Types of Interviews. Qualitative researchers are interested in using interviews to make sense of people's actions in naturalistic settings. The language used by respondents is a powerful means to accomplish this goal. Basically, the interview is a face-to-face or indirect (for example, telephone) interaction be¬tween the investigator and one or more participants in which the investigator asks the respondents questions in order to obtain information. Interviews can be classified into three types: structured interviews, unstructured interviews, and group interviews (Fontana & Frey, 2000). In a structured interview, the questions and the order in which they are asked are determined a priori. Moreover, responses are classified into categories or are quantified according to some protocol that also is developed a priori. The interviewer develops rapport with the respondent but takes a neutral stance in that he or she does not show either approval or disapproval of responses and does not follow up on unusual, interesting, or uninformative responses. The advantage of structured interviews is that they are standardized across respondents and minimize variations. However, they have limited usefulness in qualitative research because they (1) shape data to conform to structures that emanated from the investigator's previously held beliefs about the phenomenon, (2) use a standard language across respondents (rather than questions customized to the language of particular respondents), and (3) restrict affective components of responses (Fontana & Frey, 1994). Although technically not an interview, the questions can be printed and administered to participants, which is similar to a questionnaire except that the responses are not constrained in any way. On the other end of the continuum, unstructured interviews provide latitude to explore the responses of participants and to adapt questions for respondents. Qualitative researchers often use unstructured interviews to collect data, and the responses would not be quantified. The type of question asked in qualitative research is shaped by the type of research conducted; thus, ethnographers approach this endeavor differently from grounded theorists, for example. Because the questions are not determined a priori, the interviewer has great latitude to explore the phenomenon and ask probing questions to get a more complete description. The respondents are encouraged to use their own language to describe their experiences; however, the interviewers must take care not to shape the responses by covertly reinforcing certain types of responses (for example, following up only on responses that fit the researchers' assumptions). As Polkinghorne (2005) suggested, "although the produced account is affected by the researcher, it is important that the participant remain the author of the description" (p. 143). Also, in the case when more than one researcher is conducting interviews, interviewers need to discuss how each person's personal styles may influence the participants' responses and subsequent analytic results. Furthermore, it should be noted that that data from unstructured interviews take a lot more time to collect and organize. Researchers usually need to do follow-up interviews because new insights about the phenomenon (and thus, additional questions) may emerge as more participants are interviewed. Most of the interviews used in counseling research span the structured/ unstructured continuum. Researchers often use semi-structured interviews to provide some consistency across interviews but also allow the respondents to have ample opportunity for offering richer responses. The challenge of utilizing the semi-structured format lies in the decision of how much structure should be imposed on the interview process. For an example of a relatively unstructured interview, consider Rennie's (1994b) study of clients' deference in psychotherapy, in which clients viewed a videotape of a recent counseling session (a variation of Interpersonal Process Recall; Kagan, 1975) and stopped the tape when they were experiencing something interesting or significant. The interviewer then "conducted a nondirective inquiry into the recalled experience" (Rennie, 1994b, p. 429), creating a description of the client's perceptions of the therapy in the client's own language without imposing predetermined categories for understanding these descriptions. As an example of a more structured approach, Frontman and Kunkel (1994), who also wanted to access clients' reactions to therapy, asked clients immediately after a session (rather than being stimulated by a videotape) to respond to the following probe: "As if you were making a personal journal entry, write what you felt was successful about the session" (p. 493). Because this probe was responded to in writing, no follow-up questions were used. Although the probe for this study was standardized, no preconceived categories were used to make sense of the responses, so that the conclusions were grounded in the data and not structured by the investigators' prior understanding of the phenomenon. A third type of interview is the group interview, in which more than one..., person is interviewed simultaneously. Madriz (2000) describes a focus group as "a collective rather than an individualistic research method that focuses on the multivocality of participants' attitudes, experiences, and beliefs" (p. 836). Particularly exciting possibilities exist for focus groups, a modality that evolved from marketing research related to reactions to products, advertisements, and services. (For a brief history of the development of the focus group method, see Morgan, 1988, or Madriz, 2000.) In marketing research, the members of a focus group are strangers, but applications to qualitative research suggest possibilities for using intact groups, such as the staff of a mental health clinic. The goal of a focus group is to obtain the participants' opinions, not to reach a consensus or reconcile opposing views; the expression of different opinions is informative. Typically, the participants in a focus group are relatively homogeneous and are asked to reflect on a particular issue. The economy of using group interviews is self-evident, but a less obvious advantage of the group format is the interaction among the respondents, which can provide richer information as various members of the group provide more details, disagree on points, and reconcile differences of opinions. Having participants respond in a social context is thought to provide honest and responsible comments. However, the interviewer needs to ensure that minority opinions are allowed expression, given the natural tendency for such opinions to be suppressed (Madriz, 2000). A good illustration of this method has been provided by O'Neill, Small, and Strachan (1999) who used focus groups to explore the employment issues facing people with HIV/AIDS. Methods of Interviewing. Counselors are well trained in the art of asking questions, and there are many similarities between the counseling interview and the qualitative research interview. However, note that "research interviewing-has different goals and requires different skills" (Polkinghorne, 2005, p. 143). Although the goals of qualitative interviewing will depend on the type of qualitative research conducted, a generic goal is to understand the experience of the participant; therapeutic actions should be avoided. Table 11.4, a typology of questions suitable for qualitative research, provides some examples of questions aimed at gaining understanding at various levels.
We now briefly examine the various steps in conducting qualitative interviews, adapted from Fontana and Frey (2000). The first step is to gain entree to the setting in a way similar to gaining entrée for observations. Wampold et al. (1995) were able to gain access to two chemistry groups by first obtaining the support of the laboratory leader. Although all the members subsequently agreed to be observed, several declined to be interviewed because of the time it took away from their work. The second step involves preparing to understand the language and the culture of the interviewees. A qualitative investigator strives to have participants express their experiences in their own language. To achieve that goal, the questions should be understandable and nonoffensive to participants. Also, the interviewer must instantly understand what the interviewee means by various idioms and expressions so that appropriate follow-up questions can be asked. This knowledge is acquired from previous experience and preparation and is accumulated over the course of the interviews. Moreover, knowledge of language and culture is needed to make sense of the interviews in the data analysis phase, which is described in the next section. The third step is to make a decision about self-presentation. Whereas quantitative researchers present themselves as objective scientists, qualitative researchers can choose among various self-presentations. For example, a researcher might present herself to abused women as a feminist as well as a researcher. Basically, the issue here is the degree to which the researchers should share of themselves and how it would affect the participants' willingness to share their stories or personal accounts. The fourth step is to identify the interviewees. The central concept in this step is key informants, people whose perceptions are particularly important for understanding the context being studied. Of course, the key informants will likely be unknown to the investigator initially, but as knowledge is gained their identity will emerge. Key informants are often those who have a different experience than the norm, who are willing to divulge sensitive information, who are formal or natural leaders, and so forth. Moreover, key informants may not be directly involved in the phenomenon being studied. For example, the support staff in a mental health clinic could provide important information relative to counseling at the agency, even though they neither deliver nor receive treatment. In quantitative research the emphasis is on representative samples, but in qualitative research the goal is to obtain a depth of understanding, and thus the choice of interviewees is a crucial process. The fifth step is to establish rapport with each interviewee, a process that is beneficial for two reasons. First, rapport leads to trust, which in turn leads to honest and descriptive responses. Second, an empathic stance enables the interviewer to better understand the interviewee's responses. Interviewers must take care, however, that the natural affinity that goes hand in hand with empathy does not cloud their assessment of the situation. The sixth and final step is to decide how the interview data will be collected. If done unobtrusively, interviews should be recorded and subsequently transcribed for analysis. In any case, field notes should be taken. (Note that the comments regarding field notes for observations apply here as well.) Important information is contained in the nonverbal responses of the interviewees, and in the setting and its surroundings. Therefore, certain critical data may be missing when interviews are conducted over the phone or via email. It should be noted that interviewing is the predominant mode of obtaining data in qualitative research in counseling psychology, and it is deemed one of the most difficult and advanced techniques to master (Fassinger, 2005; Hill et al., 2005; Polkinghorne, 2005). Therefore, neophyte qualitative researchers are encouraged to hone their skills in this area. Kvale (1996) and Douglas (1985) discuss qualitative interviewing in depth. In particular, the procedures for conducting focus group interviews can be found in Greenbaum (1998) and Vaughn, Schumm, and Sinagub (1996).
USING EXISTING MATERIALS Existing materials are written text and artifacts, which can often inform qualitative research in ways that observations and interviews cannot; such materials are essential to any historical study for which observations are impossible. As always, the goal is to use this material to provide a richer understanding of the phenomena being examined. Written documents are of two types, official records and personal documents (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Official documents include government reports, licenses, contracts, diplomas, and so forth. Personal documents include diaries, letters, email, literature, field notes, and so forth. Artifacts include material and electronic traces, such as buildings, art, posters, nontextual computer files—essentially any disturbance of the natural environment created by people. One type of existing material has assumed primacy in qualitative research in counseling: the counseling interview (see, for example, Elliott et al., 1994; Thompson & Jenal, 1994), either represented as a verbal record (that is, a tape recording) or as text (that is, a transcript). In such studies, interpretations are made of the records of counseling. For example, Friedlander, Heatherington, Johnson, and Showron (1994) examined family therapy sessions to under¬stand how sustaining engagement was important to change. Of the throe sources of qualitative data discussed in this chapter (observations, interviews, and existing materials), existing materials present the most issues, even though such materials can be particularly valuable. The difficulty with existing materials involves the interpretation of the text or artifacts, particularly when the analyses of existing materials and use of other methods (e.g., observations or interviews) yield different or even opposing results. Hodder (1994) gives several examples of discrepancies between material traces and people's reports of their activities (e.g., report of alcohol use versus number of beer bottles found in garbage).
ANALYZING AND PRESENTING DATA As is the case for the collection of data, the analysis and presentation of qualitative data depend on the particular qualitative strategy of inquiry utilized. Here we discuss three generic means to analyze data and present results: thick description, themes and relationships, and interpretation. For more detail, see Wolcott (1994), who presented a thorough discussion of these methods, including lengthy examples.
THICK DESCRIPTION Thick description is the most basic means of presenting qualitative data. Essentially, a thick description is an unadulterated and thorough presentation of the data. The researcher may write some introductory and transitory material, but principally the presentation consists of lengthy excerpts from interviews, field notes, and existing materials (text and/or descriptions of artifacts). The consumers of thick descriptions have the raw data, which for the most part have not been altered by the, investigator. In this way, "the data speak for themselves" and provide a rich account of what happened. Of course, the process of observing, interviewing, collecting materials, and deciding what to describe filters what is available to consumers. Still, even though the understanding achieved by readers of a thick description is affected by the research process, thick descriptions are closer to the phenomenon being studied than are any other means, qualitative or quantitative. Despite the primary advantage that the data are minimally filtered, there are numerous disadvantages to using thick descriptions. True descriptions are too lengthy for journal articles, and many important thick descriptions languish as lengthy dissertations or unpublished reports. Another disadvantage is that the thick descriptions may be unfocused and uninteresting: "Readers are likely to get the idea that the researcher has been unable to sort out (or unwilling to throw away) data and has simply passed the task along. . . . [Djata that do not 'speak' to the person who gathered and reported them are not likely to strike up a conversation with subsequent readers either" (Wolcott, 1994, pp. 13-14). It is hoped that the story, as told by the participants or as observed by the investigator, will be fascinating enough to hold the interest of readers. Rarely are qualitative investigators able to present all data verbatim in a thick description, and thus they must use various strategies to present a condensed but still relatively complete description. As discussed earlier in this chapter, the methods of condensing and presenting the data vary in accordance with the strategies of inquiry adopted. Regardless, the investigator has the critical task of deciding what must go, and there are few guidelines. Crucial decisions about data should be made through a process that acknowledges the investigators' suppositions. Moreover, the process involved in examining these suppositions and making sense of the data in the context of these suppositions should be a prominent part of the presentation so that readers can understand how the descriptions were distilled to a reasonable length.
THEMES AND RELATIONSHIPS Themes are recurrent patterns in data that represent a concept, whereas relationships are the interconnections among the themes. Through development of themes and relationships, the essence of a phenomenon is revealed. Extracting themes and establishing relationships are the essence of the three strategies of inquiry discussed earlier (i.e., grounded theory, phenomenology, and CQR). Essentially, the relationships of themes constitute the theory or the structure of the phenomenon, which is grounded in (is inductively developed from) the data. The first step in this process is to generate codes for various themes that are intrinsic to the phenomenon being studied. Often tentative codes are first generated from initial observations or field notes on a word-by-word, sentence by sentence, or paragraph-by-paragraph reading of the text, and are then written directly on the transcripts. These codes name various patterns. For example, in a grounded theory study of psychotherapy, Watson and Rennie (1994) developed the code "reflective self-examination" to describe clients' observations of themselves that were "spurred by the questions they posed about their behavior, their feelings, and their interactions with the world" (p. 503). As the investigator progresses through the data, the explanatory power of the various codes becomes apparent. The codes are revised and refined until a clear theme is developed. When the theme is relatively robust, the investigator reexamines the data to understand how the theme functions with the phenomenon (e.g., what is the context needed to give rise to the phenomenon?). In the Watson and Rennie (1994) study, the authors answered these questions by presenting the complex relationship among themes: The analysis of clients' subjective experiences during the exploration of problematic reactions provided access to the internal operations that clients engaged in to effect changes in their behavior. The model of the clients' experiences during the event highlights two important foci of clients' attention and activity during the session: client operations and session momentum. When engaged in the former, clients alternated between two primary activities: symbolic representation of their experience and reflective self-examination.... These two processes, together with therapists' operations, are related to clients' making new realizations and engaging in activities to alter their behavior. (p. 506)
The model of themes and their relationships provides an emerging grounded theory. As the model is developed, the investigator returns to existing data or collects additional data to test crucial aspects of the model. In their study of chemistry groups, Wampold et al. (1995) had a tentative model that described the chemists' avoidance of social interaction involving encoding and decoding emotion. Given that strong affect is intrinsic to conflictual situations, they returned to observe the chemists during conflict in order to under¬stand more fully the interplay between the chemists' expression and understanding of emotion and their social interactions. The point is that the themes and relationships model should always be considered emergent and should guide further collection of data.
INTERPRETATION Interpretation, as described by Wolcott (1994), is aimed at extracting meaning and identifying context. Rather than providing a theory of a specific phenomenon by relating themes, interpretation addresses more global issues, such as "What is the role of race and ethnicity in American society?" and "How do cultural factors affect conceptions of mental health and treatment?" Wolcott noted that "at the interpretive extreme, a researcher-as-writer may seem merely to swoop down into the field for a descriptive morsel or two and then retreat once again to the lofty heights of theory or speculation" (p. 11) and that interpretation "is well suited to mark a threshold in thinking and writing at which the researcher transcends tactual data and cautious analyses and begins to probe into what is to be made of them" (p. 36). Clearly, novice researchers need to acquire more training and experiences in order to master these types of higher level skills.
TRUSTWORTHINESS OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH Finally, we will briefly discuss the criteria used by qualitative researchers to evaluate the rigor or trustworthiness of a qualitative research design. Some researchers have argued for alternative ways to evaluate the rigor of data collection and analytic procedure in qualitative research (Pidgeon, 1996). For example, compared to the criteria used by quantitative researchers for evaluating a quantitative study (e.g., internal validity, external validity/generalizability, reliability, and objectivity), a different set of criteria (i.e., credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability) were proposed by Lincoln and Guba (1985) to evaluate the scientific worth of qualitative research. Many qualitative researchers have since followed Lincoln and Guba's recommendations. Several guidelines also have been published by other qualitative researchers (see Cobb & Hagemaster, 1987; Elder & Miller, 1995; Elliott, Fischer, & Rennie, 1999; Morrow, 2005). Interested readers should refer to these publications for more details.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In this chapter we discussed the definition and understanding analysis of qualitative research. The key myths and facts regarding qualitative methodology were also explored. Occasionally, we have encountered students who have undertaken qualitative research under the misguided notion that qualitative research is easier or less technical than quantitative research. Rigorous qualitative research certainly is different from quantitative research, but selecting this approach will lead to disappointment if the primary motivation is the avoidance of work or numbers. Qualitative research is time consuming and thought provoking. Be prepared to stay up late thinking about the meaning of field notes or transcripts, attempting to make sense of intrinsically ambiguous data, and writing, writing, writing. This chapter has only scratched the surface of qualitative research. Volumes have been written about this subject, and one could devote all of one's energy to learning about only one particular strategy of qualitative inquiry. We have sought to provide the reader an appreciation of qualitative research, an overview of the various strategies of inquiry, general methods, guidelines for evaluating the rigor of qualitative research design, and references for those who want to pursue the topic in greater depth (also see Ponterotto, 2005a, for books and journals with a qualitative research focus). In addition, helpful examples of theses and dissertations that utilized various strategies of inquiry can be found in Wang, Heppner, and Heppner (2004a, 20046). Finally, we recommend that students seek out ongoing qualitative research teams and volunteer to participate. As suggested by McLeod (2001), we believe that the personal qualities of qualitative researchers (e.g., integrity, perseverance, and willingness and ability to struggle with ambiguity), rather than the methodology per se, have a greater impact on the potential contribution of the studies. The experiences encountered when conducting a qualitative research apprenticeship with veteran qualitative researchers not only can hone a person's methodological skills, but also can help to facilitate the development of these notable personal qualities.
Recently, Hill and her colleagues reviewed 27 published studies utilizing the CQR method Hill et al., 2005). Interested readers can find their recommendations for using CQR in Table 11.1 and numerous exemplar studies in their article, such as several multicultural studies (e.g., Kim, Brenner, Liang, & Asay, 2003; Kasturirangan & Williams, 2003) and psychotherapy research by Hill and colleagues (e.g., Hayes et al., 1998; Knox, Hess, Petersen, & Hill, 1997; Knox, Hess, Williams, & Hill, 2003). Next, we will use the research conducted by Juntunen and colleagues (2001) as a CQR example. The study aims at understanding the meaning and relevant concept of career or career development for a group of American Indians (Juntunen et al., 2001). The authors interviewed 18 American Indians, mostly from one Northern Plains state, with varying ages (21-59 years old), genders (11 female and 7 male), educational levels (from 10th grade to some graduate work), occupations, and tribal affiliations. The sample included college students who self-identified as American Indian recruited through a university's Native American Programs Center, and their friends or partners, as well as attendees of two local powwows. Also, the authors divided the participants into two groups according to their educational levels because later data analyses revealed differences between participants who attended college and those who did not; a detailed description of each subsample was provided in the Participants section of their article. A semi-structured interview protocol was developed for the purpose of the study by the primary researcher and two consultants who are American Indian scholars. The protocol was piloted with two American Indians and subsequently modified based on the results of the pilot interviews. CQR researchers use pilot interviews to examine the appropriateness and relevance of the interview questions from the participant's perspective and to uncover any important concepts that are unexpected by the researchers. The research team members were trained to conduct the face-to-face interviews using the protocol. The interview procedure was presented in great detail and examples of interview questions were provided. Interviews were subsequently transcribed verbatim and each transcript was checked for accuracy. TABLE II.1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USING CQR Consideration Recommendation Consensus process Biases The research team Training team members Sample Interviews Data collection Domains Core ideas Cross-analysis Auditing Stability check Charting the results Writing the results and discussion section
Participant's review 1. Researchers should openly discuss their feelings and disagreements. 2. When there are disagreements among the researchers about the interviews, everyone should listen to the tape of the interview. 1. Report demographics and feelings/reactions to topic in the Methods section. 2. Discuss the influence of biases in the Limitations section. 3. Openly discuss biases among the research team throughout the process. 4. Journal reviewers need to be aware that biases are a natural part of any research, including CQR 1. Either set or rotating primary teams are acceptable. 2. All team members must become deeply immersed in all of the data. 3. At least 3 people should comprise the primary team. 4. The educational level of team members should match the abstractness of the topic. 5. Team members with more designated power should not claim "expert status." 6. Power issues should be addressed openly. 7. Rotate the order of who talks first to reduce undue influence. 1. Prior to training, read Hill et al., (1997), the present article, and exemplar studies. 2. Consult with an expert if having difficulty learning the method. 3. Describe training procedures in the Methods section. 1. Randomly select participants from a carefully identified homogeneous population. 2. Choose participants who are very knowledgeable about the phenomenon. 3. Recruit 8 to 15 participants if 1 to 2 interviews are used. 1. Review the literature and talk to experts to develop the interview protocol. 2. Include about 8-10 scripted open-ended questions per hour. 3. Allow for follow-up probes to learn more about the individual's experience. 4. Conduct several pilot interviews to aid in revising the interview protocol. 5. Train new interviewers. 6. Ideally, each interviewee should be interviewed at least twice. 1. Match the data collection format to the data desired and the needs of the study. 2. Record reactions to interviews; review tape before subsequent interviews. 1. Develop the domains from the transcripts or a "start list." 2. The entire primary team codes the data into domains in the first several cases; the remaining coding can be done by 1 researcher and reviewed by the team. 1. Use the participant's words; avoid interpretive analysis 2. The entire primary team develops the core ideas for the first several cases; the remaining core ideas can be done by 1 researcher and reviewed by the team, or the entire primary team can work together to code the domains and construct the core ideas. 1. Use frequency labels to characterize data: General applies to all or all but 1 case; typical applies to more than half up to the cutoff for general; variant applies to 2 cases up to the cutoff for typical. When more than 15 cases are included, rare applies to 2-3 cases. Findings applying to single cases are placed in a miscellaneous category and not included in results/tables. 2. When comparing subsamples, results are different if they vary by at least 2 frequency categories (e.g., general vs. variant). 3. Continually refer to the raw data in making interpretations. 4. Continue revising the cross-analyses until elegant and parsimonious. 5. If there are mostly variant or rare categories or a lot of miscellaneous items, revise the cross-analysis (e.g., combine categories, subdivide the sample, or collect more data). 6. Get feedback from others about the cross-analysis. 1. Either internal or external auditors are appropriate for the domains and core ideas, but at least 1 external auditor is desirable for the cross-analysis. 2. For inexperienced researchers, it is helpful for the auditor to examine revisions until he or she is confident that the data are characterized accurately. 3. Auditors should also be involved in reviewing the interview protocol. The stability check (i.e., holding out 2 cases from the initial cross-analysis), as proposed by Hill et al., (1997), can be eliminated, but other evidence of trustworthiness should be presented. Charting or other visual approaches for depicting findings (e.g., "webs" or organizational diagrams of categories) could be helpful. 1. At least the general and typical categories should be fully described in the Results section, although all categories in the cross-analysis should be included in a table. 2. Either quotes or core ideas can be used to illustrate the results. 3. Case examples are useful for illustrating results across domains. 4. In the Discussion section, pull together results in a meaningful way and develop theory. Give transcripts of interviews and write-up of results to participants
The authors clearly portrayed the backgrounds and experiences of the researchers composing the CQR analysis team. They also took specific steps to decrease the effects of researchers' assumptions on the data analysis results and to monitor the group dynamics (e.g., documenting and discussing their assumptions about potential findings in the early phase of the analysis process, audio taping the analysis team meetings, and then reviewing these tapes to ensure that each team member was equally involved in the analysis process). Following the CQR guidelines, researchers coded the data independently and convened to form consensus on the domains, core ideas, and categories through-cross-analyses. One auditor reviewed the work of the data analysis team and the auditor's feedback was subsequently discussed and incorporated into the final results by the team members. As mentioned earlier, the initial cross-analysis results revealed major differences in the career journey of participants with postsecondary education and those without. Therefore, the authors reexamined the domains and core ideas for each group separately. Although all of the domains remained unchanged, the categories within certain domains (i.e., supportive factors, obstacles, and living in two worlds) varied remarkably. Findings from this study were charted and summarized in Tables 11.2 and 11.3.
Overall, participants articulated their own definitions of career and success. In particular, participants with different educational backgrounds reported differences in the support for and obstacles in their career development processes and the-diverse struggles related to living in two distinct cultures. Categories, which emerged from the data, were discussed and illustrated with direct quotes from participants. Following is the description of one of the domains with categories that vary across the two subsamples (i.e., living in two worlds). Six of the seven participants with a high school education viewed the Native and White cultures as quite distinct. In the words of one woman, "Those [White] people are way different from us . . . they don't understand a lot of our ways" (Participant 3). Another participant felt the need to adjust her own behavior to be effective outside of the reservation. She stated, "We have to live like Whites when we're out there" (Participant 6). This woman also noted that during the times she had lived off the reservation, she frequently needed "a powwow fix" as a way to stay connected to the Indian community. . . . The experience of living in two worlds was dramatically different for the college group. Rather than seeing the two worlds as distinct and distant, the respondents who had attended college described the concept in two ways: moving between two worlds (a typical category) and finding a holistic, third world (a variant category).... The process of moving between two worlds was often described as difficult, both emotionally and cognitively. A tribal elder remembers her experience in the college classroom, several hundred miles from her home reservation: You always have to do twice as much ... because you have to process every¬thing you think, reprocess it back into a thinking that you know [doesn't] fit with your thinking to make it right for the school.... Back when I applied to law school . . . they said 'You got to stop being Indian and you got to get through these 3 years of school' ... anyway, you can't do that. You can't take that piece of you and set it aside. (Participant 13) However, not all of the participants who moved between two worlds found the experience difficult.... People who sought a holistic, third world spoke of the desire to appreciate their own culture yet integrate those pieces of the majority culture that they accepted. Some respondents viewed this as a personal internal choice, which can be made whether one lived on or off the reservation. Another woman spoke of her experience of two worlds as an evolution into a third world, which she has created from those aspects that are most important to her from each world. I've lived in those two worlds and there's also even a middle world. I mean, you have the Native, the non-Native and you have a middle world that I have experienced and it's a very personal, personal world where you gather, it seems like you gather from both worlds, and create, you know, a happy medium for yourself. I have two children that have lived with me on the reservation and off the reservation and I like it that way. I like them to be able to know both worlds. Because it just opens so much more range of experiences. (Participant 11) However, creating that third world does not mean that the original experience of her Native world is diminished in any way. "There's no leaving the Native American world. That comes along. When it's your core being, you can't leave it. I wouldn't want to leave it ... I'm Indian to the core" (Participant 11). (Juntunen et al., 2001, pp. 281-282)
CQR researchers often use quotes from the interviews or core ideas to illustrate each category. As Hill and colleagues (2005) suggested, visual representations of the results in tables, diagrams, or figures also help the readers understand the relationships among categories. Finally, narrative case examples may provide a holistic picture of the findings. Examples of case descriptions can be found in the articles written by Williams and colleagues (1998) and Ladany and colleagues (1997).
PRIMARY TASKS IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH To this point, we have discussed the paradigms that form the philosophical bases of qualitative research as well as various strategies of inquiry. Regardless of the type of research paradigms and strategies utilized, the researcher must (1) gather data, and (2) analyze and present the data, two topics we will explore in depth next.
GATHERING DATA Although there are many ways to collect data in qualitative research, we discuss three primary sources here: observations, interviews, and existing materials. Wolcott (1992) refers to these sources in the active voice as experiencing, enquiring, and examining, respectively, which provides a glimpse of the qualitative researcher's state of mind in these three activities.
MAKING OBSERVATIONS The Nature of Observations. Observations are obtained by a trained observer who is present and involved in the phenomenon of interest and who makes reports of his or her observations. There are several advantages of observations in qualitative research. First, because observers can experience firsthand the transactions among persons in the field, they need not rely on retrospective reports of the participants, which could be clouded by the participants' involvement in the situation. In the vernacular, observations take place "where the action is." Second, by being close to the phenomenon, observers can feel, as well as understand, the situation. The emotion present in any situation is likely to be attenuated as time passes; the oft-spoken expression "You had to be there [to understand]" aptly summarizes this advantage of observations. Moreover, informants may not be willing or able to talk about sensitive material, may not be aware of important events, or may consider important transactions to be routine. Third, deep involvement in the process over time will allow researchers to develop conceptualizations that can be examined subsequently. In contrast to quantitative research, investigators will not have a conjecture a priori that will be confirmed or disconfirmed; qualitative researchers may, over the course of the study, come to identify themes based on the observations of the participants and to relate those themes to each other, but such themes and their relations grow out of observation. This inductive process is the basis of some methods of qualitative research, such as grounded theory. Qualitative observers traditionally have followed the dictum of nonintervention (Adler & Adler, 1994), which holds that the observer does not influence the phenomenon, but acts as a recorder of events. The observer neither asks the participants questions, nor poses problems to be solved, nor suggests solutions to dilemmas. The stream of life goes on in exactly the way that it would had the observer not been present, although qualitative researchers are aware that observers can have an effect on the observed. Degree of Involvement of Observers. Observers can be described by their degree of involvement in the context being observed. Traditionally, the involvement of the observer has been described as ranging from complete observer, to observer-as-participant, to participant-as-observer, to complete participant (Gold, 1958). The complete observer is entirely outside the context and would most likely be undetected by the participants. Observing public behaviors in a park by sitting on a bench would fit this category. The observer-as-participant is known to the participants, but is clearly identified as a researcher and does not cross over to membership in the group being observed or to friendship. In his observations of chemistry laboratories, Wampold and colleagues (1995) were observers-as-participants. Their presence in the laboratories during work hours was clearly recognized by the chemists, but the observers did not interact with the chemists during these periods. Either of these two observational stances (namely, complete observer or observer-as-participant) could be used in quantitative research; the data would be transformed to numbers that indicate the degree of presence of some construct. For example, observations in a park might be used to quantify parental engagement, which could be defined as minutes spent by parent and child in face-to-face interaction. In psychotherapy research, behavior often is classified into one of many codes, with the goal of relating the degree to which the coded behaviors occurred with some other construct. As we will discuss further, even when the observer in qualitative research is not involved with the participants, the observations are not used to quantify some preconceived construct, but instead are used to gain a better understanding of the naturalistic context. In modern conceptualizations of qualitative research, the unique contribution of participants-as-observers is their insider perspective: As participants as observers, they can experience what the other participants are experiencing, gaining an understanding of the context in ways that nonparticipant observers cannot. Participants-as-observers sometimes fill roles within the group, although "without fully committing themselves to members' values and goals" (Adler & Adler, 1994, p. 380). Many studies of schools have involved participants as observers who, in roles such as teachers or coaches (see, for example, Adler & Adler, 1991), become important people in the lives of the participants. The final observational role is the complete participant, in which the investigator is a full-fledged member of the group before the research begins. Memoirs are examples of qualitative products created by complete participants in an activity. In an example from psychotherapy, Freud took the role of complete participant in his description of his cases. The degree to which one becomes a participant obviously depends on the phenomenon being studied. As Patton (1987) noted, one cannot become chemically addicted in order to become a participant in drug treatment programs, although one could be involved in such programs in ancillary ways (for example, as a staff member). Whatever the role of the observer, the "challenge is to combine participation and observation so as to become capable of understanding the experience as an insider while describing the experience for outsiders" (Patton, 1987, p. 75). The tension between participant and observer is ever present and again emphasizes the necessity of research teams, which can process this tension and use it to produce an informative product. Methods of Observations Obtaining data through observations involves several steps. In the first step, the observer must select the phenomenon and its setting. Care must be taken in making this selection. At times this selection will be made opportunistically—because the setting is available and accessible. At other times the researcher may be invited to observe because the group values or desires a consultation by the researcher, which is the case in qualitative program evaluation. It is important that the setting be appropriate given the goals of the investigation. In quantitative research, the important consideration is the representativeness of the sample, whereas in qualitative research, greater emphasis is put on selecting settings strategically so that the data are meaningful. For example, instead of choosing a representative (that is, average) therapist to study intensively, a qualitative researcher may be more interested in studying therapists identified as successful, powerful, charismatic, or even unsuccessful. Patton (1990) provides a useful typology of sampling, including the purpose of various procedures. The second step involves training investigators to be skilled and careful observers. Observers must be trained to attend to detail, to separate the mundane from the important, to write highly descriptive field notes, to be sufficiently knowledgeable to make sense of the context, and to be open to reconciling observations with those of other research team members. Consider a study of a K-12, urban school that primarily serves African-American students and consistently produces high achievement in their graduates (Pressley, Raphael, Gallagher, & DiBella, 2004). The researchers observed classroom interactions (e.g., teachers' instructional styles, students' responses to teachers' instruction, artifacts displayed in the classrooms) and nonclassroom activities (e.g., lunch hour in the cafeteria, conversations between the teachers/principal and students/parents in the hallway). The knowledge and skills in teaching, learning, and qualitative method facilitated the observers' teamwork in recording detailed field notes, sifting through a large amount of data, and sorting out the factors that contributed to the success of the school. The third step is to gain access to the context being studied. Gaining access, of course, varies greatly, depending on the people being studied. Observing public behavior involves no special arrangements other than finding a suitable vantage point, but studying secret societies, especially those engaged in illegal Or undesirable behavior, will be nearly impossible because these groups are unlikely to give their informed consent to participate in a study. Fortunately, most foci of qualitative research in counseling involve groups that are amenable to being observed. Often, trust is the key to gaining entree to a group. If its formal leader is trusted, then his or her support can be sufficient for acceptance and cooperation from the group. However, if the leader's personal influence is tenuous and relations strained, then the recommendation to accept the researcher may be counterproductive and the observations undermined. The-fourth step involves deciding the time and duration of observations. At the outset, the observations are relatively unfocused and the researcher is getting the "lay of the land," and thus the duration of observation is as important as the time of the observation. Generally, observations should be taken at various times so as not to miss something particular to a certain time. For example, a study of work climate should involve observations from all shifts and during various days of the week. Clearly, the focus of the study should guide the researcher; for example, a researcher interested in how people from various disciplines negotiate their roles in multidisciplinary settings will want to observe instances in which the disciplines work together (for example, in staff meetings or multidisciplinary work groups). As the research progresses, the data will suggest ways that the observers can focus their attention. In the study of chemistry groups, Wampold and colleagues (1995) found that instances of conflict demonstrated how the array of chemists' social skills guided their actions, and consequently observations were arranged during times when conflicts were more likely (for example, during transitions from one research team to another on an expensive apparatus). The fifth and final step is to collect the data. Most frequently observational data are the researcher's field notes (memos) taken during or immediately after the observations. Field notes are descriptions of everything relevant to understanding the phenomenon. Because relevance is not always clear in the beginning, initially field notes are likely to contain everything that happened. The novice observer will feel overwhelmed, but it should be recognized that almost anything missed will be repeated over and over again. As the observations become more focused, so will the field notes. For example, if it is observed that one group is superior in multidisciplinary work, the observations may be focused on how this is established as new members join the group; the field notes would similarly be focused on the process of transmitting power to incoming persons. Field notes should contain basic descriptions of the setting—time, physical setting, persons present, the purpose of activity, and so forth—as well as complete descriptions of the interactions among the participants. Patton (1987) provides a good contrast between vague, generalized notes and detailed, concrete notes: Vague: The new client was uneasy waiting for her intake interview. Detailed: At first the client sat very stiffly on the chair next to the receptionist's desk. She picked up a magazine and let the pages flutter through her fingers very quickly without really looking at any of the pages. She set the magazine down, looked at her watch, pulled her skirt clown, and picked up the magazine again. This time she didn't look at the magazine. She set it back down, took out a cigarette and began smoking. She would watch the receptionist out of the corner of her eye, and then look down at the magazine, and back up at the two or three other people waiting in the room. Her eyes moved from people to the magazine to the cigarette to the people to the magazine in rapid succession. She avoided eye contact. When her name was finally called she jumped like she was startled. (p. 93)
The latter description is more complete and involves little inference on the part of the observer, whereas the vague description both involves the inference that the client was uneasy and lacks data to enable confirmation of this inference at a later time. People's conversations should be recorded as close to verbatim as possible. Audiotapes can be used to supplement field notes if possible. Field notes should contain the observer's interpretations of events, but these interpretations should be so labeled to distinguish them from descriptions. Field notes might also contain working hypotheses, suggestions for interviewers, and so forth. Undoubtedly, observations and field notes are influenced by the personal constructions of the observers. Multiple observers cross-checking their descriptions and their interpretations are vital for the integrity of observations, because trained observers may see a situation very differently. Acknowledging and honoring these perspectives is part and parcel of qualitative research.
A central concept of the research designs discussed in previous chapters is that psychological constructs can be measured at the individual level and that understanding can be obtained by averaging these measurements over many persons. The participants respond to questions that in turn yield numbers that the researcher uses to form an understanding that is applicable to others. Participants may be subjected to various treatments or other manipulations, may complete inventories or instruments, and may interact with the researcher; all such actions, however, are used in the service of examining the relationship among the constructs assessed. Although we can learn much about counseling from the quantitative measurement of persons involved in the endeavor, as counselors well understand, the individual meaning that people attribute to their activities and experiences are critically important. Qualitative research involves understanding the complexity of people's lives by examining individual perspectives in context. Qualitative research methodology is a radically different way to approach knowing and understanding. The following is part of a narrative given by Janie (pseudonym), a woman who was interviewed by the researcher, Lawless, at a women's shelter in Missouri. Janie described her childhood of living with her abused and depressed mother and her alcoholic father who moved their family away from civilization. There was a time when I heard the gun go off in the basement of my home. . . . She didn't have a vehicle. She never had any money. He wouldn't let her have any money, and if she didn't have money, of course, she didn't have a way to go spend it, because she didn't have a vehicle, you know, she just didn't have any friends. [Crying] One time she just lost it. She went into a nervous breakdown. . . . One day, and this just brings tears to my eyes to say, one day I remember I was a young teenager, about thirteen. My dad was working all the time, doing drugs, was an alcoholic, and my mom went through the same abuse I went through [with my husband], with my dad. She had a loaded .357 Magnum lying on the table and I walked in and she says, "See this gun?" I was scared to death of what she was going to do. She says, "I'm going to pick it up as soon as you walk out the door, and I'm going to shoot myself, unless you can give me ten reasons not to." And me being only thirteen, I had to give her ten reasons why. And that was a hard thing for me to do. (Lawless, 2001, p. 97)
Qualitative methodology emphasizes the importance of context in helping us understand a phenomenon of interest. Imagine how you would interpret Janie's coping mechanisms and relationship patterns as well as the impact of the past trauma on her life if you also knew the following facts from the inter¬view with her: Janie had to raise her own sister because later her father left and her mother was hospitalized for depression. Janie "impulsively got pregnant" at the age of 15. She talked about "how quickly her young husband became abusive," and how like her father, her husband "moved their mobile home ever farther out into the country, isolating her more and more." Despite all of the hardship that Janie encountered while growing up with a depressed mother and raising her sister on her own, she reported having "a very happy childhood overall" and a "very, very close" relationship with her mother. By the end of the interview, Janie described her mother as "a good woman," who "just did everything in the world to please anybody" (Lawless, 2001, pp. 96-97). The researcher (Lawless) conducted face-to-face interviews with numerous female survivors of violence. She invites the readers to compare the narrative data generated through these interviews with data obtained from quantitative measures that include questions like: "1) Overall, how upset were you by this experience—extremely upset, somewhat upset, not very upset, or not at all upset?; 2) Looking back on it now, how much effect would you say this experience(s) has had on your life—a great effect, some effect, a little effect, or no effect?" (Russell, 1986, p. 138, as cited in Lawless, 2001). The comparisons explicate the sharp differences in the type, range, and depth of the data generated through qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Janie's first-person account provided in-depth information about her lived experiences as a domestic violence survivor. Her narratives revealed the complex and inextricably intertwined relationships between life events, personal development, cognitive appraisals, psychological adjustment, and human resilience. Qualitative methodology stresses the process in which individuals create and give meanings to their social experience and lived realities. In contrast, quantitative methodology paints a broad picture of the relationship among the constructs assessed through generating and averaging nomothetic data over a relatively large number of participants. This chapter will provide a discussion of qualitative research methods and designs. First, the definition of qualitative research and key myths and facts about qualitative research will be presented. Next, we will briefly review the philosophical foundations of qualitative research and the reasons why it is important to attend to these underlying paradigms. Furthermore, three strategies of qualitative inquiry (i.e., grounded theory, phenomenology, and consensual qualitative research) will be illustrated with exemplar studies. The primary tasks in qualitative research (ways to gather and analyze data) will be presented. Finally, the criteria that may be used for evaluating the rigor of qualitative methodology will be briefly described.
WHAT IS QUALITATIVE RESEARCH? Qualitative research is employed in various disciplines (e.g., anthropology, education, nursing, sociology, and psychology) with numerous strategies of inquiry (e.g., ethnography, grounded theory, discourse analysis). Students often feel confused about and overwhelmed by the variation of terminology as well as the philosophical and procedural diversity of qualitative research. For this reason, we will delineate several common myths and basic facts about the nature of qualitative research in the following sections.
DEFINING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH A generic definition of qualitative research is provided by Denzin and Lincoln (20001 as flows: Qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that make the world visible. These practices transform the world. They turn the world into a series of representations, including field notes, interviews, conversations, photographs, recordings, and memos to the self. At this level, qualitative research involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or to interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials—case study; personal experience; introspection; life story; interview; artifacts; cultural texts and productions; observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts—that describe routine and meanings in individuals' lives. Accordingly, qualitative researchers deploy a wide range of interconnected interpretive methods, hoping always to get a better understanding of the subject matter at hand. It is understood, however, that each practice makes the world visible in a different way. Hence, there is frequently a commitment to using more than one interpretive practice in any study. (pp. 3-4)
In other words, qualitative researchers are devoted to understanding the specifics of particular cases and embedding their research findings in an ever-changing world. Influenced by the interpretivist-constructivist tradition, qualitative researchers believe that objective reality can never be fully understood or discovered, and there are many possible ways of looking at realities. Qualitative researchers are interested in capturing the individual's point of view through the use of multiple strategies such as interviews and observations (emit and idiographic perspectives), instead of deploying etic and nomothetic approaches that emphasize the goal of discovering and describing universal principles by quantifying the observed phenomena. Qualitative researchers choose from a variety of research tools in accordance with their research questions and contexts to better understand the phenomenon of interest (Nelson, Treichler, & Grossberg, 1992), rather than verifying or falsifying an a priori hypothesis through experimental designs and statistical analysis. They value rich descriptions of the phenomenon under analysis and attempt to represent an individual's lived experience through writing and interpretations. Similarly to quantitative research, the questions that qualitative researchers ask their participants and the methods that they utilize to observe certain phenomena are all "filtered" through the researchers' lenses of knowledge, language, values, and worldviews. Denzin and Lincoln (1998) described qualitative research as "an interactive process" shaped by the researcher's "personal history, biography, gender, social class, race and ethnicity, and those of the people in the settings" (p. 4). Qualitative researchers acknowledge ("bracket") their assumptions about the study by taking field notes, writing reflexive journals, and informing the readers as to what their "filters" are. The lived experiences of the research participants are what qualitative researchers focus on, and the researchers are the instruments in this discovery process who hold their expectations and hunches about the phenomenon under study in abeyance (Rennie, 2000). The discovery orientation of the qualitative approach helps to focus on the context where the phenomenon is situated and make the findings more applicable for people's everyday lives in various cultures. Qualitative inquiry allows researchers to study the local interactions in counseling settings and their meanings for counselors and clients. For these reasons, qualitative inquiry is particularly appropriate for multicultural/cross-cultural research (see Morrow, Rakhasha, & Castaneda, 2001) as well as process and outcome research (see McLeod, 2001). In fact, it has gained increasing popularity among researchers in different parts of the world, such as Asia (e.g., Kim & Cho, 2005) and Europe (e.g., Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung).
MYTHS AND FACTS ABOUT QUALITATIVE RESEARCH Due to insufficient understanding of the definition and characteristics of qualitative research, there are several common myths about this form of inquiry. First, many students equate "qualitative data" with "qualitative research," thereby holding a mistaken belief that qualitative research consists only of asking people open-ended questions and analyzing participants' answers. Second, some people think that there is only one kind of qualitative methodology and are unaware that there are a variety of methods in qualitative research, such as phenomenology and narratology. Third, some people believe that qualitative research should be used only in areas where we do not have enough information to do quantitative studies; this perspective overlooks how qualitative research can add to the depth and breadth of our understanding about certain phenomena. Finally, some students choose to adopt a qualitative approach because they feel uncomfortable with statistics or believe that it is easier to conduct a qualitative inquiry than a quantitative one. These students ignore the fact that conducting qualitative research actually requires rigorous efforts and introspection; the researcher listens to other people's stories and retells the stories in a way that she or he understands them or even reconstructs the story with the participants. Creswell (1998) indicated that qualitative researchers should be willing to: (1) "commit to extensive time in the field"; (2) "engage in the complex, time-consuming process of data analysis the ambitious task of sorting through large amounts of data and reducing them to a few themes or categories"; (3) "write long passages, because the evidence must substantiate claims and the writer needs to show multiple perspectives"; and (4) "participate in a form of social and human science research that does not have firm guidelines or specific procedures and is evolving and changing constantly" (pp. 16-17). Although qualitative procedures may not be as clearly delineated as quantitative procedures, researchers must acquire highly specialized knowledge and demonstrate rigorous endeavors, as will be made evident in the remaining parts of this chapter. Students are encouraged to reflect on the following factors before deciding to conduct a qualitative study: (1) the fit between the research question and qualitative methodology; (2) the extent of their knowledge on the fundamental paradigms and methods of qualitative inquiry and the level of skills gained from appropriate coursework and research apprenticeship; (3) whether they have adequate support from advisors and/or research mentors who are knowledgeable about qualitative methodology; (4) the existing knowledge bases and types of research designs previously used; and (5) their readiness to conduct a rigorous, qualitative investigation. These elements are worthy of considerable reflection. In the subsequent sections of this chapter, we will explore some of the essential components of qualitative research.
PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS In Chapter 1, we contrasted four paradigms that bear on the research process. Readers are encouraged to review that chapter again to be familiar with the philosophical foundations of scientific inquiry. Overall, quantitative research is aligned with two of the paradigms-constructivism and critical theory. In general, all qualitative paradigms assume relativist ontology (there are multiple realities that are socially and individually constructed) and transactional epistemology (the knower and the known are inextricably intertwined), as well as dialogic/interpretive methodology (Guba & Lincoln, 1998). It is crucial to understand these underlying paradigms so that they match the researcher's own personal values, beliefs, and personality, as well as personal and mental models (Morrow et al., 2001). Also, the research approach adopted should be appropriate for answering research questions within the context of existing knowledge. As introduced later in this chapter, there are many different strategies of inquiry in qualitative research; each inquiry has somewhat different philosophical underpinnings (see Ponterotto, 2005b, for an excellent discussion about locating the strategies of inquiry within research paradigms). Therefore, understanding the basic tenets and philosophical foundations of qualitative research will help students select a particular paradigm and strategy of inquiry that may best address a particular area of inquiry. Readers who are interested in advancing their knowledge about the philosophical underpinnings of these paradigms can find excellent introductions and discussions in the Handbook of Qualitative Research (e.g., Lincoln & Guba, 2000; Schwandt, 2000), the Handbook of Counseling Psychology (Morrow & Smith, 2000), the Handbook of Multicultural Counseling (Morrow et al., 2001), and the special issue on qualitative research in the Journal of Counseling Psychology (e.g., Ponterotto, 200513). Next, we will shift our focus to qualitative research methods and design issues.
STRATEGIES OF INQUIRY Each qualitative strategy of inquiry is connected to specific paradigms and research designs. Researchers should be clear about the differences among various strategies of inquiry in order to make informed decisions regarding what qualitative approaches to use and when to use them (Creswell, 1998), and subsequently to design their studies according to the guidelines of a particular chosen strategy. The rationale of using a specific paradigm and strategy of inquiry should be presented and the relationship between the paradigms/strategies of inquiry and purposes/research questions of the studies should be explicated in the final write-up. It is worth mentioning that great confusion may arise at this stage because a variety of strategies of inquiry exist across various disciplines. For example, Strauss and Corbin (1990), who are in the field of sociology and nursing, grouped qualitative strategies of inquiry into five categories (grounded theory, phenomenology, life history, ethnography, and conversational analysis); conversely, Moustakas (1994), who is in the field of psychology, listed six qualitative traditions (grounded theory, hermeneutics, empirical phenomenological research, ethnography, heuristic research, and transcendental phenomenology). Narrative studies provides another example of this diversity: According to Hoshmand (2005), "narratology is a term historically used to refer to the study of narratives in the literary field, though other disciplines in the humanities (such as history) and the social sciences (such as cultural studies) also are associated with the study of narratives"(p. 178). Hoshmand further clarified that she used the term narratology "as a way of distinguishing a mode of qualitative inquiry and data analysis that is informed by narrative theory," differing from "other qualitative research that involves narrative data but not a narrative perspective per se" (p. 178). Each of these numerous types of qualitative research has distinct purposes and methods. Figure 11.1, borrowed from Tesch (1990), provides a schematic diagram for various types of research depending on the research interest. The primary categories in this hierarchy, which are based on the interest of the research, focus on (1) the characteristics of language, (2) the discovery of regularities, (3) the comprehension of the meaning of text or action, or (4) reflection. Due to space limitations, we selected three strategies of inquiry to present in this chapter based on their potential utility in counseling research: grounded theory, phenomenology, and consensual qualitative research. We will briefly describe these three strategies of inquiry along with exemplar studies. Note that the studies cited in this chapter are good examples of qualitative research but are not the "only correct" way to conduct qualitative research. These three types of strategies are mentioned to provide a flavor of the variations possible; readers interested in a particular approach will need to explore the specific methodological literature for that type. Also, students who use these strategies of inquiry for theses or dissertations may also examine the illustrations and examples of writing different sections of qualitative studies in Wang, Heppner, and Heppner (2004a, 20046).
GROUNDED THEORY This section first provides the definition and purpose of the grounded theory approach. Then, its primary features—(1) constant comparative method, (2) memo writing, (3) theoretical sampling, and (4) the emerging theory that is grounded in data—will be discussed and elucidated with exemplar studies. The grounded theory approach was developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) in an attempt to challenge the dominant trend of "excessive reliance on the quantitative testing of hypotheses derived from a small number of grant (totalizing) theories, typically through numerical survey and other statistical approaches" (Henwood Pidgeon, 2003, p. 132). According to Charmaz (2000), Grounded theory methods consist of systematic inductive guidelines for collecting and analyzing data to build middle-range theoretical frameworks that explain the collected data. Throughout the research process, grounded theorists develop analytic interpretations of their data to focus further data collection, which they use in turn to inform and refine their developing theoretical analyses. (p. 509)
The grounded theory approach is rooted in sociology and the tradition of symbolic interactionism. It is appropriate for studying "the local interactions and meanings as related to the social context in which they actually occur," and therefore is particularly attractive to psychologists (Pidgeon, 1996, p. 75). In fact, the grounded theory methods have gained increasing popularity among researchers across various disciplines over the past two decades (see Fassinger, 2005; Rennie, Watson, & Monteiro, 2002) and has been named "the most influential paradigm for qualitative research in the social sciences today" (benzin, 1997, as cited in Patton, 2002, p. 487). Grounded theory has been associated with seemingly opposing philosophical views—"realism (by claiming to directly reflect the `data')" and "constructivism (inherent to the approach of symbolic interactionism)" (Henwood & Pidgeon, 2003, p. 134). Related to this epistemological tension, grounded theorists have been advocating competing approaches to data analysis and interpretations. For example, Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998) promote the use of open coding, axial coding, and selective coding in specifying the properties and dimensions of categories and organizing the emerging theory in a conditional matrix that contains the antecedents, context, intervening conditions, and consequences of core categories. Glaser (1992) stresses the importance of constant comparative method and theoretical memoing in generating a theoretical model. Rennie (2000) presents the grounded theory method as methodical hermeneutics (i.e., a methodological approach that "involves the interplay between induction and abduction conducted reflexively") (p. 494). Recently, the constructivist version of grounded theory also has been advocated by several grounded theorists (e.g., Charmaz, 2000; Henwood & Pidgeon, 2003), which emphasizes the interpretive process of a grounded theory study. Novice researchers often are perplexed by these divergent perspectives. Readers should consult the key literature listed earlier for more information about specific grounded theory methods. Nonetheless, there are some commonalities across these various grounded theory methods, which will be described in the following sections.
CONSTANT COMPARATIVE METHOD The constant comparative method, the hallmark of grounded theory research, consists of four stages: (1) comparing incidents applicable to each category, (2) integrating categories and their properties, (3) delimiting the theory, and (4) writing the theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). It is worth noting that although one stage leads to another, some earlier stages will continue operating simultaneously until the termination of the data analysis. Glaser and Strauss (1967) developed the constant comparative method to generate "many categories, properties, and hypotheses about general problems" and to formulate a theory that is grounded in the data, instead of "[ascertaining] either the universality or the proof of suggested causes or other properties" (p. 104). Specifically, the following procedure is suggested for generating categories and properties: (1) assign codes to segments of the text (meaning units) in the initial open coding phase; (2) sort these codes into clusters according to their shared meanings; (3) convert the meaning of each cluster into a category; and (4) discontinue the sorting of the codes when no new category emerges (i.e., categorization has reached saturation) (Rennie, 2000). Pidgeon and Henwood (1996) emphasized the importance of documenting this analytical process fully while conducting grounded theory research, which helps to track the procedures and helps the researchers become aware of their implicit, a priori assumptions. Pidgeon and Henwood described the analytic process using the flow chart shown in Figure 11.2.
Consistent with the depiction in Figure 11.2, this data collection and analytic procedure was described as a "zigzag" process by Creswell (1998), "out to the field to gather information, analyze the data, back to the field to gather more information, analyze the data, and so forth" (p. 57). In other words, data collection and data analysis are not discrete stages in grounded theory research. This method sets grounded theory apart from content/thematic analysis, which employs reliability and validity as criteria and uses "the counting of instances within a predefined set of mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive categories" (see Pidgeon, 1996, p. 78).
MEMO WRITING It is essential to keep memos during the process of conducting the constant comparative method. Memo writing is defined as a process to record "hunches; comments on new samples to be checked out; explanations of modifications to categories; emerging theoretical reflections; and links to the literature" (Pidgeon & Henwood, 1996, p. 95). Charmaz (2000) indicated, Memo writing is the intermediate step between coding and the first draft of the completed analysis.... It can help us to define leads for collecting data----both for further initial coding and later theoretical sampling. Through memo writing, we elaborate processes, assumptions, and actions that are subsumed under our codes." (p. 517)
Pidgeon and Henwood (1996) also warned that researchers should "write a memo as soon as the thought has occurred, for, if left unrecorded, it is likely to be forgotten" (p. 95). In sum, memo writing is a vital technique for grounded theorists. It not only serves as an instrumental mechanism for the constant comparative practice, but also facilitates the theoretical sampling and theory development processes that will be described in the following sections.
THEORETICAL SAMPLING The data sources of grounded theory research could include a combination of data types (e.g., archival/textual materials, participant observation, autobiographies, and journals). Among all of these options, however, interviews with the participants are a primary data source (Pidgeon & Henwood, 1996). Theoretical sampling characterizes the ongoing analytic process in the field and is a theory-driven method of sampling. Theoretical sampling helps researchers target new data that would facilitate the emergence of theory after the initial analysis of the data at hand. It is used by grounded theorists “to select a sample of individuals to study based on their contribution to the development of the theory. Often, this process begins with a homogeneous sample of individuals who are similar, and, as the data collection proceeds and the categories emerge, the researcher turns to a heterogeneous sample to see under what conditions the categories hold true”. (Creswell, 1998, p. 243) Therefore, theoretical sampling differs from the sampling method used in quantitative research, in which researchers are expected to obtain a representative sample in order to enhance generalizability of the research finding. "Theoretical saturation" occurs when "the new data fit into the categories already devised" (Charmaz, 2000, p. S20) and it indicates the ending of the data collection process.
THEORY IS GROUNDED IN THE DATA Grounded theorists argued that theories should be derived from the data. Unlike quantitative researchers, grounded theorists neither test an existing theory nor try to fit their data into preconceived concepts. Instead, all of the theoretical concepts should be derived from the data analysis and account for the variation in the studied phenomenon, thereby allowing the theoretical framework to emerge through the aforementioned constant comparative practice, memo writing, and theoretical sampling processes (Charmaz, 2000).
EXEMPLAR STUDY We will use a grounded theory study conducted by Morrow and Smith (1995) as an example to illustrate the grounded theory method. This study aims at understanding the survival experience of women survivors of childhood sexual abuse and representing their coping processes in a theoretical framework that emerged from the data. The authors explicitly dis¬cussed the reasons for choosing a qualitative methodology and grounded theory approach for the purpose of their study. As Hoshmand (1989) noted, qualitative research strategies are particularly appropriate to address meanings and perspectives of participants. In addition, she suggested that naturalistic methods offer the researcher access to deep-structural processes. . . . The primary method of investigating those realities was grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), a qualitative research method designed to aid in the systematic collection and analysis of data and the construction of a theoretical model. . . . Chosen to clarify participants' understandings of their abuse experiences, the methods used involved (a) developing codes, categories, and themes inductively rather than imposing predetermined classifications on the data (Glaser, 1978), (b) generating working hypotheses or assertions (Erickson, 1986) from the data, and (c) analyzing narratives of participants' experiences of abuse, survival, and coping. (pp. 24-25)
Participants for this study included 11 childhood sexual abuse survivors with a wide age range (25 to 72 years old) and diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds, sexual orientations, and educational levels; three of the participants also reported physical disabilities. Morrow and Smith (1995) provided a detailed description of the participants' backgrounds (including brief abuse histories and counseling experiences). These "thick descriptions" (a qualitative tactic that will be further explained later in this chapter) provide the readers an understanding of the context of the phenomenon. The authors also did a nice job of describing the participant recruitment process: Letters that detailed the research's purpose and process were sent to therapists with expertise in working with sexual abuse survivors; these therapists were asked to give the research announcement to those clients "who might benefit from or be interested in participating in the study" (p. 25). Morrow and Smith (1995) clearly identified their sampling criterion: participants' "self-identification as an abuse survivor" based on the constructivist approach (i.e., "[accepting] the stories of participants at face value as their phenomenological realities") (p. 25). The authors utilized a variety of data sources, including: (1) semi-structured, 60- to 90-minute, in-depth interviews with individual participants; (2) a 10-week focus group with 7 of the 11 research participants that emphasized the survivors' coping experiences and thoughts on the emerging categories from the initial data analyses; (3) documentary evidence such as participants' journals and artistic productions; and (4) Morrow's self-reflective and analytic memos, which consisted of the researcher's reflections and assumptions about the data. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, and "the data corpus consisted of over 2,000 pages of transcriptions, field notes, and documents shared by participants" (p. 25). Following Strauss and Corbin's (1990) suggestions, the authors conducted open coding, axial coding, and selective coding on the data, and "the language of the participants guided the development of code and category labels, which were identified with short descriptors, known as in vivo codes, for survival and coping strategies" (Morrow & Smith, 1995, p. 26). Subsequently, the authors generated a theoretical framework for the surviving and coping process experienced by those childhood sexual abuse survivors. Figure 11.3 shows the theoretical model derived from the data analysis. The authors provided a rich description of the model, which serves as an overall illustration of the phenomenon under study. They also elucidated the categories in the model with quotes from the participants. For example, the following is the description of a "Phenomena" category: [Participants experienced what was termed helplessness, powerlessness, and lack of control. Lauren provided an exemplar of the second category, illustrating the pervasiveness of her perpetrator's power: He stands there. A silhouette at first and then his face and body come into view. He is small, but the backlighting intensifies his figure and he seems huge, like a prison guard. He is not always there but it feels like he might as well be. When he's not there, I search the distance for him and he appears. He seems to be standing there for hours. As if he's saying, you are weak, I am in control. Not only did Lauren experience powerlessness during her abuse, but her lack of control invaded her dreams and her moments alone. (pp. 27-28) Furthermore, the authors demonstrated that the analytic process is not only sequential, but also recursive, which is the spirit of the constant comparative method and theoretical sampling. They described how the researcher's memos facilitated this process: Meghan foreshadowed one of these phenomena the first night of the group, when she said, "To keep from feeling my feelings, I have become a very skilled helper of other people." Throughout the data, others echoed her words. The analytic moment in which this category emerged is illustrated in the following analytic memo written by Morrow (in vivo codes are in italics): I'm reading a higher level of abstraction. Is the overarching category protection from feelings? Many categories are subsumed under it: One talks to get out the stories; the feelings are less intense. Fake orgasm (sex) because you don't have any physical feelings. Art was used to deal with feelings, express anger, release the pressure of the feelings, use chemicals to deal with feelings (and a whole complex interaction here) .. . Existing and emergent codes and categories were compared and contrasted with this category; the category was modified to accommodate the data, producing the phenomenon that was labeled being overwhelmed by threatening or dangerous feelings—feelings that participants described as subjectively threatening or dangerous. (p. 27)
Morrow and Smith (1995) also explicitly explained the rigor of their method: triangulating multiple data sources (i.e., interviews, focus groups, documents, memos), immersing in the data (the entire data collection period lasted over 16 months), member check (participants were invited to verify data analysis results and revise the emergent theoretical model), and peer debriefing (Morrow invited other qualitative researchers to review the analysis, her writing, and the "audit trail that outlined the research process and evolution of codes, categories and theory" [p. 261). Other exemplar grounded theory studies include Rennie and his colleagues' research on psychotherapy (Rennie, 1994a, 1994b, 1994c; Watson & Rennie, 1994) and Fassinger and her colleagues' studies on career development of highly achieving Black and White American women (Richie et al., 1997) and highly achieving women with disabilities (Noonan et al., 2004). Interested readers may also find the researchers' own thoughts about their investigation process in their articles on the grounded theory methods (e.g., Fassinger, 2005; Rennie, 1996).
PHENOMENOLOGY
The purpose of phenomenology is "to produce an exhaustive description of the phenomena of everyday experience, thus arriving at an understanding of the essential structures of the 'thing itself', the phenomenon" (McLeod, 2001, p. 38). In the following paragraphs, the historical development of the phenomenological approach and its major principles will be introduced along with exemplar studies. Phenomenology has its roots in the work of Edmund Husserl on phenomenological philosophy. Since then, many individuals (e.g., Giorgi, Moustakas, Polkinghorne) in the social science field have followed its tenets and transferred Husserl's work from philosophy to psychological or sociological research. Over the past decades, different approaches to phenomenology were developed (e.g., empirical/psychological phenomenology, hermeneutic phenomenology, existential phenomenology, social phenomenology, reflective/ transcendental phenomenology, and dialogical phenomenology). (For a review, see Creswell, 1998.) McLeod (2001) provided an overview of the three branches of "new" phenomenological traditions that evolved from Husserlian phenomenological principles: (1) "the Duquesne school of empirical phenomenology" developed by Giorgi and his colleagues in North America; (2) "the method of 'conceptual encounter' developed by Rivera" who was influenced by the Duquesne school and "the German social psychologist Lewin"; and (3) "the existential-phenomenological investigations" of "the Scottish psychiatrist Laing and his colleagues" at the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations in England (pp. 40-48). Interested readers are referred to McLeod for a comparison between the original phenomenological philosophy developed by Husserl and the "new" phenomenological traditions advocated by psychological researchers. Also, a recent review of the phenomenological movement in psychology and a comparison between phenomenological research and other qualitative methods can be found in Wertz (2005). In spite of the existence of multiple phenomenological approaches, phenomenological researchers follow some general guidelines in developing plans for their studies. These guidelines were summarized by Creswell (1998) into five areas: (1) philosophical perspectives and epoche, (2) research question and lived experiences, (3) criterion-based sampling, (4) phenomenological data analysis, and (5) essential, invariant structure (or essence) of the lived experience. These five dimensions of the guidelines are key concepts of the phenomenological approach and will be illustrated below with an exemplar study.
PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVES AND EPOCHE First and foremost, researchers who intend to adopt the phenomenological approach should have a thorough understanding of the underlying philosophy because its philosophical assumptions greatly influence the formulation of research questions and inquiry techniques (Creswell, 1998; McLeod, 2001). Because there are various phenomenological traditions, as mentioned earlier, the philosophical perspectives embraced by the researchers should be specified in the final write-up. Furthermore, before conducting a phenomenological study, researchers should "bracket" (i.e., set aside) their assumptions and judgments about the phenomenon, and these presuppositions should be documented. This strategy was termed epoche by Husserl. Phenomenological researchers use epoche to bracket and question all of their assumptions, hoping to reveal new and meaningful understanding that transcends the extant knowledge about a particular phenomenon (McLeod, 2001).
RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND LIVED EXPERIENCES The key subject matter studied by phenomenological researchers is "the lived world" of human beings (i.e., "the life-world manifests itself as a structural whole that is socially shared and yet apprehended by individuals through their own perspectives") (Wertz, 2005, p. 169). 4 phenomenological study aims to "fill in the gap" between "knowledge and reality that requires qualitative knowledge, that is, an under¬standing of what occurs" (Wertz, 2005, p. 170). The research questions for a phenomenological study are developed in order to understand the everyday lived experiences of individuals and to explore what those experiences mean to them (Creswell, 1998). Data are typically generated through written or verbal responses of the research participants to "a descriptive task with instructions" or an open-ended interview (Wertz, 2005, p. 171). The research questions guide the development of the descriptive task or specific interview questions. Long interviews are often utilized to generate in-depth dialogues between the researcher and the participant about a specific phenomenon. Wertz suggested that the best type of data for phenomenological researchers is "concretely described psychology life," which helps to further our understanding about a given phenomenon beyond "any previous knowledge or preconceptions" (p. 171).
CRITERION-BASED SAMPLING Criterion-based sampling is often used in a phenomenological study to select participants who meet the following criteria: (1) they experienced the phenomenon under study, and (2) they can articulate their lived experiences (Creswell, 1998). Similar to the grounded theory approach, there is no absolute number of participants needed for a phenomenological study. Yet, in assessing the adequacy of the sample size, the following criteria were proposed by Wertz (2005): "deliberation and critical reflection considering the research problem, the life-world position of the participant(s), the quality of the data, and the value of emergent findings with regard to research goals" (p. 171).
PHENOMENOLOGICAL ANALYSIS Husserl developed the procedure of intentional analysis, which "begins with a situation just as it has been experienced—with all its various meanings—and reflectively explicated the experiential processes through which the situation is lived," thereby producing "knowledge of human situations, their meaning, and the processes that generate those meanings" (Wertz, 2005, p. 169). The intentional analysis is carried out through the use of epoche and an empathic understanding of the participants' lived experiences. In the analytic process, the researcher constantly "focuses on relations between different parts of the situation and the psychological processes that subtend it while attempting to gain explicit knowledge of how each constituent contributes to the organization of the structure as a whole" (Wertz, 2005, p. 172). Yet, phenomenological researchers who follow the different traditions mentioned earlier have proposed different analytic techniques (McLeod, 2001). Researchers need to decide which tradition to follow when conducting their analyses and clearly state the steps of the analytic method in their research methodology section.
ESSENCE OF THE EXPERIENCES Husserl advocated the use of the intuition of essence or eidetic reduction to understand the essence of the phenomenon under study and to achieve psychological reduction. For this purpose, he developed a procedure, free imaginative variation, which "starts with a concrete example of the phenomenon of which one wishes to grasp the essence and imaginatively varies it in every possible way in order to distinguish essential features from those that are accidental or incidental" (Wertz, 2005, p. 168). The exhaustive descriptions of the phenomenon of interest are subsequently constructed through extracting the significant statements, formulating meanings, and clustering themes of the original data (Creswell, 1998). The exhaustive descriptions could provide the readers an understanding of the essence of the lived experiences and represent a unifying structure of a phenomenon.
EXEMPLAR STUDY A study conducted by Teixeira and Gomes (2000) in Brazil will be used as an example of phenomenological studies. Their research aimed to understand the career trajectories of Brazilians who have chosen to change careers at least once in the past. The authors indicated that past research has not focused on the process of self-initiated career change, and most studies used quantitative methodology. The phenomenological approach was used for this study because it allowed the researchers to understand the meanings that participants ascribed to their autonomous career change in a specific context. Teixeira and Gomes (2000) explicitly described the criterion they used to select participants: All of the participants would have experienced at least one self-initiated career change. Specifically, the participants were chosen "who had left one career for which they had received a university training for another that also required advanced training, such that the change had been voluntary (criteria for time spent in the careers were not established)" (p. 81). A "thick" (detailed) description of the participants (e.g., their first and current careers) was provided in the article. The authors utilized interviews as the data collection method for this study. They started the interviews with a broad question, "I should like you to tell me about your career choices," and left it open-ended for the participants to freely discuss their career trajectories. Interviews were conducted with seven participants (four women and three men; age range from 32 to 42 years), audio taped, and subsequently transcribed. Locations (i.e., participants' home or work settings) and the actual lengths (i.e., one to two and a half hours) of the interviews were described in their manuscript. Teixeira and Gomes (2000) followed the Duquesne school of empirical phenomenology tradition and explicitly delineated the phenomenological analytic approach utilized in their study: The analytical procedures observed the methodological recommendations of Giorgi (1997) and Lanigan (1988) in the following way: transcriptions and successive readings of the material, search and demarcation of significant units within each interview, verification of cross units among interviews, and definition of the main themes. The relations between parts and whole were worked out by the preparation of a synthesis for each narrative. The confront [sic] between these syntheses and their constitutive themes were the base for the phenomenological description. Throughout this process, the researchers' prior knowledge of the subject was set to one side, thereby avoiding interferences from anticipated qualitative judgments (phenomenological epoche). The analysis rigorously observed the three steps of phenomenological method (description, reduction, interpretation) as indicated below. Excerpts taken from the interviews were used as illustrative evidence of the researcher' phenomenological understanding.
The authors concluded that their analysis yielded five essential themes that "comprise a general structure of the experiences described by the interviewees, although the limits, contents and scope of each theme may vary from case to case according to personal circumstances" (p. 82). Following the methodological recommendations of prominent phenomenological researchers, Teixeira and Gomes (2000) defined each theme (which they called a "moment") and subsequently identified the interviewees' accounts that "specify the affective, cognitive and conative limits of the experience that participants lived through in relation to each of the selected themes" (p. 82). The authors then provided a rich description of the themes with the participants' narratives. Following is the description of one of the five themes ("moments"). Moment S: Evaluating the change and present situation The participants evaluated their professional careers, including their present situations, in a positive way. The evaluation was accompanied by a feeling of having matured and of personal transformation. Career change was generally associated with personal changes, for example the feeling of being less tied down and capable of making changes in other spheres of life (S2: ". . . after I took this decision I feel much more given to change, just as I had changed"; S4: ". . . I think that all that I had gone through made me succeed in not being so tied up with things .. . I am much more ... much lighter") or yet as a transformation in the personal out¬look, ceasing to like working to a "prepared formula" (S5). Career change was also seen as a personal search for interpersonal development, self-determination and, most importantly, increased self-esteem (S7; ". .. it is something that makes me feel good, I like to hear people say that I am a doctor, I feel proud of what I am"). Yet others viewed their professional trajectory as an opportunity for steady development of their personality and of their capacities and interests, integrating all the professional experience they had (S3, S1). Sl: "So I made it ... made use of knowledge, right, built up through a piece of my life in all the areas that I worked in, and I'm still reaping the benefit today. . . ." The contrast with these positive evaluations on career changes, in which those interviewed considered themselves more mature and in the process of re-engagement in a profession, is given by S6. She still claims to have adolescent doubts about future career, just as she is on the point of finishing a course in Visual Arts (her professional interest abandoned in adolescence). S6: "I think that basically I didn't change. I think I still . . . I'm 36 now, and I still feel I have those adolescent doubts.... 'What am I going to be in the future?' . . . I have the feeling that I'm still looking for something .. . [Can you see how you will be, I don't know, ten, fifteen years from now?] No... no, I can't, I can't, for me it's all far too hazy." (p. 87)
After summarizing and illustrating each theme that emerged from the data analyses, Teixeira and Gomes (2000) presented the essential structure (phenomenological reduction) of the phenomenon under study. They used the reduction to illustrate the characteristics of the phenomenon of career change. The complete description is approximately three pages long; below is its summary: In summary, career change can be defined as a broad process of change in the relationship between the participants and their work. The change begins with the awareness of feelings of dissatisfaction with their career; leading the participants to ask questions of themselves and what they do. The questioning of career emerges in the consciousness as a figure whose background is the other roles lived by the participants in their daily lives. Personal plans are redefined and new priorities established, enabling the career to acquire a different meaning in this new context. Thus the search for a new career is also a search for a new way for the participants to express themselves in the world, which can lead them—although not necessarily—to feelings of greater self-determination and personal satisfaction. (p. 90)
In addition to the phenomenological reduction, Teixeira and Gomes also presented their interpretations of the phenomenon, which focus on "the possible meanings of these changes and of the career change itself" as follows (p. 91). In general, the statements analyzed in this study suggest that career change can result from a career choice which we could call immature at adolescence. Immaturity is understood as a decision taken without the necessary exploration of alternatives which would allow the subjects to build up a clear occupational self-understanding and to make choices compatible with their interests and the conception that they have of themselves (Super, 1963; Super, Savickas, & Super, 1996). But the histories presented by those interviewed also shows [sic] us that the choice made at adolescence is not something definitive. Above all it is a continuing process that reaffirms itself through practice of the profession or which provides experiences leading to new choices. Rather than being a fundamental error, as one of those interviewed called it, an inappropriate choice at adolescence can also be a way leading to deeper knowledge of oneself, and to personal and even professional changes.... This interpretation, moreover, is in contrast with the idea that adolescents (or anyone else) have to make the correct choice of profession, and that this choice must be retained for the rest of their lives (Wrightsman, 1994), indecision or change of profession being regarded almost as mental disorder requiring treatment (Krumboltz, 1992). This search for the correct profession illustrates a concept widespread in society that identity (professional, in this case) is something that is relatively ready within individuals, static and immutable, therefore requiring only to be "discovered" for the best choice of career to be selected. . . . The meaning of change, therefore, is revealed in the plan through which the subjects decide to take account of their lives. From this standpoint, we can propose a new interpretation of what those interviewed named maturity: it is the capacity to make choices (their own) and to make plans, professional plans. When speaking of their own or authentic choices, this is not to say that unconscious factors or social or economic pressures may not exist which override the choice in some form. It is intended to emphasize, however, the active nature that the subjects can have in constructing their history, even though they may not have full control or knowledge of their motives.
The rich and exhaustive descriptions about the seven Brazilians' experiences with voluntary career change in Teixeira and Gomes (2000) extended previous career theories and provided new knowledge about a phenomenon that was understudied. The authors' detailed illustrations of the method, analysis results, and their reasoning help the reader understand how their interpretations were derived from the data. More exemplars of phenomenological studies can be found in Wertz (2005), McLeod (2001), and the Journal of Phenomenological Psychology.
CONSENSUAL QUALITATIVE RESEARCH In this section, we will briefly introduce a relatively newly developed strategy of inquiry, consensual qualitative research (CQR), followed by a discussion of exemplar studies. CQR is a systematic way of examining the representativeness of results across cases through the process of reaching consensus among multiple researchers. Hill, Thompson, and Williams (1997) developed CQR based on the grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990), comprehensive process analysis (Elliott, 1989), and phenomenological approaches (Giorgi, 1970, 1985, as cited in Hill et al., 1997), as well as feminist theories (e.g., Fine, 1992; Harding, 1991, as cited in Hill et al., 1997). There are many common premises and differences between the CQR and these other qualitative approaches (see Hill et al.; Hoshmand, 1997 for a review). Yet, as Hoshmand noted, the initial guidelines for CQR (Hill et al., 1997) "did not articulate the implicit philosophical perspective on which the communal processes of CQR are based" (p. 601). For these reasons, CQR has been described as a "generic" qualitative approach (McLeod, 2001, p. 147). Recently, Hill and her colleagues (2005) and Ponterotto (20056) attempted to locate the philosophical stance of this method in order to link the gaps among the ontology, epistemology, and methodology for CQR. The primary components of CQR include gathering data through interviews and open-ended questions, describing the phenomenon of interest using words (not numbers), using a criterion-based sampling method, and understanding the parts of the experiences in the context of the whole. Usually a small number of cases (8 to 15) are studied. A primary team of three to five researchers independently and inductively analyze narratives of participants' experiences and then form consensus on ways to interpret the data. Through this process, multiple perspectives are included in the data analytic decisions. Also, domains and core ideas (abstracts) are identified from the data. Categories are developed by cross-analyzing the consistencies in the core ideas within domains; the terms—general, typical, variant, and rare—are used to characterize the occurrence rate of the categories. One or two auditors examine the consensual judgments on the domains, core ideas, and categories in order to ensure that important data were not overlooked (Hill et al., 1997; Hill et al., 2005). The following key elements of CQR will be illustrated in greater details: (1) researchers, researcher biases, and training of the research team; (2) participant selection; (3) interview (data collection) and transcription; and (4) data analytic procedure.
RESEARCHERS, RESEARCHER BIASES, AND TRAINING OF THE RESEARCH TEAM Hill and colleagues (1997) stress the importance of clearly describing the researchers because the data analyses of the CQR rely on the consensual process of the research team members. Although the composition and the dynamics of the team are essential, there is no absolute correct type of team composition (e.g., faculty members, senior practitioners, graduate or undergraduate students). Researchers need to clearly consider the various possibilities of the team composition and be very careful in selecting the team members, considering possible power differences among the group members, types of expertise, and the level of commitment needed from each team member. Before the data collection and analytic process begin, researchers receive appropriate training in conducting interviews and data analyses. It is also crucial that the researchers bracket (i.e., set aside) their biases and the information gained from the literature so that data Can be approached from a fresh perspective and allowed to "speak" for themselves.
PARTICIPANT SELECTION CQR adopts the criterion-based sampling method (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984, as cited in Hill et al., 1997), for which the criteria of selecting the participants should be clearly stated. This method ensures that the participants have had some depth of experiences with the phenomenon of interest and can provide meaningful information for the purpose of the study. Usually, 8 to 15 cases are studied intensively when using CQR because: (1) this sample size, albeit small, usually provides a sufficient number of cases for the researchers to examine variability and consistencies across cases; and (2) additional cases typically add minimal new information (Hill et al., 1997). However, the sample size should also be determined by the homogeneity of the sample and the amount of data collected (e.g., length of the interviews) from each participant (Hill et al., 2005).
INTERVIEW (DATA COLLECTION) AND TRANSCRIPTION An interview protocol can be developed based on literature review, conversations with the population of interest, and researchers' personal reflections (Hill et al., 2005). Pilot interviews are conducted to evaluate the adequacy of the interview protocol (at least two pilot interviews are recommended by Hill and colleagues). The actual interviews could be conducted over the phone or face to face. Previous CQR researchers also have used survey (open-ended questions) or email format to collect data (see Hill et al., 2005). Immediately following the interviews, the interviewer(s) should record memos (e.g., impression of the interviewee, comments about the flow of the session) that later may be used to facilitate data analysis. Once the interview is completed, it should be transcribed verbatim with identifying information omitted and unnecessary nonlanguage utterances ("urn," "ah") and fillers ("you know") deleted. Copies of the transcripts could also be reviewed by the interviewees for additions, corrections, or clarifications. This step is called "member check," and it enhances the credibility and trustworthiness of the data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
DATA ANALYTIC PROCEDURE Hill and colleagues (1997) delineated the step-by-step data analytic procedure and divided it into the following sequential stages: (1) identify domains, (2) summarize core ideas, (3) construct categories from the cross-analysis, (4) audit the analysis results, (5) check the stability of the results, and (6) chart the findings. Specifically, these procedures were summarized in the update article about the CQR method as follows: Domains (i.e., topics used to group or cluster data) are used to segment interview data. Core ideas (i.e., summaries of the data that capture the essence of what was said in fewer words and with greater clarity) are used to abstract the interview data within domains. Finally, a cross-analysis is used to construct common themes across participants (i.e., developing categories that describe the common themes reflected in the core ideas within domains across cases). . . . The auditor . . . provides detailed feedback at each stage of the analysis process (e.g., creating do¬mains, constructing core ideas, creating the cross-analysis). . . . For a stability check . . . after the domains and core ideas were completed for all of the cases, at least two cases be withheld from the initial cross-analysis and then used as a check to determine whether all of the data for these cases fit into the existing categories and whether the designations of the general, typical, and variant changed substantially with the addition of the two new cases. . . . Hill et al. (1997) recommended charting the results to depict visually the relationships among categories across domains, particularly for data representing sequences of events. (Hill et al., 2005, pp. 200-202)
