Philosophical Differences Between Qualitative and Quantitative Paradigms and Approaches

profileEverleigh
QualitativeResearchinMulticulturalPsychology.pdf

Qualitative Research in Multicultural Psychology: Philosophical Underpinnings, Popular Approaches, and Ethical Considerations

Joseph G. Ponterotto Fordham University

This article reviews the current and emerging status of qualitative research in psychol- ogy. The particular value of diverse philosophical paradigms and varied inquiry approaches to the advancement of psychology generally, and multicultural psychology specifically, is emphasized. Three specific qualitative inquiry approaches anchored in diverse philosophical research paradigms are highlighted: consensual qualitative re- search, grounded theory, and participatory action research. The article concludes by highlighting important ethical considerations in multicultural qualitative research.

Keywords: multicultural, qualitative research, research ethics, philosophy of science

The need for multicultural psychologists to be knowledgeable of multiple-research para- digms and competent in conducting both quan- titative and qualitative research, is now made clear in the American Psychological Associa- tion’s (APA, 2003) “Guidelines on Multicul- tural Education, Training, Research, Practice, and Organizational Change for Psychologists,” which state the following:

Culturally centered psychological researchers are en- couraged to seek appropriate grounding in various modes of inquiry and to understand both the strengths and limitations of the research paradigms applied to culturally diverse populations . . . They should strive to recognize and incorporate research methods that most effectively complement the worldview and lifestyles of persons who come from a specific cultural and linguis- tic population, for example quantitative and qualitative research strategies. (p. 389)

The reality, however, is that most psycholo- gists, including those focused on research across cultures, continue to operate from a pri- marily postpositivist research paradigm and their associated quantitative procedures (Haverkamp, Morrow, & Ponterotto, 2005b; Ponterotto, 2005a; Rennie, Watson, & Mon- teiro, 2002). In this article I promote the in-

creased use of qualitative research methods an- chored in diverse research paradigms. To that end, this article (a) describes leading research paradigms for qualitative research, (b) reviews the current and emerging status of qualitative methods in the field, (c) highlights the potential value of qualitative approaches to psychology generally and multicultural psychology specifi- cally, (d) presents a brief overview of select qualitative inquiry approaches advocated for multicultural research, and (e) highlights impor- tant ethical issues in conducting qualitative re- search with diverse populations.

Consistent with the APA’s (2003) “Multicul- tural Guidelines,” when referring to multicultur- alism or multicultural psychology throughout this article, I recognize the broad scope of the dimensions of ethnicity, race, gender, language, sexual orientation, age, disability, education, spiritual or religious orientation, socioeconomic class, education, as well as other cultural dimen- sions.

Research Paradigms Anchoring Qualitative Research

Though many psychologists have a good idea about some of the general distinctions between quantitative and qualitative research, most have not been trained to understand the depth and variety of philosophical paradigms and inquiry approaches anchoring qualitative research in psychology (Ponterotto, 2005a; Rennie et al., 2002). As noted by McLeod (2001), “It may be possible to do good quantitative research with- out knowing much about epistemology of the philosophy of (social) science, but good quali-

Joseph G. Ponterotto, Division of Psychological & Edu- cational Services, Fordham University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Joseph G. Ponterotto, Division of Psychological & Educa- tional Services, Room 1008, Fordham University at Lincoln Center, 113 West 60th Street, New York, NY 10023-7478. E-mail: [email protected]

This article is reprinted from Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 2010, Vol. 16, No. 4, 581–589.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

Qualitative Psychology © 2013 American Psychological Association 2013, Vol. 1(S), 19 –32 2326-3598/13/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/2326-3598.1.S.19

19

tative research requires an informed awareness of philosophical perspectives” (p. 203). Relat- edly, Morrow (2005) highlighted differential criteria for evaluating the rigor and quality of a qualitative study based on its anchoring para- digm. Thus knowledge of philosophy of science and competence in qualitative research are in- extricably intertwined.

The research literature presents varied classi- fications of research paradigms (see Denzin & Lincoln, 2005a); however, one that I find par- ticularly concise yet comprehensive is that pro- posed by Guba and Lincoln (1994) and adapted by Ponterotto (2005b). This classification pres- ents four research paradigms: positivism, post- positivism, constructivism-interpretivism, and the critical-ideological perspective. Of these four paradigms, positivism is the exclusive province of quantitative research; however the other three paradigms can all serve as anchors

for qualitative research. Table 1 summarizes the defining characteristics of postpositivism, con- structivism-interpretivism, and the critical- ideological perspective. The descriptive charac- teristics include the paradigm’s perspective on key philosophy of science parameters, including ontology (nature of reality), epistemology (re- lationship between researcher and participant in the quest for knowledge), axiology (role of val- ues in research), rhetorical structure (language used to present research findings), and method- ology (specific procedures of research; see Ta- ble 1).

Postpositivist qualitative research aims to use traditional qualitative methods (e.g., interviews, case studies) in as quantifiable a manner as is possible. Thus for example, a researcher may prepare a lengthy (25 questions) semistructured interview protocol based on a review of the literature (explanatory, verification oriented),

Table 1 Research Paradigms for Multicultural Research

Research paradigm Defining characteristics and qualitative approaches

Postpositivism

One true approximal reality; researcher attempts to be as dualistic and objective as possible; must monitor closely and bracket any value biases; attempts control of variables and systematization of research procedures; generally third person, objective report presentation; chiefly quantitative methods, with some more structured qualitative approaches such as consensual qualitative research (Hill, Thompson, & Williams,1997).

Constructivism-Interpretivism

Multiple, equally valid, and socially coconstructed realities; highly interactive researcher-participant relationship that leads to discovered meaning and expression of experience; researcher values to be expected and should be discussed and bracketed; report writing is first person with adequate “voice” of participants (e.g., through quotes or documents); incorporates only qualitative methods. More discovery oriented qualitative inquiry models such as grounded theory (Fassinger, 2005).

Critical Theory and Related Ideological Positions

An apprehendable reality shaped by political, economic, and social factors; interactive and proactive researcher role that promotes emancipation and transformation through research; researcher values are clearly explicated and help shape inquiry process; usually first person written reports relying extensively on participant voices; incorporates chiefly qualitative methods, but may incorporate quantitative procedures. Qualitative approaches in which researcher’s social justice values help direct inquiry, such as participatory action research (Kidd & Kral, 2005).

Note. Paradigm characteristics adapted from Guba and Lincoln (1994), Ponterotto (2005b), and Ponterotto & Grieger (2007).

20 PONTEROTTO

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

administer the interview protocol to 40 partici- pants averaging 40 min an interview. The pro- tocol is the same for all interviewers and the data is analyzed by a team of coresearchers and auditors for a sense of reliability in coding (agreeing on single reality). Furthermore, the researcher, in staying close to the protocol dur- ing the interview process, does not emotively connect with the participant (concept of dual- ism).

By marked contrast, a parallel interview in the constructivist-interpretivist paradigm would involve preparing a short (five questions) semi- structured protocol and interviewing 10 partic- ipants for roughly 2 hr each. The protocol can change from interview to interview (discovery- oriented) as new insights emerge. Furthermore, the researcher and participants become emo- tively connected, facilitating deeper levels of communication and topic exploration. Only the interviewer analyzes the data as multiple reali- ties are valid under this paradigm, and no core- searcher or auditing team is necessary to iden- tify a single agreed-on reality.

The critical-ideological paradigm has at its core an assumption that inequity and oppression characterize real-world human interactions, and that during the process of empirical inquiry the researcher’s own social justice values can and should play a role in the research process. This role is manifested in the goal of empowerment and emancipation of groups who experience oppression (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2000). An example of a qualitative study in the critical- ideological paradigm might involve lengthy in- terviews or focus groups with migrant farm workers, who during and after the study gain a sense of unity and empowerment that leads to coordinated demands for better working condi- tions. Counseling psychologists have been par- ticularly vocal in advocating for increased re- search anchored in the critical theory paradigm (e.g., Toporek, Gerstein, Fouad, Roysircar, & Israel, 2006).

Current Status of Qualitative Research in Psychology

Though qualitative research featured promi- nently in the early development of the psychol- ogy profession (e.g., the work of Allport, Erik- son, Fanon, Freud, Horney, and Piaget), during the last half century qualitative methods, as a

collective group, have taken a back seat to quantitative research procedures (see historical review in Ponterotto, Kuriakose, & Granovs- kaya, 2008). The reason for this lies in the profession’s strong preference for the positivist and postpositivist research paradigms over al- ternate paradigms such as constructivism and critical theory (Camic, Rhodes, & Yardley, 2003; Haverkamp et al., 2005b).

Evidence of the profession’s strong reliance on positivism and postpositivism, and their as- sociated quantitative methods, is presented in a number of studies. For example, Rennie et al. (2002) entered five search terms qualitative re- search, grounded theory, discourse analysis, phenomenological psychology, and empirical phenomenology in the PsycINFO database for the 100-year period, 1900 through 1999, and found that less than 1% of the articles included one of these terms.

A number of other studies examined pub- lished journal literature to assess the relative representativeness of both quantitative and qualitative studies. For example, in a review of outcome studies published worldwide across a large number of journals in counseling, psycho- therapy, and psychiatry, Sexton (1996) found that less than 5% of the studies relied on qual- itative methods. Focusing specifically on jour- nals in counseling and counseling psychology, Berrios and Lucca (2006) and Ponterotto, Kuriakose, et al., (2008) found that qualitative research represented under 20% of the pub- lished empirical studies during the 1990s and 2000s. Finally, in a 25-year review of journals focused on the psychology of religion and spir- ituality, Aten and Hernandez (2005) found that less than 1% of published articles represented qualitative research studies.

It appears that the meager representation of published qualitative research in psychology journals may, in part, stem from graduate train- ing programs that give minimal attention to qualitative methods training. For example, with regard to research training in counseling psy- chology, Ponterotto (2005c) found that only 10% of programs required a course in qualita- tive research methods, and the median percent- age of doctoral dissertations across programs that employed qualitative methods was only 10%. It follows that if graduate students in psychology are not being adequately trained in alternate research paradigms and qualitative in-

21SPECIAL SECTION: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

quiry procedures, they will be less likely to conduct and publish qualitative research.

Despite the clear dominance of quantitative methods in the psychology profession, there is mounting evidence that qualitative methods are slowly increasing in popularity among psychol- ogy researchers. For example, in a 12-year con- tent analysis of major journals in counseling

psychology, Ponterotto, Barnett, Ticinelli, Kuriakose, and Granovskaya (2008) found the representation of qualitative studies to increase from 13% during the 1995 to 2000 period, to 18% during the 2001 to 2006 time period. Fo- cusing on research in family process and family therapy, Faulkner, Klock, and Gale (2002) found the overall number of qualitative studies

Table 2 Specific Benefits of Qualitative Inquiry Procedures

Benefit claim Supporting citations

Applied psychologists are drawn to constructivist qualitative methods because they often involve studying the emotive and cognitive aspects of participants’ life experiences interpreted within the context of their socially constructed worldviews.

Hill, 2005; McLeod, 2001; Morrow, 2007; Ponterotto, Kuriakose et al., 2008; Sciarra, 1999

Qualitative methods are useful in exploratory phases of research given their “discovery” rather than “explanatory” or “confirmatory” goals.

Hill, 2005; Morrow, 2007; Nelson & Quintana, 2005.

Qualitative research compliments quantitative research by adding descriptive depth.

Morrow, 2007; Nelson & Quintana, 2005.

Qualitative methods are excellent for theory development given the inductive, iterative process of ongoing data collection, analysis, and interpretation; researchers become “intimate” with data through this process.

Hill, 2005; Morrow, 2007; Nelson & Quintana, 2005.

Qualitative research is particularly useful in studying and understanding process in counseling and psychotherapy.

Hill, 2005; Morrow, 2007.

Qualitative research is effective in examining very complex psychological phenomena as it is not constrained by pre-selected and limited variables; such research can examine all variables as they emerge during the discovery process.

Hill, 2005; Morrow et al., 2001.

Qualitative research is excellent at establishing clinical relevance of research given participants’ active involvement in defining research questions, and in assessing and interpreting data; it ultimately increases clinical relevance to both clients and psychologists.

Hill, 2005; Nelson & Quintana, 2005; Silverstein, Auerbach, & Levant, 2006.

Qualitative research and writing can increase the public’s understanding of and receptivity to research.

Morrow, 2007; Ponterotto, 2006; Ponterotto & Grieger, 2007; Silverstein et al., 2006.

Qualitative research can effectively bridge the noted rift between the objective hypothetico-deductive model of science (from positivism/postpositivism) and the subjective everyday experience of practitioners helping clients and patients.

Morrow, 2007.

Qualitative research is effective in establishing “procedural evidence” (i.e., study methods and findings are intelligible, consistent, and credible, and become self-evident in the iterative, emergent analysis process).

Hill, 2005; Morrow, 2005.

22 PONTEROTTO

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

published roughly doubled from the 1980s to the 1990s, though the overall percentage of qualitative studies to quantitative studies was still very low (percentage not specified). Pon- terotto, Barnett, et al. concluded that there is a slow, gradual research paradigm shift under- way, with qualitative research in applied psy- chology becoming more accepted and increas- ingly popular.

Potential Value of Qualitative Research

In this section I briefly highlight the particu- lar value of qualitative methods, relative to tra- ditional quantitative methods, to advancing psy- chology generally and multicultural psychology specifically. A review of the literature of the past decade has uncovered strong rationales for the psychology profession to expand its reper- toire of operating research paradigms and em- pirical procedures. There is a clear sense in the literature that both quantitative and qualitative methods have their inherent strengths and lim- itations, and that there is a time and place for both sets of approaches in psychological re- search. Table 2 summarizes the particular ben- efits of qualitative methods to psychology (see Table 2).

Value of Qualitative Research to Multicultural Psychology

In addition to the general advantages of qual- itative research summarized in Table 2, various authors have highlighted the particular rele- vance and value of qualitative inquiry to the study of multicultural psychology (Morrow, Ra- khsha, & Castaneda, 2001; Ponterotto, 2005a; Trimble & Fisher, 2006a). Constructivist and critical theory qualitative procedures often in- volve intense, ongoing, and prolonged interac- tion with participants. This emotive interaction is transformative (Ponterotto, 2005b), thus cre- ating change in both the researcher and the participants. In a country where race relations have been replete with misunderstanding, ste- reotyping, and conflict, qualitative research can bring deeper appreciation and understanding across cultures. Sciarra (1999) stated that “not only are emotions allowed in qualitative re- search, they are crucial. Because entering the meaning-making world of another requires em-

pathy, it is inconceivable how the qualitative researcher would accomplish her goal by dis- tancing herself from emotions” (pp. 44 – 45).

Sciarra’s (1999) quote highlights one of the benefits of constructivist qualitative methods to the study of multicultural psychology. That is, researchers attempt to understand the world- view of our participants through intensely lis- tening to and respecting their own voice and their own interpretation of life events. Addi- tional benefits of qualitative methods to multi- cultural research are outlined below.

1. By entering culturally diverse communi- ties, researchers can demonstrate strong interest in participants’ life experiences through respectful interviews and obser- vations. In this way, researchers achieve close personal contact with the partici- pants that lead to suspension of previously held conceptions and stereotypes of the group. As the instrument of their own research, this close interaction helps trans- form researchers as well as the partici- pants (Mohatt & Thomas, 2006; Morrow et al., 2001; Ponterotto & Grieger, 2008).

2. In some qualitative approaches, the re- searcher and participants are equivalent co-investigators, thus leveling the power hierarchy common to many quantitative designs. The empowerment of research participants serves to reduce the chances of marginalizing and stereotyping study participants (Mohatt & Thomas, 2006; Ponterotto, 2005a).

3. Qualitative research is often effective at empowering participants to navigate com- plex and sometimes oppressive systems (particularly within the critical theory par- adigm) leading to interventions in schools and organizations, and contributing to so- cial change (Ditrano & Silverstein, 2006; Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005; Kidd & Kral, 2005; Morrow, 2007).

4. Quantitative research often forces partici- pants to respond to predesigned instru- ments or protocols that isolate individual attitudes, beliefs, feelings, and behaviors. For research participants who hail from more collectivist worldviews, this kind of research is challenging. Mohatt and Thomas (2006) summarized this concern well in their work with Native American

23SPECIAL SECTION: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

and Alaska Native populations: “Many traditional Native people would not isolate behaviors, emotions, or cognitions and as- sign values to them, measure them, ma- nipulate them, and interpret the results” (p. 109).

From a cross-cultural perspective, another concern with many quantitative designs an- chored in positivism and postpositivism is the value given to random sampling. Once again Mohatt and Thomas (2006) addressed this con- cern quite directly:

I believe that random sampling procedures violate a fundamental principle of every indigenous group with whom I have worked. It assumes that a statistical or mathematical rationale should determine whom we talk to or with whom we intervene. It is . . . . both exclusive and dangerous because not all members of the community would be included, and there would be no evidence of comembership on the part of the re- searchers and therefore no sense of protection from harm. (pp. 110 –111)

By contrast, qualitative designs often give voice to previously disempowered, marginal- ized, and silenced groups who share their worldview and lived experiences in their own words, in their own way, and under conditions set forth through comembership in the research endeavor (Ponterotto, 2005a).

Steps in Conducting Qualitative Multicultural Research

In the last decade, many excellent sources on conducting qualitative research have been put forth (e.g., Camic et al., 2003; Denzin & Lin- coln, 2005b; McLeod, 2001). In this section I draw on these and other sources as well as my own experience conducting and supervising multicultural qualitative research to summarize important steps for conceptualizing and con- ducting multiculturally focused qualitative re- search.

Decide on Operating Research Paradigm

The first step in conducting a qualitative study is to decide on the research paradigm anchoring the study. The paradigm will serve as a roadmap guiding the researcher to an appro- priate qualitative inquiry approach, directing the course and methods of the study, and promoting a careful evaluation of the quality of the study

(Morrow, 2005). Paradigm choices were re- viewed earlier in this article and are summa- rized in Table 1.

Graduate students and psychologists should understand the politics of research in their working environment and be prepared to ad- dress supervisory resistance to certain para- digms and research approaches. For example, some PhD programs in psychology dissuade students from conducting a qualitative study anchored in constructivism or critical theory in favor of quantitative studies or qualitative studies anchored in postpositivism (see re- lated discussion in Ponterotto, 2005c; Pon- terotto & Grieger, 2007).

Select Qualitative Inquiry Approach

There are at least 20 acknowledged and pop- ular qualitative inquiry approaches emanating from a host of intellectual disciplines. Qualita- tive inquiry approaches that have been particu- larly popular with psychologists are reviewed in recent edited books (e.g., Fischer, 2006; Willig & Stainton-Rogers, 2008) and special journal issues (e.g., Carter & Morrow, 2007a, 2007b; Haverkamp, Morrow, & Ponterotto, 2005a). In this section I briefly review three popular qual- itative inquiry approaches that will appeal to both seasoned researchers and students new to qualitative research. For paradigmatic breadth I have chosen one inquiry approach from each of the three potential qualitative-anchoring para- digms.

CQR. Consensual qualitative research (CQR) is the most postpositivist of our three selected qualitative inquiry approaches. CQR was developed by Clara E. Hill in response to her dissatisfaction with the depth and richness of data emanating from quantitative research in psychotherapy. In developing the CQR model, Hill, Thompson, and Williams (1997) drew on established qualitative approaches, while retain- ing some of the scientific rigor common to quantitative methods (e.g., consensus, replica- bility, concrete procedural guidelines). The par- ticular qualitative approaches that Hill et al. (1997) borrowed from were grounded theory, comprehensive process analysis, phenomenol- ogy, and feminist theories. Thus, CQR actually has components of constructivism and critical theory in addition to an anchoring in postposi- tivism.

24 PONTEROTTO

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

More recently, Hill et al. (2005) reviewed and updated procedures for conducting CQR stud- ies. The updated guidelines were developed in response to reviewing and evaluating 27 differ- ent published CQR studies from 1994 to 2003. Ponterotto (2005b) noted that the 2005 CQR model is somewhat more constructivistic than the original 1997 model in terms of reducing the number of interview questions to promote more probing, greater depth of participant responses and, ultimately, greater discovery.

Hill et al. (2005) posit five essential elements of the CQR method. First, researchers prepare semistructured interview protocols for use in face-to-face and/or phone interviews (though focus groups have also been used). The authors recommended preparing roughly 8 to 10 scripted questions per planned hour of inter- view. Probing responses further is encouraged as a means of additional exploration and dis- covery. The interview protocols are prepared in consideration of a thorough literature review on the topic at hand, on talking with people from the target group to garner insights for the pro- tocol, and on researchers’ own self-reflections and experience related to the topic. CQR sam- ples tend to be randomly selected from within an identified homogeneous population with in- depth experience of the phenomena under study. Hill et al. (2005) recommend 8 to 15 participants per study when only one or two interviews are conducted with each participant. Generally speaking, one thorough interview is sufficient in a CQR study, with a second inter- view sometimes helping to capture further par- ticipant thinking in the area.

The second component of CQR is the reli- ance on multiple judges/coders throughout the data analysis process in the hopes of fostering diverse perspectives. Hill et al. (2005) recom- mended a minimum of three primary research team members for each CQR study. The third component of CQR emphasizes consensus in arriving at the meaning of the coded data. Hill et al. (2005) considered consensus critical to the CQR method and that is why “consensus” forms the first word in CQR. The construct of consen- sus emanates from a postpositivist position as research team members discuss and come to agreement on data interpretation. Thus there is an ontological assumption of one approximal reality in terms of the generated results (refer back to Table 1). However, the construct of

consensus as operationalized by Hill et al. (1997) also drew on the critical theory para- digm in that the consensus generation among CQR team members relies on mutual respect, equal co-involvement, and shared power, which is central to ideological positions in feminism, multiculturalism, and liberation psychology.

The fourth component of CQR advocates the use of at least one auditor (not part of the primary research team) to review the work of the researchers, minimize the potential effects of groupthink, and independently assess the coding and analysis procedures. The final CQR component addresses the steps of data analysis in working with the transcribed interviews. These steps involve (a) identifying domains that are topics used to group or cluster the data; (b) developing core ideas that are brief summaries of the data that capture descriptively and con- cisely the essence of the participants’ voices; and (c) cross-analysis, which involves con- structing categories that describe common emergent themes across all study participants.

The broad paradigmatic base of CQR makes it an attractive qualitative design to a wide va- riety of seasoned qualitative researchers as well as to traditionally trained quantitative research- ers looking to move into qualitative inquiry. The approach is also popular among graduate students because of the crystal clear user guide- lines put forth by Hill and her colleagues (Hill et al., 1997, 2005), and because the strong post- positivist leaning of CQR make it an acceptable qualitative approach in traditional quantitative research training programs in psychology. The CQR method is being used increasingly in the study of multiculturalism in psychology, and the reports of these studies are being published in premier, high impact journals. (For a refer- ence list of recent multiculturally focused stud- ies incorporating the CQR, GT, and PAR in- quiry approach, please email Joseph G. Pon- terotto at [email protected])

GT. Grounded theory (GT) is the most es- tablished of our three selected qualitative ap- proaches, and is also the approach most firmly grounded in the constructivist research para- digm. Two sociologists, Glaser and Strauss (1967), fashioned the procedures of grounded theory as a result of their research on the aware- ness of dying among terminally ill patients. As with CQR, elements of GT can be anchored in

25SPECIAL SECTION: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

multiple-research paradigms (Ponterotto, 2005b), and over the last four decades at least five variations of grounded theory have been put forth (McLeod, 2001). However, the model of GT that I advocate for multicultural research is the constructivist-leaning approach described by Fassinger (2005) who further shaped grounded theory to be more applicable to the field of multicultural psychology.

Like CQR, GT often centers on individual interviews, usually face-to-face. GT researchers rely on the long interview procedure with (adult) interviews often lasting beyond 1 hr and up to 3 hr (Ponterotto, 2005b). Many GT re- searchers embed their interview protocol ques- tions in part on previous knowledge, experi- ence, and literature; however, “the researcher must strike a delicate balance between enough knowledge to focus the sampling and data col- lection effectively and yet not so much immer- sion in existing perspectives that the investiga- tion becomes circumscribed by preordained constructs and limited expectations” (Fassinger, 2005, p. 158). Thus, as a constructivist ap- proach, GT is more discovery oriented than CQR. Also, unlike CQR which randomly se- lects 8 to 15 participants from a carefully iden- tified homogenous population, GT relies more on theoretical sampling in which additional par- ticipants are decided on as the interviewing progresses, as discovery emerges, and as the research questions evolve from interview to in- terview. Unlike CQR that uses the same inter- view protocol for each participant, GT protocols may change (e.g., adding certain questions), as discovery emerges within interviews.

In GT research, interviewing, transcribing, cod- ing, and analysis happen concurrently in an itera- tive, constant comparative process. As an inter- view is transcribed and reviewed, the researcher develops ongoing and perhaps new questions for the next interview. Subsequent interview ques- tions are thus grounded in an emergent database.

Furthermore, in GT, interviewing ends when theoretical saturation is reached, that is when the researcher finds that adding new participants does not contribute substantively to the emerg- ing data patterns.

The ultimate goal of a GT study is to outline an innovative, substantive theory generated from the “erblenis” (i.e., lived experiences) of participants who engage in deep dialogic inter- action with skilled interviewers within the par-

ticipants’ real-world social context. The data analysis process in GT usually involves three major steps: open, axial, and selective coding. During open coding, transcribed data are broken down into meaning units (e.g., a few words or sentences that present a meaningful description, experience, feeling or attitude set), which are labeled with language emerging directly from participants, compared to other emerging mean- ing units, and then gradually integrated into larger groupings.

In axial coding, relationships among catego- ries are further described and organized into broader more concept-encompassing categories. During this process a constant comparative pro- cess is used to continuously compare categories to one another and against new data coming in from subsequent interviews. As this process un- folds, the depth, density, complexity, and de- scriptive clarity of the axial codes are markedly enhanced. The researcher also explores varia- tions in axial code development and looks for disconfirming cases as a trustworthiness test of the emergent codes (see Morrow, 2005).

In the final phase of analysis, selective coding, the GT researcher examines the interrelationship among all the selective codes and attempts to extract and fashion a core story that connects the selective codes in an interrelated (sometimes se- quential) and meaningful way. This core story encompasses all of the selective codes and serves as the substantive theory that is the heart of GT research. Naturally the substantive theory is unique to the sample on which the GT is devel- oped. When and if this substantive theory is rep- licated and/or modified across multiple samples and contexts, a more formal theory can be expli- cated (see Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

In keeping with the constructivist perspective on ontology that posits equally valid multiple realities, the GT research process does not call for consensus, interjudge reliability of coded data, or multiple researchers. In fact, Glaser and Strauss (1967) were quite clear on this point when they stated that “dependent on the skill and sensitivities of the analyst, the constant comparative method is not designed (as meth- ods of quantitative analysis are) to guarantee that two analysts working independently with the same data will achieve the same results” (p. 103).

PAR. Participatory action research (PAR) refers to forms of action research anchored in

26 PONTEROTTO

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

the belief that the research process itself serves as a mechanism for social change (Schwandt, 2001). PAR is clearly the most critical-theory focused inquiry approach of the three covered in this section. At the core of PAR is empower- ment of community participants that leads to emancipation (from some oppressive condition) and enhanced quality of life (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005). Describing the overriding purpose of PAR in laypersons’ terms, Kidd and Kral (2005) stated “you get people affected by a problem together, figure out what is going on as a group, and then do something about it” (p. 187). The research study is the means to gather the necessary knowledge about the problem and to incite intervention or change directly useful to the community.

In part, the origins of PAR can be traced to the critical consciousness construct of Freire (1970), who participated in long-term program to increase adult literacy in Brazil. According to Kemmis and McTaggart (2005), PAR generally involves a spiral of self-reflection and action as a community problem is addressed. Participants and researchers establish a collaborative rela- tionship as they ask critical questions about their current life situation. This dialogue moves the group from a passive acceptance stance to one of action as they develop knowledge and further explore the community problem and how it can be addressed. With enhanced knowl- edge and empowerment in hand, the PAR col- laborators begin a stage of social action to incite change. Specific procedures for change emerge and shift as part of the self-reflective cycles. Once the initial action plan is implemented, subsequent PAR phases may involve document- ing, evaluating, and replicating the action plan (Ditrano & Silverstein, 2006).

PAR implies full participation on the part of study participants. However, as noted by Kidd and Kral (2005),

the creation of such participatory contexts is far from the norm . . . disempowered groups are seldom given the opportunity and, arguably, are discouraged from this type of action because many factors, including a lack of respect for the knowledge of stigmatized peo- ples . . . Further compounding this problem is the ten- dency for established forums (e.g., academia) to claim exclusive ownership of methods of knowledge gather- ing and avenues for change. (pp. 187–199)

PAR does not propose a clear series of pro- cedural and analytic steps as is the case with

CQR and GT reviewed earlier. Rather, during the reflective and action spiral, PAR investiga- tors rely on a wide variety of methods and procedures as they come to understand the needs of the community. As such, many PAR studies take on varied ethnographic methods such as storytelling, sharing experiences, indi- vidual and focus group interviews, participant observation, drawings, and even the more struc- tured qualitative interview or quantitative sur- vey. Kidd and Kral (2005) noted that each PAR project is a “custom job,” that emerges and changes as levels of critical consciousness rise, “much like building a factory in which the tools may be made rather than necessarily using tools already at hand” (p. 187).

Of the three inquiry approaches promoted in this article, it is PAR that is the least utilized in psychology (Ponterotto, Barnett, et al., 2008). This is likely due to the axiology of PAR as a critical theory method that advocates a value- directed (rather than value-neutral postpositiv- ism or value-bracketed constructivism) stance. Traditionally trained postpositivist psycholo- gists are generally uncomfortable with research that is so value mediated (Ponterotto & Grieger, 2007), as they were trained to see research as objective, in which participants are studied without changing them or the researchers (du- alism).

Consider Ethical Issues Throughout the Research Process

The history of psychology (and medicine) is replete with examples of ethical abuses of re- search participants from racial and ethnic mi- nority communities (Ponterotto & Grieger, 2008; Trimble & Fisher, 2006a). Most psychol- ogists are well versed in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study conducted by the U.S. Public Health Ser- vice in Alabama from 1932 through 1972. In this study, 600 African American men (399 in the treatment group and 201 in the control group) were never informed that they had syph- ilis. Furthermore, when penicillin became the standard treatment for syphilis, the medicine was not made available to the participants. Roughly 100 men died because they failed to receive penicillin (Wallace, 2006). Less famil- iar to psychologists than the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis Study is the more recent Havasupai tribe study conducted in the early 1990s by

27SPECIAL SECTION: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

university researchers in the Southwest. Ac- cording to a lawsuit filed by 52 tribal members, blood samples ostensibly collected to study the correlation to diabetes were also used without consent to study correlations with schizophre- nia, migration patterns, and inbreeding (Trimble & Fisher, 2006b).

Though the above ethical abuse examples revolved around experimental or correlational research designs, it is clear that vigilant ethical practice is more a function of the researcher’s own self-awareness, multicultural competence, and collaborative commitment than it is a func- tion of design characteristics. In other words, researchers hailing from any philosophical re- search paradigm and using any variety of re- search methods can fail to attend to ethical care in research practice (see Trimble & Fisher, 2006a). Having said that, it is important to ac- knowledge that qualitative research methods present some unique ethical challenges given the researcher’s often intense, personal, and prolonged interaction with participants in their own community environments.

A full explication of ethical challenges in qualitative research is beyond the scope of this article, and has been adequately covered in both long-standing (e.g., Cieurzo & Keitel, 1999) and recent (Haverkamp, 2005) publications. Suffice it to say that qualitative research poses unique ethical challenges in terms of informed consent, recruiting participants and gaining ac- cess to diverse communities, confidentiality, re- searcher dual roles and multiple relationships, interpretation and ownership of knowledge gen- erated, and challenges posed by Institutional Review Board’s (IRB) of universities and com- munities. In all cases, when researchers are bridging to new culturally diverse communities who may represent varied worldviews (e.g., col- lectivism vs. individualism), the ethical chal- lenges are magnified.

For example, regarding informed consent, in constructivist research designs that focus on emer- gent, discovery-oriented qualitative approaches (e.g., grounded theory, phenomenology), neither the researcher or participants know where per- sonal interviews will lead, as the interview proto- col can change from interview to interview as new directions for inquiry are uncovered. Thus it is difficult to prepare participants for what will take place or what will be ultimately discussed during the interviews. Furthermore, it is difficult to antic-

ipate participants’ reactions during, immediately after, and sometime after the interviews take place, thus participants cannot be adequately in- formed about what their experience will be like during and after the research process (Cieurzo & Keitel, 1999; Haverkamp, 2005). In communities- of-color, language nuances and cultural attitudes regarding the appropriateness of “questioning” the researchers may further compromise informed consent.

Another example of an ethical challenge in qualitative research is deception of research par- ticipants and gatekeepers controlling access to these communities. Cieurzo and Keitel (1999) noted that in gaining access to diverse commu- nities researchers must convince gatekeepers that the research will benefit the studied com- munity. Yet for both fear of scaring off the gatekeepers, and because researchers them- selves may not know all they will be asking or observing in emergent designs, they may be purposefully vague when describing a study.

Terminating a study can also pose particular ethical challenges to qualitative researchers. For example, in most quantitative designs there is a dualistic perspective on the relationship be- tween the research and study participants. That is, researchers have minimal direct contact with participants in an effort not to bias or influence the research results. The exact opposite is the case in many qualitative approaches where an intense interaction between an interviewer and her or his participants is a prerequisite to facil- itating the participants’ ability to access and describe their “lived experience” (Ponterotto, 2005b). Thus for many quantitative designs one poststudy debriefing is often sufficient in termi- nating a study. However, in qualitative designs, it is often necessary for researchers to follow-up and maintain contact with the study participants for a significant period of time. In research in diverse minority communities where there may be initial mistrust of “ivory tower” researchers, the implications of researchers eventually estab- lishing trust within the community, and then leaving the study and community abruptly is particularly worrisome.

Finally, given that many university IRB boards are dominated by researchers trained in positivism and postpositivism who favor quan- titative designs, qualitative researchers face nu- merous barriers to receiving timely study ap- proval. In fact, Lincoln (2005) recently devoted

28 PONTEROTTO

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

a whole chapter to discussing IRB challenges relative to qualitative research, particularly those in constructivist and critical theory para- digms. She noted four particular areas of chal- lenge: (a) a general increased scrutiny of all human participant research given the ethical failures of past bio-medical research (e.g., Tuskegee study); (b) long-term effects of the National Research Council’s position on what constitutes scientific inquiry; (c) in the field of education, a heightened scrutiny of qualitative research in classroom-based studies; and (d) the emphasis placed on evidence-based research in universities and grant funding agencies.

In what can considered a “classic” discussion of applied psychologists’ ethical responsibility in planning and conducting qualitative research, Haverkamp (2005) emphasized that the overrid- ing ethical mandate of researchers is compe- tence. She noted “It is difficult to imagine how one could establish a trustworthy research rela- tionship, one that achieves a favorable balance of benefits and risks, without performing one’s research role in a competent manner” (p. 153). Haverkamp emphasized the need for researcher competence in philosophical paradigms and qualitative approaches as well as in knowledge relative to the community under study.

To that end, Ponterotto and Grieger (2008) recently outlined 32 individual competencies for the multicultural researcher in psychology. Table 3 extracts a selection of the research competencies most applicable to qualitative re- search. The competencies are intended to tran- scend the various research paradigms and qual- itative inquiry approaches promoted in this ar- ticle (see Table 3). This table may serve as a useful guide to psychology students planning their qualitative research in multicultural com- munities.

Conclusions

This article reviewed the current and emerging status of qualitative research in psychology. Though still representing a minority of the pub- lished research in psychology, qualitative methods anchored in diverse philosophical paradigms are gaining momentum and scientific credibility (Hill, 2005). Qualitative approaches anchored in con- structivism and critical theory are advocated in the study of multicultural issues. These paradigms promote meaningful, collaborative, and prolonged contact between researchers and study partici- pants. Such an epistemology breaks the dualism (researchers and participants are independent en-

Table 3 Competencies for Ethical Qualitative Research With Culturally Diverse Communities

The researcher

1. Is well versed in various research paradigms (e.g., constructivism and critical theory) and specific data-gathering tools such as participant observation, in-depth interviewing, focus group interviewing, document analysis, oral history, and life-story analysis.

2. Plans all phases of research in collaboration with community representatives. 3. Makes all attempts to avoid or limit deception in research. 4. Works diligently to directly benefit the studied community in some way; “gives back” to the community in a

tangible and pragmatic way. 5. Is sensitive to appropriate procedures for accessing the population and has a cultural guide throughout the process. 6. Understands the impact on participants and communities in highly researcher-involved interactions such as

participant observation and in-depth interviews. 7. To the extent possible, fully explores with participants the purpose, procedures, and potential impact of study

participation; updates informed consent procedures as needed. 8. Carefully monitors interviewing procedures and is clear on the distinction between qualitative interviewing and

therapy; is careful not to fall into the therapist’s role. 9. Is sensitive to the impact of terminating (withdrawing from) the interactive researcher role—for example the

impact on community when in-depth interviews or participant observation ends. Follows up on participant/community welfare as long as needed.

10. In describing samples in reports, is careful to provide adequate descriptions without compromising the anonymity of participants in small samples.

11. In preparing final reports, takes care to present “thick description” of procedures and results so that participants’ voices and worldviews are accurately represented.

12. Has completed ethical research training (course, workshop) particularly on the topic of qualitative research.

Adapted from Ponterotto and Grieger (2008, Table 4.1) by permission of Sage Publications; see also Ponterotto (2006); Trimble and Fisher (2006).

29SPECIAL SECTION: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

tities) mantra at the heart of positivist and post- positivist anchored research, and therefore pro- motes participant understanding and empower- ment within their cultural contexts. In this way, qualitative research itself may serve as a tool for social justice and improving intergroup relations (see Toporek et al., 2006).

The psychology profession has a long way to go before its members are as competent in qual- itative approaches as they are in quantitative designs. Yet, it is essential that psychologists develop bimethodological research skills so that they can select inquiry models most appropriate to the research question at hand and most con- sistent with the worldview of the people under study (APA, 2003; Ponterotto & Grieger, 2008). I fear that until applied psychologists develop adequate culturally sensitive qualitative re- search skills, the research needs of culturally diverse individuals and communities will not be adequately addressed. Therefore, a next step for the psychology profession is to commit to an expanded research training model for present and future students. An expanded training cur- riculum would emphasize competence in phi- losophy of science, research paradigms, and a variety of quantitative and qualitative inquiry models. Ponterotto (2005a) recently introduced multiparadigmatic research training curricu- lums for both masters and doctoral programs in applied psychology.

References

American Psychological Association. (2003). Guide- lines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for psycholo- gists. American Psychologist, 58, 377– 402.

Aten, J. D., & Hernandez, B. C. (2005). A 25-year review of qualitative research published in spiritu- ally and psychologically oriented journals. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 24, 266 –277.

Berrios, R., & Lucca, N. (2006). Qualitative meth- odology in counseling research: Recent contribu- tions and challenges for a new century. Journal of Counseling & Development, 84, 174 –186.

Camic, P. M., Rhodes, J. E., & Yardley, L. (Eds.). (2003). Qualitative research in psychology: Ex- panding perspectives in methodology and design. Washington, DC: American Psychological Associ- ation.

Carter, R. T., & Morrow, S. L. (Eds.). (2007a). Qual- itative issues and analyses in counseling psychol-

ogy: Part III [Special issue]. The Counseling Psy- chologist, 35(2).

Carter, R. T., & Morrow, S. L. (Eds.). (2007b). Qualitative issues and analyses in counseling psy- chology: Part IV [Special issue]. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(3).

Cieurzo, C., & Keitel, M. A. (1999). Ethics in qual- itative research. In M. Kopala & L. A. Suzuki (Eds.), Using qualitative methods in psychology (pp. 37– 48). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005a). Introduc- tion: The discipline and practice of qualitative re- search. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005b). The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ditrano, C. J., & Silverstein, L. B. (2006). Listening to parents’ voices: Participatory action research in the schools. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 359 –366.

Fassinger, R. E. (2005). Paradigms, praxis, problems, and promise: Grounded theory in counseling psy- chology research. Journal of Counseling Psychol- ogy, 52, 156 –166.

Faulkner, R. A., Klock, K., & Gale, J. E. (2002). Qualitative research in family therapy: Publication trends from 1980 to 1999. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 28, 69 –74.

Fischer, C. T. (Ed.). (2006). Qualitative research methods for psychologists: Introduction through empirical studies. New York: Academic.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder & Herder.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative re- search. New York: Aldine.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Haverkamp, B. E. (2005). Ethical perspectives on qualitative research in applied psychology. Jour- nal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 146 –155.

Haverkamp, B. E., Morrow, S. L., & Ponterotto, J. G. (Eds.). (2005a). Knowledge in context: Qualitative methods in counseling psychology research [Spe- cial issue]. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2).

Haverkamp, B. E., Morrow, S. L., & Ponterotto, J. G. (2005b). A time and place for qualitative and mixed methods in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 123–125.

Hill, C. E. (2005). Qualitative research. In J. C. Norcross, L. E. Beutler, & R. F. Levant (Eds.), Evidence-based practices in mental health: De-

30 PONTEROTTO

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

bate, dialogue on the fundamental questions (pp. 74 – 80). Washington, DC: American Psychologi- cal Association.

Hill, C. E., Knox, S., Thompson, B. J., Williams, E. N., Hess, S. A., & Ladany, N. (2005). Consen- sual qualitative research: Update. Journal of Coun- seling Psychology, 52, 196 –205.

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

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 559 – 604). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kidd, S. A., & Kral, M. J. (2005). Practicing partic- ipatory action research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 187–195.

Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. L. (2000). Rethink- ing critical theory and qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of quali- tative research (2nd ed., pp. 279 –313). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Institutional review boards and methodological conservatism: The challenge to and from phenomenological paradigms. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage hand- book of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 165– 190). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McLeod, J. (2001). Qualitative research in counsel- ling and psychotherapy. London: Sage.

Mohatt, G. V., & Thomas, L. R. (2006). “I wonder, why would you do it that way?” Ethical dilemmas in doing participatory research with Alaska native communities. In J. E. Trimble & C. B. Fisher (Eds.), The handbook of ethical research with eth- nocultural populations & communities (pp. 93– 115). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 250 – 260.

Morrow, S. L. (2007). Qualitative research in coun- seling psychology: Conceptual foundations. The Counseling Psychologist, 35, 209 –235.

Morrow, S. L., Rakhsha, G., & Castaneda, C. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for multicul- tural counseling. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Hand- book of multicultural counseling (2nd ed., pp. 575– 603). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nelson, M. L., & Quintana, S. M. (2005). Qualitative clinical research with children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychol- ogy, 34, 344 –356.

Ponterotto, J. G. (2005a). Integrating qualitative re- search requirements into professional psychology

training programs in North America: Rationale and curriculum model. Qualitative Research in Psy- chology, 2, 97–116.

Ponterotto, J. G. (2005b). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research par- adigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 126 –136.

Ponterotto, J. G. (2005c). Qualitative research train- ing in counseling psychology: A survey of direc- tors of training. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 60 – 62.

Ponterotto, J. G. (2006). Brief note on the origins, evolution, and meaning of the qualitative research concept “thick description.” The Qualitative Re- port, 11, 538 –549.

Ponterotto, J. G., Barnett, P., Ticinelli, I. B., Kuria- kose, G., & Granovskaya, Y. (2008). A paradig- matic and methodological content analysis of qualitative research published in three counseling journals. Manuscript in progress.

Ponterotto, J. G., & Grieger, I. (2007). Effectively communicating qualitative research. The Counsel- ing Psychologist, 35, 404 – 430.

Ponterotto, J. G., & Grieger, I. (2008). Guidelines and competencies for cross-cultural counseling re- search. In P. B. Pedersen, J. G. Draguns, W. L. Lonner, & J. E. Trimble (Eds.), Counseling across cultures (6th ed., pp. 57–72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ponterotto, J. G., Kuriakose, G., & Granovskaya, Y. (2008). Counselling and psychotherapy. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 455– 471). London: Sage.

Rennie, D. L., Watson, K. D., & Monteiro, A. M. (2002). The rise of qualitative research in psychol- ogy. Canadian Psychology, 43, 179 –189.

Schwandt, T. A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sciarra, D. T. (1999). The role of the qualitative researcher. In M. Kopala & L. A. Suzuki (Eds.), Using qualitative methods in psychology (pp. 37– 48). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sexton, T. L. (1996). The relevance of counseling outcome research: Current trends and practical im- plications. Journal of Counseling & Development, 74, 590 – 600.

Silverstein, L. B., Auerbach, C. F., & Levant, R. F. (2006). Using qualitative research to strengthen clinical practice. Professional Psychology: Re- search and Practice, 37, 351–358.

Toporek, R. L., Gerstein, L. H., Fouad, N. A., Roy- sircar, G., & Israel, T. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook for social justice in counseling psychology: Lead- ership, vision, and action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

31SPECIAL SECTION: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

Trimble, J. E., & Fisher, C. B. (Eds.). (2006a). The handbook of ethical research with ethnocultural populations & communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Trimble, J. E., & Fisher, C. B. (2006b). Our shared journey: Lessons from the past to protect the fu- ture. In J. E. Trimble & C. B. Fisher (Eds.), The handbook of ethical research with ethnocultural populations & communities (pp. xv–xxix). Thou- sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wallace, S. A. (2006). Addressing health disparities through relational ethics: An approach to increas- ing African American participation in biomedical and health research. In J. E. Trimble & C. B. Fisher (Eds.), The handbook of ethical research with eth- nocultural populations & communities (pp. 67– 75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Willig, C., & Stainton-Rogers, E. (Eds.). (2008). The Sage handbook of qualitative research in psychol- ogy. London: Sage.

Call for Papers: Special Section on Markers of Quality and Best Practices in Qualitative Inquiry

Qualitative Psychology seeks manuscripts focused on promoting “best practices” in qualitative inquiry for the Journal’s introductory issue. Qualitative Psychology is a new peer-reviewed journal published by the American Psychological Association. It is also the official journal of the Society for Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology (SQIP, http://qualpsy.org).

This special section on best practices in qualitative inquiry is intended to be a tone-setting collection of papers that lays the foundation for thoughtful and methodologically rigorous approaches to qualitative inquiry in psychology.

Manuscripts addressing best practices in qualitative inquiry should address foundational issues related to study design, the collection and analysis of data, and the presentation and consumption of findings. Example foci may include, but need not be limited to:

- Issues pertaining to generalizability of qualitative findings - Considerations in sampling and recruitment of participants - Procedural recommendations for the analysis of qualitative data - Approaches to linking multiple forms of qualitative data in mixed methods research - Meta analysis of qualitative findings - Recommended standards for presenting qualitative findings in published reports - Ethical concerns in the planning and conducting of qualitative research - The teaching, promotion, and assessment of basic skills and competencies in quali-

tative interviewers

The editorial team encourages contributions that address issues pertaining to best practices spanning a variety of modes of qualitative inquiry in psychology. However, manuscripts addressing foundational issues of quality within a specific approach to qualitative inquiry in psychology (e.g., narrative study of lives, discourse analysis) will also be considered.

Authors are highly encouraged to include reference to detailed examples from prior/ ongoing research, so that readers will gain the insight necessary to implement recom- mendations for best practices in future research and training efforts.

In order to be considered for the special section, submissions must be received by October 1, 2013.

Manuscripts must be submitted online and follow the guidelines to authors specified on the Journal’s website (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/qua). Informal inquiries may be directed to David Frost ([email protected]), the Associate Editor organizing this special section.

32 PONTEROTTO

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.