Distinguishing Between Methodologies Part 2: Mixed Methods and Single-Subject Research Design

Counseling_Research_A_Practitioner-Scholar_Approac..._----_Part_III_Qualitative_Research_Designs.pdf

Home >Social Science homework help >Philosophy homework help >Distinguishing Between Methodologies Part 2: Mixed Methods and Single-Subject Research Design

| 185

Qualitative Research Designs

III Qualitative research—but why, you might ask? Or you might be thinking, “I’ve seen ‘Other comments’ at the end of surveys. Isn’t that qualitative research?” No, not in the slightest, I (David M. Kleist) say! But before we get into a discussion of the philosophies undergirding qualitative methods, we need to prepare ourselves for the qualitative transition.

So far Rick has done an exceptional job of detailing a wide array of quantitative methods that you can utilize and understand

Balkin, Richard S., and David M. Kleist. Counseling Research : A Practitioner-Scholar Approach, American Counseling Association, 2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/waldenu/detail.action?docID=4722459. Created from waldenu on 2022-07-11 21:15:19.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Qualitative Research Designs186 |

as professional counselors. The world of quantitative methods is organized by a way of knowing, of understanding the world around us, people, and relationships, which is embedded in a paradigm far different from the ways of knowing in qualitative research. I suggest you sit quietly in a chair. Now think of all you have learned from Rick about positivism, empiricism, deductive reasoning, the distill- ing of human experience into quantifiable understanding, Pearson coefficients, F ratios, standard error of measurement, analyses of variance, multivariate analyses of variance, and so on. “Ommm- mmm. Ommmmmm. Ommmmm.” Think of all of the wonderful knowledge of quantitative research you have learned . . . and now let it drift on by and move aside, temporarily, to allow space for a new world and way of knowing, of understanding the world, people, and relationships. “Ommmm . . . ommmm . . .”

Okay, what on earth am I asking you to do? How silly is this? Well, it’s quite serious actually. You see, quantitative and qualita- tive research are distinct ways of understanding the world and producing knowledge through research. Both have value for you in your role as practitioner-scholar. However, there are important differences. The two forms of research actually use different parts of the brain (e.g., Carmichael, 2011; Pink, 2006). Even more excit- ing, in my view, is the notion Daniel Pink (2006) put forth, that the tendencies of right brain thinking—the inventiveness, storytelling, meaning making, creativity, and holistic thinking that are required for qualitative research—will be at the forefront of advancements in a variety of professions moving forward. Will counseling as a profession be among them? Well, only if we provide a balance in what professional counselors learn as the means to generate knowledge and research impacting the process of counseling. My hope for you over the next two chapters is to have an open mind, to allow yourself to embrace a way of knowing and producing research to which you probably have had little exposure during your education so far. I hope that when you have completed these chapters you see many places and ways for integrating qualitative research into your role as professional counselor.

References

Carmichael, S. (2011, October 28). Lou Rosenfeld—beyond user re- search [Podcast]. Retrieved from https://www.uie.com/brain- sparks/2011/10/28/lou-rosenfeld-beyond-user-research-live/

Pink, D. H. (2006). A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule the future. New York, NY: Penguin Group.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

https://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2011/10/28/lou-rosenfeld-beyond-user-research-live/

| 187

10 Fundamental Concepts in

Qualitative Research

Overview

This chapter will introduce you to some of the key philosophies, concepts, and ideas surrounding the rich research traditions of qualitative research. Essential components of the various qualitative traditions are discussed to create a foundation for the discussion of specific qualitative methods and procedures in Chapter 11.

Let’s get started. As Rick has said to students, and me (David), “A MANOVA is a MANOVA is a MANOVA.” In quantitative re- search and statistics, it is not possible to alter much in the different philosophies of knowledge that exist. Quantitative research is firmly grounded in positivism, or postpositivism today. Postpositivists believe that reality cannot be directly known, that we as humans construct understanding of the real world that exists outside of ourselves. Knowledge from research can only be probabilistically known through the use of the methods Rick so clearly described in the previous chapters. (“Oh, but remember, let these thoughts float on by for now!”) Here is the pathway to constructivism and an overlap of philosophy that can connect quantitative and some qualitative research approaches.

Some qualitative approaches are firmly embedded in postpositiv- ist philosophy that underlies all of quantitative research. However, that is only the beginning for qualitative research. In the next two chapters we will look not only at qualitative methods that are em-

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Qualitative Research Designs188 |

bedded in postpositivist ways of knowing and producing knowl- edge but also at qualitative methods that are grounded in an array of philosophical stances toward the world that impact all facets of research. Hold onto your seats here, as we will be examining how the philosophical stances of critical theory and constructivism (also known as interpretivism), which will be viewed along a continuum reaching to social constructivism (connected to postmodernism or the participatory action paradigm), inform qualitative research methods (Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2011). So when we talk later about grounded theory, for example, we will not be able to say, “Grounded theory is grounded theory is grounded theory.” We will learn to embrace the oft-used phrase “It depends,” which I use with my students. How a grounded theory research study is designed depends on your philosophical stance as a researcher. You see, postpositivist grounded theory is different from constructiv- ist grounded theory or a blend of constructivist and postmodern grounded theory. The use and understanding of grounded theory will depend on your philosophical stance toward knowledge or knowing. Yes, we are about to enter a wide-open world of qualita- tive research possibilities that requires that you be very aware of yourself and your views of reality. Your philosophical stance has a clear impact on how you conduct, design, and understand qualita- tive research and its knowledge products.

I am sure I have only made your day more confusing and mud- died the research waters even further. You thought you knew what research was, is, and can be after reading the first nine chapters of this book. Hang in there. Be open to new ideas to research, just like you are asked to be open to new ideas about people and the world around you as you develop as a counselor. Remember to breathe . . .

The varied philosophical stances that can impact qualitative research are not clear cut, nor are they universally agreed on by counselors, counselor educators, or qualitative research methodolo- gists. We are talking philosophy here, so we have to (to use another oft-used phrase) “embrace ambiguity.” I structure my discussion of the philosophies impacting qualitative research around the stances of two of the most preeminent scholars on qualitative research— Yvonne Lincoln and Egon Guba—along with a new colleague, Su- san Lynham (Lincoln et al., 2011). All three are qualitative research methodologists by training and have spent their careers applying qualitative methods to social and educational inquiry.

I must insert a disclaimer here: The reality is, qualitative research is relatively new to the counseling profession. There are many po-

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Fundamental Concepts in Qualitative Research| 189

tential reasons for this, and their discussion is beyond the scope of this chapter, but between 1994 and 1997 only three qualitative studies were published in the Journal of Counseling & Development versus 57 between the years 2006 and 2009 (Erford et al., 2011). In my specific field of counselor education and supervision, the first formal qualitative study was not published in the Associa- tion for Counselor Education and Supervision’s journal, Counselor Education and Supervision, until 1995 (Kleist, 2013). Over the past 20 plus years the counseling profession has come to see the value of qualitative research, a form of research that has been firmly embedded in sociological and educational research for well over 50 years (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). In my assessment, the profession of counseling is still getting comfortable with qualitative research, its place, and its impact on our roles and actions as professional counselors and has for the most part viewed qualitative research through a postpositivist paradigm.

Postpositivism

Postpositivism has grown out of the positivist position that Rick described in Chapter 1. When discussing this position, or stance, I will do my best to avoid philosophical babble and instead describe what you, as a practitioner-scholar, would look like adopting this stance when understanding and conducting qualitative research. In line with this philosophical stance toward knowledge and re- search, as a counseling practitioner you believe that the world exists beyond yourself as a person. You move through your counseling day believing that there is a single reality, or truth, for your work with a client. Your understanding of the client comes from your direct interaction and observation of your client. The words you use to understand your client, or diagnostic terms, are linked to real mental heath problems (or disorders) that have been identi- fied through research. How you help your client is also informed by research on how to work with clients diagnosed with various mental health problems. Yes, you have created a therapeutic climate for change based on your relationship with your client, but how you have done so is, again, informed by research on how best to develop therapeutic relationships. You believe you can understand your client’s situation, though you acknowledge that full, complete, and static understanding is probably not possible. To best work with your client you try to be as objective as possible. You know you bring your own subjectivity to the relationship, including

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Qualitative Research Designs190 |

values and beliefs, but your job is to keep them in check, to not allow them to influence your work with clients. You may use self- disclosure with clients but keep it to a minimum and really only if research supports its use. The counseling process is relational, but your overarching management of it depends on research-based evidence on the process of change and its stages, with you as the counselor ultimately holding more responsibility for counseling’s outcome. Counseling terminates as a joint decision but one that is highly informed by your marking client change via an array of assessment tools. Your ethical treatment of clients and the entire counseling process is ever present, but your worries are quelled by your following the evidence-based treatment procedures that guide your role as professional counselor.

Now transition into the scholar side of your role as practitioner- scholar adopting a postpositivist stance toward research and knowledge. What is your process for understanding research and its production? As a professional counselor utilizing and producing knowledge to inform practice, you again believe in the existence of mental health problems, like depression or eating-disordered be- havior (e.g., bulimia), and understand the value in learning directly from individuals experiencing these problems just what it is like to live with depression or bulimia: What is the process for coping with such disorders? So you craft a qualitative study. Maybe, as a means of better understanding what it is like to live with depression, you design a phenomenological study to discover the essence of living with depression or going through treatment and utilize consensual qualitative research (CQR; a new qualitative methodology we touch on in Chapter 11). Maybe you adopt more of a systems perspec- tive and are curious about the process of support seeking among those experiencing bulimia. Here you design a grounded theory study to explore the process that clients with bulimia go through when seeking support. Given your postpositivist stance, you seek a phenomenology, or a grounded theory method that is congru- ent with a postpositivist stance (e.g., Moustakas, 1994; Strauss & Corbin, 1998) or CQR as a uniquely postpositivist methodology, as I have defined previously. Thus, you want a research design with clear procedures to assist in maintaining objectivity, methods that bracket the influence of your values or beliefs on the understanding of the data (more on this below in the section on what constitutes data in qualitative research), and a means of confirming that your results stem from the participant’s data—so the data speak for themselves, so to speak. This may mean an inquiry auditor, as in

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Fundamental Concepts in Qualitative Research| 191

Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) grounded theory, nor using a team of researchers seeking consensus as an outcome in data analysis as with CQR (Hill et al., 2005; Hill, Thompson, & Williams, 1997).

Critical Theory

Let us now move along the philosophical inquiry spectrum to posi- tions more firmly embedded in critical theory (e.g., feminist, queer, and race theories of knowledge). Accessing the scholar component of your role as practitioner-scholar within a critical theorist stance means that you now see the potential of research not only to inform understanding of your clients, or other counselors and their clients as consumers of research, but also to be used by other counselors to further advocacy efforts on behalf of clients.

Let me mention Lincoln, Lynham, and Guba again and their description of adopting a critical theorist view of research. Within this stance toward knowledge, the research you create sheds light on the larger cultural contexts in which your clients reside, interact, construct meaning and value, and are restrained. Individual client issues are no longer seen primarily as under the control of clients but as strongly influenced by the various systems or contexts within which clients interact, which calls for some form of counselor ad- vocacy on behalf of clients. Poverty, racism, sexism, homophobia, oppression of all forms, and their influence on clients’ well-being are highlighted in your research. Pedersen’s (1991) view of multi- culturalism as the counseling profession’s fourth force is congru- ent, and I might say central, to a critical stance toward counseling practice and research. Your responsibility as a practitioner-scholar is to research ways in which the various contexts of your clients’ lives impact their overall mental health and call for counselors to take action in the form of advocating for policy change, community- level programming to lessen the impact of racism and poverty, and so on. However, your role as scholar within this stance is one of “transformative intellectual” (Lincoln et al., 2011, p. 102). The use of the results of your research is in the hands of the consumer. It is up to your fellow counselors to learn from your research, to take back to their work with clients and their clients’ communities, and to impact systemic and cultural influences on mental health. Your job is to conduct well-designed research and disseminate results that provide help to clients through increasing emphasis on the contextual influences on the well-being of individuals, couples, families, and communities.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Qualitative Research Designs192 |

How does this sound to you as a professional counselor? This stance calls for the practitioner-scholar to further engage in advo- cacy on behalf of clients. If this fits your notion of being a profes- sional counselor, great! In many ways, this is where the profession has developed over the past 20 or more years as multiculturalism, counseling’s fourth force, has directly impacted not only the prac- tice of counseling but also research that examines better ways to enhance the overall mental health of individuals and communities.

You might be asking yourself, “Are we done yet with this philo- sophical babble so we can just get on to learning how to do qualita- tive research?” No, not quite yet. You see, conducting qualitative research is so much more involved than the mere doing of it. These philosophical conversations are essential for you not only to fur- ther refine your counseling theory but also to ensure that you are conducting research that is congruent with your counseling stance.

Constructivism

Next we step into the constructivist stance toward knowledge and its related research forms. Much has been written on constructiv- ism, and I could go on for pages making distinctions between distinctions. I will broadly say that the stances toward knowledge discussed from here forward could be placed on a wide continuum from an individually oriented constructivism (sometimes called interpretivism [Denzin, 2001], cognitive constructivism [Perry, 1999], or weak constructivism [Schwandt, 2000]) to a relationally oriented constructivism (i.e., strong constructivism [Schwandt, 2000] or social constructionist stances [Gergen, 2015]). From these positions, your practitioner role as counselor shifts from seeing reality as existing outside of you and your clients’ meaning making to constructing reality through the meaning making of conversation between you and your clients. Your epistemology no longer seeks a closer and closer approximation of some outside reality; instead, you accept that the best you can understand about your client is his or her in- terpretation of his or her experience of the world, and your related interpretation of your client’s interpretation of his or her mental health problem(s).

Hold on. “What is that?” you ask. Yes, please reread that, as it is important. Adopting a constructivist stance means accepting that the best you can know about a client’s reality is his or her interpretation of it expressed via language (or through other symbol systems) and understood via your use of language to conceptualize the client’s

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Fundamental Concepts in Qualitative Research| 193

situation. The counseling theory or theories you integrate to assist your clients are clearly understood merely as agreed-upon means of understanding clinical issues and your methods to help clients.

Collaborative is the word most familiar to any counseling theory within this framework. Pragmatism is also aligned with these coun- seling theories, as your ultimate goal is to assist in bringing about change in your client and his or her world. You still embrace the importance of research-supported use of theory, but you are more open to embracing the reality that counseling theory and technique cannot be uniformly applied or useful across people and settings (i.e., contexts). The phrase “It depends” is further embraced, as you know that your relationship with clients is more negotiated with them (hear the collaborative stance?) rather than imposed onto them through strict adherence to evidence-based treatment protocols. Assessment is still valuable in determining counseling’s impact, but you are more aware of the limits of assessment tools as well as generalizations across time and place of any assessment result. Mental health problems are more embedded in one’s construction of them through language (and society’s construction of mental health or illness), and the focus of change is in new constructions of meaning, which primarily will occur through language. Termi- nation of counseling is truly a shared decision in which clients’ perspectives on change are as important as an assessment instru- ment’s conclusion. The more firmly you support a constructivist stance toward the world and your clients’ experience, the more you realize the contextual or multicultural contexts that influence your clients. There is a growing sense toward advocacy, social justice, and action for your own counseling community and the communities of your clients that surpasses the stance toward advocacy taken within the critical theorist stance. (I am not saying that interest in advocacy is lacking among those who adopt a postpositivist stance; I am simply saying that interest in action is seen as the duty of an ethical counselor more so with a constructivist stance, particularly a strong or social constructionist one.)

In terms of the scholar component of the practitioner-scholar role within this stance, research is firmly interpretive, moving toward much more relational and action-oriented approaches. As a counselor you are keenly aware of the stories and the narratives your clients share about living with interpersonal violence, anxiety, or eating- disordered behavior. You may be profoundly moved by hearing the larger cultural discourses that impact your clients’ struggles with a variety of mental health problems and their processes toward health

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Qualitative Research Designs194 |

and wellness. Over time we may call such learnings the development of clinical wisdom, which will serve you well to manage the nuances of clinical work. Now imagine capturing the value of such wisdom and sharing it with other professional counselors! Your goal as a scholar within this stance is to utilize research to better understand your clients’ experience and process while valuing their participa- tion in the research itself. Your client-participants are viewed as coresearchers in your projects. You understand that your clients’ interpretations of their experiences and processes are informed by your own interpretation as a counselor-researcher. You understand that you bring yourself as a person to the research endeavor in the same fashion you do as a counselor. You are authentic, congruent, and aware of the values you bring into the counseling room, cog- nizant of both positive and negative influences. The same exists in your role as researcher. You see yourself as a person interpreting meaning, which is influenced by your own values, beliefs, and ideas. From this stance bracketing them out of the research project is impossible. Research is clearly a relational task that is negotiated with participants, just as counseling is with clients.

Research in this stance can vary according to your adoption of either a weak to strong or cognitive to social constructionist stance. What I described in the previous paragraph could be said to lean more toward the former: a weak or cognitive constructivist posi- tion. However, the more relational you make your research, the more you involve your client-participant in the research endeavor, the more you probably move toward the latter end of the stance: social constructionist.

An aspect of the social constructionist stance that takes the re- lationship between researcher and participant to another level is new developments within qualitative research framed as participa- tory action research. Such research is firmly embedded in a social constructionist stance toward the development of knowledge, but it goes further. The role of the scholar here is not simply to dis- seminate results through professional journals in the hopes that the larger community of counselors use the results in their own practice. Rather, the researcher, along with the client-participant, takes the results of a study back to the community within which the participant resides and implements some form of action—an intervention, a new community-based program—into the relational system of which the participant is a part. Research of this ilk has been framed as participatory action research, and it is beginning to find its place in some corners of the world of the professional

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Fundamental Concepts in Qualitative Research| 195

counselor—particularly those that strongly identify with the action- oriented responsibilities of being social justice advocates. The knowledge generated from such research has more value to the actual communities of clients than the professional journals we read as counselors, though the dissemination of such action-oriented research in professional forums is still vital.

“Okay, stop. Now you have gone too far!” I am sure some of you are saying this as you read this. Never before, or only rarely and secretly, have you heard that research can be so re- lational, action oriented, and directly impactful to the lives of clients and their communities. I know that allowing space for the relationship between researcher and participant goes against all that we may have learned in our undergraduate research classes or even our master ’s-level research classes. Here’s the deal: We have been taught research in a way that separates it from its philosophical groundings and their consequences for how research is conducted. Once we realize that all research, quantitative and qualitative, is grounded in philosophies of knowledge that have a direct impact on how studies are de- signed, including the roles and relationships of researcher and participant, we realize we have choices. Within qualitative re- search, you have many choices, as there are varied philosophical stances to adopt toward knowledge and its production: research. That cannot be said for quantitative research. There are options regarding research methods and statistics, but they all live in the same philosophical home. Remember when I said earlier that Rick once told me “A MANOVA is a MANOVA is a MANOVA”? Well, that is because there is a clear, singular philosophical stance that informs present-day quantitative research: postpositivism.

So with all of these choices of philosophies toward structuring and conducting qualitative research, is there any form to qualita- tive methods? Is there not anything in common? Well yes, there is. And well, guess what? It depends.

Components of a Qualitative Study

Now we take a breather from philosophy and its role in shaping qualitative research possibilities (sort of). In the remainder of the chapter I speak to the major structural components of a qualitative study, offer important questions to ask yourself as a researcher de- veloping a study, and provide some description of variations within each component. Yes, these variations will link us back to philosophy.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Qualitative Research Designs196 |

Qualitative research is not the same as quantitative research. You know this by now, I know. It bears repeating when thinking about the structure of a qualitative study. Why? Well, the scientific method, the one my children were taught via a mnemonic device to remem- ber in elementary school, is uniquely foundational to quantitative research, not necessarily qualitative research. The steps, in simple form, are as follows: Ask a question, do background research, con- struct a hypothesis, test your hypothesis via experimentation, and analyze your data and draw conclusions. Quite simply, the scientific method is a formidable method when deductive reasoning is the overarching framework for making sense of the world around us. Rick spoke of this clearly earlier in the book. However, the hall- mark of qualitative reasoning is not deductive but rather inductive reasoning—developing knowledge from the ground up (the local context, a situation, an event, participants’ own experience, etc.) versus applying a priori knowledge (theory) to understand the local context, the participants’ experience, and so on. Steps 3 (construct a hypothesis) and 4 (test your hypothesis via experimentation) of the scientific method are not present in qualitative research. (Now some qualitative methodologists would say it is possible, though unlikely, to conceive of a hypothesis in qualitative research; see Maxwell, 2013.) What I present in the following paragraphs is truly an amalgam of a number of qualitative research methodologists’ views on the structure of qualitative research (see also Creswell, 2013; Patton, 2015).

The Purpose of Qualitative Research

To understand the structure of a qualitative study is to first un- derstand what the purpose of qualitative inquiry is. Qualitative research produces knowledge that allows us to understand the human meaning of events, situations, contexts, experiences, or ac- tions; the particular contexts within which actions and experiences take place; social and psychological processes by which events and actions take place; and the unanticipated phenomena and influ- ences of experiences and processes (Maxwell, 2013). Thus, the first step involves asking yourself, “What do I wish to understand?” Yes, this is similar to the first step in quantitative research. What I like about Maxwell’s (2013) model of qualitative research design is his emphasis on the goals of research being personal, practical, and/or intellectual (scholarly). The latter is what I bet most of you think about research and is the prime reason you shy away from

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Fundamental Concepts in Qualitative Research| 197

it. If you can remember, ask yourself, “Personally, as a counselor, what would I wish to understand about counseling/my clients/ coping with loss/etc.?” Or for pragmatic (practical) reasons you can ask, “What do I need to understand to better help my client cope with the loss of his job?” or “What do I need to understand to work with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, and intersex clients?” To realize that you can conduct research that has direct, pragmatic, and personal implications for your practice of counseling is to see the wide relevance of qualitative research to your role as counselor.

The Conceptual Framework of Qualitative Research

Once you have made your decision on your study’s purpose, or focus, you move into construction of the conceptual framework (Maxwell, 2013). A number of qualitative research methods books use the more common term literature review. However, what I like about Maxwell’s (2013) use of the term conceptual framework is the emphasis on the researcher ’s active construction of a framework of literature that is directly relevant to the purpose of the study. Literature review has historically meant an exhaustive review of all of the previously developed knowledge that supports the focus of the study. Gaps in the literature are noted, along with limitations of previous research. From such an exhaustive review the specific area of inquiry comes to light, along with the research question. The limitation of this view of knowledge accumulation within the context of the qualitative research paradigm is that knowledge is not developed in sequential building block fashion, as it is in the quantitative research paradigm. In the qualitative research para- digm, knowledge is uniquely tied to context and time. Thus, what worked in one context, in one place in time, with one particular sample cannot be assumed to further solidify the foundational knowledge of a given field, as it may not be relevant in another context, at another time, with a different sample.

What the conceptual framework provides a qualitative study, and the qualitative researcher, is an organized set of concepts. This set of concepts may inform an understanding of the study’s purpose and provide the researcher with ideas to consider when collect- ing and analyzing data. In some ways, the conceptual framework provides a potential description of, or answer to, the research question. No, I am not talking about a hypothesis to be tested. The conceptual framework is a set of ideas and concepts constructed

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Qualitative Research Designs198 |

by the researcher that can inform his or her understanding of data collection and analysis. A conceptual framework is an active or- ganization of ideas and concepts, much more than is found in the exhaustive review of the literature found in quantitative research.

A unique aspect of constructing the conceptual framework is in- cluding concepts and ideas from you, the researcher, yourself. You (as the researcher) are the main tool used in qualitative research, and so it is vital that you select a topic, or better a phenomenon, to which you are somehow connected. Included in the conceptual framework are ideas and concepts that you conceive from your own experiences with the phenomenon of interest. The conceptual framework is grounded in both ideas and concepts from literature relevant to your phenomenon and your own experience. From the completion of the conceptual framework could come the study’s research question, or a revision of the research question, and pur- pose, which you may already have formulated. The whole notion of the research question is seen as fluid and emergent. Qualitative research is quite nonlinear, and the research question could be altered or even developed during data analysis. Remember, knowledge is constructed inductively in qualitative research, and the research design must be fluid to respond to emergent understanding. You must start somewhere with your actual research design. Let us discuss some options and variations as we speak about data col- lection and data analysis.

Data Collection

You have identified an intended purpose of your study, an initial focus constructed through the conceptual framework, and a work- ing research question. To research the various potential purposes of qualitative inquiry, you need to first find people who have experi- enced, or are currently experiencing, the phenomenon that you seek to understand. The common sampling procedure used in qualitative research is called purposeful sampling (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). There are slight variations to purposeful sampling, but for now just remember that it means to intentionally seek out those people or participants who have gone through the event, lived in the context, engaged in the process, and so on, that you seek to understand. Each qualitative methodology book you read is going to add its own unique slant to participant selection. I encourage you to be clear and embody fidel- ity in your use of the procedures described in whichever qualitative methods book you select to guide your study.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Fundamental Concepts in Qualitative Research| 199

The next important decision to make once you have identified a purposeful sample of participants and the means to enlist them in your study is the number of participants from which to collect data. The “How many?” question has caused great consternation among qualitative researchers, journal editors, and even qualita- tive research methodologists themselves. There truly is no one right answer. A recent research paper that gathered the opinions of 19 experts on qualitative methodology worldwide provided perspectives on just this issue. Answers ranged from 0 (I am not kidding) to 60 (Baker & Edwards, 2012). Now that is not helpful. The experts left the discussion encouraging researchers to consider what is deemed “excellence” for qualitative research within the profession of the researcher. With qualitative research being so new to the counseling profession, we truly have not had this important conversation. Now what?

Here are my suggestions. The oft-quoted phrase you by now have heard in your training to become a counselor is relevant here: It depends. It depends on the purpose of your study, which is influenced by your philosophical stance toward knowledge. (I warned you we would be back to philosophy!) If you adopt a post- positivist stance toward knowledge, which is more interested in commonalities across people and thus more generalizable results, you will lean toward a larger sample size. If you adopt a social constructivist stance, your interest is more in rich description and deep understanding, which would mean a smaller sample size. There is a simple principle that I consider: A larger sample size provides more breadth and less depth; a smaller sample size provides more depth and less breadth. You must decide what is most important for your particular research question and its intended purpose. Again, attend to the research methodology and its informing philosophy, along with the realities of your professional community regarding qualitative research, when considering sample size. The profes- sion of counseling is still developing a fuller understanding of the place of qualitative research and is far from a specific discussion on adequate sample sizes across the various qualitative methods and how they are influenced by the various philosophies mentioned previously. For now, let us assume that we have struggled with these important issues and are ready to design the data collection portion of our study.

Data, first and foremost in qualitative research, are related to how people communicate the meaning of their lived human experience. Qualitative researchers believe that the best way to access meaning

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Qualitative Research Designs200 |

is through the use of text as the metaphor for meaning making. Text and its related symbolic expressions is the focus of data collection. The researcher ’s written descriptions of participant behavior and/ or participants’ own communications (i.e., words) have historically been the focus of data collection. Put simply, collected written or verbal descriptions of some process, experience, event, and so on represent data in qualitative research. Data can be collected in the form of written journals, in the form of responses to open-ended prompts, or most commonly through researcher-guided interviews with participants. It is fair to say that the majority of qualitative articles published across professions have utilized one to one in- terviews with participants. These interviews can take place face to face; over the phone; or, with improvements in Internet function and security, through video-based programs on a person’s computer.

Meaning can also be communicated via other forms of symbolic representation. “A picture is worth a thousand words.” I am sure you have heard this phrase before. But what does it mean? To me, it means that instead of needing to describe my experience in words, I could communicate it through the use of pictures. Sound strange? The use of photos or pictures as a form of data is quite common in the professions of sociology, anthropology, and health education (e.g., photovoice; Wang & Burris, 1997). Within the counseling profession, there has been an increase in the number of qualitative studies that integrate participant-generated pictures as data (e.g., Koltz, Odegard, Provost, Smith, & Kleist, 2010). Pictures have also been used as a catalyst for, or means of eliciting, meanings and stories (e.g., Wathen & Kleist, 2015). For some people, reflecting on a picture provides easier access to memories, associated thoughts, and feelings than being asked to respond to a direct question. Such integration of more art-based forms of data collection or elicitation is slowly on the rise in the counseling profession.

Please do not stop at pictures, as other forms of meaning expres- sion are beginning to take hold in a variety of professions, even counseling. Music is another means of accessing meaning and related thoughts and feelings. Though the use of music, like pictures, may be more familiar in arts-based professions, music has been used as a form of data in a study of cohort development among counselors and counselor educators (Minor, Moody, Tadlock-Marlo, Pender, & Person, 2013). Given that the profession of counseling is a blend of art and science, and given increasing attention to creativity in mental health counseling, I would not be surprised to see further explorations into the use of more creative means of data collection or elicitation.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Fundamental Concepts in Qualitative Research| 201

Data Analysis

As with quantitative data, once qualitative data are collected they must be transformed and analyzed. As said previously, the most common form of qualitative data is the written or spoken word. Interviews with participants, done either one on one or in groups (e.g., focus group research), are recorded. These recorded conver- sations are transcribed, most commonly by hiring a professional transcriptionist, in preparation for analysis. Once you have the transcripts, data analysis commences, but it is influenced by the type of qualitative analysis being conducted (e.g., phenomenology or grounded theory), as each type of qualitative research seeks to understand a different aspect of some phenomenon (i.e., process, essence of experience, themes). The philosophical stance toward knowledge will also impact the data analysis process. A postposi- tivist stance toward data analysis will keep a boundary between the researcher and participant during this phase of the research. In CQR (Hill et al., 1997) or phenomenology (Moustakas, 1994), as just two examples, the researcher is responsible for coding the data into themes, categories, and so on. The participant may only be involved for a final member check to verify the accuracy of codes or themes after the completion of the study. For a researcher or research team that adopts a social constructionist stance toward knowledge, the boundary between researcher and participant is more permeable. Various mutations are possible, but it is not un- common to have participants play a more active role during data analysis, for all intents and purposes acting as coresearchers and actively influencing the coding process as well as ensuring the final accuracy of codes and themes. Sound strange? You will need to remember that the form a qualitative research project can take is thoroughly impacted by the philosophical stance taken toward knowledge and research. All aspects of research design are influ- enced by the various philosophical stances discussed previously.

Reporting of Results

Reporting the results of qualitative research is very similar to the reporting process for quantitative research, though the actual results look very different. Qualitative studies report the transformed and analyzed data in themes (e.g., phenomenology) or a description of the process of some phenomenon in the form of a theory (e.g., grounded theory), for example. Whereas in quantitative research

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Qualitative Research Designs202 |

tables of figures and statistical analysis are given, in qualitative research themes are provided along with excerpts from transcripts to verify the themes or codes or a process description that emerged from the data analysis. In many ways, the results of qualitative re- search come in story form. Figures may be used to provide a visual representation of the theme structure or process. And you will find qualitative research ending as it began: by focusing on represent- ing understanding through the text metaphor and an emphasis on symbolic meaning represented through words, the same means we use as counselors to promote change.

As with quantitative results, qualitative results are not accepted without having proved their rigor and value. The hallmarks of the rigor of quantitative research results are represented by the terms reliability, validity, and generalizability. Because of the under- lying differences in the nature of knowledge produced through quantitative means and qualitative means, the hallmarks of rigor in quantitative research cannot be applied to assess the rigor of qualitative research results.

Now here is where assessing rigor in qualitative research gets interesting. You might have other words to describe what follows! There are as many different ways to conceptualize rigor in qualita- tive results as there are philosophical stances toward knowledge that inform the various forms of qualitative methodology. Let me be clear: There are not universal criteria for assessing the rigor, or trustworthiness, of qualitative research and its results. Each form of qualitative research, be it phenomenology, grounded theory, narrative inquiry, conversational analysis, or CQR, for example, has its own criteria for assessing rigor. Here is the really interesting part: The research methods just listed could potentially be viewed from different philosophical stances toward knowledge, each with its own different stance toward rigor. A simple example would be phenomenology. Moustakas (1994) adopted a postpositivist stance toward knowledge and developed criteria for rigor that fit this stance. Van Manen (1990) has his own form of phenomenology, specifically hermeneutic phenomenology, which adopts a more inter- pretivist/constructivist stance and calls for yet a different set of criteria to evaluate rigor. So again, we must be open to embracing the phrase “It depends.” For now, know that we will look at some examples of these procedures in Chapter 11.

At this point you may have had enough of the uncertainty of qualitative research and the array of methodologies and philosophical stances influencing these methodologies. Or you are excited to learn

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Fundamental Concepts in Qualitative Research| 203

of a means of conducting research that is congruent with your role as professional counselor, a way of conducting research that directly emanates from, and connects to, your practice as a professional coun- selor. As a professional counselor you are already trained in the skills essential to being a skilled qualitative researcher. You know how to facilitate reflexive conversations, to find and coconstruct meaning, and to provide an empathic environment that encourages understanding.

Chapter Summary

In this chapter I have attempted to provide an overview of fun- damental concepts unique to qualitative research. I began by preparing you for a new way of knowing, a way of knowing that represents a truly different paradigm for developing knowledge that can inform the practice of counseling. Considerable time was spent discussing the importance of philosophical stances toward inquiry, or knowledge, and the various stances’ impact on qualitative methodologies. This is imperative. Qualitative research is not simply finding common themes in spoken words, as quantitative research is not simply counting occurrences of some behavior. Qualitative research seeks to understand a wide variety of human experiences and processes. Qualitative methodologies can be as rich and var- ied as these human experiences and processes. By no means can a couple of chapters in a book fully prepare you for all of the ways qualitative research can inform your role as practitioner-scholar. But it is a start. What follows in Chapter 11 is the examination of a phenomenon from three different qualitative methodological viewpoints. For a couple of these approaches, examples are given of how different philosophical stances toward knowledge impact the design and process of the same qualitative methodology.

Suggested Activities: Thought Experiments

I. Finding Your Philosophical Stance Toward Inquiry Start with your counseling theory. Ask yourself the following

questions: 1. What is my counseling theory’s view of the primary pathway

of change? Is it affect? Cognitions or meanings? Behaviors? 2. How do I know that change is occurring along any of these

pathways? 3. How does my counseling theory view the relationship be-

tween myself as counselor and my clients?

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Qualitative Research Designs204 |

4. What role does advocacy have in my counseling theory? The answers to these questions will overlap with the dif-

ferent philosophical stances we spoke of regarding what is viewed as data and the degree of separation or connection you have with research participants.

II. Curiosity Quiz Walk through the day and be mindful of your thoughts, feel-

ings, and actions. 1. What interests you most about your own thoughts, feelings,

and actions? 2. How do you explain what influences your thoughts, feel-

ings, and actions? Yes, even in these simple reflective exercises it comes

down to your own self-awareness. Finding your fit with a philosophical stance is a personal journey. Safe and enjoyable travels!

References Baker, S. E., & Edwards, R. (2012). How many qualitative interviews

is enough? Expert voices and early career reflections on sampling and cases in qualitative research. Retrieved from http://eprints.ncrm. ac.uk/2273/4/how_many_interviews.pdf

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for educa- tion: An introduction to theories and methods. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choos- ing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N. K. (2001). Interpretive interactionism (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Erford, B., Miller, E., Schein, H., McDonald, A., Ludwig, L., & Leis- hear, K. (2011). Journal of Counseling & Development publication patterns: Author and article characteristics from 1994 to 2009. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89, 73–80.

Gergen, K. J. (2015). An invitation to social construction (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hill, C. E., Knox, S., Thompson, B. J., Williams, E. N., Hess, S. A., & Ladany, N. (2005). Consensual qualitative research: An update. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 196–205.

Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research. The Counseling Psy- chologist, 25(4), 517–572.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2273/4/how_many_interviews.pdf

Fundamental Concepts in Qualitative Research| 205

Kleist, D. M. (2013). Socially constructing the role of qualitative research in counselor education, supervision, and counseling. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Counseling, Idaho State University, Pocatello.

Koltz, R. L., Odegard, M. A., Provost, K. B., Smith, T., & Kleist, D. M. (2010). Picture perfect: Using photo-voice to explore four doc- toral students’ comprehensive examination experiences. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 5, 389–411.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London, Eng- land: Sage.

Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. (2011). Paradigmatic con- troversies: Contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 97–128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Minor, A. J., Moody, S., Tadlock-Marlo, R., Pender, R. L., & Person, M. (2013). Music as a medium for cohort development. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 8, 381–394.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pedersen, P. B. (1991). Introduction to the Special issue on multi- culturalism as a fourth force in counseling. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70.

Perry, W. G. (1999). Forms of ethical and intellectual development in the college years. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schwandt, T. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social construction- ism. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 189–213). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Wang, C., & Burris, M. A. (1997). Photovoice: Concept, methodol- ogy, and use for participatory needs assessment. Health Education Behavior, 24, 369–387. doi:10.1177/109019819702400309

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Qualitative Research Designs206 |

Wathen, C., & Kleist, D. M. (2015). Internationalization of counselor education: Exploring the lived experiences of counselors-in- training internationally. The Qualitative Report, 20, 59–83.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

| 207

11 Multiple Perspectives on a Phenomenon:

The Qualitative Lenses

Overview

Congratulations! You decided to turn the page and read on about the potential for qualitative research informing your, and others’, counseling practice (or maybe it’s your faculty’s assigned read- ing, whatever). However you came to this chapter, your clients thank you. Why? Because if you are willing to read this chapter on the potential of qualitative research to assist your and oth- ers’ counseling practice as a practitioner-scholar, you somehow agree that allowing clients’ more direct voice in producing the knowledge that informs our work might just be a very useful way to expand and enrich our clinical insight, wisdom, and knowledge base. As I (David) said in the previous chapter, I can by no means say all I wish to say about qualitative research in two chapters. My hope is to excite you to the possibilities. In this chapter I discuss a population that may seek the range of counseling services, from preventive to remedial. We look at what we, as professional counselors, may wish to understand about this population and then devise three different qualitative studies to expand our knowledge base. We actually consider five different studies, as I show you two variations on a qualitative theme by highlighting how one’s philosophical stance toward knowledge impacts research design.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Qualitative Research Designs208 |

The Phenomenon of Interest

As discussed in the previous chapter, to start the qualitative research process we must have a question. What do we seek to understand? Our question will relate to understanding some phenomenon or some aspect of a phenomenon. For the purposes of this chapter, I highlight the potential of research to inform our work with those individuals, couples, and families in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, and intersex (LGBTQI) population who may seek counseling services. A doctoral student at my institution, Jennifer Gess (2016), found ample research for her dissertation that supports the potential for mental health services for the LGBTQI population. Be it from experiencing heterosexism, transphobia, heteronormativity, and social injustices (e.g., Eubanks-Carter, Burckell, & Goldfried, 2005; Hatzenbuehler, 2011; Hatzenbuehler, McLaughlin, Keyes, & Hasin, 2010; Hein & Scharer, 2013) or dis- crimination, prejudice, rejection, stigmatization, and violence (e.g., Israel, Gorcheva, Burnes, & Walther, 2008; Meyer, 2003), the LG- BTQI population experiences depression, anxiety, eating disorders, substance abuse, and suicidality at a higher rate than heterosexual people (Israel et al., 2008). The potential interest in mental health services for these individuals, couples, and families is broad. Let us put on our creative hats, get curious, and see what we might wish to understand.

Okay, I have one! How about the LGBTQI experience of stigma- tization? As a counselor, I need to be able to empathize and build a therapeutic relationship. Research also clearly communicates (Hubble, Duncan, & Miller, 1999) the importance of the therapeutic relationship as a major influence on positive client outcomes. Obvi- ously I need to have some contextual understanding to initiate the relationship-building process. I wonder what it’s like for an LGBTQI person to encounter stigmatization? Having some description of this experience will help me to better understand, empathize, and initiate therapeutic conversations. Time to plan a qualitative study!

Phenomenology

Van Manen’s (1990) Phenomenology

As our focus of interest is understanding the experience of stigmatiza- tion, we will conduct a phenomenological study. Broadly speaking, the common focus for any phenomenological approach is under- standing how human beings make sense of their lived experience

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Multiple Perspectives on a Phenomenon: The Qualitative Lenses| 209

(Patton, 2015). Okay, great. “Now are we going to be going back to all those philosophical mumblings again?” you might ask. Well, yes, yes, we will. As I communicated in the previous chapter it is vital to steep yourself in your own understanding of the philosophical stance toward knowledge as it impacts which phenomenological methods, or approach, you utilize. For this example, let us say we are somewhere in the middle of the constructivist stance: not too weak, not too strong, but leaning more toward a social constructivist stance. This means that we value an interpretivist stance toward the construction of knowledge and firmly embrace ourselves as interpreting beings who are influenced by our own lived experi- ence, values, beliefs, and so on. As we are not on the weak end of constructivism, we acknowledge the impossibility of interpreting another person’s experience without some influence from our own interpretive lens. Given our philosophical location, we also value and accept the relationship between researcher and participant as one that cannot be objectively separated. We see its value in facilitating the generation of rich data, similar to how we see the value of the therapeutic relationship as a means of developing mutual understanding in the clinical context. After reviewing our phenomenological options, we believe Max Van Manen’s (1990) hermeneutic phenomenology to be our best philosophical fit. So we have our question and our purpose, and now we have selected a particular type of phenomenological method, or approach, that fits our philosophical stance.

With all phenomenological approaches it is the understanding of the phenomenon by the participants themselves that is the fo- cal point of understanding, not any presuppositions you might have (as a researcher) about what stigmatization might be like for an LGBTQI person. Thus, the conceptual framework (remember, that’s the qualitative research version of quantitative research’s literature review) is constructed around concepts from the relevant literature, previous research, and personal experience connected to the phenomenon that could sensitize us, as researchers, to the possible meanings that participants could share. An aspect of the conceptual framework that I have mentioned but really need to say more about is the personal experience component. Part of the constructed conceptual framework requires us, as researchers, to lay transparent our thoughts and ideas around the topic of study. Any preconceived notion of the experience of stigmatization, or experience with the phenomenon directly or indirectly, should be shared openly with the reader. Such transparency as to what we as

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Qualitative Research Designs210 |

human-beings-as-researchers bring conceptually to the study is a vital component that the reader, or consumer, of our study can use to assess the credibility, or trustworthiness, of our knowledge claims.

The next step is data collection. Obviously for us to collect data on the experience of stigmatization among persons in the LGBTQI population, we will need to find people to collect data from! Pur- poseful sampling is the intentional selection of persons who have experienced the phenomenon of interest. Relationships are important in all aspects of research, but particularly here for the qualitative researcher. As practitioner-scholars we can use our professional con- tacts to determine the best place in the community to find suitable participants for our study. There may be certain agencies in town that advocate for or provide services to the LGBTQI population. Maybe the community has social groups for the LGBTQI popula- tion. Finding interested stakeholders, or individuals respected by the community you are interested in, is essential to gaining access to potential participants.

Once we have identified possible contexts, we have to strategize the best means of advertising our study and need for participants. Be it old-fashioned flyers available at the entrance of agencies or newer possibilities for advertising on agency websites, Facebook, and so forth, all should be considered. I must digress to ethics for a moment. Unless you are conducting your study as part of your work for an established entity, like a university or large-scale agency, you will probably not have your research protocol reviewed by an institutional review board. Research protocol review processes are seldom established for researchers in small agencies, group practices, or solo private practices. However, as a professional counselor you are still obligated to follow the guidelines for research discussed in the ACA Code of Ethics (American Counseling Association [ACA], 2014). In addition to ensuring that your research advertisements meet ethical guidelines, you must specifically describe what criteria you are using to secure participants. Most important for our study, we are seeking members of the LGBTQI population who have ex- perienced stigmatization. Though it is not an absolute requirement, we may provide a definition of what stigmatization means in this research context. We can also attend to diversity in our sample, in- tending to have participants from various perspectival standpoints: male, female, transgender, various ages, and so on. I need to be clear: We seek maximum variation not for the goal of generalizing results but for the sake of having the potential to identify diverse experiences of stigmatization. For our phenomenological study, we

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Multiple Perspectives on a Phenomenon: The Qualitative Lenses| 211

seek the essence of the experience of stigmatization, which would be even more potent if we understood it across a diverse array of perspectives.

On to the dreaded question in qualitative research, phenomenol- ogy included: How many people do we want in our sample? For Van Manen’s hermeneutic phenomenology it is not an issue of the breadth of participants but the potential for depth of description about the phenomenon. In theory, this could be achieved with a very small sample of one to five. (These numbers are mine, not specifi- cally suggested by Van Manen.) Patton (2015) said quite simply of the sample size issue, “It depends” (p. 311). As I said in the prior chapter, it depends partly on the purpose of the study. Here we seek rich description of stigmatization and thus will seek a small number of participants (let us say five): two rounds of one-on-one interviews followed up by a member check interview to get the job done. Later on I discuss how Van Manen’s phenomenology as- sesses rigor and why I chose two rounds of interviews along with a member check interview. Many other factors influence sample size as well, such as time and the number of researchers. Given our resources—you and I, and let us say 1 year—we should be able to accomplish our goal.

Remember, our place along the philosophical continuum has us as middle-of-the-road constructivists with a slight lean toward the social constructivist end. Thus, we value relationships and are open to the impact of relational dynamics on data collection (Pitts & Miller-Day, 2007); in fact, we see this as essential to the gather- ing of rich data (Collins & Cooper, 2014). As a consequence, we are going to prize face-to-face interviews or, at worst, video-based interviews in which visual contact can still be made between us as researchers and the participants. We will find a secure and confidential setting in which to conduct our interviews, which will be planned for roughly 60 minutes. We want to be respectful of participants’ time while still having enough time to gather rich descriptions of stigmatization.

In his phenomenological approach Van Manen spoke of six methodological themes that will guide the research endeavor rather than of particular methods or techniques that must be present. I chose Van Manen for just this reason. He highlighted the relation- ship in data gathering and the nuanced dance between researcher and participant that are restrained by more technique-driven phe- nomenological approaches (e.g., Giorgi, 1992; Moustakas, 1994). (This is another example of how philosophical stance may show

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Qualitative Research Designs212 |

its influence. More on this later with a variation of this study from a different research stance toward knowledge.) Let us look at these themes and how they inform our research process.

Methodological Themes Theme 1: Turning to the nature of lived experience. This may sound trivial, yet in many ways it is profound. To conduct phenomenology, according to Van Manen, we first need to fully commit ourselves to examining the phenomenon of interest with deep, focused, thinking. Think, “Patience!” Mindfulness practice is certainly applicable to the level of focus Van Manen suggested that we as researchers assume in our endeavors. In our case, we need to fully give ourselves as researchers to understanding, as deeply and thoroughly as possible, what it means for an LGBTQI person to experience stigmatization.

Theme 2: Investigating experience as we live it. Again, I can see so much of mindfulness practice relevant here. Van Manen suggested that within our deep focus on a phenomenon we be attentive to the fullness of the experience investigated, as a human being. In other words, we cannot fully understand the experience of our participants if we are not simultaneously attuned to the fullness of our experience as researchers in relationship to the participants we are trying to understand. See any link to what you are learning about your role as counselor and relationship with clients? I told you earlier that you are well grounded in the essential skills of a qualitative researcher!

Theme 3: Reflecting on essential themes. Doing phenomenological research for Van Manen is not merely describing the superficial, apparent, surface understanding of participants’ experience of some phenomenon. Instead, as researchers we need to reflect on the not-so-obvious meaning or significance of some experience. We need to see beyond the content description of an experience to the underlying, hidden-yet-present, essential meaning of an experience. Again, I would like to ask, have your faculty ever encouraged you to focus on process, not just the content of a counseling session? Yes, I thought so. That is very much what Van Manen’s phenom- enology asks of us.

Theme 4: The art of writing and rewriting. This theme, in phenom- enological phrasing, highlights an essential distinction between the writing of results in quantitative and qualitative research. In quantitative research the writing of results happens after the analysis. Some would say that the writing of quantitative results is quite straightforward. Not so with qualitative research! The

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Multiple Perspectives on a Phenomenon: The Qualitative Lenses| 213

act of writing results of qualitative research, particularly for Van Manen’s phenomenology, is the doing of research. Phenomenologi- cal analysis, as Van Manen put it, is “always a bringing to speech of something” (p. 32, italics in the original), which commonly presents itself in written form. We must be open to new understandings of the experience we are researching as we write up what we thought we understood about the experience.

Theme 5: Maintaining a strong and oriented relation. It’s all about relationships. (Sorry, another phrase borrowed from the counselor educator’s manual of overused clichés.) However, Van Manen spoke clearly of the loyalty, the fidelity, that must be shown by the researcher to the phenomenon of study and to the participants from which understanding of the phenomenon is to be gleaned. The notion of the disinterested researcher, valued in positivist and postpositivist research, has no place in Van Manen’s hermeneutic phenomenology.

Theme 6: Balancing the research context by considering parts and whole. As qualitative research asks, “What is the phenomenon in its whatness?” (p. 33), a potential consequence of following Van Manen’s themes is ending up in deep description of the essence of a phenomenon without understanding the bigger picture, the whole, of the experience. We may identify four major themes related to the experience of stigmatization among LGBTQI persons and so deeply explore these major themes that they seem to exist in isolation versus existing in a larger textual, or thematic, context. We must be able to ask, and answer, the question “How are the themes related?” No, we are not asking, “How do the themes influence one another?” That would be a grounded theory question related to the data. We are asking how themes derived from phenomenological analysis are related (e.g., Are themes experienced alongside one another? Are themes found deeper within other themes?).

In reviewing Van Manen’s six methodological themes we can clearly see that we are not presented with a qualitative methods cookbook. Rather, we are presented with a stance, a standpoint, from which we engage with the phenomenon and the participant. Engaging in this form of research will not lead to reflectively ask- ing yourself, “Did I do it right?” but lead to asking something more along the lines of “To what degree did I stay loyal, or true, to the stance necessary to conduct a hermeneutic phenomenological study?” Let us get back to our study.

Our data collection will be guided by our overall research question: What is the experience of stigmatization for an LGBTQI person? For Van Manen, and all phenomenologists I would say, the data collection

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Qualitative Research Designs214 |

interview must retain the focus and intent of the overarching research question. In this way, while the interview unfolds, focus is maintained and conversation does not stray in ways preferred by the researcher (which would be a potential undue influence of presuppositions of the phenomenon) or by the participant that move away from the phenomenon of interest. Yes, we will need to use the counseling skill of focusing here. In terms of interview questions, Van Manen would suggest a few broad questions to initiate the interview, but a skilled qualitative researcher is very much like a skilled counselor. Both have exceptional listening skills to communicate understanding and facilitate further conversation. So I cannot present some magical list of the questions to ask in each and every phenomenological study based on Van Manen’s approach. It can be as simple as “What’s your understanding of stigmatization as an LGBTQI person?” or “In what ways, or contexts, do you experience stigmatization as an LGBTQI person?” Your skill in conducting a rich data-producing interview is not in the beauty of your interview questions but in how you attend to the verbal and nonverbal communication of potential themes dur- ing the interview. Yes, like I said, very much like the skilled practice of counseling. I knew you were a researcher!

After data have been collected via face-to-face interviews captured on digital audio, we will take our recordings to be transcribed by a professional transcriptionist. I do want to suggest that you try tran- scribing your own interviews at some point in time. Yes, this task may remind you of transcribing your counseling sessions for some course assignment, and you may be shrinking in dread at the thought of the time it will take. Though using a professional transcriptionist is more efficient, there can be great value in transcribing your own interviews. Quite simply, you begin analyzing the data while you are transcribing. It is almost impossible not to! I have had a couple of students transcribe their qualitative interviews, and to a person they strongly believed that they listened differently, more intensely, as they transcribed. This different form of listening allowed them to hear themes, patterns, and other subtleties in ways very different than if they had read transcripts prepared by someone else. But I get it: Transcription is a long process in which to engage. Your choice. But I ask you to at least try it once and see what happens with your process of hearing themes and making sense of the data.

Data Analysis As hinted at in the previous chapter, data analysis begins even in the midst of interviewing. According to Van Manen, we are making

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Multiple Perspectives on a Phenomenon: The Qualitative Lenses| 215

sense, or interpretations, while interviewing participants. Nonethe- less, data analysis is a more distinct process for Van Manen. Now that we have transcripts in front of us, let us first adopt the attitude called for by Van Manen. Phenomenological reflection, the process of grasping the meaning or essence of a lived experience, requires us as practitioner-scholars to approach reading transcripts not as practitioner-scholars, professional counselors, but from inside the experience of an LGBTQI person experiencing stigmatization as it is lived via their symbolic interpretation of their experience com- municated in the interviews. Such an attitude requires attention to relationship, to our humanness, to our ability for awareness and empathy. There are no simple techniques to bring this about. Van Manen’s phenomenology highlights the artistic human quality of such research. Once we challenge ourselves to adopt this attitude, we approach transcripts with various options for analyzing themes.

Van Manen (1990) suggested three approaches for analyzing and developing themes. The first approach is called the holistic or senten- tious approach. Here we look at the text as a whole and ask ourselves, “What sentence(s) captures the fundamental meaning communicated in the text?” In many ways, this is akin to a counselor providing an in-session summary to the client as to what has occurred so far in the session. For our research we may read the entire transcript and construct a sentence that captures the overall meaning expressed in the interview. I do not suggest, however, that you see this approach to developing themes as all that there is to thematic analysis. Van Manen spoke of text but not necessarily text-as-whole transcript. I would suggest that we understand the holistic approach as related to smaller pieces of the transcript—a page or paragraph—and then ask ourselves, “What sentence can I use to summarize this page of the transcript or this paragraph of the transcript?”

The second approach is called the selective or highlighting approach. Here we ask ourselves, “Is there a sentence(s), partial sentence(s), or phrase(s) in the text that captures a theme I am interpreting in the text?” We then paraphrase what we interpret as the meaning of these selective phrases or sentences. To reiterate, the process is bigger than this in terms of emergent themes. Qualitative research analysis across methodologies is an iterative process of tacking back and forth between data (here, text) and our sense making or interpretation of themes, connecting back to the data to ground our interpretation of emerging themes, and so on, moving the process onward. As with the first approach, what we as researchers select as the segment of text that best captures a developing theme may be different from what

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Qualitative Research Designs216 |

a different researcher would conceive and select. I know. That post- positivist part of your prior training cannot take this fact. You want the theme or set of themes to be found! Sorry! As we are residing in the world of hermeneutic phenomenology, we accept and embrace the interpretive nature of meaning making in research.

The third approach for analyzing and developing themes put forth by Van Manen is the line-by-line or detailed approach. Here sentences or sentence groupings are pulled from the text and listed. Each sentence is wondered about for its meaning and its signifi- cance to the larger whole of the paragraph, the text, and ultimately the interview. In these three approaches you see different levels of analysis to which our attention as researchers is directed differently. Though not specified by Van Manen, their use seems interactional. One would not simply conduct a thematic analysis of a text using the holistic or line-by-line approach; rather, thematic analysis is also an iterative process of tacking back and forth from the whole to a particular phrase and back again.

After we have thematically analyzed our interview transcripts, it’s time for us to form some cohesive understanding of what we currently understand of stigmatization among LGBTQI persons. For this to occur, Van Manen uses the task of writing and rewriting, of linguistically transforming our analysis into a more coherent description of our current understanding of the phenomenon. At this point we may feel confident in some aspects of our under- standing of stigmatization and unsure in other areas. For both, a return to data collection, a second interview, is common practice. During our second interview we can inform participants of our emergent understanding of stigmatization. We focus our second interview on two areas: confirmation of what we think we have come to understand and richer description of areas not yet fully understood. This second interview is thus more focused than the first. Our questions are much more pointed. We seek verification of understanding simultaneously with the hope for even richer de- scription of the phenomenon. Van Manen indicated, and I strongly concur, that participants take on a different level and form of in- volvement at this stage of inquiry. Participants tend to be drawn into the unfolding description of their experience and experience an increased ownership of the developing knowledge product, one they value as shown by increased involvement in the interviews.

These second-round interviews are transcribed as in the first round. And again, we engage in the process of thematic analysis utilizing the same approaches we used previously. At this point we are both

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Multiple Perspectives on a Phenomenon: The Qualitative Lenses| 217

confirming and enriching our understanding through the art and task of writing our evolving understanding of what Van Manen called essential versus incidental themes. The goal is to identify those themes that if removed, would lead to the dissolution of the experience of the phenomenon itself. These are the essential themes. Incidental themes are those whose removal does not impact the essence of the experience. Incidental themes might be unique to a person but are not experienced by all in our phenomenon of stigmatization.

Writing, rewriting, reflection, and reflection on what one has written are central to the research process for Van Manen. The act of writing as central to phenomenological research sets Van Manen’s approach off as quite distinct from other phenomeno- logical approaches. I cannot emphasis this point enough. Whereas other, more postpositivist approaches view writing as a necessary component of communicating results, Van Manen’s stance would be that our linguistic transformation of our interpretation of the interviews is so vital, so key to attempting to grasp participants’ meaning that writing must be prized as central to all aspects of the research process. Writing facilitates the act of thinking. Writing and reading what we have written is our way of understanding our own thinking. So be ready at this point of the research process to be patient. We cannot rush good interpretive reflection and writing.

Once we get to the point of trusting our writing of the essential themes as best capturing and communicating our understanding of the phenomenon (for us stigmatization among LGBTQI persons), we take our results back to the participants for a final member check. Member checks are a way to ensure the trustworthiness of the results (more will be said in the next paragraph—patience, remember?). During member checks we are primarily seeking veri- fication of our final results. However, we do not want participants to simply agree with us. We must be open to further refinement of our understandings, even at this point of the process. Though we as researchers and the participants themselves may be tired of the project at this point, we must be attentive to the possibility of being wrong or partially wrong. I know. We have spent countless hours in interviews, thematic analysis, and writing. Such is the world of the practitioner-scholar conducting qualitative research.

Quality We all were taught as far back as some undergraduate research class, maybe even further back than that, the hallmarks of qual- ity research: validity, reliability, and generalizability. Qualitative

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Qualitative Research Designs218 |

research is research, so these hallmarks must be the criteria to use when evaluating qualitative research. Right? Wrong—oh, so wrong. Yes, you may have heard or seen these terms applied to qualitative research, and in some situations they may fit, particularly if the re- search is conducted within a postpositivist stance. However, there are almost as many different sets of criteria for assessing quality in qualitative research as there are different methodologies and philo- sophical stances, which all can vary by degree and be integrated in numerous creative ways. Patton (2015) described seven sets of such criteria in his latest book on qualitative methods. The answer again, my friends, is not blowing in the wind, but “It depends.” Again, I encourage fidelity to the particular methodology that you have selected for the given study. For us, that means turning to Van Manen’s criteria for assessing quality.

Van Manen conceptualized four criteria that can be used to assess the quality of a given hermeneutic phenomenological study. The first is orientation. The research results, or the text of the results, must be oriented toward the phenomenon of interest within the relevant field of study. Sounds odd or overly simple. But we must look at the results of our study and ask, “Are the results oriented toward helping counselors understand the stigmatization of persons who identify as LGBTQI?” This becomes a judgment call—the judgment call of the consumer of the research. We do our best to be transparent in our research process and our stance as persons-in-the-role-of-researcher (remember the personal connection to the phenomenon discussed in the conceptual framework). Our work’s potential now becomes the focus of the professional counselor who wishes to inform his or her practice of counseling with the LGBTQI population.

The second criterion is strength. For our text of the results to be strong, it must communicate explicit interpretation to the con- text of counseling. Qualitative research is about local, contextual knowledge, and our results must stay exclusively directed toward the context of counseling.

The third criterion is richness. Our description of the phenomenon of interest in a given study must be concrete and deeply descriptive of all aspects of the essential themes, leaving the reader with a truly experiential understanding of the essential themes and thus the phenomenon. Whether we adequately meet this criterion is again up to the reader. For our part, we attempt through our linguistic transformations in writing to fully capture the experience of the phenomenon (for our study, the experience of stigmatization among LGBTQI persons).

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Multiple Perspectives on a Phenomenon: The Qualitative Lenses| 219

The fourth criterion put forth to assess quality in Van Manen’s hermeneutic phenomenology is depth. Depth refers again to our ability to write about the essence of a phenomenon in a way that captures the subtle contours of experiencing the phenomenon. I know what you are thinking: “Where the heck are the statistics to support depth or richness?” You are in a different world—yes, a qualitatively different world of research (I could not help but use the pun). In many ways, what Van Manen’s hermeneutic phenom- enology asks of the results is “Have I been moved, emotionally, cognitively, and experientially, by reading the text describing the essence of the phenomenon?” Humanism is alive and well in such a qualitative methodology.

Moustakas’s (1994) Phenomenology

We have just moved through one way of conceiving phenomeno- logical research. There are many others. Although it is not the purpose of this chapter to walk through examples of all possible phenomenological approaches, I do want to show a variation on the phenomenological theme. So let us look briefly at how a phenomenological study based in a postpositivist stance toward knowledge would structure the same phenomenon. I wish to focus on the differences here, not the similarities with Van Manen (1990), of which there are many.

Let us start with your attitude as a practitioner-scholar, which resonates more with a postpositivist view toward knowledge and thus research. You believe that a world, a reality, exists beyond yourself, beyond a person’s experiencing of it. The use of rigorous methods and procedures, in and of themselves, lends credibility to the results of research. As reality exists beyond a person’s experi- encing of it, methods and procedures must be used to keep human experiencing from tainting, or biasing, the collection, analysis, and presentation of results. A separation between the researcher and participants must be sought. Yes, a relationship of some sort must exist to gather rich data, but like some approaches to counseling, the therapeutic alliance is merely the groundwork on which the real counseling work is to be done. It is a necessary component for change to occur, but not the component for change. Do you hear the different attitude toward the relationship between the researcher and participant? It is still there, but it’s of a different quality, value, and purpose. Let us start here and mention a key concept in Moustakas’s phenomenological approach that sets it apart from Van Manen’s.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Qualitative Research Designs220 |

Moustakas, and those who utilize his approach, spends much time talking about epoche. This should come as no surprise, but there is not one agreed-on description of epoche. Go ahead, sigh. Let me give one conceptualization. Epoche represents the researcher ’s own experiences that may connect to the phenomenon of interest. For us, in our example, it would be our direct and/or indirect under- standing of stigmatization among LGBTQI persons. As researchers within this stance, we must reflect on our past experiences and be transparent with them to ourselves and ultimately to the audience of our research results. We can communicate that we used memoing as a technique to identify our epoche. Once our epoche has been identified, and this is a continuous process throughout the study, we must bracket these experiences when we are in relationship with participants, from interview through analysis. To bracket one’s epoche means to suspend these experiences and their meaning, to pause their potential influence on one’s ability as a researcher to hear, to truly hear and understand, participants’ stories, meanings, and understandings of the phenomenon. According to Moustakas our epoche must be bracketed until it is time to interpret the results of the study. At this time, our previous experiences may prove use- ful in empathically communicating the essence of the participants’ experiences in rich fashion.

Data Analysis Distinctions in the data analysis stage of Moustakas’s approach set it apart from Van Manen’s (1990). Remember, Van Manen did not speak of specific data analysis methods or techniques; rather, he spoke of methodological themes to integrate into data analysis. Moustakas discussed the techniques of horizontalization (listing every quote relevant to the experience of the phenomenon) and reduction and elimination (finding the invariant constituents by eliminating overlapping, repetitive, or vague language; or developing more abstract labels). Once invariant constituents are found, you move on to clustering or thematizing the invariant constituents. Then, in similar iterative fashion as described by Van Manen, you go back to the transcript and find explicit and compatible examples of the invariant constituents of the experience. This is done for each par- ticipant, concluding with the development of an individual textural description of each participant’s experience. Next, an individual structural description is developed that describes the connection between main themes for each participant. After this is done for each participant, a composite description is provided that highlights

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Multiple Perspectives on a Phenomenon: The Qualitative Lenses| 221

the common experiences across participants, resulting in the es- sence of the experience.

Rounds of data collection are not rigidly specified. I have re- viewed a number of phenomenological studies that ultimately seek the emergence of no new understandings of the phenomenon under study. Some have only one round of interviews with four to 15 participants, whereas others have multiple rounds of interviews with eight participants. When multiple rounds of interviews take place, there is greater potential to achieve added depth, which can limit the number of participants needed.

Quality Quality in Moustakas’s phenomenological approach, let alone any phenomenological approach that comes from a postpositivist stance (i.e., Giorgi, 1992), places considerable emphasis on the rigor and thoroughness of procedures conducted by the researchers. I am reminded of Field of Dreams, the movie from which came the phrase “If you build it, he will come.” I see this phrase echoed in the quality efforts of Moustakas and other postpositivist researchers. Build a detailed and thorough methods procedure or technique, and quality will come (and so too the faithful readers trusting the message of the results).

As I stated previously, my intention is not to walk step by step through all phenomenological approaches. I have chosen one to highlight (i.e., Van Manen, 1990) and then have sought to mention the most significant differences with another phenomenological approach that is based in a different philosophy of research (i.e., Moustakas). For the confused and interested reader I would encour- age further reading of Moustakas (1994) and Giorgi (1992) directly. And guess what? A relatively new phenomenological method is finding its way into the research world from across the pond (that means England, by the way). The interpretive phenomenological analysis approach by Smith, Flowers, and Larkin (2009) is a fine addition to your options to consider as a practitioner-scholar find- ing an affinity toward phenomenology. I will not go into this model here, but I find it resides between Moustakas’s and Van Manen’s on the philosophical continuum. “Oh gosh! Please, please, please! Just tell me how to do phenomenological research!” you shout. I must remind you, I cannot. I can only hope that you are excited, maybe even a bit liberated by the fact that you have research options to choose from—ones that you get to decide how well they fit your theoretical and philosophical stance toward counseling and research.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Qualitative Research Designs222 |

Summary

I hope you walk away from this phenomenological section realiz- ing the clinical benefits of conducting research for your counseling practice and how you can impact other professional counselors’ practice. If relationship is foundational to the practice of counseling, then let us conduct research that is directly applicable to enhancing how we as professional counselors develop and maintain a posi- tive therapeutic alliance through empathy. Likewise, more fully empathizing with clients’ lived experience fuels advocacy for those in the LGBTQI community. Now to explore what other learnings can come from another form of qualitative research, it is time to turn to grounded theory.

Grounded Theory

We need to remember what our phenomenon of interest will be for the grounded theory section. Stigmatization within the LGBTQI population fueled our phenomenological interest in under- standing the experience of stigmatization among this population. With grounded theory our attention turns to process. Specifically, grounded theory seeks to understand the social and/or psychologi- cal process of some phenomenon. Embracing the core counseling value of wellness and strengths-based practice, let us structure the focus of our grounded theory study around the following research question: “How do persons who identify as LGBTQI overcome stigmatization?” For our practice as professional counselors such a question has relevance for remedial counseling work as well as structuring prevention programs or mental health promotion programs. Our role as advocates can definitely be informed by an answer to this question.

Here again there are many grounded theory approaches to consider (e.g., Charmaz, 2014; Clarke, 2005; Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Corbin & Strauss, 2008). “Here we go again” I hear echoing in the background. Yes, here we go again. The examples I give vary across positivist, postpositivist, constructivist, and social constructivist stances toward knowledge. Oh, the options! For our study, we will morph into a new research group, one that is coming from a postpositivist-weak-constructivist stance toward knowl- edge. For this stance we choose to use Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) grounded theory approach. Grounded theory methodology has gone through various iterations of conceptual development since Glaser

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Multiple Perspectives on a Phenomenon: The Qualitative Lenses| 223

and Strauss’s (1967) text The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strauss went off on his own later to develop a reconceptualized grounded theory approach with his wife, Juliet Corbin (e.g., Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). They were in the process of develop- ing another revision when Strauss died; Corbin finished their work, which advanced a more postmodern version of their grounded theory methodology (see Corbin & Strauss, 2008, 2015).

Let us again start with our attitude toward the current research endeavor. We believe that people construct meaning of reality, but we believe that there is a reality beyond our experience of it. We understand our interpretive nature as humans but believe that through rigorous use of detailed research techniques and proce- dures we can minimize our interpretive influence. We accept that participants are giving us their interpretation of their process, and their descriptions through language are the data from which we will derive an understanding of the process of overcoming stigmatiza- tion for LGBTQI persons. We acknowledge that our relationship with participants is very important to facilitating their descrip- tions, but we need to be persistent in monitoring our potential for interpreting the data through our own personal experience and framework and not letting the data speak for themselves. So we have our phenomenon, and we have our research question. I guess we had better find a sample.

Participant Selection

In grounded theory, as with phenomenology, we will utilize pur- poseful sampling procedures. We need to find participants within the LGBTQI community who have experienced the process of overcom- ing stigmatization. Just what is overcoming stigmatization? Well, we could review previous research on overcoming any phenomenon, or we could let potential participants self-identify as overcoming stigmatization. I like the second option better. Why? Allowing par- ticipants to define and articulate the process of overcoming values local knowledge over the theorized description of overcoming or using another study’s definition of overcoming. We are coming from a postpositivist-weak-constructivist stance, but we as qualitative re- searchers still prize the local, contextualized meaning of experience. Our purpose is to develop a local, contextualized theory of the pro- cess of overcoming stigmatization among LGBTQI persons. Toward this end we will use maximum variation sampling, what I frame as a subsampling strategy within purposeful sampling.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Qualitative Research Designs224 |

Our goal is to develop a rich and powerful theory of a process. The rigor of our findings is enhanced if we develop a theory that has been informed by diverse perspectives. So we reflect back on our conceptual framework, which encompasses any concepts from the world of ideas related to overcoming stigmatization, as well as our direct or indirect personal experience with overcom- ing stigmatization among LGBTQI persons. From our conceptual framework we may find that persons of different ages might over- come stigmatization in different ways, or we may find that gender or region of the country might impact the process. Therefore, we are going to attempt to maximize the presence of these participant characteristics in our purposeful sample. Our strategy must be to find persons in the LGBTQI community who identify as having overcome stigmatization.

Creativity must be present in all aspects of research, I believe, but certainly here. How are we going to reach out across the country to find participants? Here is one option, and one we will use for the sake of this example. Fortunately, ACA has ACA Connect (https:// community.counseling.org/home), which is an electronic means for ACA members to interact with one another. We can craft our call for participants via this venue. Like in the phenomenological example, we also must be certain to follow the ACA Code of Ethics (ACA, 2014) regarding conducting research.

How Many to Sample?

Here we go again with just what adequate sample size is with qualitative research (and specifically, grounded theory). I refer you back to what I said about sample size in the phenomenology example. In a grounded theory methodology, there is no singular view of a required or minimum sample size. In fact, given its in- ductive nature, in theory you may start with some small number of participants and achieve saturation of codes, and your overall understanding of the process, or you may need to continue to sample more participants as nuanced understanding unfolds that requires further elucidation. However, there is a slight difference. We are seeking to understand process and hearing the description of process from only one person. So we do need to think of the purpose of our study. Are we looking to generalize to the larger population of persons in the LGBTQI community, or do we want to provide a detailed and rich description of the process for our particular sample? I suggest we stay truer to the overarching pur-

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

https://community.counseling.org/home

Multiple Perspectives on a Phenomenon: The Qualitative Lenses| 225

pose of qualitative inquiry, which is to value the local, contextual meanings as informed by the participants themselves. I am going to suggest that we seek between six and 12 participants to engage in a minimum of two rounds of interviews, concluding with a member check. This means that we will plan on between 12 and 24 interviews, along with 12 to 24 member check interviews.

At the outset, this appears to be adequate to provide a rich de- scription of the process we wish to understand. It is possible that we may not need this many participants if we hear redundancy in the data with only, say, eight participants. We are not obligated to interview 12 just because we indicated that number at the outset. Our process of data collection is emergent and truly driven by the data. We must be open to the possibility of needing more than 12 participants if after data analysis there are still conceptually thin areas in our understanding of the process. Or we may begin to hear new data, which requires seeking additional rounds of interviews or quite possibly new participants. Remember and embrace the concept of emergence—the process of coming into view or becom- ing exposed after being concealed—as it is an essential aspect of qualitative research. As with phenomenology, sample size is af- fected by human resources (how many researchers) and time (the time frame within which we would like to complete the study). So our plan is to get between six and 12 participants, and we will give ourselves a window of a month for people to respond to our post on ACA Connect. We will look to get participants who vary in terms of gender and region of the country.

Our data collection plan is definitely impacted by proximity to participants. Given that we are seeking regional differences, odds are some participants will live too far away to consider in-person, face-to-face interviews. We can think of using a secure digital means of interviewing, possibly Skype or Adobe Connect. These technologies are being utilized in studies at present, but there are issues, such as trusting the security of connections, participants’ willingness to trust such technology, and the inconsistent connec- tion speeds of the present-day Internet. Given this, we will go with phone interviews, and digital recording software will be used to capture the interviews. We will be missing out on nonverbal data, but phone interviews have a long history in qualitative research, and we will go with this time-honored standard. We will structure our interviews with very broad questions like “How would you describe your experience of overcoming stigmatization?” and “What

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Qualitative Research Designs226 |

started your process of overcoming stigmatization?” and “What allowed overcoming to take place?” As with phenomenology, our skill is not simply in the beauty of these initial questions but in our ability to listen keenly for meaning, descriptions of process, and facilitation of more finely focused conversations around these areas. Once we have completed our interviews, they will need to be transcribed in the same fashion as our transcripts in our phe- nomenological study to ready the data for analysis.

Data Analysis

Strauss and Corbin (1998) were instrumental in detailing tech- niques and procedures for data analysis in grounded theory research. Remember, I am seeking to give a broad overview of their analysis procedures. What follows is not a how-to grounded theory discussion. Go seek out the books listed in the reference list for more details! For each and every transcript that now lies before us will seek to conduct an initial microanalysis of the data. For Strauss and Corbin, this means line-by-line and even word-by- word analysis. Such a micro focus is vital during the initial stages of coding in grounded theory. These initial stages of data analysis seek to develop an initial list of codes related to concepts found in the data. Such concepts are compared with other examples of codes, utilizing the oft-mentioned constant comparison method of Glaser and Strauss (1967). This initial stage of analysis is referred to as open coding. The emphasis is on attending to all plausible meanings that can be packed into a single word, line, or sentence. The goal is to develop an initial understanding of the emergent categories along with their properties and dimensions.

I had better say something about each, as regardless of whose grounded theory you use, some aspect of categories and their proper- ties and dimensions are included. Imagine if “running” were a category of some set of data. Part of the open coding process is to identify in the data properties of a category. So for running one property, or characteristic, could be “pace” and another might be “posture.” Once properties are identified in the data, further constant comparison of words and phrases that relate to the property of posture is per- formed to look for ways in which a property dimensionalizes. In our example, we may find that the data suggest that the property posture of the category running dimensionalizes from upright to slumped. Categories can clearly have multiple properties, and most do, and properties can dimensionalize in a number of ways.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Multiple Perspectives on a Phenomenon: The Qualitative Lenses| 227

In the process of open coding it is possible to find relationships between categories. In Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) grounded theory analysis, looking for relationships between categories is referred to as axial coding. In axial coding, relationships between categories tend to show at the property and dimensional levels. In the running example, we might find data to suggest that the properties pace and posture are related at the dimensional level. This means that as running pace increases, posture becomes more upright. Now this example is extremely simplistic, but I hope you begin to understand what the early stages of analysis may look like in grounded theory.

For our study, let us say we found eight participants and are now engaged in open coding, maybe even some axial coding, with the eight transcripts we have as our data. If your mind wandered with the running example, how many properties of running did you come up with? How about ways each property could dimen- sionalize? See how thorough and complex just these two features of grounded theory analysis can be? And we are just talking about one category: running. Now imagine we have analyzed our eight first-round transcripts of the process of overcoming stigmatization among persons who identify as LGBTQI. How many categories might emerge in the open coding process? Three, seven, 12, 20, more? Let us add in properties for each of these potential three to 12 categories. “Stop! Do not even ask me to think about dimen- sionalization of these categories!” I hear you. That is a lot of data to sift through and code. For myself, a good rule of thumb is to focus on developing a grasp of all of the potential categories as a goal for first-round data analysis. Typically I can find properties also, but the dimensionalization process might not be very clear yet. Our analysis of first-round interview data is complete when we can account for all transcript data as fitting into one of the categories or more deeply as a property of a category and maybe even an example of a property dimensionalizing.

We now want to look back at our developing understanding of the data and ask, “What do I still not understand?” “Which cat- egories need further description and development?” So on goes the process with the properties, along with the dimensions, of each category. As some axial coding was possible, we will also be ask- ing ourselves, “In what ways are the categories related?” “What allows the categories to be connected?” “What conditions bring about the connection?” and so on. To conduct good qualitative analysis is to be good at asking questions. From these questions

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Qualitative Research Designs228 |

we ask ourselves about the data come the second-round interview questions. Second-round interview questions have more focus than first-round questions. Now that we have a developing sense of the process, we need to gather more information about the categories we initially conceptualized, along with their properties and related dimensions. Likewise, we are tending to process how the categories are related to one another, how they influence one another, what conditions bring them about, how aspects of the context and time have an impact, and so on.

Second-round data analysis proceeds in similar fashion as the first. Great attention to open coding is important, as we wish to leave second-round data analysis with a clearer picture of the main categories, ideally understanding which category is the core category of the process around and through which all other categories interact. We very much want to verify what the main categories are, sifting through our original 20 categories, for ex- ample, and winnowing these down to four to seven. This range is not a hard and fast rule. But collapsing categories into smaller yet more abstract categories with richly described properties and dimensions allows relationships between categories to be more clearly known.

Through the analytic process of the second round, a theory of our process of interest begins to take shape. In rare cases, a full understanding of the process is the outcome of second-round analysis, with all categories and properties fully saturated. By saturation Strauss and Corbin (1998) meant that no new data about any aspects of our theory are coming out of data analysis. I find it very rare indeed for saturation to be achieved after just two rounds of interviews and analysis. However, many published studies stop after two rounds of interviews. For the sake of an example, let us say we still do not fully understand the process, and some of our properties are without information on how they dimensionalize. Therefore, we must conduct a third round of interviews to fill out our emerging theory of the process of overcoming stigmatization among persons who identify as LGBTQI.

We enter the third round of interviews with very specific ques- tions that must be asked of participants who may have insight into specific aspects of the process we still do not fully understand. These interviews are transcribed, and now selective and theoretical coding is used. We now look at the data not for the sake of open- ing up all plausible options but to intentionally look for data that may fill in our conceptual gaps in our effort to develop a more

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Multiple Perspectives on a Phenomenon: The Qualitative Lenses| 229

complete theory of our particular process. This level of analysis only takes place after open and axial coding have yielded a fairly rich and detailed description of the process. The outcome of such coding leads to our ability to construct a story of the process in explicit detail. All data existing in our transcripts can be captured by our developed theory. At this point we should be able to tell an audience, the participants themselves, the story of overcoming stigmatization. This last part of the process, of sharing our final story of the process, is the member check interview in which par- ticipants give feedback on the accuracy of our grounded theory. In hearing or reading the story they should be able to connect with and see themselves in the described process.

Quality

For the postpositivist-oriented grounded theory of Strauss and Corbin (1998), no singular hard and fast evaluative rules are suggested. How- ever, procedural evidence is vital. The final presentation of the study, from design through theory presentation, should provide a detailed picture of the procedures used to develop concepts; to describe their linkages, or relationships; and ultimately to develop the final theory. Obviously any lack of rich description speaks to potential flaws in the analytic process and overall procedures. Consistency in the logic of the design and findings speaks to the postpositivist groundings of this version of grounded theory methodology.

I have taken a very detailed process and oversimplified it ter- ribly, but my intent is to provide an overview of grounded theory analysis as conceived by Strauss and Corbin (1998). Do you like group work? How about working with couples and families? If you do, you probably enjoy the process-level work in these counseling contexts. If so, you might also find your interest piqued by grounded theory. Or at least this one form of grounded theory piques your interest. “Aw, come on, do not say it, and do not tell me there are other options and forms of grounded theory.” Yes, you are catching on. Grounded theory is not grounded theory is not grounded theory. Here is an example of another form of grounded theory, this one firmly grounded in social constructivism and postmodern ideas.

The most recent iterations of grounded theory by Corbin and Strauss (2015) and Charmaz (2014) are two examples of grounded theory that are embedded in a social constructivist stance toward knowledge and research. Let me again, as I did with the example of Moustakas’s phenomenology, summarize only the distinctions be- tween Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) postpositivist-oriented grounded

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Qualitative Research Designs230 |

theory and more social constructivist (or postmodern) grounded theory approaches (i.e., Charmaz, 2014; Corbin & Strauss, 2015).

We must again start with the attitude of the researcher. A social constructivist stance toward grounded theory is going to value more highly in data collection and analysis than postpositivist grounded theory the interpretive relationship between researcher and partici- pant in data collection and analysis. Whereas Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Strauss and Corbin (1998) spoke of discovering grounded theory, social constructivist grounded theorists intentionally speak of constructing grounded theory. There is the philosophical com- mitment to constructing meaning, and thus the realities we know, through relationships between people as evidenced by the language used to capture their shared understandings. Social constructivist grounded theory is coconstructed by researcher and participant. Data, according to this philosophical stance, do not and cannot speak for themselves. Data related to understanding the process of stigmatization are given life by the use of words to capture both the participants’ and researcher ’s interpretation of the process.

An example of such coconstruction is Jane Coe Smith’s (2007) dissertation research on the process of relationship in supervision. Unlike in the postpositivist example above, in which the researchers were responsible for data analysis and development of the grounded theory, Coe Smith engaged participants in what she called inter- preting dialogues. Between each formal round of data collection she would share her evolving understanding and tentative categories, properties, and so on with participants. In this fashion, participants were provided the opportunity to contribute to the evolving theory throughout each round of the data analysis process rather than be- ing brought in for the final theory presentation during the member check interviews. Such valuing of the participant as coresearcher empowers him or her to have more say in the use of language to best portray his or her understanding of the process under study. In essence, what Coe Smith did was embody the relational focus of meaning making that is the cornerstone of the social constructivist stance toward knowledge and research.

The social constructivist stance toward the construction of theory rather than its discovery also points to greater flexibility in the analytic process. Charmaz (2014) most aptly stayed away from restricted use of linear analytic procedure and technique merely for the sake of following procedure to show quality in grounded theory studies. She encouraged methodological flexibility to meet the needs of a particular study and highlighted the nonlinear process of

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Multiple Perspectives on a Phenomenon: The Qualitative Lenses| 231

coding, analysis, and theory building. Flexibility also shows in the final product of a grounded theory study. Whereas postpositivist grounded theory seeks a grand theory that captures, in rich detail, a singular process (yes, still variation at the dimensional level, but a singular primary process), social constructivist grounded theory allows varied processes to be included in the final research product. To put it succinctly, postpositivist grounded theory may communicate the process of stigmatization among persons who identify as LGBTQI, whereas social constructivist grounded theory communicates the processes of stigmatization among persons who identify as LGBTQI. The social constructivist stance removes the search for a core category or grand theory and instead views mul- tiple categories as having influence, with none seen as the singular, most impactful category within one grand theory.

In terms of the quality of research, social constructivist grounded theory places primacy in its resonance and usefulness in the lives of participants and the audience of research consumers. Though there is overlap with postpositivist criteria for evaluating quality in terms of rich description of categories and their logical relations, the aspect of utility in the lives and worlds of participants sheds light on an increased focus on social justice implications for research. In short, a study is evaluated in terms of how the results make the world a better place. I again must remind you that I only seek to highlight one variation to postpositivist grounded theory that I detailed in much greater depth earlier. Reflect on your philosophical stance and find the grounded theory that best fits you.

As we transition out of grounded theory, I hope you see the poten- tial impact of focusing on process. In our current clinical world, with increasing requirements for evidence-based practice, we need more than to know an intervention works. We need to understand how it works. Process research, like that using grounded theory methodology, can serve this purpose. Toward the other end of potential counseling services, we can choose to focus on strengths-based, wellness-oriented processes. Our focus on overcoming stigmatization is one example that can lead to the development of prevention programming that speaks to a core component of the foundation of counseling that can easily be forgotten in our daily practice of counseling.

Consensual Qualitative Research (CQR)

We end our foray into highlighting how three different qualitative methodologies examine the same phenomenon of stigmatization

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Qualitative Research Designs232 |

among persons who identify as LGBTQI with an overview of a relative newcomer to the qualitative research scene. CQR (Hill, Thompson, & Williams, 1997) has its origins in psychology, unlike phenomenol- ogy and grounded theory, whose home disciplines are education and sociology, respectively. Hill et al. (1997) developed CQR as an integration of phenomenology, grounded theory, and comprehensive process analysis. In this regard, I view it as leaning toward what Pat- ton (2015) described as a general qualitative research approach. Hill and associates developed CQR with clear, stepwise procedures out of frustration with other qualitative approaches they saw as vague and confusing to understand conceptually and implement. They have definitely come up with a much clearer qualitative approach.

Though Hill et al. (2005) place CQR as constructivist in its philo- sophical stance with a “post-positivist flair” (p. 198), I would flip this emphasis. In terms of the framework of Lincoln, Lynham, and Guba (2011) introduced in Chapter 10, I view CQR as firmly postpositivist with a constructivist flair (i.e., postpositivist weak constructivism). They have developed an integrative qualitative approach that values the following (this is not an exhaustive list, just some prime examples): minimizing the relational impact on data, enhancing objectivity while minimizing bias through the use of multiple perspectives of the re- search team and external auditor to minimize bias, seeking replica- tion across settings to increase generalizability, using a realist view of language (i.e., words represent reality vs. an interpretation of reality), and prizing consistent procedures (Hill et al., 2005). The attitude of the researcher and research team is one of investigative reporter. Very few of you are old enough to remember the line “Just the facts” spoken by Joe Friday in the 1960s show Dragnet, but this is the way I would describe the researcher attitude necessary for CQR. So let us morph again as researchers and adopt the CQR researcher attitude to see how the CQR approach would explore the phenomenon of stigmatization among persons who identify as LGBTQI. We will move on under the guise of having asked the following research question: “What is the experience of stigmatization among persons who identify as LGBTQI?”

The Research Team

Before we go further, we need to ensure that we have an adequate research team with appropriate training in CQR. As an aside, train- ing or education in the given method is implied in other qualitative methodologies, but in CQR it is an explicit component of the research protocol. CQR guidelines recommend at least three research team members, so we may have to enlist colleagues from our office or

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Multiple Perspectives on a Phenomenon: The Qualitative Lenses| 233

find interested professionals nearby to make up our team. If they have not heard of CQR or been trained, we will first have to spend time preparing them for the tasks at hand. Team members will play various roles. Let us move forward with a team of three members, two of whom will be data analyzers and one of whom will serve as an external auditor. Now this is not ideal: Because CQR uses a team perspective to minimize bias and enhance objectivity, hav- ing more team members (e.g., four to 12) would be preferred, but finding that number proved difficult for us in our present study.

Participant Selection

As researchers conducting qualitative inquiry we must find potential participants who actually are experiencing the phenomenon. We will use snowball sampling, in which we make contact with someone who might know a person who identifies as LGBTQI, and then ask the identified LGBTQI person for more names, and so on. This will get us going with participants in our local context. However, we also seek to generalize to some degree to the larger population, so we will also utilize ACA Connect to gain access to potential applicants from across the country. Once we have heard from initial respondents we will select a random sample of 12 participants (our preferred range is eight to 15) to participate in one round of interviews along with, hopefully, a member check meeting. Hill et al. (2005) suggested two interviews, and at times more, but their overview of all CQR studies to date indicated that most researchers do one round of interviews with a follow-up interview that seems to mirror more of a member check interview rather than an attempt to gather more detailed de- scriptions of the phenomenon.

Interview Protocol Development

Our goal is to develop a scripted interview protocol with eight to 12 questions. Our questions will be developed from our review of the literature and past research, so we can ask questions to extend the knowledge base and build on what is already known. We will talk with people from our target population (persons in the LGBTQI population who have experienced stigmatization) to assist in the development of the interview questions. Once we have developed our list, we will pilot the questions with people from our target population to better refine the questions to best elicit the informa- tion we seek in the interviews.

Data collection will utilize the refined interview protocol with participants via phone interviews. Though technology provides

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Qualitative Research Designs234 |

us with other interview options, phone interviews will allow for a greater degree of objectivity and lessen the potential for relational influence. Phone interviews are also more affordable and feasible than face-to-face interviews. All interviews will be transcribed and readied for analysis.

Data Analysis

Within the CQR framework, data analysis is a team process that concludes with consensus on all coding processes and results. Three steps are involved in the data analysis. First, we come up with do- mains, which are topics used to initially organize the data. Domains ideally should come from the explicit meaning of the participants, but we could also start with topics informed by our interview ques- tions and/or literature review. Second, we take the meaning seg- ments that have been organized within the domains and develop core ideas. Core ideas should again remain close to the data, or the explicit words and meanings communicated by participants, but are refined similarly to how we as counselors might use the basic skill of paraphrasing. Our goal is to edit down core ideas and free them from what CQR refers to as nonrelevant aspects of the interview, such as “ums,” pauses, and repetitive phrasing. Third, we cross-analyze the data. Cross-analysis involves looking at the core ideas of each the participant and finding commonalities across all participants. Here we will institute frequency counts and label core ideas as general if they apply to all participants, typical if they apply to at least half of participants, variant if they are found in at least two cases up to the cutoff for typical, and rare if they are applicable to only two or three participants. At this point the results are written up in as clear a fash- ion as possible, and our auditor will review our process and results.

Quality

In CQR, adherence to the defined structure of the research process as outlined by Hill et al. (1997), or procedure fidelity, is the prime theme for ensuring valid and trustworthy data. Though a hallmark of qualitative inquiry is the use of participants during member check interviews, with Lincoln and Guba (1985) even describing this as the hallmark of credibility for qualitative research, very few of the CQR studies conducted between 1997 and 2005 (only 25%) engaged in a process resembling a member check interview. A good number of these merely mailed the results to participants for feedback and comments.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Multiple Perspectives on a Phenomenon: The Qualitative Lenses| 235

A Discussion of Qualitative Methodology

We now have had an overview of three different qualitative methodolo- gies (and within two of these an added philosophical variation) and their respective views of the same phenomenon. What do you think? At this point I do not want you to draw any firm conclusions given what I have provided (truly a sketch of these three methodologies). I merely suggest that you wonder and you ponder how such an ap- proach to research and knowledge may be beneficial to not only your practice but also the counseling practice of others. How might hearing directly, in rich detail, how counseling is experienced, what life is like living with a particular mental health problem, or what life is like living with stigmatization impact your ability to provide therapeutic counseling services? How might hearing such stories change the way you advocate or design preventive programming? Whatever answers you just thought about, be aware that we walked through only three qualitative methodologies! There are so many other possibilities. Let me tempt you further with the potential of qualitative research in your role as practitioner-scholar with a list of other methodologies, their focus, and their relevance to this chapter’s phenomenon of interest:

• Action research/participatory action research: Utilizes qualitative research to focus on pragmatic strategies of action and social justice and their implementation in the lives and communities of the people most connected to a phenomenon. Relevance to our phenomenon: assisting persons who identify as LGBTQI in breaking down the walls of stigmatization (e.g., Stringer, 2014).

• Autoethnography: Examines a person’s own experience of his or her culture, a situation, an event, or way of life. Relevance to our phenomenon: understanding an LGBTQI-affirming counselor ’s work with stigmatization in the LGBTQI com- munity (e.g., Muncey, 2010).

• Conversational analysis: Examines talk-in-interaction and how participants organize their interactions in conversation. Relevance to our phenomenon: understanding how the therapeutic alliance built between LGBTQI clients and non-LGBTQI counselors is enacted in therapeutic conversations (e.g., ten Have, 2007).

• Discourse analysis: Examines the structure of language usage and how it informs the creation and maintenance of patterns and rules for relating to ourselves and others. Relevance to our phenomenon: understanding the societal discourses that maintain LGBTQI stigmatization.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Qualitative Research Designs236 |

• Ethnography: Examines culture, seeking to understand the forms of relationships, behaviors, and beliefs within a given culture and the rules and perspectives that guide actions toward oth- ers in and out of the culture. Relevance to our phenomenon: understanding LGBTQI cultural responses to stigmatization (e.g., Fetterman, 2010).

• Narrative analysis: Focuses on examining human lives and lived experience for the sake of understanding personal patterns across time. Relevance to our phenomenon: understanding stories of stigmatization: the life of an LGBTQI person (Schif- frin, Tannen, & Hamilton, 2001).

“Oh my gosh!” you are hopefully saying. “All these topics are rel- evant to the counseling profession!” They sure are, particularly if we wish to fully embody the values of the counseling profession (Kleist & White, 1997). As a practitioner-scholar you face choices. In what ways does not only your counseling practice but what and how you choose to research further the profession of counseling? The profession of counseling is embedded in a philosophy of prevention and advocacy in addition to the more common remedial interventions of one-on-one counseling. How do your research choices promote prevention and advocacy efforts? How are your areas of research interest working toward the embodiment of the full character of the counseling profes- sion? “Oh great,” you mumble under your breath. “Even research is steeped in ethical quandaries and imperatives.” Yes, well said.

I am a staunch advocate for qualitative research as a means of producing and disseminating knowledge that directly impacts cli- ents and the communities in which they reside. I see the place for quantitative research, but I write Chapters 10 and 11 to tease you, the reader, into realizing the significant place for qualitative research in the profession of counseling. Your actions as a counselor and as a practitioner-scholar will help shape not only your professional iden- tity but simultaneously the identity of the profession of counseling.

Qualitative research, quite simply, is new to the counseling profes- sion. First being encouraged to utilize phenomenological methods in 1989 (Brown, 1989) and finding the first qualitative study in Counselor Education and Supervision in 1995 (Bruce, 1995) means that counselor educators like myself are still trying to figure out qualitative research. Just what is it? How can it inform the training of counselors? We are integrating research methods that were born in other profes- sions: grounded theory in sociology, phenomenology in education, and CQR in psychology. This newness might explain why we find

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Multiple Perspectives on a Phenomenon: The Qualitative Lenses| 237

chapters on qualitative research in the back of research texts. We counselor educators and supervisors who are teaching counselors as practitioner-scholars clearly need to open dialogue about knowl- edge, research, and the place of qualitative research methodologies in the counseling profession. But please, do not wait for us. As a counselor educator for more than 20 years I have found that we are slow movers, sometimes followers. So go read more about qualitative research! Get moved to tears, and action, by understanding people through their own words, meanings and stories of living, and stories of striving toward mental health and wellness. “Counseling is a pro- fessional relationship that empowers diverse individuals, families, and groups to accomplish mental health, wellness, education, and career goals” (Kaplan, Tarvydas, & Gladding, 2014, p. 366). Toward this end, qualitative research methodologies provide an avenue for researching with, versus on, the people we wish to help in our roles as practitioner-scholars (Gergen, 2009).

Chapter Summary

Whew! You made it! You took the risk to expose yourself to looking at research through three different qualitative methodologies (i.e., lenses) along with two different lens prescriptions (i.e., phenom- enology and grounded theory from two different philosophical stances). My intent for this chapter was to expose you to the differ- ent understandings of human experience that can come from three different qualitative methodologies and how these methodologies are influenced by the philosophical stance you take toward research. By no means did I introduce you to all of the possible qualitative methodologies that are available to you as a practitioner-scholar. However, the six additional methodologies I listed previously give you a great place to engage in further study if interested. In the end, that is my hope for you—that you leave interested in the possibilities of qualitative research to inform your practice and others’ practice of counseling. On a related note, I hope you leave these chapters on qualitative research finding not just a place for qualitative research in the counseling profession but a place for yourself, as a practitioner-scholar, in the counseling profession as a researcher who adds to the knowledge base of our profession.

Suggested Activities: Mindful Curiosity In Chapter 10, I laid out some brief reflective questions to as- sist you in becoming aware of your philosophical stance toward

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Qualitative Research Designs238 |

knowledge. The suggested activities here are also thought ex- periments focused on your own self-awareness. You could in fact ask yourself the same questions to get started, if you would like. However, the attention to your self-awareness in each moment is even more acute here.

I. Observation and reflection: What is your lens? This exercise seems simple yet requires acute attunement,

or mindfulness, to your experiences with thoughts and feelings. Find a public place in which to people-watch. Spend 20 to 30 minutes watching a person or persons (your choice) move through the moment or situation they are in. Allow your mind to be open to attend to whatever and to shift attention to whatever your mind wishes to shift attention toward.

1. To what degree did you attend to individuals or groups? 2. To what degree were you curious about what was going on

for one person internally or what was going on for a person in relation to other people or the context?

Be very aware of what you find most curious about your inter- est in understanding people and their situation. Your answers will guide you toward preferences for the internal experiences of individuals in relationships or the influences of the situation in which people find themselves.

II. Let your counseling theory guide you toward a research methodology.

I ask my students to reflect on this notion all the time. Over the years I have found great parallels between a student’s preferred counseling theory and role of counselor and the qualitative methodologies that interest that student. Jot down lists of what you like most about your counseling theory. Now, as you learn about different qualitative methodologies (in all of their aspects, from relationships with participants, to data collection, to analysis), jot down not only what you like the most but also what you like the least about each methodology. I guarantee you will find some degree of overlap. Though this is not the sole means of determining which qualitative methodology to use in a given study, it does shed light on your own personal leanings toward and fit with various methodologies. Good luck on your journey as a developing practitioner-scholar!

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Multiple Perspectives on a Phenomenon: The Qualitative Lenses| 239

References American Counseling Association. (2014). ACA code of ethics. Alex-

andria, VA: Author. Brown, D. (1989). Logical positivism and/or phenomenology.

Counselor Education and Supervision, 29, 5–6. Bruce, M. A. (1995). Mentoring women doctoral students: What

counselor educators and supervisors can do. Counselor Education and Supervision, 35, 139–149.

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London, England: Sage.

Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Coe Smith, J. (2007). Being in relationship: Dialogic constructions with master’s level counseling supervisees (Unpublished doctoral dis- sertation). Idaho State University, Pocatello.

Collins, C. S., & Cooper, J. E. (2014). Emotional intelligence and the qualitative researcher. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 13, 88–103.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eubanks-Carter, C., Burckell, L. A., & Goldfried, M. R. (2005). En- hancing therapeutic effectiveness with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. Clinical Psychology Science and Practice, 12, 1–18.

Fetterman, D. M. (2010). Ethnography: Step-by-step. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gergen, K. J. (2009). Relational being. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis. Gess, J. (2016). Queering counselor education: Situational analysis of

LGBTQI competent faculty (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Idaho State University, Pocatello.

Giorgi, A. (1992). Description versus interpretation: Competing alternative strategies for qualitative research. Journal of Phenom- enological Psychology, 23, 119–135.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Hatzenbuehler, M. (2011). The social environment and suicide attempts in lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Pediatrics, 127, 896–903.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Qualitative Research Designs240 |

Hatzenbuehler, M. L., McLaughlin, K. A., Keyes, K. M., & Hasin, D. S. (2010). The impact of institutional discrimination on psychiatric disorders in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: A prospective study. American Journal of Public Health, 100(3), 452–459. http:// doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.168815

Hein, L. C., & Scharer, K. M. (2013). Who cares if it is a hate crime? Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender hate crimes: Mental health implications and interventions. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 49, 84–93.

Hill, C. E., Knox, S., Thompson, B. J., Williams, E. N., Hess, S. A., & Ladany, N. (2005). Consensual qualitative research: An update. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 196–205.

Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research. The Counseling Psy- chologist, 25, 517–572.

Hubble, M. A., Duncan, B. L., & Miller, S. D. (1999). The heart and soul of change: What works in therapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Israel, T., Gorcheva, R., Burnes, T. R., & Walther, W. A. (2008). Helpful and unhelpful therapy experiences of LGBT clients. Psychotherapy Research, 18, 294–305.

Kaplan, D. M., Tarvydas, V. M., & Gladding, S. T. (2014). 20/20: A vision for the future of counseling: The new consensus definition of counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92, 366–372. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00164.x

Kleist, D. M., & White, L. J. (1997). The values of counseling: A disparity between a philosophy of prevention in counseling and counselor practice and training. Counseling and Values, 41, 128–140.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674–697.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Muncey, T. (2010). Creating autoethnographies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

http://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.168815

Multiple Perspectives on a Phenomenon: The Qualitative Lenses| 241

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pitts, M. J., & Miller-Day, M. (2007). Upward turning points and positive rapport-development across time in researcher–partici- pant relationships Qualitative Research, 7, 177–201.

Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. E. (2001). The handbook of discourse analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenom- enological analysis: Theory, method, and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stringer, E. T. (2014). Action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide (2nd

ed.). London, England: Sage. Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science

for an action sensitive pedagogy. Albany: State University of New York Press.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 6 . A

m e ri ca

n C

o u n se

lin g A

ss o ci

a tio

n . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .