful to distinguish between the two,however. Viewing postpositivism, interpretivism,and constructivism on a continuum from a moredetached and objectivist location to one that is morefully engaged and interactive, one would find inter pretivists to be less concerned than postpositivistswith detachment or true objectivity but reluctant toengage fully in collaborative meaning-making withparticipants. A common area of interest amonginterpretivists and constructivists is the meaningsthat people make of their life experiences. Althoughpostpositivist qualitative researchers in counselingpsychology are interested in these meanings as well,their focus tends to be more on the objective stanceof the researcher than the meaning-making process.One area of confusion regarding constructivismrelates to whether one is focusing on the internalmeaning-making process or a process that is sociallyconstructed.Critical-ideological theories go further and maybe grounded in constructivist-especially socialconstructivist-perspectives. However, critical ideological theories are unabashedly political. Thatis, the goal of such paradigms is to undermine thestatus quo, using the research process to questionpower structures in society as well as within the95

Morrow,Castaneda-Sound,and Abramsresearch relationship itself. Typically the researcher participant interaction is highly interactional anddialogic, and researchers and participants worktogether for emancipatory ideals.Denzin and Lincoln (2000) referred to the quali tative researcher as a bricoleur,or one who makesuse of all the tools at hand to get the job done. Usingthis model, the "researcher draws on a variety ofphilosophical positions and methodological tools toaccomplish overall research goals" (Ponterotto,2005b, p. 10). In keeping with this model, a prag matic approach to paradigm issues may providemaximum flexibility to the researcher, althoughPonterotto warned that "if not done carefully,anchoring research in multiple paradigms can serveas cross-purposes and is akin to mixing apples andoranges" (pp. 10-11). Pragmatism centralizes theresearch question rather than philosophical ormethodological issues, and it focuses on what worksbest to accomplish the research goals (Tashakkori &Teddlie, 2003). A pragmatist paradigm is particularlyuseful in mixed-method (qualitative-quantitative)studies.As will become evident, certain research designsappear to be a perfect fit with certain paradigms. Itwill also become clear, however, that there areappropriate times to ground a particular study andits design in a paradigm that is not traditionallyassociated with that approach. We recommend thatresearchers become very familiar with the paradigmsand designs they wish to use before attempting tooambitious a bricolage.This overview of paradigms isnecessarily incomplete given the constraints ofspace, but it will provide the reader with a workingunderstanding to facilitate comprehension of thegoals and findings of the three content analysesdescribed in the next section.Content Analyses of PublishedQualitative Research in Counselingand Counseling PsychologyPonterotto's (2005b) examination of 49 qualitativeand mixed-method studies revealed interesting find ings about the status of qualitative research publishedinJCP between 1989 and 2003. To begin, he foundthat of the 49 studies, 21 could be classified as comingfrom a constructivist paradigm (for a description of96paradigms and their importance to qualitativeresearch, see Ponterotto, 2005a), nine were postposi tivist, 17 were postpositivist-constructivist, and twowere constructivist-postpositivist. None fell within acritical-ideological paradigm. Ponterotto found a widevariety of research designs represented across thesestudies, the most frequently used being CQR,grounded theory, and phenomenology. Numbers ofparticipants ranged from five to 26, with face-to-faceinterviews accounting for the primary data-gatheringstrategy. These interviews ranged from 30 minutes to4 hours, with CQR interviews being the shortest.Other data sources included telephone interviews,psychotherapy transcripts, and written responses toopen-ended questions. From 1989 to 1993,JCP didnot publish any qualitative studies. In 1994, the totalnumber of qualitative articles jumped to eight, all ofwhich appeared in the special issue described above.Then, between 1994 and 2003, the number of qualita tive articles ranged from two to five per year. Thus,despite increasing numbers of conceptual and meth odological articles and chapters in counseling andcounseling psychology, along with several qualitativetexts, the number of studies actually published in thejournal was small. It should be noted, however, thatJCPwas the leader in psychology journals publishingqualitative studies during that time.Hoyt and Bhati (2007) expanded on Ponterotto's(2005b) work by examiningJCP qualitative articlesduring the same period, using a critical analysis toanalyze the extent to which qualitative research inJCP reflected the underlying values and principlesof the larger qualitative genre. Characterizing thequalitative-quantitative paradigms as different cul tures, each with its own "socially transmitted collec tion of knowledge, habits, and skills" (de Waal,2001, as cited in Hoyt & Bhati, 2007, p. 202), theauthors pointed to the defining features of qualita tive inquiry according to Morrow and Smith (2000).These included the focus of inquiry (idiographic, inwhich the focus is on individual uniqueness vs. thenomothetic focus of quantitative research that val ues representativeness and generalizability), theresearch setting (extensive, intensive time in thenatural setting of participants), and the researcher'srole (the researcher, as the primary instrument ofthe research, engages in an intensive self-reflective

roachesrocess to examine her or his assumptions and iases and use them appropriately in the investiga tion). In addition, qualitative research should be udgedby standards that emerge from the qualitative enre as well as from the guiding paradigm of theresearch. Therefore, the imposition of quantitativeconcepts such as reliability, validity, and generaliz ability on qualitative research would be as inappro priate as criticizing a quantitative study for notuncovering the deeper meanings clients make oftheir experiences.Hoyt and Bhati (2007) conducted a content anal ysis of the same studies examined by Ponterotto(2005b), coding for attributes that related to theresearch focus, research setting, and researcher's roleas well as for the presentation of results, to under stand the extent to which these studies reflected thegoals of qualitative research. Their findings revealedsome important patterns in the ways qualitativeresearch was conducted over this 15-year period. Incontrast to the qualitative principles surrounding theimportance of a high level of acquaintance and a col laborative relationship between researchers and par ticipants, the authors found a trend indicating thatmost of the researchers conducting data analysis(frequently termed codersor auditors in the litera ture) had little or no contact with research partici pants. The modal length of interview was 60 min,and this normally took place in a single interview, incontrast with Polkinghorne's (2005) recommenda tion that an adequate interview spans at least threemeetings to develop rapport and gain in-depthunderstanding of the participant's experience. Thevast majority of researchers (80%) had either nodirect contact with participants at all or conductedinterviews in artificial settings as opposed to partici pants' natural environments. A small majority ofstudies (58%) provided some information about theself-reflective processes of the primary researchers,although the focus was on controlling subjectivityrather than using that subjectivity as an integral partof the researcher-participant relationship and toenhance the quality of the findings as is more preva lent in the larger qualitative research community.Hoyt and Bhati found that there was generallyconsistency in following the qualitative principleof using the words of participants to supportinterpretations made by researchers in studies inJCPduring this period. An important finding of Hoyt andBhati's examination of change over time was thatthere was decreasing fidelity between qualitativeprinciples and published qualitative studies inJCPover the span of their analysis. This raises significantquestions about the direction of qualitative researchin counseling psychology in relation to the largerqualitative genre.The third study in this series (Ponterotto, Kuria kose, & Granov

ter on qualitative research methods (Morrow & Smith, 2000), a comprehensive introduction to qualitative research methods that drew from the larger body of qualitative methodological literature, particularly in education. Given the diversity and comprehensiveness of the qualitative writings in education and the location of many counseling

Related Documents:

MA/AC in School Psychology Dr. Rebecca Vujnovic MS in Mental Health Counseling Dr. Sabrina Musson MS in Rehabilitation Counseling Dr. Daniel Wong PhD in Counseling Psychology/School Psychology Dr. Amy Reynolds PhD in Counselor Education Dr. Timothy Janikowski PhD in Educational Psychology and Quantitative Methods Dr. Jaekyung Lee

Counseling Psychology Values & Philosophy: hatham University's PsyD in ounseling Psychology program has adopted the unifying philosophical themes of counseling psychology as developed by Gelso and Fretz (2001) and the Council of Counseling Psychology Training Programs. Program objectives, curriculum, and competencies are derived from the .

100% Online School of Christian Psychology and Counseling Curriculum for the Doctor of Christian Psychology and Counseling (CPsyc.D. 48 credit hours) Field experience may be credited as practicum and Prior Learning may also apply as credits With Cornerstone Christian University Doctor Degree in Counseling Psychology program, you can

2. AU Counseling Psychology PhD Program Overview Program Aim . The Program has a single overarching aim: The goal of the Auburn University Counseling Psychology Program is to facilitate students' development of a high level of competency in the discipline of counseling psychology consistent with the scientist-

qualitative data. (Note that pure qualitative research will follow all of the paradigm characteristics of qualitative research shown in the right column of Table 2.1.) Mixed research – research that involves the mixing of quantitative and qualitative methods or paradigm characteristics. The mixing of

1. Explain what qualitative methods can add to program evaluation and identify situations/reasons when qualitative methods may be appropriate. 2. Identify different types of qualitative evaluation data collection and analysis and list steps involved in doing them. 3. Apply best-practices for qualitative methods in relation to program evaluation.

Practicum and Internship Manual - 3 . CEPR Practicum and Internship Manual . Clinical Mental Health Counseling, Rehabilitation Counseling and School Counseling: Master’s and Doctoral Levels . This manual is intended to introduce students and supervisors to the Department of Counseling Educational Psychology and Research’s Counseling .

Screw-Pile in sand under compression loading (ignoring shaft resistance) calculated using Equation 1.5 is shown in Figure 3. The influence of submergence on the calculated ultimate capacity is also shown. The friction angle used in these calculations is the effective stress axisymmetric (triaxial compression) friction angle which is most appropriate for Screw-Piles and Helical Anchors. 8 .