Discussion 4

ValuesinQualitativeandQuantitativeResearch.pdf

Home >Education homework help >Discussion 4

Values in Qualitative and Quantitative Research

Maureen Duffy and Ronald J. Chenail

The authors identify the philosophicai underpinnings and vaiue-iodenness of major research paradigms. They argue thaf usefui and meaningfui re- search findings for counseiing can be generated fram both qualitative and quantitative research methodoiogies, provided that the researcher has an appreciation of the importance of phiiosaphical coherence in working within a particuiar research tradition. Moreover, the authors recognize that the research worid is one of methodoiogicai piurailsm; they discuss porticuiar criticai values central to conducting research and evaiuating research findings, Finaily, the authors demonstrate that there is not a 1-to-l correspondence between a research method and the research paradigm,

A lthough quantitative research has dominated the research conducted in counseling and other helping professions, there is increasing recognition of the importance of qualitative research and its fit with

the values of the counseling profession, in general (Ponterotto, 2005), and evidence-based practice, in particular (McLeod, 2000; Rowland & Goss, 2000). Berrios and Lucca [2006) reported that in a content analysis of four major professional counseiing journals published between 1997 and 2002, qualita- tive research articles represented one sixth of all articles published in the journals studied. Berrios and Lucca also called for increased awareness and training in qualitative research methods. In this article, we identify important unprovable philosophical assumptions underlying major research paradigms and demonstrate how useful research findings can be derived from multiple paradigms as long as the counselor researcher conducts the research and presents the findings in a philosophically congruent way. We also empha- size the value-ladenness of all research paradigms and methodologies. It is tempting to think that learning how^ to conduct and appreciate research in counseling and other human sciences follows a linear, step-by-step pattern. Of course, it does not, and the complexities of conducting and understanding qualitative and quantitative research involve an array of philosophical and methodological concepts, activities, choices, and consequences.

In the midst of the call for more qualitative research because it fits with the values of both the counseling profession and counseling professionals, Ponterotto [2005) warned that although more counseling professionals are beginning to use qualitative research methods, "some are doing so without a firm grasp of the philosophical anchors undergirding many approaches to qualitative inquiry. It is important that researchers understand well the philosophy of science parameters anchoring their work" {p. 127). This concern

Maureen Duffy, Department of Counseling, Barry University; Ronald }. Chenail, Department of Family Therapy, Nova Southeastern University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Maureen Duffy, 501 Grand Concourse, Miami Shores, FL 33138 (e-mail: mivhelchan@gmnil.com).

22 Counseiing and Values • October 2008 • Volume 53

may become even greater as more counseling researchers use a "generic" qualitative research methodology (i.e., one without a well-established epis- temological and theoretical foundation) to conduct their studies instead of using a "brand name" methodology, such as ethnography or phenomenology, which do have well-established theoretical and epistemological foundations (Chenail, 2005).

Learning the basics of any research approach is necessary but insufficient if the researcher is to understand the underlying philosophies and values reflected by the method and by the paradigm within which the method is situated. No value-free research method exists, and counseling research- ers can contribute best to their profession and to their clients if they have a full appreciation of the values embedded within their selected research methods and the paradigms connected to them. Research methods are con- nected to research paradigms, and, as Kuhn (1970) pointed out, paradigms are developed to govern what questions may be appropriately asked. In order to ask many kinds of questions, researchers need to understand many kinds of paradigms. Kuhn also emphasized that muläple paradigms, with very different epistemological and value-laden foundations, may coexist simultaneously, sometimes comfortably, but more often uneasily. The coex- istence of research paradigms to which Kuhn refers suggests that paradigm development, and, by inference, philosophical development, often occurs in a discontinuous rather than a chronologically linear way.

Research Paradigms and Their Value-Based Components

Encapsulated within any particular research design or methodology is a whole view of the world that contains a belief about how the world is defined and who people are (ontology), how the world is known and understood and how people come to believe in the ideas that they hold as important (epistemol- ogy), what procedures or strategies should be used to learn about people and the world (methodology), and what values or ethical principles should be adhered to in conducting our research (axiology). All research paradigms and designs are ultimately based on philosophical notions that cannot be proven or disproven; they can only be accepted or rejected. As Crotty (1998) stated, "Justification of our choice and particular use of methodology and methods is something that reaches into the assumptions about reality that we bring to our work. To ask about these assumptions is to ask about our theoretical perspective" (p. 2). The worldviews associated with particular research approaches contain philosophical and methodological beliefs and practices that may vary strikingly from one to the other; in fact, they may be incongruent with each other. These encompassing worldviews, best known as paradigms, organize how people see the world and act within it.

Whether it is made explicit or not, every research design contains a set of values about its ontology, epistemology, methodology, and axiology, and

Counseling and Values • October 2008 • Voiume 53 23

reflects a particular worldview or paradigm. For this article, we define values as preferred ways of understanding and being in the world. It can be difficult to make the intellectual shift from understanding research as cut-and-dried sets of procedures to understanding research as a process of raising important philosophical questions that cannot be addressed in a narrow cookbook fashion (Slife, Williams, & Barlow, 2001). This is especially the case for quantitative research, which is rooted in the empiricist or positivist paradigm wherein philosophical underpinnings, assumptions, and values are not explicitly articulated. In the case of experimental research (an example of a positivist paradigm research design), conducted using rigorous scientific procedures, there are multiple, interwoven values that are rarely, if ever, discussed in the study. Although these values are assumed and taken for granted, they are values or preferences for particular beliefs nonetheless.

An Example of Values in Quantitative Experimental Research

Given that philosophical values in positivist designs are the most likely to be unaddressed in the research literature, we use experimental research to illustrate the vaiues that are present throughout the experimental research process. Experimental research designs have an ontological foundation that is based on the assumption that the world exists independently "out there" and that individuals can learn about the world by studying it using the scientific method. No one can actually "prove" that the world exists in a form that is largely independent of humans; the individual simply chooses to either accept or not accept that notion.

Experimental research designs contain implicit epistemológica 1 values that require the researcher to remain as separate and detached as possible from the research participants in order to limit any possible researcher bias. Additionally, only findings that are the result of rigorous application of the scientific method and that preferably have been confirmed through replication of the study are accepted as reliable or trustworthy. Establish- ing such rigorous conditions for the acceptance of experimental research findings as knowledge is value-laden, as is, for example, the acceptance of intuitive or spiritual knowledge by those working from different epis- temologies. The epistemological stance of an experimental researcher and a mystic could not be further apart.

The experimental researcher can only consider as knowledge evidence that has been obtained from a rigorous scientific study, whereas the mystic consid- ers as knowledge evidence obtained from a direct transcendent experience with the divine. Could someone be both an experimental researcher and a mystic? Most certainly. However, his or her knowledge claims as experimental researcher and mystic would not typically be presented in the same forum. That is not to say that an experimental researcher could not study mystical phenomena or that mystics could not dialogue usefully with experimental

24 Counseling and Values • October 2008 • Volume 53

researchers. In fact, serious efforts to bring together vaiues from the world of science and vaiues from the worid of spirituaiity have taimen piace and have been ied, for exampie, by researchers who are interested in studying the nature of consciousness {Vareia, 1997; Vareia, Thompson, & Rosch, 1997).

The invariable methodoiogicai value or preference for experimental researchers is the scientific method. This methodoiogicai vaiue in experi- mental designs includes identifying units of study and using control and treatment groups. The treatment group receives an intervention whereas the control group does not. Participants or subjects are randomly as- signed to each group; after the intervention is completed, the outcomes for each group are systematically measured and statistically analyzed and compared.

From an axiological perspective, the values and research ethics guiding the experimental study are (a) adherence to the rigorous procedures required in an experimental design; (b) researcher detachment and impartiality, as much as possible, to avoid undue influence over the research participants or subjects; (c) careful analysis of the data; (d) presentation of the findings without overstating their significance so that policy changes are not made lightly; and (e) disclosure of methodological and analytic procedures so that the study can be replicated by other experimental researchers. The ontologi- cal, epistemological, methodological, and axiological values or preferences in this example were those embedded in a study using a quantitative research experimental design. If we had selected a grounded theory study, an eman- cipatory research study, a narrative research study, or a phenomenological study (all nonquantitative research designs) as an illustration, the researcher's values or preferences would have been quite different from those held by the experimental researcher in the example that we used.

Every research approach or design contains an implicit set of values that guide how the researcher understands the nature of reality and defines what constitutes knowledge, selects a research question, sets up the procedures for gathering and analyzing the information collected, interacts with the research participants or subjects, and determines the quality and usefulness of the research findings. In no case is there a research approach that is value free or value neutral, in spite of the confusing and long-standing emphasis on the importance of objectivity.

Research Paradigms and Qualitative and Quantitative Research

Counseling and other human science research have been organized in a va- riety of ways. One way of organizing research is according to the perspectival approach (Guba & Lincoln, 1998; Paul, Graffam, & Fowler, 2005) wherein various methods of research are classified on the basis of their philosophical and methodological underpinnings. The perspectival approach to classifying kinds of research is particularly useful for uncovering the hidden values that

Counseling and Values • October 2008 "Volume 53 25

shape all research. Table 1 provides an introduction to a variety of research approaches, with a focus on their underlying core values and philosophies. What is critical in reviewing this table is an understanding that specific research designs do not necessarily correspond in a one-to-one way with particular overarching research paradigms. For example, grounded theory is a qualitative research design that can be conducted within both postpositivist (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) and constructivist (Charmaz, 2000) paradigms.

Creswell (2004) also classified research by distinguishing between quantitative and qualitative research. A commonly used but not entirely accurate distinction between the two is that quantitative research translates human experiences into numbers, and qualitative research translates human experiences into words. In fact, quantitative and qualitative research both require some manipulation of numbers and interpretation of language. Moreover, the traditional "false dichotomies" between the two methodological families, wherein qualitative research is depicted as the naturalistic, subjective, inductive, nonnumeric inquiry of the real world and quantitative research is characterized as the artificial, objective, deductive, numeric inquiry of the laboratory, have been questioned or at least have been thrown into a state of useful confusion (Bavelas, 1995). Moving beyond the false dichotomies perspective helps researchers to see that quantitative and qualitative research both rely on empirical data and both answer scientific questions, albeit different kinds of scientific questions. By challenging oversimplified distinctions between quantitative and qualita- tive research, counseling researchers can appreciate how qualitative research conducted outside of the positivist paradigm is able to address certain kinds of questions that cannot adequately be answered by positivist quantitative research designs (Elliott, Fischer, & Rennie, 1999).

What Should Lead—Research Questions ar Research Methods nnd

Whether research questions or research methods and paradigms should be the primary focus in counseling research is a critical issue. Researchers have methodological and paradigmatic allegiances that may interfere with their ability to expand their knowledge about what counselors do because such allegiances may impose limits on the kinds of questions a researcher may ask. Like a metaphor, a research paradigm provides both openings and closings. It opens up frameworks for investigating certain kinds of questions and problems and closes down possibilities for investigating others.

We reviewed recent issues of the Journal of Counselitîg & Developitient to identify the kinds of research questions being asked, the methods and para- digms associated with those questions, and how those questions imposed both opportunities and limitations. For example. Bogar and Hülse-Killacky (2006) used a qualitative phenomenological approach to study the determi- nants and processes of resilience among adult female survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Among the research questions they asked was "Would you

26 Counseiing and Values • October 2008 "Volume 53

lu - I CD

p h

i e s

o o

0. • o cfl w

"ñ

tfí cO)

D e s i

o (5 o w DC

"ñ "(íi n0 a.

ire h

to 0) CO 01

îs ig

O) 0

A xi

o l

o> o o o

st e m

Q . LU

lo gy

o c o

e ct

c k l 0) a

.2 ^

o g

UJ <

-1 (- m >! t i

Ç <U cm C:k a) . <i) =

? -F, :ç S Ç .o £• í S 0) „

.Í2 ? £ £ « g

Ü i : ;=; Q)

T3 O

. ^ aî E u 0£ 1

œ a. B en O)

(0 m

a-eo CO c/> O)

"o efl -j^ en o O eo Û eO O ce

O)T3 * - .y "O

a c u ^ " ^ ^ «

Ü .Q i : O.X3 .a —

II O a>

eO £

a? o 3 ^

eo s aj

S c 15 ^ o £ > 'o O" £ "C n

:•=: CO

en -c w — CT 3 î^

^ ¿ eo 0 "o o a) 'S CT^ g i l ™ S

X . "o — B--C û) cfl

w u S b E 0) ç m ra _

¿ E • a

CO "ÏÏ ' p Q) • o CD É X I

Cl) C ^ CO

f .

0 ^ y

CD " ' Q) J Í en (1) £ : cO ï ra O E

ai cj oi -K Si 1-7Î o Si 2 •=; .oÎiS

i l s t= ¿ y

•S .0 ^

c: d' . •

CD b tí CO i i= ' ^ ^ 1^ O c £ I/) :^

i •"

III

-à E « -•5 ~ (0 w Q..C g r-

w — o -a

.•tí aj i s . = d> ^

fe s : 3 CO • = P y « 7 -K Q .? y•s ^ •> ï

t: o a> en o eno o

y D. £ s «> «

<1> ^ - n , - ^

.•e O > C

-c Q-Ä - .gO .«

i i t o .Í2 ±: .¡2 en .•£^ S >

liJ -1 m

a o o — Q. •o c ni

«T c O)

D e si

a>(0 0) DC

x: u n 0) en 0)

S 'w o D.

se a r

ís íg

i o

O) o o '5

S ) 0 o •o 0 £ 0)

is te

m o

a UJ

O) o S c O

c ti

rs p e

a> Q .

O ñ ÏÏ

s; o ÇJ to tu <D 0 o ceQ. O DC (fl

>< ¿ r i S Q) tD œ

^ t , i^ ni 'S m ffi '^ ti) ! l ) - g ™ I z E c D , _ i : . Ç

a j c o . » . E " a CO ̂ o Q.O

"tô .y . i2 jz

(1 ( R — d • n J Z s ï ' f t . Û . ; ;

S l O >, O S

to ^ to .9 u

to 2 • ^ S •= o

. 1 i -g ÇO Q,

S c ^ -c ¿-

If.¿Il

S S â S S

^ 3i, Ü Oï

•5 Î5

CO E 3

1 tu 0

• C M

CM * = F " O> ^ —

:gS i 8 f- W 2 ^ .E to D..^

Q. C O eu (33 •-

CO U)

(0 .b 0} --^ . t

a o

Q) 3 .C

C 0

o LU

• a c(0 m" ai 3

«" cO) "M

a>Q

U (D O (0 O QC

CO » CO d) ô) (E £

o sz

il ïï — -S >-

.¿ o ^ .2 8 « d) ïï

il ai nî

<ÜZÜ¿Q- Ï<U

_tn _

ç en p

• * in

„1 o d)

a) eo T ) 0)

.^ CO

III.Ill

ö CO

J 3 aj

o o g-en ^

"O I I d!

" a l eO " Q . " ^

tlllllli§•§â-S ë ̂

LU 5 ë .E = Îô s ¿

i ^ CD

si g a; •S fi

^ il* " ' ^ ÜJ *—

eo <D o CO S - a ' S i S ^ - ' c o .Î2 E S £ .E ~ I— .S2 'S

Q) ^ c

" ra -

o .^ O a;

•^ P

ilUliliiiîlJl e o c O 0 i - ^ e o a > 3 x 3 a ) C : c C D £ ! " Ä <= E o -g -i: IT-^ D a? g ̂ i2 o

o p 5 - ë : ; p ° - ^ 8 g § ^

en CO

CO 0) aï

cuCT • a a)

1 c œ

Q..E: E S B .Q 3 5 ^ . ! Î 2 J 3 U U CÖ œ > i i P - o £

Se" i - ç§ °^ CJ « ?£ . aj 0 -o w

* Í i3 ? O eo .B

1.1 I

¿3 dj c

55 ^ B ^ E â

= . . CO

s: 5 ä>

d> ™ c

rôt t o

pi td (O c ^ CO JÎ: g Si-i2

si,i .ÍSl > O) ü

w E i S E= R "= o Ü G) u w E

o d> d ) " ^ ,

o.^ o to ,_ ü £ ¿ 2 tn rn en

E ^ "

eo - i ir E

a).£ •a

3 9- ai "5 i^ !C CD-r-i

^ 3 £ .è'-^l

en ^

ê ? 9--O si

CJ ±í

à O CO Q. 5 3 T=r _ CT

°™ S S y - y O .C TJ " O)

Ç Ç £ '(u£E

c0 Ü

m - J m \-

a 2 m

<n c

v Q

0) M O

2 o '3 <

•C ' S

u u

« s. s

.| SCO t

s: ï < ce

n tr

a l 1

di o

tu"

2 Ä c CO

to tu

s 0

eu Q.X tu eu

eu '55 i ; r r rïii Z

WJ _ ^ £ CJ

¡i "B (i>

2 '̂ Q. E

"D- ._

• ^ CD

• ^ i n

O) Q

CO 5 a>-a sz c <S as

• D

S • D

<U a o euQ .

ni 9j

.a o

oo o CO

in g

. t i

o- • E

c (0

s to CO

ilu e s,

l U

Q .C B m !c

B to

Q .

•D C

io n

Q .

É CO E O)

eu s

ce o

f ie

D .

g O

V o

• ^

va lu

e .r ld

1 <u

_ o ç • ^ o

Q. c

tu tu

c F 2 ?3ii £ = •= a> «

.!2 5 -c S ^• T3 . y to =

. - D <" • tu c 1 ^ CO

to o cu <D > o

to O) H^ o ^ ^^ - ^

s o s g o f̂ - : • = to cu 93 * !

y E 5

.I:: cu CL

_ "B 5 A <t> c s ë <U — (O " « >y m C O " O > to O c

to ^ ;D cn.ïï

a> .Sí _ flJ £ •° S .5 Si-o c o o O) s - - o "O >

to tu ;= l l

c CO

CO !^ l_ W lO CO o ^

•^ o a-i a.p E

« o ^ g-° í- to o ü 0) ? t"

•̂ B-2 ' ^ i ä to **" >^ > CO .-_-

o . tO — ° JC , t : Jg (0 O) O) CO Q)

ÏÏ Q..E .E E 5

O) QS _ £

to cu E

to • o

tu tu CO

please briefly describe how the effects of your experience of childhood sexual abuse are affecting you now, if at all, and please briefly tell me about some of the positive things you have going on in your life right now?" (Bogar & Hiüse-Killacky, 2006, p. 320). The phenomenological method and its associated interpretivist/phenomenological paradigm allowed for depth of personal expression, emotionality, immediacy, and richness of detail in the collection of data. The first author/interviewer described her use of active listening skills and personal judgment about when to deviate from the interview protocol. The research process was personal, intense, and immediate.

In another study Ashby, Rice, and Martin (2006) conducted a sophisticated quantitative correlational study in which they replicated an earlier study (Rice, Ashby, & Slaney, 1998) that examined the relationship between perfectionism, shame, and depressive symptoms. The 215 research participants completed five pencil-and-paper instruments that measured the constructs perfection- ism, shame, and depression. The statistical techniques of regression and path analysis were used to analyze the data; the results confirmed findings from previous research, suggesting that maladaptive perfectionism is related both to the mediating variable of shame and to depressive symptoms.

In the two previously discussed studies, very different kinds of research questions were asked. In the first study. Bogar and Hulse-Killacky (2006) wanted to determine if and how past childhood trauma had affected adult women's current beliefs and behavior. They also wanted to understand what had helped the women to cope with serious past trauma so that they could lead satisfying, productive adult lives. Using a phenomenological/interpretive method and paradigm, the researchers sought (a) deeply personal and richly detailed subjective and experiential or lived-experience knowledge, (b) knowledge that was not based on an a priori or existing hypothesis (they were open to whatever the participants had to say about their experiences of surviving childhood sexual abuse), and (c) knowledge that emerged within the conversational domain in which the researcher/interviewer was a critical actor who influenced the development of knowledge through her presence and engagement with the research participants. It is important that (in order to be open to discover new and possibly unforeseen aspects of the participants' experiences) the researchers deliberately avoided being influenced by a widely held belief in the mental health fleld that childhood sexual abuse invariably leads to problematic adult lives.

Learning more about how women who have experienced childhood sexual abuse and who go on to lead effective adult lives is important for coimselors and the profession. The depth of personal, experiential, descrip- tive knowledge obtained through this study could not have been obtained through a quantitative method in the postpositivist paradigm. Certainly, other kinds of useful knowledge about adult survivors could have been obtained through an ex post facto or correlational design, but not this kind of deeply personal, richly described knowledge. As Murúiall (2001) stated, "the research paradigm and tradition will specify the domain of study, the

Counseling and Values • October 2008 "Volume 53 31

legitimate modes, and the methods of inquiry open to a researcher within a discipline" (p. 45).

Ashby et al. (2006) focused on an important question for the counseling profession, namely, how the construct of perfectionism is related to shame and depression. In the study, they wanted to replicate and, therefore, con- firm or disconfirm the findings from previously developed research mod- els that have demonstrated a relationship between perfectionism, shame, and depression. Using a correlational design and a statistical regression and path analysis, Ashby et al. (a) retested a hypothesis that had already been confirmed in previous research; (b) teased out the role of a mediating variable, in this case, shame, in order to better understand the connection between perfectionism and depression; and (c) attempted to establish a reliable basis upon which to predict that perfectionism and shame can lead to depression.

In academic and job settings in which high-stakes testing and high levels of competition for job promotion and advancement are pervasive, understanding how perfectionism and shame might contribute to de- pression can be very useful knowledge that has important clinical and wellness/prevention implications. Generalization and abstraction of knowledge from one study to a larger population are goals and values within the postpositivist paradigm; thus, the knowledge derived from Ashby et al.'s (2006) study on perfectionism, shame, and depression provides an abstracted, generalized conceptualization of the strength of relationship between important variables that could affect people with maladaptive perfectionism. This knowledge supports the underlying as- sumptions and values of postpositivism, namely, that the goal of science is a precise, accurate explanation of phenomena that are applicable to many people in many contexts. This is very different from the thick description of deeply personal experience generated by the phenomenological study on resilience among survivors of childhood sexual abuse (see Bogar & Hulse-Killacky, 2006).

From our point of view, the following positions seem to be the most de- fensible when considering counseling and related research.

1. Useful and meaningful knowledge can be generated from within multiple paradigms and multiple research traditions and research designs.

2. All research paradigms and traditions have critical, underlying, "unprov- able" philosophies and values about the nature of reality, knowledge, method, and what is important in conducting research.

3. There is no one-to-one correspondence between a research method and a research paradigm. In some instances, the same research method may be situated within different research paradigms, re- sulting in a very different understanding and applicability of the research findings.

32 Counseling and Values • October 2008 • Volunne 53

4. Both quantitative research and qualitative research are scientific ap- proaches to inquiry and rely on empirical data and can provide the basis for evidence-based conceptualization and practice.

5. It is important for both researchers and consumers of research to be able to critically appreciate the philosophical, ethical, and methodological differences among varied research methods and paradigms.

We believe that for individuals in counseling and related professions, un- derstanding the philosophies and values embedded within research methods and paradigms has significant ethical import because of the way knowledge derived from research is used to inform daily practice and general mental health and educational policy.

Values in Conducting Research and in Presenting and FvGluoting Research Findings

There are clear values that can be used to help counseling researchers ethically conduct research and present their findings and that can also be used by clinical consumers of counseling research in evaluating the importance of the research they read and study. These values are fidelity; openness and transparency; care for the research participants; competence; beneficence; and statistical, practical, and clinical significance. The values of fidelity, competence, and beneficence are values already strongly rooted in Western moral philosophy. The values of care for the other can be traced to Carol GiUigan's (1982) important work on an ethic of care, and to the work of others, such as Noddings (2005), who clearly used caring as a central perspective in evaluating research in the human sciences. Openness and transparency are values that the qualitative research tradition has increasingly emphasized over the last decade (Bamberger & Schön, 1991; Constas, 1992). Finally, significance in research can no longer be understood only as statistical sigriificance, but also must include what is understood in qualitative research as pragmatics or practical significance, specifically, that the research findings are important, are useful, and can be meaningfully applied in other clinical situations. In addressing other issues of research significance, Thompson (2002) added clinical significance and described it as the kind of significance clinicians need to help them make critical, differential decisions regarding diagnostic and treatment considerations.

We propose that all research projects should provide evidence that the values of fidelity; openness and transparency; care for the research par- ticipants; competence; beneficence; and statistical, practical, and clinical significance should be demonstrated; in addition, researchers in counsel- ing and related fields have an obligation to clearly address these values in each stage of the research process. The following questions and discussion can provide a template that consumers of counseling research can use to evaluate the concordance of a research project with the values that we suggest are critical.

Counseling and Values • October 2008 • Volume 53 33

Fidelity

Is the research method faithful to the research question, its associated world- view or paradigm, and its requisite procedures? Is the research question or purpose clearly stated? Is there a meaningful rationale and justification for the research study? Are the procedures for collecting and analyzing data clearly articulated, and is there evidence that they have been followed? Are the findings reliable and trustworthy?

Openness and Transparency

Is there detailed disclosure of the steps followed by the researcher in con- ducting the study and generating findings? Have critical decision points in the research design and analysis process been revealed and discussed? Has the researcher's context been shared so that questions of corifUcts of interest and commitment can be addressed?

Care for the Research Participants

Is there evidence that the researcher has sought approval from an institutional review board and that procedures for protecting human participants have been followed. Evaluating the informed consent to participate in the research project and evaluating the descriptions of recruitment procedures are key areas for assess- ing whether care and concern for the research participant have been adequately addressed. In addition, is there evidence that the research participants have been respected; protected from harm; and, where indicated by the research design, included in the procedures for establishing trustworthiness of the study? Have the research participants' anonymity or confidentiality been protected?

Competence

Does the researcher have the necessary training credentials to conduct research according to the research design or tradition selected? Does the researcher have a thorough understanding of the methods of data collection, analysis, procedures, and self-reflection for establishing trustworthiness that are used in the study? Are the limitations of the research design and findings clearly articulated and discussed? Whether researchers understand the meaning and uses of tests of statistical significance, one element of competence to conduct quantitative research, has come under particular scrutiny (e.g.. Mittag & Thompson, 2000) and will be discussed in more detail later in this article.

Beneficence

Has the purpose of the research study been clearly articulated? Are the re- searchers clear about who benefits from the research study? Is the research

34 Counseling and Values • Ootober 2008 • Volume 53

likely to make a useful or meaningful contribution to the counseling or related mental health fields? Are the research findings likely to be useful for counselors and/or their clients? Is the researcher careful to avoid over- stating the clinical, educational, and/or policy implications of the research? Have the research findings been presented in a way that is understandable by most counseling practitioners so that the findings can be comprehended and applied in clinical counseling settings?

Bangert and Baumberger (2005) found that much of the membership of the American Counseling Association would be unable to understand the com- plexity of the research designs and statistical analyses used in many of the research studies published in the Journal of Counseling & Dei^elopmeut. Their conclusion is provocative and raises the question, "For whom is the research being published—the practicing counselor who can use it to help clients or the academic researcher who can use the publication to gain rank and ten- ure?" Neither outcome is negative, but from the perspective of the value of beneficence or what actions provide for the greater good, providing useful information to counselors in a clear and understandable way that helps them to help clients better seems, clearly, to be the more desirable outcome.

Statistical, Practical, and Clinical Significance

Because statistical significance is such an important determinant of the value of quantitative research findings, does the researcher understand the mean- ing, appropriate uses, and limitations of the tests of statistical significance that are used in the study? Does the researcher fully understand what the statistical tests of significance used reveal about the variables under study and the meaning of the conclusions? There is a long and important history of both empirical research and commentary in the counseling field suggest- ing that researchers do not understand the purpose and limitations of the statistical tests they have used in their research (Mittag & Thompson, 2000; Nelson, Rosenthal, & Rosnow, 1986; Thompson, 2002; Zuckerman, Hodgins, Zuckerman, & Rosenthal, 1993).

In terms of practical significance, are the research findings useful and ap- plicable in clinical and/or policy settings? The determination of practical significance is ultimately made by the stakeholders of the research and not exclusively by the researcher. Clinical significance is related to practical sig- nificance but Is a more narrow understanding of significance that is related to how helpful and how useful the research findings are for clinicians. For example, counselors working with boys who have been diagnosed with a conduct disorder can make important level of care treatment decisions on the basis of the research of Enebrink, Andershed, and Langstrom (2005), which suggested that boys presenting with lack of empathy, lack of emotionality, and callousness had more severe and more aggressive symptoms of conduct disorder than did boys diagnosed with conduct disorder but who did not present with such symptoms.

Counseling and Values • October 2008 "Volume 53 36

In addition, some researchers (e.g.. Barlow & Hersen, 1984) have suggested that in clinical experimental research, the single-case experimental design may have much to offer insofar as the design provides a built-in baseline data collec- tion period and subsequent treatment period. This research design is particularly useful for counselors who wish to introduce experimental research into their practices but who also want to be able to focus on the clinical signiflcance of the changes while retairùng the opportunity to complete statistical analysis of more subtle differences in behavior over time. The single-case design can eliminate a number of the problems assciciated with group research and the use of poorly understood statistical tests while allowing the counseling researcher to focus mcKt on the significance of observable clinical change.

Practical and clinical significance have historically been important issues in qualitative counseling research, encouraging counselors to gather data about (a) their own clinical practices and decision making, about the processes and outcomes of counseling supervision and (b) the effectiveness in real-life settings of their clinical counseling work. Qualitative counseling researchers have typi- cally used qualitative data to assess their own effectiveness in order to identify areas of needed clinical improvement, to assess the outcome effectiveness of the treatment modalities they have used, and to evaluate the usefulness and effectiveness of the counseling supervision they have received.

Implications for Coun^linq Rfí.sf̂ nrnh

In this article, we have suggested that a careful consideration of the values present in the conduct of both qualitative and quantitative research can lead counseling researchers and practitioners to find value in the contributions of both families of research methodologies. In making these claims, we are not necessarily advocating a postmodern situation wherein every methodology can be used effectively within every epistemological posture and research question and that all findings are equally useful for all counselors.

In contrast, we are suggesting that when considering a methodologically plu- ralistic world where counseling research can be conducted from postpositivist, critical theory, constructionist/interpretivist, and other postmodern paradigms, counseling researchers should work to maintain a sense of philosophical coher- ence throughout the conduct of their studies and in the presentation of their fiiidings. We also advocate that counselors and clients endeavor to maintain a stance of critical consumerism as they read, review, and apply research findings to their practices and lives. In such a world, the research products of qualitative and quantitative counseling researchers can become the value-added ingredients that counselors and clients deserve and have been expecting.

References

Ashby, J. S., Rice. K. G,, & Martin, J. L. [2006]. Feriectioiiism, shame, and depressive symptoms. Journal of Counseling ^Development, 84, 148-156,

36 Counseling and Values • October 2008 "Volume 53

Bamberger, J., & Schön, D. A, ( 1991 ). Learning as reflective conversation with materials. In F. Steier (Ed.), Research and refleximty [pp. 186-209J. London: Sage.

Bangert, A. W., & Baumberger, J. P. (2005). Research and statistical techniques used in the Journal of Counseling ?¿Dmeiopment\ \99Q-1QQ\. humai of Counseling ^Development. 8^. ài'èO-A^'l.

Barlow, D.H., &Hersen, M. (1984). Smgfccaíí-expmmeMtóiíieíigMj.-SíraíegWí/or siWyingiieAai/ior

change [2nd ed.). New York: Pergamon Press, Bavelas, J. B. [1995). Quantitative versus qualitative? inW. Leeds-Hurwitz [Ed.), Social approaches

to communicaiion [pp. 49-62). New York: Guilford Press. Berrios, R., & Lucca, N. (2006). Qualitative methodology in counseling research: Recent contribu-

tions and challenges for a new century. Journal of Counseling SiH Development. 84, 174-186. Bogar, C B., & Hulse-Killacky, D. [2006). Resiliency determinants and resiliency processes among

female adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Counseling S¿ Development, 84, 318-327.

Charmaz, K. [2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln [Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2r\d ed., pp. 509-535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chenail, R. [2005), Future directions for qualitative methods. In D, H, Sprenkle & F. Piercy [Eds.), Research methods in family therapy (Ind ed., pp. 191-208), New York: Guilford Press.

Constas, M, (1992). Qualitative analysis as a public event:The documentation of category develop- ment procedures. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 256-266.

Creswell, J, W. (2004). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall,

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: Sage.

Elliott, R,, Fischer, C T , & Rennie, D. L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualita- tive research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychohgy, 38, 215-229.

Enebdnk, P,, Andershed, H., & Langstrom, N. [2005). Callous-unemoUonal traits are associated with clinical severity in referred boys with conduct problems, Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 6, 4 3 1 ^ 4 0 ,

Gilligan, C. (1982)- ¡n a different voice: P.iychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,

Guba, E.G,,& Lincoln, Y S. (1998). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues {pp. 195-220), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,

Kuhn,T, S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions [2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McLeod, J, (2000). The contribution of qualitative research to evidence-based counselling and psychotherapy, In N, Rowland & S. Coss (Eds.), Evidence-based counselling and psychological therapies: Research and applications (pp. 112-126). London: Routledge.

Mittag, K. C , & Thompson, B, (2000). A national survey of AERA members' perceptions of statistical significance tests and other statistical issues. Educational Researcher, 29, 21-27.

Munhall, P. L. (2001), Epistemoiogy in nursing. In P. L. Munhall (Ed.), Nursing research: A qualitative perspective (3rd ed., pp. 37-64), Boston: Jones & Bartlett.

Nelson, N., Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1986). Interpretation of significance levels and effect sizes by psychological researchers. American Psychologist, 41, 1299-1301.

Noddings, N. (2005). Perspective 2: Pragmatism. In J. L. Paul (Ed,), Introduction to thephHosophies of research and criticism in education and the social sciences (pp. 57-60). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

Paul, J. L., Craffam, B.. & Fowler, K. (2005). Perspectivism and critique of research: An overview. In J. L. Paul [Ed.), Introduction to the philosophies of research and criticism in education and the soáal sdences [pp. 43-48), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice HalL

Ponterotto, 1 G. [2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research para- digms and the philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52. 126-136-

Rice, K., Ashby, 1, & Slaney, R. (1998), Self-esteem as a mediator between perfectionism and depres- sion: A structural equations analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 25. 304-314.

Counseling and Values • October 2008 »Volume 53 37

, N., & Goss, S, (Eds,), (2000), Eiñdence-based counselling and psychological therapies: Research and applicañons. London: Routledge,

Siife, B. S., Williams, R, N., & Barlow, S. H. (2001), Critical issues in psychotherapy: Translating new ideas into praaice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Strauss, A , & Corbin, ,1, (1990), Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and tech- niques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,

Thompson, B, (2002). "Statistical," "practical," and "clinical": How many kinds of significance do counselors need to consider? Journal of Counseling S¿ Devebpment, 80, 64-72,

Várela, F. J. [Ed,), (1997), Sleeping, dreaming, and dying: An exploration of consciousness with the Dalai Lama. Boston: Wisdom.

Várela, F. J,, Thompson, E., & Rosch, E, (1997). The embodied mind: Copiitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,

Zuckerman, M , Hodgins, H- S,, Zuckerman, A., & Rosenthal, R, (1993). Contemporary issues in the analysis of data: A survey of 551 psychologists. Psychological Science, 4, 4 9 - 5 3 .

38 Counseling and Volues • October 2008 •Volume 53