Journal of Marital and Family Therapy April 2001,Vol. 27, No. 2,261- 274

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN FAMILY THERAPY: A SUBSTANTIVE AND METHODOLOGICAL REVIEW

Diane R. Gehart California State University

Dan A. Ratliff and Randall R. Lyle St. Mary’s University

Over the last decade, marriage and family therapy (MFT) researchers have developed a growing interest in qualitative research. In this article, we review substantive and methodological trends in the published qualitative studies within the MFTjeld. The research is compared and contrasted in the following areas: General topic, epistemological theory, methodological theory, sampling and sample, data collection, data analysis procedure, and approach to reliability and validity. We also provide recommendations for future research.

In the last decade, marriage and family therapy (MFT) researchers have become increasingly interested in qualitative approaches to inquiry. Moon, Dillon, and Sprenkle (1990) encouraged the development of qualitative research because it is isomorphic to the cybernetic foundations of family therapy. Similarly, social constructionists and constructivists have also advocated qualitative forms of inquiry (Kvale, 1996; Morris, Gawinski, & Joanning, 1994). The recent interest in qualitative research has produced a growing number of qualitative studies in MFT theory and practice.

In this article, we review the qualitative studies published in family therapy through early 1999 by considering the accumulated research from two perspectives: The substantive aspects of the research and the methodological issues in the studies. The purpose of this type of review is to identify both trends and the corresponding areas for future research. We identified 24 studies by searching two reference databases, PsychLit and PsychInfo. The search relied on database indexing for “qualitative research” and “ethnography” in “family” and “couple/marital” therapy and included indexed literature from the past 20 years. These studies should not be considered to be an exhaustive list, but they provide an adequate foundation for this review. Appendix A contains an overview of the substantive and methodological features of the reviewed studies.

SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW

The substantive review highlights trends in research topics within qualitative family therapy research and specifically outlines four general research categories: A single therapeutic approach (1 1 studies), general family therapy process (4 studies), specific client populations (4 studies), and supervision and professional issues (5 studies). Qualitative family therapy researchers have focused primarily on process and outcome of a single approach to therapy. The majority of qualitative studies on a specific approach have considered postmodem therapies: reflecting teams (4 studies), narrative/constructivist (3 studies), solution-focused (2 studies), and collaborative language systems (1 study). The research by Newfield, Joanning, Kuehl, and Quinn (1991; also see Kuehl, Newfield, & Joanning, 1990) is the only notable exception with its focus on

Diane R. Gehart, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Counseling and Special Education, California State University, 5005

Dan Ratliff, PhD, and Randall R. Lyle, PhD, Associate Professors, Department of Counseling and Human Services, St. Mary’s N. Maple ED 3, Fresno, CA 93740, e-mail: dianeg@csufresno.edu.

University, One Camino Santa Maria, San Antonio, TX 78228.

April 2001 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 261

structural-strategic family therapy. Investigating a broader range of family therapy theories would provide an interesting foundation for comparison and dialogue.

Although published qualitative research in family therapy emphasizes one specific therapeutic approach, dissertations that are indexed as “qualitative” or “ethnographic” family therapy research in Dissertation Abstracts International include proportionally more studies on specific client populations than did the published literature. Thus, there appears to be a significant amount of research on specific clinical family populations that is never published.

METHODOLOGICAL REVIEW

In describing essential characteristics of qualitative research and methodology, Moon et al. (1990) and Gale (1993) describe several dimensions in which qualitative researchers make methodological choices: Epistemological theory, methodological theory, sampling, data collection, data analysis, and reliability and validity. In this review, we evaluate the choices in each domain made by qualitative researchers in MFT. In Appendix A, we present an overview of the methodological choices made in the reviewed studies and attempt to maintain the language and distinctions of the original researchers.

Epistemological Theory Qualitative researchers are typically expected to specify their philosophical and epistemological

premises because these assumptions guide all aspects of the research project, including the choice of methodology, data collection procedures, and analysis (Gale, 1993; LeCompte & Preissle, 1993). Historically, most research, particularly quantitative, has relied on the scientific method, which is inherently grounded in logical-positivist assumptions. This method has been used almost universally with little discussion of epistemological issues. However, the majority of current qualitative research and a small minority of quantitative research is conducted from other theoretical perspectives, including postpostivism, phenomenology, social constructionism, critical theory, feminism, and constructivism (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994), and the researcher is expected to clearly state the underlying assumptions of each study. The inherent sensitivity of qualitative research to epistemological issues makes it a natural partner to a field that has consistently explored these concerns (Anderson, 1997; Bateson, 1972).

~~~~~ ~

TABLE 1 Epistemological Theories Used in Family Therapy Qualitative Research

Epistemological theory Freauenc y

Postpositivism: Phenomenology 5

Systemic 1

Unspecified postpositivism 1

Ethnoscience 2

Multimethod research model 1

Total 10

Social constructionism 4 Constructivism 1 Hermeneutics 1

Postmodernisdconstructivism:

Unspecified postmodernism 2

Total 8

Critical theory: Feminism Unspecified

1 6

262 J O U M L OFMARLGILAND FMLYTHERAPY April 2001

To help classify these epistemological theories, Gale (1993) cites Guba’s (1990; also see Guba & Lincoln, 1994) four paradigmatic distinctions of positivist, postpositivist, critical theory, and constructivist as general approaches to understanding the nature of reality and knowledge. Positivist research “strives to know reality as it really is, rather than as the way human beings make it to be” (Gale, 1993, p. 77). Postpositivists modify the positivist stance by maintaining that a real world exists, but they add that we must carefully account for human bias and sensory limitations when attempting to understand it. Critical theory, which is associated with feminism and neo-Marxism, emphasizes that our perceptions of the world are significantly influenced and shaped by our social values. Finally, constructivism considers knowledge construction about the real world at the individual and interpersonal levels; Guba’s (1990) broad use of the term constructivism equates it with the more general use of the term postmodemism.

As indicated in Table 1, qualitative family therapy researchers favor a postpositivist approach to episte- mology. Phenomenology, the most frequently used postpositivist theory, attempts to identify the lived experience around a given phenomenon (Moustakas, 1994). Phenomenological researchers strive for rich or “thick” description of experience, rather than for explanation. When interviewing and analyzing data, researchers focus on “the basic structures of lived experience” (Polkinghorne, 1983, p. 203), including consciousness, perception, intentionality, and action (Moustakas, 1994). Another frequently used postposi- tivist approach, ethnoscience, has its roots in sociological and anthropological qualitative research and involves the study of culture by analyzing language to determine social thought patterns (Sells, Smith, Coe, Yoshioka, & Robbins, 1994).

Qualitative family therapy researchers also frequently ground their studies in what can generally be described as postmodemism, which includes more specific forms of social constructionism, constructivism, and hermeneutics (Schwandt, 1994). Social constructionism emphasizes the social and intersubjective aspects of knowledge construction, and therefore social-constructionist research is responsive to the interpersonal aspects of meaning construction and interpretive process (Anderson, 1997; Gergen, 1994). In comparison, constructivism considers the individual cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Family therapy research has been particularly influenced by the work of “radical” constructivists (von Foerster, 1991; von Glasersfeld, 1991), who are skeptical of the possibility of directly knowing an ontologically “real” world. Although philosophically related to phenomenology, hermeneutics shares many similarities with constructivism and social constructionism in a research context because of its interest in interpretation and the construction of knowledge (Schwandt, 1994). Hermeneutics relies heavily on textual metaphor and distinguishes itself from other approaches by emphasizing that interpretation is an ontological fact of human existence (Schwandt, 1994).

Methodological Theory Within the numerous qualitative methodologies (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994), family therapy researchers

have used ethnography most often (Table 2). Ethnography is a research approach that developed in anthro- pology to study cultural groups and that has more recently been used to study small-group culture (Boyle, 1994). This research method relies primarily on interviews and participant observation to access the emic or native perspective (Geertz, 1983; Spradley, 1979). Emphasis is placed on understanding human behavior within a given context or culture. Family therapy’s historic link to Gregory Bateson (1972), an anthro- pologist and ethnographer, and the two fields’ similar tasks of understanding social interaction may explain the family therapists’ preference for this research approach (Moon et al., 1990). As a research methodology designed to capture the complexities of human systems, ethnography provides a methodological language and framework that is more sensitive to the dynamics of family/therapist/team/supervisor interactions than many other methodologies.

Sampling and Sample Sampling in qualitative research differs significantly from that in quantitative research, in which the

researcher’s interest in generalizing results gives preference to a random sample. In contrast, the qualitative researcher’s intent to better understand a specified phenomenon demands that participants have certain

April 2001 JOURNAL OFI1.DIRIlXL AND F M I L Y THERAPY 263

Table 2 Methodologies Used in Qualitative Family Therapy Research

Methodology

Ethnography

Conversation analysis

Phenomenological interviews

Ethnographic content analysis

Interpretive interactionism

Naturalistic inquiry

Modified analflc induction

Participant action research

Critical incident study

Grounded theory

Unspecified

Frequency

7

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

characteristics. Reflective of this, purposive (n = 5), criterion-based n = 3), and opportunistic (n = 7), sampling were the most common methods used in the studies included in this overview (Appendix A).

Opportunistic sampling, the most frequently cited sampling procedure in the qualitative MFT research, involves selecting participants based on availability (Honigman, 1970, as cited in Newfield et al., 1991). Purposive sampling requires selecting participants with specific characteristics, such as extreme cases, typical cases, maximum variation, or politically important cases (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Similarly, when using criterion-based sampling, the researcher sets criteria and recruits participants who meet them (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993). Theoretical sampling requires selecting a sample for theoretical reasons, typically either to target a specific group after a first round of interviews (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) or to provide a variety of opinions about the topic under investigation (Smith, Yoshioka, & Winton, 1993).

Unlike quantitative research, qualitative studies do not necessarily gain power with increased sample size. Typically, researchers strive for “saturation” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) or “completeness” (Rubin & Rubin, 1995) of the data, which requires enough cases to clearly identify and substantiate the analysis results. Researchers cannot predetermine the number of cases that are needed to reach saturation based on statistics and instead must assess the requisite number throughout the analysis process.

Comparing sample sizes across the reviewed studies is difficult because the studies varied in the number of persons andor interviews represented in a “case.” The number of persons in a case varied within and across studies because individuals, couples, andor entire families were counted as a client case and some studies included the therapist as part of the case. Furthermore, in some studies all persons in a single case were interviewed several times. Studies that considered both client and researcher perspectives typically required more interviews (Gehart & Lyle, 1999; Sells et al., 1994). The number of interviews in the reviewed studies that involved interviews fell into these categories: 4-8 interviews, n = 7 studies; 10-18 interviews, n = 5 studies; and 24-36 interviews, n = 3 studies.

Studies that analyzed therapeutic discourse without using interviews varied greatly in the number of sessions analyzed. Some considered a single session (Gale, 1991; Kogan & Gale, 1997), whereas another analyzed 12 (Ratliff & Morris, 1995), and still another analyzed 33 (Friedlander, Heatherington, Johnson, & Skowron, 1994). The range in the number of cases for both interview and analyzed-discourse studies underscores the importance of evaluating each qualitative study based on its purpose and methodology, rather than on its numbers-a critical but often forgotten distinction from quantitative research.

264 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND F M I L Y THERAPY April 2001

Data Collection Qualitative data collection can take many forms, including interviews, participant observation,

questionnaires, and video recordings and transcriptions of everyday language. The type of data collected is determined by the research question and the study’s purpose. LeCompte and Preissle (1993) divide data- collection methods into two categories based on the role of the researcher: Interactive (interviews, surveys, and participant observation) and noninteractive (nonparticipant observation, artifact collection, archival materials).

Several of the reviewed MIT studies used more than one method. The majority included an interactive component, such as interviews (18 studies), field notes (4 studies), surveys (3 studies), and participant observation (2 studies). Six studies used primarily noninteractive data collection methods, including recordings of therapy sessions and results from a previous study.

The formats of qualitative interviews, the most frequently used data collection method, ranged from highly structured to emergent and unstructured and were determined by the researcher’s theoretical assumptions and chosen methodology (Gale, 1993). Family therapy researchers tend to prefer moderately structured to unstructured interview formats, which is consistent with their epistemological preferences for postpositivist and postrnodern theories. Although interviews are a natural choice for a discourse-based discipline, family therapists should continue to explore other approaches to data collection that offer alternative perspectives.

Data Analysis Analysis of qualitative data is a complex process that typically requires multiple readings of transcribed

material to code and identify themes. The focus of the analysis process is to elicit meaning from the data (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993). Rather than conceptualizing this process as a discrete stage of the research process, qualitative researchers often describe the analysis as a process that begins with the first interview and evolves in multiple stages throughout the research process (Kvale, 1996).

Few consistent patterns were evident in analysis procedures. For example, although four studies specif- ically cited Corbin and Strauss (1990) or Strauss and Corbin (1990) for their analysis methodology, three different names were given to this analysis procedure: Grounded theory (Smith et al., 1993), iterative process (Smith et al., 1992), and constant comparison (Coulehan, Friedlander, & Heatherington, 1998; Lewis & Moon, 1997). Despite the different names, these studies drew from the grounded-theory tradition of data analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), the most frequently cited analysis approach. The fundamental aim of this methodology is to generate data-derived theory regarding the phenomenon at hand. The theory develops from and is verified through an iterative process of comparing data to the emerging theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Family therapy researchers tend to emphasize constant comparison and iterative process to identify themes, rather than to develop a formal theory about the phenomenon studied, which is the goal of traditional grounded theory. Thus, most family therapy researchers are not using a grounded theory methodology but rather the constant-comparative approach to data analysis.

Another analysis procedure that was used in three studies (Kuehl, et al., 1990; Sells, et al., 1994, 1996), was Spradley’s (1979) domain analysis. In this approach to qualitative analysis, complex sentences and meaning units are analyzed by identifying the semantic relationship of topics discussed. The nine semantic relationships are inclusion, spatial, cause-effect, rationale, location for action, function, means-end, sequence, and attribution. The researcher develops a list of domains based on these relationships and then collapses these into a core category system that highlights themes and patterns.

Conversation analysis was also used in three studies (Gale, 1991; Kogan & Gale, 1997; Ratliff & Morris, 1995). It “is a method of analysis that describes how language is used by speakers to achieve particular results” (Gale & Newfield, 1992, p. 154). More than the other procedures, conversation analysis relies on a highly detailed and specified method of transcription that captures digital as well as analog communication, such as pauses, breaths, and inflection (Atkinson & Heritage, 1984). Researchers analyze transcripts by carefully examining the data for patterns in language use and conversational turns.

Two studies used content analysis, a quantitative process, to complement qualitative analysis. Content analysis involves coding based on predefined categories, which were the results of previous qualitative

April 2001 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FMILY THERAPY 265

TABLE 3 Reliability and Validity Procedures in Qualitative Family Therapy Research

Reliabilitvhaliditv procedures Freauency

Participant verification 9

Multiple coders 7

Triangulation 3

Peer debriefing 3

Researcher bias made explicit 2

Read against interpretatioddeviant ex. 2

Low inference descriptors 1

J o u m a 1 in g

Intercoder reliability 1

1

analyses in both studies (Piercy et al., 1994; Smith et al., 1994). By applying the predefined coding categories, researchers are able to refine categories and identify categorization rules based on newly discovered ambiguities.

Establishing Trustworthiness of Results Unlike quantitative research, the issues of reliability and validity in qualitative research can be

approached in many different ways and are typically determined by one’s epistemological theory and methodology. Thus, researchers expect to see different evaluative criteria used with different approaches. LeCompte and Preissle (1993) believe that “seeking some unitary meaning for validity in qualitative research is a mistake” (p. 330).

In most cases, reliability and validity in qualitative research differ significantly from the traditional quantitative criteria and, therefore, must be redefined (Guba & Lincoln, 1981, 1994; Kirk & Miller, 1986). Some qualitative researchers have encouraged the use of new terminology to avoid confusion. They believe that these terms “violate the philosophy, purpose, and intent of the qualitative paradigm, which is to discover in-depth meanings, understandings, and quality attributes of phenomena studied” (Leininger, 1994, p. 97).

Family therapy researchers have argued that the legitimization of knowledge generated from qualitative research cannot rest on the shoulders of the researcher alone; the burden is shared communally with consumers and stakeholders of the research endeavors (Atkinson, Heath, & Chenail, 1991). Therefore, when considering the validity and reliability of qualitative research, these issues must be considered with the following question in mind: For whom is it valid and reliable and for what purpose? Research consumers must also remember that, although researchers may use various procedures to address issues of validity and reliability, these measures alone do not establish the validity of the research.

Given the complexity of the task, MFT researchers have used several approaches to address the issues of reliability and validity. In Table 3, we highlight the reliability and validity procedures specifically identified by researchers when describing their study.

Participant verification and feedback, the most commonly used procedures, typically involved presenting the preliminary results to the original informants to determine if the results accurately describe their reported experience and to receive feedback on researcher interpretation (Leininger, 1994; Linclon & Guba, 1985). Another commonly means of establishing reliability was the use of multiple coders and the closely related technique of peer examiners (LeCompte & F’reissle, 1993), which reduced potential bias in

266 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2001

the analysis and reporting phase by using multiple perspectives to validate results (Kvale, 1996). In studies that use a strict coding procedure, such as content analysis, intercoder reliability was used.

Triangulation was another technique that family therapy researchers used to establish reliability and validity. This involves using multiple data-collection techniques andor multiple data sources to provide a crosscheck of the findings (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993). Although only a handful of studies specifically cited this technique, many included triangulation in their study designs, such as interviewing both clients and therapists about a given phenomenon. In situations in which triangulation is difficult, such as conversa- tional analysis, deviant examples and reading against interpretation have been used to provide a similar type of check.

Only a couple of studies specifically named explication of researcher role and bias as a means to establish reliability and validity; however, most studies included this information as part of their reporting. Unlike quantitative studies, most qualitative researchers are typically expected to explicitly state their role and biases, especially in studies that are grounded in phenomenology or postmodernism (Kvale, 1996). When qualitative research is grounded in a subjective or intersubjective epistemology, it is critical that the researcher explicate his or her position so that the reader understands the full context of the study. Researcher journaling has also been used to track the development of the researcher’s thoughts, interpre- tations, and assumptions.

Another infrequently cited approach to reliability and validity is the use of low-inference descriptors. This typically involves the inclusion of direct quotes from persons interviewed to support themes reported in the results. These low-inference descriptors allow the reader to better assess the trustworthiness of the research report (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The variety and number of methods used by MFT researchers to establish trustworthiness highlight multiple epistemological perspectives on ìtruthî and support Atkinson et al.’s (1991) call for critical and active research consumers.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The introduction and development of qualitative research in the field of family therapy has been an exciting and invigorating process. A comparison of these studies reveals a common interest in deepening the theoretical and practical understanding of family therapy and its usefulness in the “real” world. Combined, these studies reflect a growing desire to delve more deeply into human experience and to better understand on how we relate to one another and our common world. Qualitative research has had a “humanizing” effect on research in the field as the voices of clients and therapists are brought into the profession’s formal dialogue. These new voices are a radical shift from a traditional research paradigm that privileges the researcher’s distinctions by representing therapy participants solely on their numeric performance on researcher-defined measures. The human perspective provided through qualitative investigation will allow future research and theory to be more representative of and responsive to the actual experiences of clients and therapists. Among its many benefits, qualitative research has the potential to ensure that family therapy remains helpful and humane. However, as the MFT research community further explores this rich, multifaceted method of inquiry, the following contextual issues should be considered: Methodological diversity, topic diversity, reporting, and relationship to quantitative research.

Methodological Diversity Qualitative researchers have numerous options for methods and analysis procedures. Although certain

trends have developed in the field, we hope that no one method becomes regarded as “standard” or “superior.” Ultimately, the field benefits from the different forms of knowledge offered by different method- ologies and procedures. For example, the knowledge produced from an ethnographic interview study is qualitatively different than information acquired through a conversation analysis study of the same topic.

Diversity of Topics As noted above, published research seems to favor qualitative studies on specific therapeutic models,

although numerous studies on specific populations have been conducted as dissertations in the field. Studies

April 2001 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 267

on specific populations allow clinicians and researchers access to client voices and perspectives that would otherwise go unheard and, therefore, these studies are potentially valuable to family therapy clinicians. Similarly, family therapy process and outcome is an area that is also in need of additional research.

Reporting The further development of qualitative research in the field may benefit by routinely including the type

of methodological information identified in Appendix A: Epistemological theory, methodological theory, sampling procedure, data collection methods (role of the researcher), data analysis, and reliability and validity. By providing this information, researchers specify the epistemological and theoretical frame in which they wish to have the study interpreted and evaluated. Because qualitative research is considerably more varied than quantitative research, a universal standard (or perceived set of standards) is impossible; therefore the researcher must communicate more to the audience and stakeholders (Atkinson et al., 1991).

Relation to Quantitative Methods Qualitative research should not be considered to be a replacement or rival of more traditional quanti-

tative approaches but, rather, a necessary complement that produces a different type of knowledge. Quantitative research provides us with the general knowledge and trends of which we need to be aware, whereas qualitative research can provide us with the specific knowledge and personal stones that add depth and life to the statistics. The potential “dialogue” between these two perspectives produces a richer understanding than either approach alone.

CONCLUSION

Qualitative research is a relatively new approach to seeking understanding and explanation in the field of family therapy. The richness and diversity of qualitative methods are welcome additions to the quanti- tative research that is already being done because neither methodology is complete or sufficient in and of itself. We believe that even as the MFT field has been enriched through the cross-pollination of diverse disciplines in its formation, so it will continue to be enriched and strengthened as it embraces the diversity of available research methodologies. The discourse represented by the qualitative research studies in this survey is a welcome sign of the continued vibrancy and growth of MFT research and its application to real families and therapists.

REFERENCES

Andersen, T. (1997). Researching client-therapist relationships: A collaborative study for informing therapy. Journal of Systemic

Anderson, H. (1997). Conversations, language and possibilities: A postmodern approach to therapy. New York Basic. Atkinson, B., Heath, A., & Chenail, R. J. (1991). Qualitative research and the legitimization of knowledge. Journal of Marital

Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (1984). Structures of social action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bateson, G . (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S . K. (1992). Qualitative research for education (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, M A Allyn & Bacon. Boyle, J. S. (1994). Styles of ethnography. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 159-185).

Caldwell, K., Becvar, D. S., Bertolino, R., & Diamond, D. (1997). A postmodem analysis of a course on clinical supervision.

Christensen, L. L., Russell, C. S., Miller, R. B., & Peterson, C. M. (1998). The process of change in couples therapy: A

Colaizzi, P. F. (1978). Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. In R. Valle and M. King (Eds.), Existential-

Corbin, J., & Straw, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology,

Coulehan, R. Friedlander, M. L., & Heatherington, L. (1998). Transforming client narratives: A change event in constructivist

Therapies, 16, 125-144.

and Family Therapy, 17, 175-180.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Contemporary Family Therapy, 19, 269-287.

qualitative investigation. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 24, 177-188.

phenomenological alternatives for psychology (pp. 48-71). New York: Oxford University.

13, 3-2 1 .

268 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND F M I L Y THERAPY April 2001

family therapy. Family Process, 37, 17-33. Dallos, R., Neale, A,, & Strouthos, M. (1997). Pathways to problems-the evolution of “pathology.” Journal of Family Therapy,

Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretive interactionism. Newbury Park, C A Sage. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Friedlander, M. L., Heatherington, L., Johnson, B., & Skowron, E. A. (1994). Sustaining engagement: A change event in family

Gale, J. E. (1991). Conversation analysis of therapeutic discourse: The pursuit of a therapeutic agenda. Nonvood, NJ: Ablex. Gale, J. E. (1993). A field guide to qualitative inquiry and its clinical relevance. Contemporary Family Therapy, 15, 73-91. Gale, J., & Newfield, N. A. (1992). A conversational analysis of a solution-focused marital therapy session. Journal of Marital

Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York Basic. Gehart, D. R., & Lyle, R. R. (1999). Client and therapist perspectives of change in collaborative language systems: An

Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and relationships: Soundings in social constructionism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard. Gilgun, J. F., Daly, K., & Handel, G. (Eds.). (1992). Qualitative methods in family research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine. Guba, E. G. (Ed.). (1990). The paradigm dialog. Newbury Park, C A Sage. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),

Howe, D. (1996). Client experiences of counselling and treatment interventions: A qualitative study of family views of family

Kirk, J., & Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Kogan, S. M., & Gale, J. E. (1997). Decentering therapy: Textual analysis of a narrative therapy session. Family Process, 36,

Kuehl, B. P., Joanning, H., & Newfield, N. A. (1990). A client-based description of family therapy. Journal of Family

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews. Thousand Oaks, C A Sage. LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. San Diego, C A Academic

Leininger, M. (1994). Evaluation criteria and critique of qualitative research studies. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in

Lewis, K. G., & Moon, S. (1997). Always single and single again women: A qualitative study. Journal of Marital and Family

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, G. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Mauzey, E., & Erdman, P. (1997). Trainee perceptions of live supervision phone-ins: A phenomenological inquiry. Clinical

Metcalf, L., & Thomas, F. (1994). Client and therapist perceptions of solution focused brief therapy: A qualitative analysis.

Moon, S. M., Dillon, D. R., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1990). Family therapy and qualitative research. Journal of Marital and Family

Moms, J., Gawinski, B. A,, & Joanning, H. (1994). The therapist-investigator relationship in family therapy research. Journal

Moustakas. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Newfield, N. A,, Joanning, H., Kuehl, B. P., & Quinn, W. H. (1991). We can tell you about “psychos” and “shrinks.” In T. C.

Todd & M. D. Selekman (Eds.), Family therapy approaches with adolescent substance abusers @p. 277-310). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Nylund, D., & Thomas, J. (1997). Situating therapist’s questions in the presence of the family: A qualitative inquiry. Journal oj Systemic Therapies, 16, 21 1-228.

Piercy, F. P, Moon, S. M., & Bischof, G. P. (1994). Difficult journal article rejections among prolific family therapists: A qualitative critical incident study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 20, 231-245.

Polkinghome, D. (1983). Methodology for the human sciences: Systems of inquiry. Albany: State University of New York Press. Ratliff, D. A,, & Moms, G. H. (1995). Telling how to say it: A way of giving suggestions in family therapy supervision. In G.

H. Moms & R. J. Chenail (Eds.), The talk of the clinic: Explorations in the analysis of medical and therapeutic discourse

19, 369-399.

therapy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41, 438448.

and Family Therapy, 18, 153-165.

interpretive ethnography. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 18(4), 78-97.

and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-1 17). Thousand Oaks, C A Sage.

therapy. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 24, 367-375.

101-126.

Psychology, 3, 31&321.

Press.

qualitative research methods (pp. 95-1 15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Therapy, 23, 115-134.

Supervisor; 15, 115-128.

Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 5(4), 4946.

Therapy, 16, 357-313.

of Systemic Therapies, I3(2), 24-28.

April 2001 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY TH-RAPY 269

(pp. 13 1-147). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (199.5). Qualitarive interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),

Sells, S. P., Smith, T. E., Coe, M. J., Yoshioka, M., & Robbins, J. (1994). An ethnography of couple and therapist experiences

Sells, S. P., Smith, T. E., & Moon, S. (1996). An ethnographic study of client and therapist perceptions of therapy effectiveness

Smith, T. E., Sells, S. P., & Clevenger, T. (1994). Ethnographic content analysis of couple and therapist perceptions in a

Smith, T. E., Winton, M., & Yoshioka, M. (1992). A qualitative understanding of reflecting-teams II: Therapists’ perspectives.

Smith, T. E.,Yoshioka, M., & Winton, M. (1993). A qualitative understanding of reflecting teams I: Client perspectives. Journal

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic intervia. Fort Worth, Tx: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics ofqualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Intmduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meanings. New York Wiley. Usherwood, A., & Hermansson, G. (199.5). The “counseled-deciding-self’ in separation and custody: An analysis of narrative.

von Foerster, H. (1991). Through the eyes of the other. In F. Steier (Ed.), Research and reflexivity (pp. 63-75). Newbury Park,

von Glasersfeld, E. (1991). Knowing without metaphysics: Aspects of the radical constructivist position. In F. Steier (Ed.),

Whipple, V. (1996). Developing an identity as a feminist family therapist: Implications for training. Journal of Martial and

Handbook ofqualitative research (pp. 118-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

in reflecting team practice. Journal ofMantal and Family Therapy, 20, 247-266.

in a university-based training clinic. Journal ofMarita1 and Family Therapy, 22, 321-342.

reflecting team setting. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 20, 267-286.

Contemporary Family Therapy, 14, 419432.

of Systemic Therapies, 12, 2843.

Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 22(3/4), 221-240.

CA: Sage.

Research and reflexivity @p. 12-29). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Family Therapy, 22, 381-396.

270 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2001

Research topic

Epistemological Methodological Samplingl Data Data Reliability theory thoery sample collection analysis and validity

Opportunistic sampling; 12 families

Purposive sampling; single session

Puposive sam- pling; 6 couples.

Moderately structured interviews

Videotape/transcript of single therapy session

Interviews using colloquial language

Structural-strate- gic therapy (client perspectives)

Constructivism

Solution-focused therapy

Solution-focused brief therapy (client and thera- pist perspectives)

Details assump- tions of conversation analysis; systemic

Unspecified

deviant examples; l multiple I researchers/ ' consultants

I

Reflecting teams (client perspectives)

Social constructionism

Reflecting teams (therapist perspectives)

Unspecified Opportunistic sampling; 4 person team

Open-ended inter- views; field notes; observation

Reflecting teamdcouples

Ethnoscience (cognitive theory)

Opportunistic sampling; 7 cou- ples; 5 therapists

Open-ended inter- views; field notes. 3 interviews each

Kuehl, Joanning, and Newfield (1990); Newfield, Joanning, Kuehl, r and Quinn (1 99 1)

I I Ethnography Domain analysis

(Spradley, 1979) Later informants compared their experience to pre- vious informants

Conversation analysis

Conversation analysis; constant- comparative method

Gale (1991); Gale and Newfield (1992)

Thomas (1 994) Unspecified Comparative

approach Unspecified

Smith, Yoshioka, I and Winton Ethnography Grounded theory

(Corbin & Strauss, 1990)

Multiple coders Theoretical

(1993) cases

Participant- observation

Iterative process (Corbin & Strauss, 1990)

Multiple coders Smith, Winton, and Yoshioka ( 1992)

Ethnography Informant verification.

Domain analysis (Spradley, 1979)

Sells, Smith, Coe, Yoshioka, and Robbins (1994)

(continued)

APPENDIX A (continued) Qualitative Research Studies in Marriage and Family Therapy

Multimethod research model

Ethnographic N/A content analysis

Content analysis

Constant compari- son (Corbin & Straws, 1990); Cognitive construc- tions coding system

Inteder reliability; informant verifica- tion;quaJitativdquan- titabive comparison

Therapist and team feedback; multiple observers

Phenomenology Unspecified Purposive sam- pling; 8 families/l therapists

Social constructionism

Details assump- tions of conversa- tion analysis; postmodernism

Naturalistic Unspecified inquiry (Lincoln sampling; 11 & Guba, 1985) client cases

Textual analysis; Fkposive conversation sampling; single analysis; ethno- session methodology

Joumaling; peer I debriefing; read-

ing against inter- pretation

Social constructionism

Interpretive Criterion-based ethnography sampling; 5 (Geertz, 1983) families and

5 therapists

Unspecified Modified analytic Purposive induction method sampling; 6

families

Reliability I sample I collection Data I analysis Data I and validity Sampling/ Research

topic

Qualitative studies on specific therapeutic approaches (continued)

Smith, Sells, and Clevenger ( 1994)

Reflecting teamdcouples

Domain cate- gories from Sells et al. (1994)

Coulehan, Fried- lander, & Heatherington ( 1998)

Constructivist (Sluzki’s narrative approach)

Videotapes of therapy sessions; post-session ques tionnaire for ther apist/observers

Nylund & Thomas (1997)

Narrative tech- nique: “situating therapist” (client perspectives)

Informal, conversational interviews

Unspecified Researcher bias and experience explicit

Kogan & Gale (1 997)

Narrative therapy Videotape/tran- script of therapy session

Conversation analysis

Gehart-Brooks & Lyle (1 999)

Collaborative Language Sys- tems (client and therapist perspectives)

Interviews, emergent design. 3 interviews each

Researcher and participant based analysis (Kvale, 1996)

Informant verifi- cation

Qualitative studies on general family therapy process

Friedlander, Heatherington, Johnson, & Skowron (1994)

Sustaining engagement

Videotapes of 33 sessions; field notes

Modified analytic induction method (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992)

Verification checks-with thera- pists; multiple coders

I I I I I I I

APPENDIX A (continued) Qualitative Research Studies in Marriage and Family Therapy

Research Epistemological topic theory

Methodological Samplingl Data Data Reliability thoery sample collection analysis and validity

Andersen (1997)

Howe (1996)

Sells, Smith, & Moon (1996)

Client-therapist relationships

Family therapy

Therapy effective- ness (systemic therapies; client and therapist

Separation/ Divorce (client perspectives)

Single women & single again

Phenomenology; ethnographic trac- tion.

Phenomenology

Unspecified sampling; 13 cou- ples; 9 therapists

Individual interviews with partners; semi- structured.

therapy process (continued) ~~ ~

Social constructionism

Opportunistic Interviews based on reflecting team procedure

Case studies Unspecified Participatory action research

Hermeneutics Unspecified Unspecified; 32 client families

Interviews with broad, open-endec questions

Unspecified Unspecified

Ethnoscienc Ethnography opportunistic sampling; 14 client families; 4 therapists

Interviews with open-ended, spe- cific questions

Domain analysis (Spradley, 1979)

Audit trail; tsian- gulation; low inference descrip- tors; clinical set- ting

Triangulation

I perspectives)

Qualitative Studies on Specific Client Population:

Usherwood & Hermansson ( 1995)

Interpretive Inter- actionism

Six Phases out- lined in Interpre- tive Interaction- ism (Denzin, 1989)

sampling; 2 interviews; read-

apists

Lewis & Moon ( 1997)

Ethnography Criterion based; newspaper ad to recruit; 37 in groups and 39 survey respon- dents

Focus groups using phenomeno. logical interview- ing and semi- structured, mailed questionnaire

Constant-compar- ison (Straus & Corbin, 1990)

Triangulation; two-phase study; peer debriefing

Christensen, Rus- sell, Miller & Peterson (1998)

Couples in therapy for relational distress

Unspecified Grounded theory Constant compari- son (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984).

Multiple coders

APPENDMA (continued) Qualitative Research Studies in Marriage and Family Therapy

Research topic

~

Data Reliability collection analysis and validity

Epistemological Methodological Sampling/ theory thoery sample

Unspecified sam- pling; 10 families with psychiatric history; 8 without

Qualitative studies on supervision and professional issues:

Semi-structured Unspecified Unspecified interviews with “life path” and geno- grams. Reviewed case notes; consulted with psychiatric ctaff

(1 995)

Dallos, Neale, & Strouthos (1997)

man (1997) phone-ins

Comparison of Unspecified Unspecified families with pathology to families without

Phenomenological analysis (Colaizzi, 1978)

Participant verification

I I

Whipple (1 996)

Conversation analysis

Identity develop- Feminism; Phe- ment of feminist nomenology family therapists

Phenomenologica interviews

Unspecified pro- cedure; compared results to litera- ture and personal experience

Unspecified pro- cedure; grounded in postmodernism

Analytic induc- tion and constant comparison; quantitative content analysis

Phenomenology Member check; comparison to literature

Multiple researchers; researcher role and story made public

Follow-up inter- views; multiple coders

Unspecified Caldwell, Becvar, Bertolino, & Dia- mond (1997)

Piercy, Moon, & Bischof (1994)

Critical-incident study

Supervision Postmodernism course

Difficult journal Postpositivism article rejections

~

Unspecified; 12 supervision ses- sions; 3 supervisors

Unspecified sampling; 8 doctoral students

Opportunistic sampling; 13 therapists

Unspecified sam- pling; 6 supervi- sors in training

Criterion-based selection; 17 authors total; 5 were interviewed

~

Transcripts of 12 supervision ses- sions

Interviews using grand tour and min tour questions (Spradley, 1979)

Phenomenologica interviewing; fielc notes

Pre- and postinter views; in-class observations

Semi-structured, written survey with open-ended items; follow-up phone interviews

Unspecified Unspecified