Handbook of methodological approaches to community-based research : qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

409 Pages·2016·4.44 MB·English

by  Leonard A. Jason, David S. Glenwick

H A N D B O OK
OF  M ET HOD OL O GIC A L
A PPROAC H E S
TO  C OM M U N I T Y-BA S ED
R E S E A RC H
H A N D B O OK
O F  M E T H OD OL O G I C A L
A P P ROAC H E S
T O  C OM M U N I T Y- BA S E D
R E S E A RC H
Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
EDI T E D BY
L EONA R D A .  JASON
A ND
DAVID S. GLENWICK
1
1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of
Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research,
scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide.
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press
in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by
Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016
© Oxford University Press 2016
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior
permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law,
by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization.
Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the
Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
A copy of this book’s Catalog-in-Publication Data is on file with the Library of Congress
ISBN 978–0–19–024365–4
1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Printed in the United States of America
on acid-free paper
C O N T E N T S

Foreword by Raymond P. Lorion  vii 9. Photovoice and House Meetings as

Acknowledgments  xi Tools Within Participatory Action
Research  81
About the Editors  xiii
R EGINA DAY LANGHOUT, JESICA SIHAM
Contributors  xv
FERNÁNDEZ, DENISE W YLDBOR E,
AND JORGE SAVALA
1. Introduction to Community-Based
1 0. Geographic Information Systems  93
Methodological Approaches  1
ANDR EW LOHMANN
LEONAR D A. JASON AND DAVID S. GLENWICK

1 1. Causal Layered Analysis  103

SECTION ONE: Qualitative LAUR EN J. BR EEN, PETA L. DZIDIC,
Approaches AND BRIAN J. BISHOP

1 2. Emotional Textual Analysis  111
2. Introduction to Qualitative
RENZO CAR LI, ROSA MARIA PANICCIA,
Approaches  13
FIAMMETTA GIOVAGNOLI, AGOSTINO
ANNE E. BRODSKY, SAR A L. BUCKINGHAM,
CARBONE, AND FIOR ELLA BUCCI
JILL E. SCHEIBLER, AND TERRI MANNARINI

3. Grounded Theory  23
SECTION TWO: Quantitative
ANDR EW R ASMUSSEN, ADEYINK A
Approaches 
M. AKINSULUR E-SMITH, AND TR ACY CHU

4. Thematic Analysis  33 1 3. Introduction to Quantitative
STEPHANIE RIGER AND Methods  121
R ANNVEIG SIGURVINSDOTTIR CHRISTIAN M. CONNELL

5. Community Narratives  43 1 4. Latent Growth Curves  133
BR ADLEY D. OLSON, DANIEL G. COOPER, MEGAN R. GR EESON
JUDAH J. VIOLA, AND BRIAN CLARK
1 5. Latent Class Analysis and Latent

6. Appreciative Inquiry  53 Profile Analysis  143
NEIL M. BOYD GLENN A. WILLIAMS AND
FR AENZE KIBOWSKI
7. The Delphi Method  61

SHANE R. BR ADY 1 6. Multilevel Structural Equation
Modeling  153
8. Ethnographic Approaches  69
JOHN P. BARILE
UR MITAPA DUTTA
vi Contents

17. Cluster-Randomized Trials  165 2 8. Photoethnography in
NATHAN R. TODD AND PATRICK J. FOWLER Community-Based Participatory
Research  283
1 8. Behavioral and Time-Series
K ATHERINE CLOUTIER
Approaches  177

M ARK A. MATTAINI, LEONAR D A. JASON, 2 9. Data Visualization  293
AND DAVID S. GLENWICK GINA CAR DAZONE AND RYAN TOLMAN

1 9. Data Mining  187 3 0. Concept Mapping  305
JACOB FURST, DANIELA STAN R AICU, AND LISA M. VAUGHN AND DANIEL MCLINDEN
LEONAR D A. JASON
3 1. Functional Analysis of Community

2 0. Agent-Based Models  197 Concerns in Participatory
ZACHARY P. NEAL AND JENNIFER A. LAWLOR Action Research  315
YOLANDA SUAR EZ-BALCAZAR AND
2 1. Social Network Analysis  207
FABRICIO BALCAZAR
MARIAH KORNBLUH AND

JENNIFER WATLING NEAL 3 2. Network Analysis and Stakeholder
Analysis in Mixed Methods Research  325
2 2. Dynamic Social Networks  219
ISIDRO MAYA-JARIEGO, DAVID FLORIDO DEL
LEONAR D A. JASON, JOHN LIGHT,
CORR AL, DANIEL HOLGADO, AND
AND SAR AH CALLAHAN
JAVIER HERNÁNDEZ-R AMÍR EZ

3 3. Mixed Methodology in Multilevel,
SECTION THREE: Mixed Methods
Multisetting Inquiry  335
Approaches 
NICOLE E. ALLEN, ANGELA L. WALDEN,

2 3. Introduction to Mixed Methods EMILY R. DWORKIN, AND SHABNAM JAVDANI

Approaches  233
3 4. Mixed Methods and Dialectical
VALERIE R. ANDERSON
Pluralism  345

2 4. Action Research  243 TR ES STEFUR AK, R. BURKE JOHNSON,
BRIAN D. CHRISTENS, VICTORIA FAUST, AND ERYNNE SHATTO

JENNIFER GADDIS, PAULA TR AN INZEO,
3 5. Community Profiling in
CAROLINA S. SAR MIENTO, AND
Participatory Action Research  355
SHANNON M. SPARKS
CATERINA ARCIDIACONO, TER ESA TUOZZI,

2 5. Community-Based Participatory AND FORTUNA PROCENTESE
Action Research  253

MICHAEL J. KR AL AND JAMES ALLEN Afterword by G. Anne Bogat  365

Index  369
2 6. Youth-Led Participatory Action
Research  263
EMILY J. OZER

2 7. Participatory Mixed Methods
Research Across Cultures  273
REBECCA VOLINO ROBINSON, E. J. R. DAVID,
AND MAR A HILL
F OR E WOR D

It seems like only yesterday that I  prepared Readers will complete the volume with a
a foreword for the first edited volume on broadened sense of community psychol-
community-based research methods by Leonard ogy’s impact on and relationships with mul-
Jason and David Glenwick (2012). At the time, tiple other disciplines. With methodological
I explained that my words would attempt to prepare pluralism will come disciplinary pluralism!
readers for what lay ahead, that is, a groundbreak- (Lorion, 2012, p. xvi)
ing presentation of widely diverse and, I  assumed
for many readers, unfamiliar methods that could In the brief short years between publication of that
be applied to the study of community-based issues. volume with its “mere” 13 chapters and the finaliza-
Since one is asked to prepare forewords later in tion of this 35-chapter volume, the array of meth-
one’s career, I  had no reservation about acknowl- ods available for community-based studies appears
edging my own lack of familiarity with a number to be expanding exponentially! Consider that the
of the methods presented. I  could also readily 2012 volume distributed the 12 substantive chap-
acknowledge that I  learned much in reading the ters across four groupings:
volume. In that foreword, I encouraged readers to
proceed deliberately through the volume because: • Pluralism and Mixed Methods in
Community Research (3 chapters)
As noted, readers should proceed with • Methods Involving Grouping of Data
caution—but they should also be buoyed (3 chapters)
by scholarly curiosity and professional • Methods Involving Change Over Time
enthusiasm—for I would predict that, if read (2 chapters)
carefully, the contents of this volume are • Methods Involving Contextual Factors
very likely to change the questions that read- (4 chapters)
ers ask and the solutions that they seek. As
a consequence, the discipline’s rigor will be By contrast, the current volume’s 34 substantive
enhanced, along with its heuristic contribu- offerings address three groupings:
tions to our understanding of human behav-
ior within real-life settings and under real-life • Qualitative Approaches (11 chapters)
circumstances. The methods described in • Quantitative Approaches (10 chapters)
this volume add substantially to the tools we • Mixed Methods Approaches (13 chapters)
will have available to understand, predict, and
ultimately inf luence the healthy development Each grouping’s contents is nearly as large as the
of individuals, groups, and communities. original volume’s substantive offerings. How
viii For eword
can that be? The breadth of topics in each cate- our preparation as “scientist-practitioners” and pass
gory seemingly ref lects both an increase in, and muster with colleagues engaged in basic research.
the differentiation within, methods. But more Jason, Glenwick, and I  shared much in com-
than that, however, I  would propose that the mon as graduates of the University of Rochester’s
first volume’s publication legitimized the utili- doctoral program in clinical-community psychol-
zation, and consequently the innovative expan- ogy. Central to that experience was the opportu-
sion, of methods by community psychologists. nity to be mentored by Emory Cowen, a founding
Jason and Glenwick (2012) may have planted member of our discipline and originally a stickler
seeds that have blossomed into new approaches. for quantitative analyses. Just as many of us were
Likely they also opened awareness among com- completing our studies or entering initial posi-
munity psychologists of the opportunity to find tions, something changed. Cowen (1980) publicly
and apply information-gathering and analytic distinguished research relating to the generation of
methods from disciplines near and far from hypotheses from that focused on their confirma-
community-based inquiries. Whatever the case, tion. The former acknowledged all that could be
the tools available to us have expanded dramati- learned through systematic observation, qualita-
cally! I  can report evidence to that effect based tive interviewing, focus groups, and other qualita-
on my experiences as the editor of the Journal tive avenues to gathering information. These new
of Community Psychology. In that capacity, I  can pathways to knowledge were to deepen our under-
attest to the seemingly unending adoption of standing of the phenomena before us and thereby
methods from other disciplines, as well as the enrich our appreciation of the complexity of com-
creation of entirely new approaches to gather munity processes.
and analyze information. Since the 2012 volume At the time, few tools were either available to
appeared, I have seen increasing numbers of sub- us or acceptable to psychology’s broader discipline
missions applying the very methods described in wherein we had to establish our academic bona
the current volume. For several years now, I have fides. Those who chose to apply these new methods
regularly been receiving manuscripts whose con- were also responsible for determining how best to
clusions were derived through the application of analyze the information they acquired and how to
(a)  highly sophisticated statistical procedures justify its value to journal editors, funding sources,
on quantitative findings; (b)  systematically and, as noted, tenure-determining colleagues.
applied analytic methods on qualitative find- Fortunately, that era has generally passed, and the
ings; (c)  findings based on entirely innovative diversity of methods presented in this volume pro-
methods, including photographic images, nar- vides a quiver full of arrows to apply to targets of
rated experiences, and public art (e.g., graffiti); inquiry.
and (d)  conceptualizations of community-based What the present volume does not, however,
processes based on conversations with key infor- address is the nature of the targets or even of the
mants. The breadth of qualitative, quantitative, hunt. From the outset, community psychology has
and especially mixed methods reports crossing ref lected tension between its pursuit of recognition
my virtual desk appears to increase monthly. as a science within clinical psychology’s tradition
It goes without saying that community psychol- of the scientist-practitioner and its desire to effect
ogy has come a long way from its founders who 50 change in the lives of those who are underserved,
or so years ago struggled with selecting among a underrecognized, and disempowered. Community
limited number of nonparametric or parametric psychology began as an ally of the community men-
statistics. As I  and many of my generation were tal health movement, whose defining purpose was
punching data on computer cards to cautiously to serve the needs of those with limited access to
deliver to a computer center that covered an entire and acceptance of the reigning intervention strate-
f loor of a university building, we marveled at the gies. The lack of access was to be addressed by relo-
potential of factor analyses (with and without cating services to the communities in which the
rotation) for uncovering interconnections among underserved lived. The lack of acceptance was to
seemingly disparate variables. We dismissed the be addressed by creating new forms of intervention
potential value of qualitative reports as unscientific tailored to the lives and needs of intended recipi-
and strove for “hard” findings that would align with ents. The lack of effectiveness for those in need was
For eword ix
to be addressed in part by broadening the range of of positivism or as focused on seeking and applying
options in terms of (a)  length (e.g., time-limited practical solutions to real problems. Throughout
therapies), (b)  service provider (e.g., paraprofes- much of that career, I  could call upon colleagues
sional and natural caregiver agents), and especially such as Seymour Sarason and Robert Newbrough
(c) point of intervention (e.g., primary and second- for reassurance that it need not be either-or but
ary prevention) along the etiological pathway. Our rather both-and. Most convincing, however, was
originating intent was to serve through both inno- Dokecki’s (1992) contribution to a special issue
vative services and the gathering of information (edited by Newbrough, 1992)  of the Journal of
that would enable our clinical colleagues to enter Community Psychology focused on the future of
the communities and lives of those who to that the discipline in a postmodern world. In his paper,
point had been ill-served or underserved. Dokecki explained how Schon’s (1983) concept
I raise this point because that same tension lies of the “ref lective practitioner” offers our disci-
just beneath the surface of many of this volume’s pline a valid alternative to clinical psychology’s
chapters. Focused on explaining the rationale and scientist-practitioner model. The latter gathers
procedures of their methods, the authors provide knowledge to inform and shape practice. The for-
the technical details that introduce readers to the mer model, by contrast, has a different purpose, for
potential applications and informational benefits it “intends to improve the human situation through
of their procedures. Woven through their recipes the close interplay of knowledge use and knowl-
and especially their case examples are the vari- edge generation” (Dokecki, 1992, p. 27).
ously stated but present themes of gathering new Note that for the ref lective practitioner knowl-
and deeper insights into the lives of the disenfran- edge is gathered to serve needs, not to build the-
chised, the disempowered, and the underserved. At ory! In support of the legitimacy of that purpose,
times subtly stated and at times explicit, the agenda Dokecki (1992) introduced Macmurray’s (1957,
for applying these innovative quantitative, qualita- 1961)  analysis of the person-in-community. My
tive, and mixed methods can be found, that is, to reading of this work reframed the gathering of
create, enable, and accomplish change! Albeit vari- information through investigation from respond-
ously stated, understanding the status quo is prec- ing to the question of “What do we want to know?”
edent to designing its alteration in a nonrandom to “What do we want to do?” In this foreword, I am
intentional direction. arguing that the latter question is more applicable
Tempted though I might be to present the evi- to the methods and their intent than is the former.
dentiary base for such an assertion, I  believe that I would further contend that such a defining ratio-
the authors and readers will be better served by nale is entirely consistent with the aforementioned
conducting their own investigations to determine underlying theme perceived by me in reading
whether my conclusion is sustainable. Much is said across this volume’s content.
about the value of the methods for theory-building Accepting the possibility that community psy-
or confirmation without exactly identifying the chology’s purpose is to impact the quality of life
theoretical base being referenced. Now and again and effectiveness of communities for their residents
we see references to paradigm without exactly does not lessen its worth but rather focuses its efforts.
knowing what is paradigmatic about the work or Participatory action research can be acknowledged
feeling confident that the nature of a paradigm and as an essential element of community-based inter-
the breadth of its scientific implications are appli- ventions both because it assures localization of the
cable (Kuhn, 1962). Both “theory” and “paradigm” work but more importantly engages those to be
appear to be stated more as evidence that the work impacted in both acknowledging need and acting
described is truly scientific rather than being pre- to mitigate that need and thereby alter the status
sented as the foundation on which the accumula- quo to a locally preferred condition. Participatory
tion of information is gathered and its contribution action research allows those receiving services
to the “work of normal science” demonstrated. to define both their nature and the limits of their
Assigning the aforementioned underlying ten- application. “Better” is determined by participants
sion to community psychology may, admittedly, rather than by provider.
ref lect projection on my part. My career can be Acknowledging that we engage with communi-
perceived as blindly subservient to the principles ties to “do something” together does not mean we