Fluent Essays

Review PSY635 Week Two Discussion Scenario.In that scenario, the three instructors realized there are limits to the insights they can gain through anonymous counting of discussion posts. The instructors would like to answer two additional research questions: (a) How do their students actually feel about the intervention? and (b) How do students view the influence of the intervention on their learning inside and outside of the classroom (if applicable)? Compare the characteristics of appropriate research designs and recommend a qualitative research design that would facilitate answering the instructors’ additional questions. Explain the philosophical paradigm underlying the recommended approach. Evaluate the required articles attached and describe the  assumptions the instructors might have to set aside as they enter into a qualitative research study. Be sure to identify any ethical issues that may apply to the research. Review the characteristics of the quantitative approach described in the Week Two discussion attached. Explain the ways in which the quantitative approach and paradigm differs from the qualitative approach and paradigm you have recommended here. REQUIRED ARTICLES REFERENCES  Frost, N. (2011). Qualitative research methods in psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Chapter 1: Qualitative Research in Psychology PSY635 Week Two Scenario Three instructors teach the same online course and have devised an experimental intervention to improve student motivation to actively participate in discussions. The course is a core requirement for all psychology students, and students are assigned to particular sections at random rather than by instructor choice. The average class size for this particular course is 45 students. To get a large enough sample for adequate analysis, the instructors have decided to include two sections for each instructor in the experiment. The first section will serve as the control group (no experimental intervention), and the second section will receive the intervention. Anonymous data about the dependent variable will be pooled for the three sections comprising the control group and the three sections that receive the intervention. The independent variable is the intervention, which may be an incentive such as digital badges or an instructional intervention involving changing the instructions for the guided response. The dependent variable will be the number of response (not initial) posts per student that exceed two lines of text. The researchers have decided to use the Week Four discussion for data collection, reasoning that it may take some time for the intervention to become effective. Problems in Designing an Experimental Research Study Null and Research Hypotheses Research Hypothesis Motivated students do actively participate in discussions than unmotivated students. Null Hypothesis There is no statistically significant correlation between the instructors and the course they teach. The Most Appropriate Experimental Research Design to Test my Hypothesis In this experiment, the most suitable research design to test the hypothesis according to the provided case scenario is Pretest-Posttest Control-Group Design. This research design involves the random assignment of participants to either control or experimental groups (Skidmore, 2008). In the provided case, the assignment of students into particular sections using randomization rather than being directed by the instructors choices. This is the first factor that makes Pretest-Posttest Control-Group Design suitable for this experiment. Additionally, Pretest- Posttest Control-Group Design is characterized by the presence of control and an experiment group, an element that has been utilized in the provided scenario. Besides that, Pretest-Posttest Control-Group Design entails an intervention administered in the experimental group and no intervention given to the control group. The control group shall not receive any intervention in the provided case, while the experimental group shall receive an intervention. Hence, a combination of the above elements makes Pretest-Posttest Control-Group Design the most appropriate research design for this experiment. Internal Threats to Validity and How to Mitigate Them Addressing validity threats is a crucial task towards realizing a conclusive research experiment. Internal validity threats hinder the researchers ability to achieve accurate inferences in the particular experiment (Skidmore, 2008). The provided case study is exposed to various internal validity threats, among them experimental attrition. In this internal validity threat, researchers are concerned about a differential loss of experiment participants due to the impacts of administered interventions. In the provided scenario, many students might leave the experimental group due to the effects of various interventions such as changing instructions to grant a guided response if they feel that the instructions make the discussions challenging. In this case, the experiment results will be under question as the comparison will be less effective as most of the participants will be from the control group. Researchers can mitigate attrition in their experiments by offering incentives to participants. Besides that, Pretest-Posttest Control-Group Design entails pretesting, which exposes the experiment to testing internal validity threats. In this regard, the familiarity with the prior testing of the various interventions might create a significant difference in pretest and post-test results, creating a concern that testing can influence the experiments results. If there is a significant difference between results before and after testing, the results might be inconclusive, adversely impacting the experiments quality. Researchers can mitigate testing validity threats by altering the research to employ experimental designs that do not use pretesting. Ethical Principles in the Proposed Research Ethics is a valuable tool that guides quality research. In this proposed research, various ethical principles should be implemented to fulfill the researchs moral obligations. These ethical principles include informed consent, justice, and integrity. Informed consent is a core principle of research, ensuring that participants can voluntarily enter into the experiments and be granted adequate information on what the study means to them. Additionally, informed consent provides that researchers seek the participants consent before entering into the research. On the other hand, justice is a vital principle that ensures that researchers exhibit fairness and equity to all the participants and that the needs and interests of research participants have a higher priority than the studys objectives. Whenever human beings are treated unfairly, their human dignity is violated (Damtew, 2018) Moreover, integrity is an ethical research principle that ensures that a study is conducted with transparency, honesty, and open communication. Integrity enables other people to have trust in research methods and findings. Lastly, the selected population in the samples should depict diversity, requiring each sample in the scenarios to have people from different cultures since people from diverse backgrounds might react differently to various interventions, improving the quality of the research. References Damtew, B., 2018. Justice in Research: History, Principle and Application (A Literature Review). In: Ethics in Conducting Health Systems Research. Skidmore, S. (2008). Experimental Design and Some Threats to Experimental Validity: A Primer. Online Submission. Qualitative Research in Multicultural Psychology: Philosophical Underpinnings, Popular Approaches, and Ethical Considerations Joseph G. Ponterotto Fordham University This article reviews the current and emerging status of qualitative research in psychol- ogy. The particular value of diverse philosophical paradigms and varied inquiry approaches to the advancement of psychology generally, and multicultural psychology specifically, is emphasized. Three specific qualitative inquiry approaches anchored in diverse philosophical research paradigms are highlighted: consensual qualitative re- search, grounded theory, and participatory action research. The article concludes by highlighting important ethical considerations in multicultural qualitative research. Keywords: multicultural, qualitative research, research ethics, philosophy of science The need for multicultural psychologists to be knowledgeable of multiple-research para- digms and competent in conducting both quan- titative and qualitative research, is now made clear in the American Psychological Associa- tion’s (APA, 2003) “Guidelines on Multicul- tural Education, Training, Research, Practice, and Organizational Change for Psychologists,” which state the following: Culturally centered psychological researchers are en- couraged to seek appropriate grounding in various modes of inquiry and to understand both the strengths and limitations of the research paradigms applied to culturally diverse populations . . . They should strive to recognize and incorporate research methods that most effectively complement the worldview and lifestyles of persons who come from a specific cultural and linguis- tic population, for example quantitative and qualitative research strategies. (p. 389) The reality, however, is that most psycholo- gists, including those focused on research across cultures, continue to operate from a pri- marily postpositivist research paradigm and their associated quantitative procedures (Haverkamp, Morrow, & Ponterotto, 2005b; Ponterotto, 2005a; Rennie, Watson, & Mon- teiro, 2002). In this article I promote the in- creased use of qualitative research methods an- chored in diverse research paradigms. To that end, this article (a) describes leading research paradigms for qualitative research, (b) reviews the current and emerging status of qualitative methods in the field, (c) highlights the potential value of qualitative approaches to psychology generally and multicultural psychology specifi- cally, (d) presents a brief overview of select qualitative inquiry approaches advocated for multicultural research, and (e) highlights impor- tant ethical issues in conducting qualitative re- search with diverse populations. Consistent with the APA’s (2003) “Multicul- tural Guidelines,” when referring to multicultur- alism or multicultural psychology throughout this article, I recognize the broad scope of the dimensions of ethnicity, race, gender, language, sexual orientation, age, disability, education, spiritual or religious orientation, socioeconomic class, education, as well as other cultural dimen- sions. Research Paradigms Anchoring Qualitative Research Though many psychologists have a good idea about some of the general distinctions between quantitative and qualitative research, most have not been trained to understand the depth and variety of philosophical paradigms and inquiry approaches anchoring qualitative research in psychology (Ponterotto, 2005a; Rennie et al., 2002). As noted by McLeod (2001), “It may be possible to do good quantitative research with- out knowing much about epistemology of the philosophy of (social) science, but good quali- Joseph G. Ponterotto, Division of Psychological & Edu- cational Services, Fordham University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Joseph G. Ponterotto, Division of Psychological & Educa- tional Services, Room 1008, Fordham University at Lincoln Center, 113 West 60th Street, New York, NY 10023-7478. E-mail: [email protected] This article is reprinted from Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 2010, Vol. 16, No. 4, 581–589. T hi s do cu m en t is co py ri gh te d by th e A m er ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on or on e of it s al li ed pu bl is he rs . T hi s ar ti cl e is in te nd ed so le ly fo r th e pe rs on al us e of th e in di vi du al us er an d is no t to be di ss em in at ed br oa dl y. Qualitative Psychology © 2013 American Psychological Association 2013, Vol. 1(S), 19 –32 2326-3598/13/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/2326-3598.1.S.19 19 tative research requires an informed awareness of philosophical perspectives” (p. 203). Relat- edly, Morrow (2005) highlighted differential criteria for evaluating the rigor and quality of a qualitative study based on its anchoring para- digm. Thus knowledge of philosophy of science and competence in qualitative research are in- extricably intertwined. The research literature presents varied classi- fications of research paradigms (see Denzin & Lincoln, 2005a); however, one that I find par- ticularly concise yet comprehensive is that pro- posed by Guba and Lincoln (1994) and adapted by Ponterotto (2005b). This classification pres- ents four research paradigms: positivism, post- positivism, constructivism-interpretivism, and the critical-ideological perspective. Of these four paradigms, positivism is the exclusive province of quantitative research; however the other three paradigms can all serve as anchors for qualitative research. Table 1 summarizes the defining characteristics of postpositivism, con- structivism-interpretivism, and the critical- ideological perspective. The descriptive charac- teristics include the paradigm’s perspective on key philosophy of science parameters, including ontology (nature of reality), epistemology (re- lationship between researcher and participant in the quest for knowledge), axiology (role of val- ues in research), rhetorical structure (language used to present research findings), and method- ology (specific procedures of research; see Ta- ble 1). Postpositivist qualitative research aims to use traditional qualitative methods (e.g., interviews, case studies) in as quantifiable a manner as is possible. Thus for example, a researcher may prepare a lengthy (25 questions) semistructured interview protocol based on a review of the literature (explanatory, verification oriented), Table 1 Research Paradigms for Multicultural Research Research paradigm Defining characteristics and qualitative approaches Postpositivism One true approximal reality; researcher attempts to be as dualistic and objective as possible; must monitor closely and bracket any value biases; attempts control of variables and systematization of research procedures; generally third person, objective report presentation; chiefly quantitative methods, with some more structured qualitative approaches such as consensual qualitative research (Hill, Thompson, & Williams,1997). Constructivism-Interpretivism Multiple, equally valid, and socially coconstructed realities; highly interactive researcher-participant relationship that leads to discovered meaning and expression of experience; researcher values to be expected and should be discussed and bracketed; report writing is first person with adequate “voice” of participants (e.g., through quotes or documents); incorporates only qualitative methods. More discovery oriented qualitative inquiry models such as grounded theory (Fassinger, 2005). Critical Theory and Related Ideological Positions An apprehendable reality shaped by political, economic, and social factors; interactive and proactive researcher role that promotes emancipation and transformation through research; researcher values are clearly explicated and help shape inquiry process; usually first person written reports relying extensively on participant voices; incorporates chiefly qualitative methods, but may incorporate quantitative procedures. Qualitative approaches in which researcher’s social justice values help direct inquiry, such as participatory action research (Kidd & Kral, 2005). Note. Paradigm characteristics adapted from Guba and Lincoln (1994), Ponterotto (2005b), and Ponterotto & Grieger (2007). 20 PONTEROTTO T hi s do cu m en t is co py ri gh te d by th e A m er ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on or on e of it s al li ed pu bl is he rs . T hi s ar ti cl e is in te nd ed so le ly fo r th e pe rs on al us e of th e in di vi du al us er an d is no t to be di ss em in at ed br oa dl y. administer the interview protocol to 40 partici- pants averaging 40 min an interview. The pro- tocol is the same for all interviewers and the data is analyzed by a team of coresearchers and auditors for a sense of reliability in coding (agreeing on single reality). Furthermore, the researcher, in staying close to the protocol dur- ing the interview process, does not emotively connect with the participant (concept of dual- ism). By marked contrast, a parallel interview in the constructivist-interpretivist paradigm would involve preparing a short (five questions) semi- structured protocol and interviewing 10 partic- ipants for roughly 2 hr each. The protocol can change from interview to interview (discovery- oriented) as new insights emerge. Furthermore, the researcher and participants become emo- tively connected, facilitating deeper levels of communication and topic exploration. Only the interviewer analyzes the data as multiple reali- ties are valid under this paradigm, and no core- searcher or auditing team is necessary to iden- tify a single agreed-on reality. The critical-ideological paradigm has at its core an assumption that inequity and oppression characterize real-world human interactions, and that during the process of empirical inquiry the researcher’s own social justice values can and should play a role in the research process. This role is manifested in the goal of empowerment and emancipation of groups who experience oppression (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2000). An example of a qualitative study in the critical- ideological paradigm might involve lengthy in- terviews or focus groups with migrant farm workers, who during and after the study gain a sense of unity and empowerment that leads to coordinated demands for better working condi- tions. Counseling psychologists have been par- ticularly vocal in advocating for increased re- search anchored in the critical theory paradigm (e.g., Toporek, Gerstein, Fouad, Roysircar, & Israel, 2006). Current Status of Qualitative Research in Psychology Though qualitative research featured promi- nently in the early development of the psychol- ogy profession (e.g., the work of Allport, Erik- son, Fanon, Freud, Horney, and Piaget), during the last half century qualitative methods, as a collective group, have taken a back seat to quantitative research procedures (see historical review in Ponterotto, Kuriakose, & Granovs- kaya, 2008). The reason for this lies in the profession’s strong preference for the positivist and postpositivist research paradigms over al- ternate paradigms such as constructivism and critical theory (Camic, Rhodes, & Yardley, 2003; Haverkamp et al., 2005b). Evidence of the profession’s strong reliance on positivism and postpositivism, and their as- sociated quantitative methods, is presented in a number of studies. For example, Rennie et al. (2002) entered five search terms qualitative re- search, grounded theory, discourse analysis, phenomenological psychology, and empirical phenomenology in the PsycINFO database for the 100-year period, 1900 through 1999, and found that less than 1\% of the articles included one of these terms. A number of other studies examined pub- lished journal literature to assess the relative representativeness of both quantitative and qualitative studies. For example, in a review of outcome studies published worldwide across a large number of journals in counseling, psycho- therapy, and psychiatry, Sexton (1996) found that less than 5\% of the studies relied on qual- itative methods. Focusing specifically on jour- nals in counseling and counseling psychology, Berrios and Lucca (2006) and Ponterotto, Kuriakose, et al., (2008) found that qualitative research represented under 20\% of the pub- lished empirical studies during the 1990s and 2000s. Finally, in a 25-year review of journals focused on the psychology of religion and spir- ituality, Aten and Hernandez (2005) found that less than 1\% of published articles represented qualitative research studies. It appears that the meager representation of published qualitative research in psychology journals may, in part, stem from graduate train- ing programs that give minimal attention to qualitative methods training. For example, with regard to research training in counseling psy- chology, Ponterotto (2005c) found that only 10\% of programs required a course in qualita- tive research methods, and the median percent- age of doctoral dissertations across programs that employed qualitative methods was only 10\%. It follows that if graduate students in psychology are not being adequately trained in alternate research paradigms and qualitative in- 21SPECIAL SECTION: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH T hi s do cu m en t is co py ri gh te d by th e A m er ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on or on e of it s al li ed pu bl is he rs . T hi s ar ti cl e is in te nd ed so le ly fo r th e pe rs on al us e of th e in di vi du al us er an d is no t to be di ss em in at ed br oa dl y. quiry procedures, they will be less likely to conduct and publish qualitative research. Despite the clear dominance of quantitative methods in the psychology profession, there is mounting evidence that qualitative methods are slowly increasing in popularity among psychol- ogy researchers. For example, in a 12-year con- tent analysis of major journals in counseling psychology, Ponterotto, Barnett, Ticinelli, Kuriakose, and Granovskaya (2008) found the representation of qualitative studies to increase from 13\% during the 1995 to 2000 period, to 18\% during the 2001 to 2006 time period. Fo- cusing on research in family process and family therapy, Faulkner, Klock, and Gale (2002) found the overall number of qualitative studies Table 2 Specific Benefits of Qualitative Inquiry Procedures Benefit claim Supporting citations Applied psychologists are drawn to constructivist qualitative methods because they often involve studying the emotive and cognitive aspects of participants’ life experiences interpreted within the context of their socially constructed worldviews. Hill, 2005; McLeod, 2001; Morrow, 2007; Ponterotto, Kuriakose et al., 2008; Sciarra, 1999 Qualitative methods are useful in exploratory phases of research given their “discovery” rather than “explanatory” or “confirmatory” goals. Hill, 2005; Morrow, 2007; Nelson & Quintana, 2005. Qualitative research compliments quantitative research by adding descriptive depth. Morrow, 2007; Nelson & Quintana, 2005. Qualitative methods are excellent for theory development given the inductive, iterative process of ongoing data collection, analysis, and interpretation; researchers become “intimate” with data through this process. Hill, 2005; Morrow, 2007; Nelson & Quintana, 2005. Qualitative research is particularly useful in studying and understanding process in counseling and psychotherapy. Hill, 2005; Morrow, 2007. Qualitative research is effective in examining very complex psychological phenomena as it is not constrained by pre-selected and limited variables; such research can examine all variables as they emerge during the discovery process. Hill, 2005; Morrow et al., 2001. Qualitative research is excellent at establishing clinical relevance of research given participants’ active involvement in defining research questions, and in assessing and interpreting data; it ultimately increases clinical relevance to both clients and psychologists. Hill, 2005; Nelson & Quintana, 2005; Silverstein, Auerbach, & Levant, 2006. Qualitative research and writing can increase the public’s understanding of and receptivity to research. Morrow, 2007; Ponterotto, 2006; Ponterotto & Grieger, 2007; Silverstein et al., 2006. Qualitative research can effectively bridge the noted rift between the objective hypothetico-deductive model of science (from positivism/postpositivism) and the subjective everyday experience of practitioners helping clients and patients. Morrow, 2007. Qualitative research is effective in establishing “procedural evidence” (i.e., study methods and findings are intelligible, consistent, and credible, and become self-evident in the iterative, emergent analysis process). Hill, 2005; Morrow, 2005. 22 PONTEROTTO T hi s do cu m en t is co py ri gh te d by th e A m er ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on or on e of it s al li ed pu bl is he rs . T hi s ar ti cl e is in te nd ed so le ly fo r th e pe rs on al us e of th e in di vi du al us er an d is no t to be di ss em in at ed br oa dl y. published roughly doubled from the 1980s to the 1990s, though the overall percentage of qualitative studies to quantitative studies was still very low (percentage not specified). Pon- terotto, Barnett, et al. concluded that there is a slow, gradual research paradigm shift under- way, with qualitative research in applied psy- chology becoming more accepted and increas- ingly popular. Potential Value of Qualitative Research In this section I briefly highlight the particu- lar value of qualitative methods, relative to tra- ditional quantitative methods, to advancing psy- chology generally and multicultural psychology specifically. A review of the literature of the past decade has uncovered strong rationales for the psychology profession to expand its reper- toire of operating research paradigms and em- pirical procedures. There is a clear sense in the literature that both quantitative and qualitative methods have their inherent strengths and lim- itations, and that there is a time and place for both sets of approaches in psychological re- search. Table 2 summarizes the particular ben- efits of qualitative methods to psychology (see Table 2). Value of Qualitative Research to Multicultural Psychology In addition to the general advantages of qual- itative research summarized in Table 2, various authors have highlighted the particular rele- vance and value of qualitative inquiry to the study of multicultural psychology (Morrow, Ra- khsha, & Castaneda, 2001; Ponterotto, 2005a; Trimble & Fisher, 2006a). Constructivist and critical theory qualitative procedures often in- volve intense, ongoing, and prolonged interac- tion with participants. This emotive interaction is transformative (Ponterotto, 2005b), thus cre- ating change in both the researcher and the participants. In a country where race relations have been replete with misunderstanding, ste- reotyping, and conflict, qualitative research can bring deeper appreciation and understanding across cultures. Sciarra (1999) stated that “not only are emotions allowed in qualitative re- search, they are crucial. Because entering the meaning-making world of another requires em- pathy, it is inconceivable how the qualitative researcher would accomplish her goal by dis- tancing herself from emotions” (pp. 44 – 45). Sciarra’s (1999) quote highlights one of the benefits of constructivist qualitative methods to the study of multicultural psychology. That is, researchers attempt to understand the world- view of our participants through intensely lis- tening to and respecting their own voice and their own interpretation of life events. Addi- tional benefits of qualitative methods to multi- cultural research are outlined below. 1. By entering culturally diverse communi- ties, researchers can demonstrate strong interest in participants’ life experiences through respectful interviews and obser- vations. In this way, researchers achieve close personal contact with the partici- pants that lead to suspension of previously held conceptions and stereotypes of the group. As the instrument of their own research, this close interaction helps trans- form researchers as well as the partici- pants (Mohatt & Thomas, 2006; Morrow et al., 2001; Ponterotto & Grieger, 2008). 2. In some qualitative approaches, the re- searcher and participants are equivalent co-investigators, thus leveling the power hierarchy common to many quantitative designs. The empowerment of research participants serves to reduce the chances of marginalizing and stereotyping study participants (Mohatt & Thomas, 2006; Ponterotto, 2005a). 3. Qualitative research is often effective at empowering participants to navigate com- plex and sometimes oppressive systems (particularly within the critical theory par- adigm) leading to interventions in schools and organizations, and contributing to so- cial change (Ditrano & Silverstein, 2006; Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005; Kidd & Kral, 2005; Morrow, 2007). 4. Quantitative research often forces partici- pants to respond to predesigned instru- ments or protocols that isolate individual attitudes, beliefs, feelings, and behaviors. For research participants who hail from more collectivist worldviews, this kind of research is challenging. Mohatt and Thomas (2006) summarized this concern well in their work with Native American 23SPECIAL SECTION: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH T hi s do cu m en t is co py ri gh te d by th e A m er ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on or on e of it s al li ed pu bl is he rs . T hi s ar ti cl e is in te nd ed so le ly fo r th e pe rs on al us e of th e in di vi du al us er an d is no t to be di ss em in at ed br oa dl y. and Alaska Native populations: “Many traditional Native people would not isolate behaviors, emotions, or cognitions and as- sign values to them, measure them, ma- nipulate them, and interpret the results” (p. 109). From a cross-cultural perspective, another concern with many quantitative designs an- chored in positivism and postpositivism is the value given to random sampling. Once again Mohatt and Thomas (2006) addressed this con- cern quite directly: I believe that random sampling procedures violate a fundamental principle of every indigenous group with whom I have worked. It assumes that a statistical or mathematical rationale should determine whom we talk to or with whom we intervene. It is . . . . both exclusive and dangerous because not all members of the community would be included, and there would be no evidence of comembership on the part of the re- searchers and therefore no sense of protection from harm. (pp. 110 –111) By contrast, qualitative designs often give voice to previously disempowered, marginal- ized, and silenced groups who share their worldview and lived experiences in their own words, in their own way, and under conditions set forth through comembership in the research endeavor (Ponterotto, 2005a). Steps in Conducting Qualitative Multicultural Research In the last decade, many excellent sources on conducting qualitative research have been put forth (e.g., Camic et al., 2003; Denzin & Lin- coln, 2005b; McLeod, 2001). In this section I draw on these and other sources as well as my own experience conducting and supervising multicultural qualitative research to summarize important steps for conceptualizing and con- ducting multiculturally focused qualitative re- search. Decide on Operating Research Paradigm The first step in conducting a qualitative study is to decide on the research paradigm anchoring the study. The paradigm will serve as a roadmap guiding the researcher to an appro- priate qualitative inquiry approach, directing the course and methods of the study, and promoting a careful evaluation of the quality of the study (Morrow, 2005). Paradigm choices were re- viewed earlier in this article and are summa- rized in Table 1. Graduate students and psychologists should understand the politics of research in their working environment and be prepared to ad- dress supervisory resistance to certain para- digms and research approaches. For example, some PhD programs in psychology dissuade students from conducting a qualitative study anchored in constructivism or critical theory in favor of quantitative studies or qualitative studies anchored in postpositivism (see re- lated discussion in Ponterotto, 2005c; Pon- terotto & Grieger, 2007). Select Qualitative Inquiry Approach There are at least 20 acknowledged and pop- ular qualitative inquiry approaches emanating from a host of intellectual disciplines. Qualita- tive inquiry approaches that have been particu- larly popular with psychologists are reviewed in recent edited books (e.g., Fischer, 2006; Willig & Stainton-Rogers, 2008) and special journal issues (e.g., Carter & Morrow, 2007a, 2007b; Haverkamp, Morrow, & Ponterotto, 2005a). In this section I briefly review three popular qual- itative inquiry approaches that will appeal to both seasoned researchers and students new to qualitative research. For paradigmatic breadth I have chosen one inquiry approach from each of the three potential qualitative-anchoring para- digms. CQR. Consensual qualitative research (CQR) is the most postpositivist of our three selected qualitative inquiry approaches. CQR was developed by Clara E. Hill in response to her dissatisfaction with the depth and richness of data emanating from quantitative research in psychotherapy. In developing the CQR model, Hill, Thompson, and Williams (1997) drew on established qualitative approaches, while retain- ing some of the scientific rigor common to quantitative methods (e.g., consensus, replica- bility, concrete procedural guidelines). The par- ticular qualitative approaches that Hill et al. (1997) borrowed from were grounded theory, comprehensive process analysis, phenomenol- ogy, and feminist theories. Thus, CQR actually has components of constructivism and critical theory in addition to an anchoring in postposi- tivism. 24 PONTEROTTO T hi s do cu m en t is co py ri gh te d by th e A m er ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on or on e of it s al li ed pu bl is he rs . T hi s ar ti cl e is in te nd ed so le ly fo r th e pe rs on al us e of th e in di vi du al us er an d is no t to be di ss em in at ed br oa dl y. More recently, Hill et al. (2005) reviewed and updated procedures for conducting CQR stud- ies. The updated guidelines were developed in response to reviewing and evaluating 27 differ- ent published CQR studies from 1994 to 2003. Ponterotto (2005b) noted that the 2005 CQR model is somewhat more constructivistic than the original 1997 model in terms of reducing the number of interview questions to promote more probing, greater depth of participant responses and, ultimately, greater discovery. Hill et al. (2005) posit five essential elements of the CQR method. First, researchers prepare semistructured interview protocols for use in face-to-face and/or phone interviews (though focus groups have also been used). The authors recommended preparing roughly 8 to 10 scripted questions per planned hour of inter- view. Probing responses further is encouraged as a means of additional exploration and dis- covery. The interview protocols are prepared in consideration of a thorough literature review on the topic at hand, on talking with people from the target group to garner insights for the pro- tocol, and on researchers’ own self-reflections and experience related to the topic. CQR sam- ples tend to be randomly selected from within an identified homogeneous population with in- depth experience of the phenomena under study. Hill et al. (2005) recommend 8 to 15 participants per study when only one or two interviews are conducted with each participant. Generally speaking, one thorough interview is sufficient in a CQR study, with a second inter- view sometimes helping to capture further par- ticipant thinking in the area. The second component of CQR is the reli- ance on multiple judges/coders throughout the data analysis process in the hopes of fostering diverse perspectives. Hill et al. (2005) recom- mended a minimum of three primary research team members for each CQR study. The third component of CQR emphasizes consensus in arriving at the meaning of the coded data. Hill et al. (2005) considered consensus critical to the CQR method and that is why “consensus” forms the first word in CQR. The construct of consen- sus emanates from a postpositivist position as research team members discuss and come to agreement on data interpretation. Thus there is an ontological assumption of one approximal reality in terms of the generated results (refer back to Table 1). However, the construct of consensus as operationalized by Hill et al. (1997) also drew on the critical theory para- digm in that the consensus generation among CQR team members relies on mutual respect, equal co-involvement, and shared power, which is central to ideological positions in feminism, multiculturalism, and liberation psychology. The fourth component of CQR advocates the use of at least one auditor (not part of the primary research team) to review the work of the researchers, minimize the potential effects of groupthink, … 3 C H A P T E R 1 Qualitative Research in Psychology Nollaig Frost Introduction : this book Qualitative research methodology in psychology is now well established. The authors of the Handbook of Qualitative Methods in Psychology (2008), Carla Willig and Wendy Stainton Rogers, suggest that this approach has moved from the ‘margins to the mainstream in psychology in the UK’ (2008: 8), and many other researchers and writers attest to its widespread use elsewhere (e.g. Bryman, 2006; Dicks, Soyinka & Coffey, 2006; Golden-Biddle & Locke, 2007). In this book we will be describing ways to use qualitative methodology in psychology research. We will outline the single use of four commonly used methods – grounded theory, interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA), discourse analysis and narrative analysis – and then consider how these can be used in combination. In each chapter we will be providing a history of the method and careful consideration of when and how it might be used. We will look at why we might want to use more than one qualitative method, and what this might tell us about the topic of inquiry and about the research process. By the end of the book you will have insight to the detailed use and application of qualitative research methodology, and an understanding of why and how to select a single method or pluralistic approach to your qualitative research. Each chapter in the book provides a history of each method, it aims to put into context the way in which the beginnings of a desire by psychology researchers to look beyond objective measurement and rating of causal behaviour led to new ways to elicit ‘thick’ description (Geertz, 1973) of human experience. The chapters will discuss how each qualitative method can be employed singly to examine data to illuminate meanings and insights not available without considering aspects of the research process such as the role played by the researcher, the context of the data elicitation and the uniqueness of the participant perspective. The book will consider how research questions are developed and how these infl uence the choice of method. It will focus on the philosophies and assumptions underlying each approach so that as researchers you can make an informed choice about the methodological framework within which you approach your research. qualitative research methods - final.pdf 13 14/06/2011 14:07 Frost, N. (2011). Ebook : Qualitative research methods in psychology: combining core approaches. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(http://ebookcentral.proquest.com,_blank) href=http://ebookcentral.proquest.com target=_blank style=cursor: pointer;>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from ashford-ebooks on 2021-08-11 22:18:23. C o p yr ig h t © 2 0 1 1 . M cG ra w -H ill E d u ca tio n . A ll ri g h ts r e se rv e d . 4 Chapter 1 Qualitative Research in Psychology We focus in this book on four of the most commonly used methods, and they demonstrate the many aspects of qualitative data inquiry. They range from ways of examining language use (e.g. discursive psychology, discourse analysis) to looking through data for themes and codes (e.g. IPA, grounded theory) to seeking out stories and their meanings in accounts provided by participants (narrative analysis). What is striking about these methods is that there is always a choice of how to apply them, which models to employ and the reasons for using them in pursuit of meaningful research outcomes. It is this plurality within single methods that led to the development of Part 2 of this book. This looks at plurality across methods in pursuit of a more holistic understanding of the phenomenon under inquiry. Table 1.1 Methods focused on in this book Grounded Theory Asks questions about a range of psychological processes. It asks about what is happening as well as how and why. Discourse Analysis Asks questions about how language is used. It investigates what is said as well as why it might be said. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) Asks questions about how individuals make sense of their world. It seeks insight to the meanings that events and experiences hold for people. Narrative Analysis Asks questions about how individuals make meaning using stories. It seeks understanding of the unique perspective brought by individuals to make sense of their external and internal worlds. Combining Methods The combining of different methods of inquiry in psychology is not new. Mixed-method approaches to research have used qualitative and quantitative methods in combination for some time. Mixed-method approaches might be used to enrich or populate data, to fi nd a way to triangulate fi ndings or to conduct a pilot study in order to inform a large-scale quantitatively orientated project (Todd et al., 2004). Mixed-method approaches are commonly found in health psychology and medically related research, and in market research, where funders are often keen to see numbers, objectivity and generalisability, but where researchers want to support the process with rich description of experience from the perspective of the individual patient, client, practitioner or consumer. Several developments in approaches to research have arisen from the application of mixed-method approaches. These include pragmatism (e.g. Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005), bricolage (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Kincheloe, 2001; 2005) and multiperspectival analysis (Kellner, 1995). All seek to access as much meaning as possible from data but are applied in slightly different ways depending on the research questions and rationale for the research. qualitative research methods - final.pdf 14 14/06/2011 14:07 Frost, N. (2011). Ebook : Qualitative research methods in psychology: combining core approaches. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(http://ebookcentral.proquest.com,_blank) href=http://ebookcentral.proquest.com target=_blank style=cursor: pointer;>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from ashford-ebooks on 2021-08-11 22:18:23. C o p yr ig h t © 2 0 1 1 . M cG ra w -H ill E d u ca tio n . A ll ri g h ts r e se rv e d . Combining Methods 5 Pragmatism Pragmatism is commonly regarded simply as a means with which research questions can be addressed and an approach that does not take too much account of the underlying epistemologies of the approaches used to do this. Pragmatic researchers may use science, art and social interaction in any combination in order to obtain a richer account of experience (Yardley & Bishop, 2008). They are less concerned with the epistemological debates underlying method, and instead set out to use whichever techniques will answer or address the research question. For example, they may use a mixed-method approach in the pursuit of practical outcomes, as seen in clinical practice, or for other pragmatic reasons such as to satisfy funders. The research question becomes central to the research process, and the issue of deciding which methods to use to answer it becomes more important than the philosophies or paradigms underlying the methods. The ‘pragmatic’ approach (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998; Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005), in common with the bricolage approach (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Kincheloe, 2001; 2005), advocates the combining of methodological ontologies in the pursuit of a more extensive understanding of the needs of human beings (Howard, 1983). Problem-based question You are a student researcher interested in pursuing a career in counselling psychology. While on placement you have been invited to join a research team made up of psychotherapists, psychiatrists and mental health service users. The aim of the research is to investigate the outcomes of six weeks of cognitive behavioural therapy sessions. It is decided to use both quantitative and qualitatively orientated approaches to investigate this. Why might you use each approach to research this topic? Bricolage Bricolage, fi rst outlined by Denzin and Lincoln (2000), is a research approach that promotes interdisciplinarity as a way of drawing on many methods of inquiry. It regards the research process as consisting of many elements and is concerned with the theoretical and philosophical underpinnings of these as well as with the object, topic or phenomenon or other artefact under study. It is an approach that seeks to avoid the limitations imposed by employing a single method, such as limitations of its epistemology, and the ‘traditional practices of’ (Kincheloe, 2001: 681) or ‘the historicity of certifi ed modes of knowledge production’ (Kincheloe, 2001: 681), by seeking out a rigour that leads to new ontological insights. This means that context is paramount in the bricolage approach, and objects of inquiry are regarded as fi rmly embedded within their social and cultural construction, historical situatedness and the language used to describe them. By examining the object within this context, qualitative research methods - final.pdf 15 14/06/2011 14:07 Frost, N. (2011). Ebook : Qualitative research methods in psychology: combining core approaches. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(http://ebookcentral.proquest.com,_blank) href=http://ebookcentral.proquest.com target=_blank style=cursor: pointer;>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from ashford-ebooks on 2021-08-11 22:18:23. C o p yr ig h t © 2 0 1 1 . M cG ra w -H ill E d u ca tio n . A ll ri g h ts r e se rv e d . 6 Chapter 1 Qualitative Research in Psychology using whatever methods necessary the bricoleur views the research from many perspectives in order to gain multiperspectival insight to its complexity. Question What do you think are the main differences between bricolage and prag- matism? Multiperspectival analysis The notion of multiperspectival analysis has been promoted by Kellner (1995). It too draws on multimethodological research strategies and does so to introduce a variety of ways of ‘seeing and interpreting in the pursuit of knowledge’ (Kincheloe, 2001: 682). This approach reduces the impact of assumptions and limitations brought to the research process by allowing the researcher to see the phenomenon in more dimensions than if they employed a single-method approach. The multiperspectival approach can be taken by employing fl exible use of one particular method (see Mason, 2006) or by drawing on many methods or disciplines to enhance dimensional insight and illuminate the complexity of the phenomenon under study. The three approaches highlighted above are described in order to enable some of the issues that may arise in considering a pluralistic qualitative approach to be illuminated. Issues of the role of epistemology, ontology, purpose and approach to the research are all of great importance when considering how you will fi nd out more about your topic of inquiry. qualitative research methods - final.pdf 16 14/06/2011 14:07 Frost, N. (2011). Ebook : Qualitative research methods in psychology: combining core approaches. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(http://ebookcentral.proquest.com,_blank) href=http://ebookcentral.proquest.com target=_blank style=cursor: pointer;>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from ashford-ebooks on 2021-08-11 22:18:23. C o p yr ig h t © 2 0 1 1 . M cG ra w -H ill E d u ca tio n . A ll ri g h ts r e se rv e d . Triangulation 7 Triangulation The notion of using more than one method to ‘fi nd out more’ about a phenomenon has traditionally been used to verify or support fi ndings. Researchers use more than one method (often a qualitative one with a quantitative one) in order to ‘triangulate’ the outcomes of measurements and observations (Todd et al., 2004). Qualitative researchers, however, are not seeking to validate any claim about the experiences or their possible meanings, but to explore how understanding of them can be enhanced. Qualitative researchers using phenomenological or constructivist paradigms are not in pursuit of a defi nitive truth about experience. They do not regard reality as fi xed, but instead understand individuals to bring a unique perspective to the way they see and comprehend the world around them. The researcher into these experiences may use different methods to bring different ways Employing a fl exible narrative analysis approach (Frost, 2009b) In a fl exible use of narrative analysis I employed different models of narrative analysis to work with data gathered to explore the transition from fi rst- to second- time motherhood among middle-class British white women (see Frost, 2006; 2009b). I sought to extract as much meaning as I could about each woman’s hopes, fears, fantasies, expectations and realities during this time from the transcripts of semi-structured interviews I conducted with them. I used different approaches to analyse narratives I located within the data. These included systematically reducing the text using approaches such as Labov’s structural model (1972), Gee’s linguistic model (1993), Riesmann’s performative model (1993), and Emerson and Frosh’s critical model (2004). This allowed me to examine the meaning brought to the text by particular linguistic features, and to critically consider my role in the research process by investigating the stories and the way they were told in the interviews. The fl exible narrative analysis approach draws on the strengths offered by each model it employs to privilege the narrator’s words. It takes guidance from the interview text in each phase of analysis, and layers of understanding of the account are built up. The initial understanding of the story is gradually enriched by systematic exploration of the text until a new story emerges. Each fi nding contributes to the resultant multidimensional understanding of the meaning of the narrative. The approach resembles triangulation methods in its ambition to view data from different perspectives, seeking not to verify meanings but to add texture to the interpretation of them. For full details of this study, see Frost, N. (2009b) ‘Do you know what I mean?’: the use of a pluralistic narrative analysis approach in the interpretation of an interview. Qualitative Research, 9(1), 9–29. It is also discussed further in Chapters 5 and 7. R e s e a rc h E x a m p le qualitative research methods - final.pdf 17 14/06/2011 14:07 Frost, N. (2011). Ebook : Qualitative research methods in psychology: combining core approaches. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(http://ebookcentral.proquest.com,_blank) href=http://ebookcentral.proquest.com target=_blank style=cursor: pointer;>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from ashford-ebooks on 2021-08-11 22:18:23. C o p yr ig h t © 2 0 1 1 . M cG ra w -H ill E d u ca tio n . A ll ri g h ts r e se rv e d . 8 Chapter 1 Qualitative Research in Psychology of understanding the data, and to highlight complementary, contradictory or absent fi ndings within it. Recent work (Moran-Ellis et al., 2006) has identifi ed different forms of triangula- tion that can be derived from the combining of methods in pursuit of ‘knowing more’ (Moran-Ellis et al., 2006: 45) about a phenomenon. These researchers dis- tinguish between ‘integration’ of methods, which can be understood as ‘a particular, practical relationship between methods, sets of data, analytic fi ndings and per- spectives’ (Moran-Ellis et al., 2006: 46), and ‘triangulation’, which ‘incorporates an epistemological claim about the research’ (Moran-Ellis et al., 2006: 46). They emphasise that the meaning of triangulation has been extended beyond seeking increased confi dence (or validity) in results, as might traditionally have been its reason for use in mixed qualitative-quantitative research. This is an evolution of the traditional approach to triangulation, which uses different methods in order to counter biases and assumptions brought by one method alone, and regards differences in fi ndings as examples of fl aws or biases in measurement. When using methods of different epistemologies (whether positivist and interpretivist, as may be found in some quantitative-qualitative combinations, or social constructionist and critical realist, as may be found in some qualitative-qualitative mixing) triangulation can offer a more in-depth, multidimensional insight to the complexity of the social world. It can generate ‘complementarity’ (Moran-Ellis et al., 2006: 48) instead of highlighting fl aws in measurements. It can ‘refl ect different aspects of a phenomenon’ (Moran-Ellis et al., 2006: 48), and inform researchers about both the phenomenon under study and the research process. This broadening of the meaning of triangulation within social science supports the pragmatic researchers who are more concerned with the technical framework of pluralistic research than the epistemological or theoretical one. R e s e a rc h E x a m p le In our pluralistic work with interviews elicited from women making the transition to second-time motherhood (Frost, 2006; Frost et al., 2010) none of our fi ndings appeared to contradict each other and so we understood this approach to have provided us with a way of ‘generating complementarity’ (e.g. Greene, Caracelli & Graham, 1989). It provided us with different understandings of the phenomenon under study to be refl ections of its different aspects (Moran-Ellis et al., 2006). Our approach was a pragmatic one that was interested in both the insight gained to the phenomenon of transitioning to second-time motherhood, and the process by which we came to derive our understanding of individual experience. In adopting this approach we focused on the role of the researchers as well as on the techniques of analysis that they employed. Epistemological claims were social constructionist so that we took the view that each researcher entered into their own relationship with the data, and that this played a unique role in transforming the data to a presentation of the fi ndings (see Frost et al., 2011). qualitative research methods - final.pdf 18 14/06/2011 14:07 Frost, N. (2011). Ebook : Qualitative research methods in psychology: combining core approaches. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(http://ebookcentral.proquest.com,_blank) href=http://ebookcentral.proquest.com target=_blank style=cursor: pointer;>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from ashford-ebooks on 2021-08-11 22:18:23. C o p yr ig h t © 2 0 1 1 . M cG ra w -H ill E d u ca tio n . A ll ri g h ts r e se rv e d . Paradigms in competition 9 Paradigms in competition While both qualitative and quantitatively orientated approaches to research serve valuable purposes in furthering research aims, mixed-method approaches have been criticised for combining qualitative and quantitative paradigms. It is argued by some that the differing philosophies underlying each of these designs mean that they cannot be combined. The results of such criticisms have been to see the paradigms placed in competition with each other. Many eminent researchers have taken issue with this. Ann Oakley labelled the criticisms ‘a paradigm war’ (Oakley, 1999); she argues against this, saying that there is a place for both approaches and that without both it is not easy to see whether, for example, personal experiences are individual or collective oppression (1999: 251). She highlights that she has perceived animosity directed at her work on the basis that it leans too much towards one paradigm or another. She expresses her ‘puzzlement’ (1999: 248) at having her work labelled as ‘old Oakley’ and ‘new Oakley’, based on the methodologies that she employed over the years, at being asked to account for the difference in her writing and at being accused of ‘letting the qualitative and feminist sides down’ (1999: 248). Importantly, Oakley emphasises that ‘all methods must be open, consistently applied and replicable by others’ (1999: 252). She stresses that, instead of undergoing some sort of conversion away from qualitative research, it is more important to ask why different research methods are seen as opposing in the fi rst place. This question, fi rst asked in 1999, is now increasingly regarded as moot. Subsequent debates about mixing methods (e.g. Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998; 2003) have led to a ‘paradigm peace’ (Bryman, 2006), and other questions, such as those about quality criteria and evaluation of mixed-method research, are being asked (Bryman, 2006). Researchers have taken positions in which they either choose to overlook or marginalise issues of coherence/incoherence in epistemology and ontology in favour of applying methods best suited to the research question. The research question is paramount and it is assumed that ‘Mixed methods research can answer research questions that the other methodologies cannot.’ (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2003: 14, cited in Bryman, 2006: 118). C A S E S T U D Y As a fi nal-year undergraduate student you have the choice of choosing any topic you like to carry out research. You decide to focus on something of which you have personal experience: the death of a close family member. You decide to research how other students have experienced bereavement. To begin the study, you want to fi nd out how many students in your cohort have had this experience. How will you do this, bearing in mind that this is a sensitive topic that may upset people? qualitative research methods - final.pdf 19 14/06/2011 14:07 Frost, N. (2011). Ebook : Qualitative research methods in psychology: combining core approaches. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(http://ebookcentral.proquest.com,_blank) href=http://ebookcentral.proquest.com target=_blank style=cursor: pointer;>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from ashford-ebooks on 2021-08-11 22:18:23. C o p yr ig h t © 2 0 1 1 . M cG ra w -H ill E d u ca tio n . A ll ri g h ts r e se rv e d . 10 Chapter 1 Qualitative Research in Psychology Pluralism in qualitative research In our research we have adopted many of the same reasons for combining qualitative methods with each other as mixed-method researchers do: we take a largely pragmatic view that it is important to fi nd the best methods to address the research question; we are concerned to conduct research that is useful and worthwhile. We concur fully with Oakley that the research methods must be open, and would also agree with Bryman and others that quality criteria that are applicable to one method are not always the best to be applied to another (e.g. Bryman, 2006; 2007). The pluralistic approach that we adopt may be seen to be more towards the agnostic end of a range that places methods as a means of profi ling political and ethical issues at one end (e.g. Parker, 1992) and a focus on understanding how methods can illuminate specifi c phenomena or processes at the other (Willig & Stainton-Rogers, 2008). As Bryman says in relation to mixed-method research, we are concerned to ‘access as much as possible within the data’ (Bryman, 2006) in our adoption of a qualitative pluralistic approach. Areas of research in which pluralism has been used include studies into anomalous experience (Coyle, 2010), the movement of youth identity through space and time (Katsiafi cas et al., 2011), and the management and repair of shame (Leeming & Boyle, 2004). It has been discussed in a Special Issue of Qualitative Research (2006) in relation to triangulation (Moran-Ellis et al., 2006) and multi-modal ethnography (Dicks, Soyinka & Coffey, 2006). The PQR team have published papers on the impact of researchers on pluralistic work (Frost et al., 2010), and on issues of interpretation in pluralistic work (Frost et al., 2011). A forthcoming Special Issue of the Qualitative Research in Psychology journal will focus on a variety of questions raised by employment of a pluralistic qualitative approach through invited papers (Frost & Nolas, Eds 2011). Some research methods incorporate pluralistic working as Once you know who has been bereaved you want to explore what it was like for them. How would you gather such data? Once this decision is made you start analysing the data you have collected. You have some numbers and some words. What might you do with them? In doing the analysis you sometimes fi nd yourself feeling upset and reliving your own experience of being bereaved. What will you do about this? You may not be able to answer all these questions yet, particularly if you are new to research. They are designed to start you thinking about how much you already know about conducting research and what aspects you may want to focus on when using this book. For example, were you clear about which methods to choose? What about defi ning your research question? How were you going to address the ethical considerations of this study, and how were you going to bring refl exive practice into your research? qualitative research methods - final.pdf 20 14/06/2011 14:07 Frost, N. (2011). Ebook : Qualitative research methods in psychology: combining core approaches. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(http://ebookcentral.proquest.com,_blank) href=http://ebookcentral.proquest.com target=_blank style=cursor: pointer;>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from ashford-ebooks on 2021-08-11 22:18:23. C o p yr ig h t © 2 0 1 1 . M cG ra w -H ill E d u ca tio n . A ll ri g h ts r e se rv e d . Pluralism in qualitative research 11 an essential part of their approach. One example is memory work, in which researchers form a collective within which each member contributes a memory and the group analyses it (see Frost et al. (forthcoming) for more details of some of the issues that arose for one group in carrying out this approach). With the re- emergence of pluralism in psychological research (early calls were made in 1983 (Howard) and have surfaced periodically since then (e.g. Burck, 2005; Mason, 2006)) the arguments about whether, and how, methods with differing assumptions can be combined with each other considered what constitutes knowledge and reality. We examine some of these arguments throughout this book by considering the perspectives and insight brought by each method. Perspectives may be informed by epistemological or ontological positions and also by the personal assumptions, cultural knowledge and other contextual information that each researcher brings to their employment of the chosen method(s). The chapters about the different ways in which each method might be employed (Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5) consider in detail the epistemological and refl exive practice arguments and their infl uence on application. The remaining chapters (Chapters 6, 7 and 8) consider practical and theoretical concerns in carrying out research with a pluralistic approach. Why might you want to carry out qualitative research pluralistically? As we have seen, there can be many reasons for carrying out research pluralistically. It may be to achieve the richest experience possible, as in the pragmatic approach, to draw on the most appropriate tools to address the research question, as in the bricolage approach, or to gain different perspectives on a phenomenon, as in the multi-perspectival approach. Different methods may be employed in combination in order to achieve different forms of triangulation of the data. In this book we focus on using only qualitative methods in combination. We discuss how this may help in gaining greater insight to a number of research topics. As researchers you may want to gain as much insight as you can to individual experience, you may want to gain insight to previously under-researched areas, to include participants in the research process, to fi nd news ways of looking at a previously researched phenomenon, to highlight lack of research in some areas of psychology or to use your own experiences to gain insight to others’ experiences of culture or language difference. In all cases you will be considering, at the very least, the context in which the research is being conducted, the uniqueness of the participants’ perspective in their recounting of their experiences, your role in the process and the methods you have brought to the transformation of the data. By bringing refl exivity, context and interpretation to the research process the …