Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena

250 Pages·2011·11.741 MB·English

by  Clara E. Hill

2
3
Copyright © 2012 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved. Except as permitted under the United States Copyright Act
of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, including, but not limited to, the process of
scanning and digitization, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
Electronic edition published 2012.
ISBN: 978-1-4338-1005-4 (electronic edition).
Published by
American Psychological Association
750 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
www.apa.org
To order
APA Order Department
P.O. Box 92984
Washington, DC 20090-2984
Tel: [phone]; Direct: [phone]
Fax: [phone]; TDD/TTY: [phone]
Online: www.apa.org/pubs/books
E-mail: [email protected]
In the U.K., Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, copies may be ordered from
American Psychological Association
3 Henrietta Street
Covent Garden, London
WC2E 8LU England
Cover Designer: Naylor Design, Washington, DC
The opinions and statements published are the responsibility of the authors, and such opinions and statements do not necessarily represent the
policies of the American Psychological Association.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Consensual qualitative research : a practical resource for investigating social science phenomena / edited by Clara E. Hill.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN-13: 978-1-4338-1007-7
ISBN-10: 1-4338-1007-7
1. Qualitative research. 2. Social sciences—Research. 3. Social sciences—Methodology. I. Hill, Clara E., 1948-
H62.C58497 2011
001.4'2—dc22
2010054365
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A CIP record is available from the British Library.
First Edition
4
Contents
CONTRIBUTORS
I    
General Overview of Consensual Qualitative Research
1. Introduction to Consensual Qualitative Research
Clara E. Hill
2. Philosophical and Historical Background of Consensual Qualitative Research
Jessica V. Stahl, Nicole E. Taylor, and Clara E. Hill
II    
Conducting Consensual Qualitative Research
3. Getting Started
Rachel E. Crook-Lyon, Melissa K. Goates-Jones, and Clara E. Hill
4. The Research Team
Barbara L. Vivino, Barbara J. Thompson, and Clara E. Hill
5. Biases and Expectations
Wonjin Sim, Teresa C. Huang, and Clara E. Hill
6. The Sample
Clara E. Hill and Elizabeth Nutt Williams
7. Data Collection
Alan W. Burkard, Sarah Knox, and Clara E. Hill
8. Coding the Data: Domains and Core Ideas
Barbara J. Thompson, Barbara L. Vivino, and Clara E. Hill
9. Cross-Analysis
Nicholas Ladany, Barbara J. Thompson, and Clara E. Hill
10. Auditing
Lewis Z. Schlosser, J. Jane H. Dewey, and Clara E. Hill
11. Writing the Manuscript
Sarah Knox, Lewis Z. Schlosser, and Clara E. Hill
12. Qualitative Meta-Analyses of Consensual Qualitative Research Studies
Clara E. Hill, Sarah Knox, and Shirley A. Hess
III    
Overall Considerations
13. Establishing Trustworthiness in Consensual Qualitative Research Studies
Elizabeth Nutt Williams and Clara E. Hill
14. Considerations Related to Culture in Consensual Qualitative Research
Arpana G. Inman, Erin E. Howard, and Clara E. Hill
5
15. Ethical Considerations in Consensual Qualitative Research
Alan W. Burkard, Sarah Knox, and Clara E. Hill
16. Annotated Bibliography of Studies Using Consensual Qualitative Research
Harold T. Chui, John L. Jackson, Jingqing Liu, and Clara E. Hill
IV    
Modifications and Extensions of Consensual Qualitative Research
17. Consensual Qualitative Research for Simple Qualitative Data: An Introduction to CQR-M
Patricia T. Spangler, Jingqing Liu, and Clara E. Hill
18. The Modification of Consensual Qualitative Research for Case Study Research: An Introduction to
CQR-C
John L. Jackson, Harold T. Chui, and Clara E. Hill
APPENDIX: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT CONSENSUAL QUALITATIVE
RESEARCH
ABOUT THE EDITOR
6
Contributors
Alan W. Burkard, PhD, Associate Professor/Department Chair, Marquette University,
Milwaukee, WI
Harold T. Chui, MS, Doctoral Student, Counseling Psychology, Department of Psychology,
University of Maryland, College Park
Rachel E. Crook-Lyon, PhD, Assistant Professor, Counseling Psychology and Special Education,
Brigham Young University, Provo, UT
J. Jane H. Dewey, MA, Doctoral Student, Counseling Psychology, Seton Hall University, South
Orange, NJ
Melissa K. Goates-Jones, PhD, Psychologist, Adjunct Clinical Faculty, Counseling and Career
Center, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT
Shirley A. Hess, PhD, Associate Professor, Shippensburg University, Shippensburg, PA
Clara E. Hill, PhD, Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park
Erin E. Howard, PhD, Licensed Psychologist, Fayetteville Veterans Affairs Medical Center,
Fayetteville, NC
Teresa C. Huang, BS, Doctoral Student, University of Maryland, College Park
Arpana G. Inman, PhD, Associate Professor and Training Director, Counseling Psychology,
Department of Education, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA
John L. Jackson, MEd, Doctoral Student, Counseling Psychology, University of Maryland, College
Park
Sarah Knox, PhD, Associate Professor, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI
Nicholas Ladany, PhD, Professor and Director, Counseling Program, Loyola Marymount
University, Los Angeles, CA
Jingqing Liu, MA, Doctoral Student, Counseling Psychology, University of Maryland, College
Park
Lewis Z. Schlosser, PhD, ABPP, Associate Professor, Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ
Wonjin Sim, PhD, Assistant Professor, Chatham University, Pittsburgh PA
Patricia T. Spangler, PhD, Instructor, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College
Park
Jessica V. Stahl, PhD, Core Faculty, Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology, Boston
Nicole E. Taylor, PhD, Psychologist, Colorado Blood Cancer Institute, Denver
Barbara J. Thompson, PhD, Adjunct Faculty, George Washington University, Washington, DC
Barbara L. Vivino, PhD, Psychologist, Private Practice, Berkeley, CA
Elizabeth Nutt Williams, PhD, Dean of the Core Curriculum, St. Mary’s College of Maryland, St.
Mary’s City
7
8
9
W
hen I started doing research, I used quantitative methods because they were the only
approaches that I knew at the time. For example, I developed a category system for coding therapist
behaviors (Hill, 1978). Using this system, I trained judges to code each therapist sentence into one
of several mutually exclusive categories of verbal response modes (e.g., reflection of feeling,
interpretation). Once the therapist behavior was coded reliably, I could calculate how often each
verbal response mode was used within and across sessions. The proportion of response modes could
then be examined descriptively (e.g., differences between Rogers, Perls, and Ellis in their use of
response modes; Hill, Thames, & Rardin, 1979) or correlated with other variables (e.g., immediate
client response, session evaluation; Hill et al., 1988).
This method for training judges and attaining validity and reliability on category systems has
been well developed and has been used frequently (see Hill & Lambert, 2004; Lambert & Hill,
1994), and it is particularly good for behaviors that are easily observable and require minimal
interpretation (e.g., head nods). Unfortunately, many of the behaviors of most interest to
researchers are not so transparent. As Holsti (1969) so aptly noted, “If you can’t count it, it doesn’t
count . . . if you can count it, that ain’t it” (p. 112).
For me, the culmination of this quantification-based, and somewhat sterile, paradigm came in
a study examining the effects of therapist verbal response modes within 132 sessions of eight cases
of brief psychotherapy, where each therapist and client statement was meticulously coded. In this
study (Hill et al., 1988), we found that therapist verbal response modes accounted for only 1% of
the variance of immediate client outcome (reactions, experiencing levels) and dropped to 0% when
therapist intentions and previous client experiencing levels were added to the regression equations!
How disheartening! After more than a decade of developing measures and then painstakingly
collecting and coding data, we found that therapist verbal response modes did not seem to matter, a
finding that fundamentally challenged my expectations and clinical experiences. Around this time, I
went into an existential crisis (see Hill, 1984). I had been brought up in this particular research
paradigm, I had played the game—and it did not work. Either my suppositions were wrong, or the
method was wrong or just not appropriate for my topic.
Around this same time, several people were discussing problems with quantitative methods
(see, e.g., Goldman, 1976, 1979). I remember participating in many such discussions at conferences
(see Hill & Gronsky, 1984) where we lamented what we could learn from quantitative methods.
10