The Role of Qualitative Research in Psychological...

The Role of Qualitative Research in Psychological Journals

Sean A. KiddUniversity of Windsor

The acceptance of qualitative research in 15 journals published and distributed bythe American Psychological Association (APA) was investigated. This investiga-tion included a PsycINFO search using the keywordqualitative, an analysis of 15APA journals for frequency of qualitative publication, a content analysis of thejournal descriptions, and the results of qualitative interviews with 10 of the chiefeditors of those journals. The results indicate that there exists a substantial amountof interest in the potential contribution of qualitative methods in major psychologi-cal journals, although this interest is not ubiquitous, well defined, or communicated.These findings highlight the need for APA to state its position regarding theapplicability of qualitative methods in the study of psychology.

The question of whether qualitative research has aplace in psychology is one that is encountered moreand more frequently in recent years (Goldman, 1993;Lee, Mitchell, & Sablynski, 1999; Rogers, 2000).Psychological journals are receiving increasing num-bers of qualitative submissions (Azar, 1999; Banyard& Miller, 1998), and qualitative work has becomefirmly established in related fields such as education,nursing, social work, medicine, and sociology (Den-zin & Lincoln, 2000a; Krahn, Hohn, & Kime, 1995;Lee et al., 1999; Rennie, 1999). Psychological jour-nals that had previously published only quantitativework are now, in small numbers, publishing qualita-tive findings. This trend has been noted in commu-nity, developmental, sport, organizational, vocational,and clinical psychology (Banyard & Miller, 1998;Burman, 1996; Elliot, Fischer, & Rennie, 1999; Gold-man, 1993; Lee et al., 1999; Rogers, 2000; Strean,1998). The discussion of qualitative methodology inthis article focuses primarily on its current and ongo-ing development in the field of psychology. (For amore comprehensive discussion, see Denzin & Lin-

coln, 2000b; Smith, Harre, & Langenhove, 1995a.)The present study was designed to examine the

degree to which qualitative research is being acceptedand published in mainstream psychology journals. Inmany articles and texts, it is mentioned that there areincreasing numbers of qualitative publications (e.g.,Elliot et al., 1999; Strean, 1998) and that we are nowin a state of transition (Shank, 1994). Few efforts,however, have been made to support such statementsor to examine the underlying issues.

Studies that addressed questions in this area wereliterature searches done by Krahn et al. (1995), whofound only 30 qualitative articles in psychology jour-nals from 1987 to 1993 and Rennie (2000), who noteda dramatic increase in qualitative publications in the1980s and 1990s. Additionally, Keeley, Shemberg,and Zaynor (1988) found an increase in nonquantita-tive clinical psychology PhD dissertations between1965 (2.5%) and 1985 (9.8%). Finally, a recent articlein the APA Monitor reported that a group of editors,primarily in the child development area, was callingfor an increase in the recognition of qualitative re-search (Azar, 1999).

Qualitative studies are typically conducted in thefield, are usually broadly focused initially without hy-potheses or predefined response categories, and con-centrate on individuals or small groups. Individualexperience (i.e., meaning) is the material studied andinterpreted and is obtained through a wide variety ofmeans including interviews, conversations, observa-tion, personal experience, and textual analysis. Depthtakes precedence over breadth, and contact might

Appreciation is extended to Dana Barratt for assistancewith coding, Michael Kral for his advice and support on thisproject, and Eleanor MacKenzie for proofreading the manu-script.

Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-dressed to Sean A. Kidd, Department of Psychology, Uni-versity of Windsor, 401 Sunset, Windsor, Ontario N9B 3P4,Canada. E-mail: [email protected]

Psychological Methods Copyright 2002 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.2002, Vol. 7, No. 1, 126–138 1082-989X/02/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//1082-989X.7.1.126

126

range from participant observation to a single inter-view. Statistical analyses are usually not incorporated.Numerous methods are available to researchers con-ducting qualitative inquiry. One example is groundedtheory in which interview transcripts are reorganizedinto categories and themes in an effort to form theoryand hypotheses inductively from the data. Anothercommonly practiced type of qualitative inquiry is eth-nography. Central to ethnography is participant ob-servation in which the ethnographer immerses her- orhimself in the context of the phenomenon being stud-ied, conducts formal and informal interviews, and ex-amines related documents. The high degree of per-sonal involvement in this type of fieldwork ideallyresults in “a detailed depiction and analysis of socialrelations and culture” (Stewart, 1998, p. 7). Theoret-ical paradigms such as feminism, Marxism, culturalstudies, and constructivism serve as frameworkswithin which qualitative research is conceived anddeveloped. For a more detailed description, see Stiles(1993); Smith, Harre, and Langenhove (1995b); orDenzin and Lincoln (2000a).

It is important to note that qualitative research is nomore a single, unitary phenomenon than is quantita-tive research (Krahn et al., 1995; Strean, 1998). Underthe umbrella term ofqualitative research, there aremultiple methods and theoretical approaches, not allof which are compatible. The arguments and ques-tions raised in this article, however, are applicable andrelevant to methodologies ranging from ethnographicfield studies to qualitative analyses of texts or briefinterviews. The question currently being faced iswhether qualitative approaches have something to of-fer the field of psychology. The issues pertinent to thisquestion are multiple and complex, ranging from epis-temological clashes to limited journal space.

At the root of the current dilemma is the clashbetweenpostpositivistand constructivist theoreticalparadigms. These two terms are used in this article ina broad sense for the sake of clarity to represent aspectrum with postpositivism at one end and construc-tivist approaches at the other (see Denzin & Lincoln,2000b, for discussion of the paradigms situated alongthis dimension). Postpositivism is used rather thanpositivism because the majority of psychologistswould likely not subscribe to the more extreme posi-tivist stance. The following discussion is derived fromLincoln and Guba (2000). Each paradigm is describedin terms of ontology (nature of reality), epistemology(relationship between inquirer and the phenomenon ofinquiry), methodology, and research purpose. Onto-

logically, postpositivists ascribe to a critical realism.It is emphasized that there is a reality outside of theinquirer that can be studied, but acknowledged thatonly an approximate probabilistic understanding ofreality can be obtained. Epistemologically, postposi-tivists strive to study and know their subject matterfrom an objective standpoint, but are aware that theideal of objectivity is seldom if ever completelyachieved. The primary methodology used by post-positivists is the experimental model that is evaluatedaccording to models of validity and reliability. Typi-cally, the goal is explanation and prediction through aprocess controlled by the investigator.

Constructivist ontology is relativist. Each person’sreality is formed as she or he interprets her or hisworld through a preconstructed system of ideas, theo-ries, values, and attitudes. An emphasis is placed onaccessing the subjective experience of the participantsand the meaning they give to their experience. Forexample, gay identity would be viewed not as an in-herent characteristic, but rather as a culturally con-structed belief/meaning system that is open to change.Epistemologically, constructivists view inquiry as aprocess in which the findings are a culmination ofboth the participant’s and researcher’s meaning sys-tems interacting and the idea of objectivity is rejected.The methodology most often used is qualitative andtraditional understandings of validity and generaliz-ability have been altered or rejected. The goals ofconstructivism are typically to develop understandingand, with maximal involvement of the participants,help them to deconstruct destructive beliefs. An ex-ample of this would be breaking apart the belief of“gay identity as a flaw or sickness” and helping toestablish the belief of “gay identity as a strength.”Most qualitative researchers subscribe to paradigmsthat would be placed toward the constructivist end ofthe previously mentioned dimension. By no means,however, are all qualitative researchers constructiv-ists.

As methodological newcomers, qualitative re-searchers must prove themselves everywhere fromtheir psychology department to editorial boards. Areview of what has been written about qualitativemethodologies’ position in psychology reveals thatwhile a clash of epistemology likely plays a large rolein its slow acceptance, its novelty for both quantita-tive researchers and many psychologists conductingqualitative research contributes to the problem. Cur-rently, concerns are being voiced that training inqualitative methodology is often inadequate with stu-

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PSYCHOLOGICAL JOURNALS 127

dent interest exceeding faculty expertise (Elliot et al.,1999; Krahn et al., 1995). Additionally, descriptionsof what constitutes good qualitative research in thecontext of psychology are lacking, with considerabledisagreement among the sources available (Goldman,1993; Krahn et al., 1995; Lee et al., 1999; Shank,1994). The result has been increasing numbers of pub-lications that propose criteria for good qualitative re-search in psychology derived from fields in whichqualitative research has been longer established. Thishas been driven in part by editors and reviewers strug-gling to deal with the increasing number of qualitativepapers crossing their desks (Elliot et al., 1999; Fiese& Bickham, 1998; Lee et al., 1999; Merrick, 1999;Stiles, 1993). Developing criteria for qualitative re-search is not a problem unique to psychology. Be-cause of the relativist ontology underlying manyforms of qualitative inquiry, establishing one set ofbroadly applicable criteria is likely impossible(Schwandt, 1996).

Qualitative researchers in the field of psychologyoften occupy a marginalized position. This stance asthe “outsider” appears to lead many psychologists tobecome defensive in their search for legitimizationand to use excessive criticism of positivism or, alter-nately, to undercut their research as being merely an-cillary to quantitative work (Banyard & Miller, 1998;Burman, 1996; Strean, 1998). There are, however,reasons for this defensive attitude considering the sub-stantial difficulties qualitative researchers face in get-ting their work recognized and published. The majorproblem, and closely linked to the epistemologicallyunpalatable nature of qualitative research to main-stream psychologists, appears to be a tendency to ap-ply quantitative criteria to qualitative studies (Elliot etal., 1999; Goldman, 1993; Rogers, 2000). Given thedefining characteristics of qualitative research, the re-sult is a miserable failure when qualitative studies areevaluated using quantitative concepts of validity andreliability. This lack of fit extends to issues such asthe difficulty in presenting qualitative work in accor-dance with American Psychological Association(APA) guidelines for publication, and the largeramount of journal space required to adequately pre-sent qualitative material (Goldman, 1993; Rogers,2000; Zeller & Farmer, 1999). Related to the above-mentioned problems is the way in which qualitativeresearch is frequently used to communicate the expe-riences of politically marginal individuals or groups,possibly creating resistance from dominant culturalgroups (Lather, 1991).

The resistance of natural scientific epistemologyand methodology, combined with a lack of knowledgeregarding qualitative methodology, is coming upagainst a rapidly growing recognition of the strengthsof qualitative research. In the past decade, there havebeen repeated calls in the various subfields of psy-chology for further investigation into the potentialcontribution of qualitative studies (Banyard & Miller,1998; Elliot et al., 1999; Fiese & Bickham, 1998;Goldman, 1993; Krahn et al., 1995; Lee et al., 1999;Shank, 1994; Stiles, 1993; Rogers, 2000; Strean,1998). This trend has extended to quantitative text-books that are now devoting more space to the dis-cussion of the utility of qualitative research (e.g., Ka-zdin, 1998). Often cited as a strength is the ability ofqualitative methods to access personal experience andmeaning, cultural diversity, contextual factors, theory/hypothesis generation and elaboration, rare cases/conditions, and exploration of a topic in a depth notpossible in quantitative approaches. Qualitative meth-odology has been conceptualized as being a usefultool for inquiry (Lee et al., 1999), and not a new one.Early in the history of psychology, significant contri-butions were made by using qualitative methodologyin the work of eminent psychologists such as KurtLewin, Henry Murray, Erik Erikson, Jean Piaget, andas far back as William James and Willhelm Wundt(Langenhove, 1995; Rogers, 2000).

While the debate about the utility and applicabilityof qualitative methods and their underlying philoso-phies is only recently gaining momentum in psychol-ogy, similar controversy was heard and to varyingdegrees resolved in other fields. Most notable are an-thropology and sociology, in which the majority ofthe history and development of qualitative method-ologies occurred (LeCompte, Millroy, & Preissle,1992; Vidich & Lyman, 2000). In the 1970s, througha movement spearheaded by Clifford Geertz, anthro-pology came to reject as inadequate ethnographieswritten as objective accounts of the rites and rituals ofthe “primitives” or “others” that they were studying(Denzin & Lincoln, 2000a; Vidich & Lyman, 2000).The subjective worlds of participants were regardedas important, with the ethnographer’s worldview be-ing an integral part of the information generated. Thisshift occurred at many levels including dissatisfactionwith methods, clashes of epistemology, and reactionagainst racist and ethnocentric assumptions underly-ing much of the earlier work. Since then, there hasbeen an enormous amount of activity in the develop-ment of qualitative methodologies and the advance-

KIDD128

ment of paradigmatic perspectives, although the ques-tion of quality in qualitative research remains a majorsource of debate in anthropology (Denzin & Lincoln,2000a). In other fields with more empirical scientifictraditions, the recognition of qualitative methodolo-gies took place as part of a reaction against scientificmethod as the only valid method of inquiry. This rec-ognition occurred in sociology in the 1970s (Vidich &Lyman, 2000) and expanded into other fields such associal work, nursing, and education throughout the1980s. Although there was resistance in all of thesefields to a set of methods that appeared to be differentfrom the scientific model, by means of demonstratingthe utility of the qualitative methods, scholarly debate,and endorsement by major figures, these qualitativemethodologies became widely recognized (Streubert& Carpenter, 1995).

In the present study, I incorporated several ele-ments in an effort to address the question of the fre-quency of qualitative publication and the issues sur-rounding the publication of qualitative material. First,the frequency of research articles indexed throughPsycINFO in which qualitative methodology had beenused for the years 1989, 1994, and 1999 was deter-mined. These years were chosen because it has beenin the past 10 years that the majority of current inter-est in qualitative methods in psychology became evi-dent (Elliot et al., 1999). Second, the frequency ofqualitative publication was determined for 15 journalspublished and/or distributed by APA for the years1989, 1994, and 1999. Third, a content analysis wasmade of the mission statements of these journals todetermine which appear to be open to qualitative sub-missions. Fourth, 10 chief editors of these journalsparticipated in a brief semistructured phone interviewfocusing on their thoughts and opinions regardingqualitative research. These interviews were then ana-lyzed by using a qualitative content analysis proce-dure.

Method

PsycINFO Search

A search was performed on the PsycINFO databasein which the search termqualitativewas used for theyears 1989, 1994, and 1999. The identified listingswere then reviewed to determine the number of re-search studies in which qualitative methods wereused. These research papers included studies incorpo-rating both quantitative and qualitative methods, dis-sertation abstracts, and articles that would not accu-

rately be called “psychological.” While it isrecognized that there exists a margin of error in sucha database search, it was felt that such a search wouldserve as a rough indicator of a major trend in thesocial sciences as accessed by most psychology re-searchers, practitioners, and students.

APA Journal Analysis

For the purpose of this analysis, I identified 15journals published and/or distributed by APA (seeTable 1) in which it appeared that qualitative studiescould potentially make a contribution. These were re-search journals that had as their foci areas in whichhuman experience could be and is a substantial com-ponent. This strategy is a variation ofcritical-casesampling(Patton, 1980). By selecting journals that arethe most likely to publish qualitative material, one canlogically generalize that if these journals are not pub-lishing qualitative work, other journals are likely pub-lishing such work with similar if not lower frequen-cies. Additionally, generalizability is likely, given thatthe sample of journals chosen represent more than onethird of the total number of journals published and/ordistributed by APA. For these 15 journals, the numberof articles incorporating qualitative research was de-termined for the years 1989, 1994, and 1999. Thedefinition of what constitutes qualitative is consistentwith that given at the beginning of this article. Inaddition to purely qualitative research articles, studiesin which both quantitative and qualitative componentshad been incorporated were counted.

Mission Statement Content Analysis

The mission statements for each of the 15 journalswere independently analyzed by two coders to deter-mine how open these publications appeared to be tothe acceptance of qualitative submissions. Three cat-egories were developed. First was theexclusivecat-egory, which included mission statements specifyingthat only or primarily empirical or scientific studieswould be considered. Second was theneutral cat-egory, in which neither discouraging nor encouragingterms were used regarding qualitative submissions.Journals that called for case reports/studies were alsoplaced in the neutral category; although case studiescan be qualitative, they have a long tradition in clini-cal psychology and may not indicate openness towardother forms of qualitative work. Third was theinclu-


sivecategory, which included mission statements thatrequested qualitative submissions.

Interviews With Chief Editors

Ten chief editors of the 15 journals were contactedby phone for semistructured interviews on the topic ofqualitative research. After briefly defining qualitativeresearch, two central questions were asked: “What areyour thoughts on qualitative research?” and “Doesqualitative work have a place in a journal such asyours. Why or why not?” These interviews were con-ducted in a flexible manner consistent with semistruc-tured interviewing (Smith, 1995) and ranged in lengthfrom 5 to 25 min. Seven of the 10 interviews ran 5 to10 min in length, with the remaining 3 lasting 15 to 25min. The brevity of most of these interviews was notdue to a limitation placed on the interview length, butrather that most of the editors admittedly did not havea great deal of experience with qualitative researchand as such, they did not have a great deal to say onthe matter. Ten of the 15 chief editors were contactedand readily agreed to participate in the study; theanalysis was conducted as the interviews progressed.I was unable to contact the remaining 5 editors despiterepeated attempts spanning over a period of 6 weeks.

Interviews were transcribed and analyzed by usinga qualitative content analysis procedure (for a clearand concise description of such a method of analysis,see Smith, 1995, or Rennie, Phillips, & Quartaro,1988). Qualitative analysis is a process developed

to access and understand the meanings that a partici-pant or participants give to the phenomena of interest.Through the interview process, analysis, and writing,the researcher keeps memos/field notes in whichideas, reactions, observations, and so forth are docu-mented. Keeping memos is a crucial task as it aids inthe development of the analysis and theory. In addi-tion, “memoing” helps researchers understand theirpositions and opinions regarding the topic/participantsand facilitates the researchers’ ability to communicatehow their worldview affected the direction of thestudy. During the process of data analysis, the text ofeach interview is thoroughly examined several timesas the analyst identifies “meaning units.” These maybe only a few words or several sentences. For ex-ample, “qualitative research is good at generating hy-potheses” would be considered a meaning unit. In thecoding procedure related meaning units are placedtogether to form categories. Using the example givenpreviously, every meaning unit indicating how quali-tative research is good at generating hypotheses isplaced together in the same category. This is a processreferred to asopen categorizing, which involves cre-ating a new category for each meaning unit that doesnot fit in with any previous category (a meaning unitmay also be placed in more than one category). Onemajor way of validating the analysis lies in ensuringthat the categories created are based largely uponwhat the participant says without the researcher mak-ing inferences and interpretations that may move the

Table 1Results of Content Analysis for Studies Incorporating Qualitative Methods

Journal title 1989 1994 1999 Total

Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology — — 6 6Developmental Psychology 0 0 0 0European Psychologist — — 0 0Health Psychology 1 0 0 1Journal of Abnormal Psychology 0 0 0 0Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 0 0 0 0Journal of Counseling Psychology 1 8 4 13Journal of Educational Psychology 0 1 0 1Journal of Family Psychology 1 1 0 2Journal of Occupational Health Psychology — — 1 1Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 0 0 0 0Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 1 0 7 8Psychology and Aging 1 0 0 1Psychology of Addictive Behavior 0 1 0 1Rehabilitation Psychology 0 2 2 4

Total 5 13 14 32

Note: Dashes indicate new journals for which there was no information available regarding earlieryears. Total number of research articles including qualitative articles was 2,402.

KIDD130

analysis away from the meaning systems of the par-ticipants.

As the coding procedure progresses, the analystmoves into higher levels of abstraction, beginning toorganize and manipulate the categories themselves.This may involve developing a hierarchy of catego-ries, in which a weaknesses of qualitative researchcategory would be subsumed under the method issuescategory. The analyst might also place together cat-egories that appear to exist along the same dimension,bringing a number of categories together under oneoverarching dimensional category. This is the stage ofthe analysis in which potential hypotheses regardingcausal conditions, contextual factors, interactions, andconsequences are formulated. There is a constant in-terplay between generating an idea and bringing itback to the data where that idea might be revised,supported, or refuted. The categories are organizedand reorganized conceptually as the analyst auditsoriginal meaning units to determine if that organiza-tion accurately reflects the meanings communicatedby the participants. Throughout this process, descrip-tive statistics can be helpful in highlighting patternswithin the data and assessing the amount of evidencesupporting conclusions (Maxwell, 1998).

At this stage, there may appear in the data a centraltheme that cuts across all or most categories. Such acentral theme can be used in conjunction with find-ings of category relationships and processes to de-velop a theory (although not readily applicable in thepresent study because of the focused nature of theinterviews; see Glaser & Strauss, 1967, or Rennie etal. 1988, for a description of “grounded theory pro-cedures”). Transcripts were categorized indepen-dently by a research collaborator in what has beencalled “peer debriefing” (Stiles, 1993). Stiles also sug-gested that the qualitative investigator disclose her orhis orientation, a procedure that helps put the inter-pretation in perspective. In this case, I (primary in-vestigator) am in my second year of doctoral studiesin clinical psychology. The primary methodology Iemploy in my own research is qualitative, although Ihave completed the required training in quantitativemethods and have conducted numerous quantitativeinvestigations. As such, I am both interested in thedevelopment of qualitative methodology within psy-chology and appreciative of the value of and enor-mous contribution made through quantitative re-search. The research collaborator is in his first year ofdoctoral studies in applied social psychology, hasconducted primarily quantitative investigations, and

has had little exposure to qualitative methods. Thetechnique of peer debriefing offers the assurance thatthe interpretation has been found convincing by otherinvestigators who have reviewed all of the source ma-terial. Because of the focused and brief nature of thepresent interviews, this process was atypically un-complicated with agreement regarding both categorycontent and structure.

Results

PsycINFO Search

The frequencies of research articles generatedthrough the PsycINFO search using the keywordqualitativefor the years 1989, 1994, and 1999 can befound in Figure 1. The results were 155 for 1989, 365for 1994, and 1,024 for 1999. Given that these num-bers more than doubled over each interval, it appearsthat the amount of qualitative research being con-ducted and published in the social sciences is rapidlyincreasing.

APA Journal Analysis

Overall, the results indicate that qualitative re-search is rarely seen in APA journals. Thirty-twoqualitative research articles were identified from a to-tal of 2,402 (1.3%). If one removes clinical case stud-ies (n 4 14), which are considered qualitative buthave a tradition in psychology, one is left with 18qualitative studies (< 1%). These 18 studies consist of2 Q-Sort procedures, 5 grounded theory studies, 1ethnographic study, and 10 studies that incorporatemultirater coding strategies, 4 of which mix quantita-tive and qualitative findings. Although the number of

Figure 1. Number of research studies incorporating quali-tative methods generated by using a PsycINFO search withthe keywordqualitative.


qualitative studies marginally increased over the 10-year span, the frequencies were too small to make anyconclusive statements.

Mission Statement Content Analysis

The following are the results of the coding of jour-nal mission statements on the basis of their apparentinclusiveness or exclusiveness toward qualitativemethods (see Table 2). The categories developed wereexclusive, neutral, and inclusive. Exclusive missionstatements included material such as “journal devotedto furthering an understanding of scientific relation-ships between behavioural principles on the one handand physical health and illness on the other.” An ex-ample of an inclusive guideline is “both quantitativeand qualitative methods are appropriate.” Agreementbetween the two coders was 93%, with disagreementsubsequently negotiated. Four journals fell into theexclusive category; 10 journals were placed in theneutral category, and 1 journal fell into the inclusivecategory.

Interviews With Chief Editors

Data quality and representation.As mentionedpreviously, 7 of the 10 interviews were brief by quali-tative standards. This was likely due to many of theeditors’ admitted unfamiliarity with the topic, leavingthem without a lot to say about the method and relatedissues. This lack of familiarity is a notable finding.Although not verbose on the matter, all of the editorshad opinions and described their beliefs regarding the

place of qualitative methods in psychology and intheir journals. All editors reported an interest in theproject and appeared to make an effort to attend to thetopics raised to the best of their ability. Another po-tential concern is that 10 out of 15 editors were inter-viewed. The intention to interview all 15 editors couldnot be accomplished because of an inability to contactthem. The reasons for their unavailability are unclear,and it must be acknowledged that a sampling bias mayexist.

The analysis. The results of the content analysisof the editors’ comments on qualitative research areorganized as follows: Presented first are categoriesand subcategories into which the editors’ thoughts onqualitative research were placed. These categories are(a) the value of qualitative research, (b) weaknesses ofqualitative research, (c) improvement on current prac-tices in qualitative research, and (d) role in editor’sjournal. Following the presentation of these catego-ries, the theme that runs across the categories is dis-cussed. This theme represents the editors’ overall at-titude toward qualitative research.

The value of qualitative research.This categorywas divided into two subcategories: (a) qualitativeresearch has strengths in areas in which quantitativeresearch is limited and (b) qualitative research is ad-vantageous as a part of a larger research program.Within the first subcategory were two concepts. Sixparticipants regarded qualitative research as poten-tially “richer” and useful in finding relationships/variables and meaning that are difficult to access withquantitative methods. The general message was thatthese editors thought that qualitative methodologiesprovided a type of inquiry that could discover andilluminate areas that quantitative methodologies can-not access because of inherent limitations:

I think that in using qualitative research it is possible tofind relationships and variables you can’t typically get atwith more quantitative research.

It is a better way of getting at meaning, at how peopleconstrue their experiences and what those experiencesmean to them. That’s often difficult to capture statisti-cally or with more quantitative methods.

Five participants stated that qualitative research wasuseful for special populations/problems. The primaryissue was that generating large numbers of partici-pants or appropriate experimental conditions (i.e.,quantitative designs) was either impractical or impos-sible in many clinical and other applied situations.

Table 2Results of Mission Statement Content Analysis

ExclusiveDevelopmental PsychologyHealth PsychologyJournal of Family PsychologyJournal of Personality and Social Psychology

NeutralJournal of Abnormal PsychologyEuropean PsychologistJournal of Consulting and Clinical PsychologyJournal of Educational PsychologyJournal of Occupational Health PsychologyProfessional Psychology: Research and PracticePsychology and AgingCultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority PsychologyPsychology of Addictive BehaviorsRehabilitation Psychology

InclusiveJournal of Counseling Psychology

KIDD132

One editor expressed his frustration that there exists alarge amount of valuable information in clinical set-tings that is never used because the nature of thatinformation would not be considered valid in the con-text of quantitative designs: “It is especially valuable,given the wide variety of categories of disability thatwe deal with and the many different personality char-acteristics that are often very difficult to get in a size-able group.”

The second subcategory falling under the “value ofqualitative research” is the premise that qualitativeresearch can serve a useful purpose as a part of alarger research program that includes quantitativeanalysis. This point arose from the categories thatindicate that qualitative research has strengths in areasin which quantitative methods are limited. As a result,the two approaches to inquiry can complement oneanother in a manner that can greatly strengthen theresearch program as a whole. Seven participants com-municated this point. According to one, “It certainlyhas a role. I think that it is always good to use manykinds of methods to look at a problem . . .dovetailingmethods using qualitative procedures.” Another par-ticipant said, “I see it as a very good source for gen-erating hypotheses which would then be tested withmore systematic and more paradigmatically accept-able methodologies.”

Weaknesses of qualitative research.Another cat-egory that arose involved the participants’ thoughtsabout problems that have a substantial impact on theusefulness and applicability of qualitative research.The two subcategories that emerged were method-ological issues and paradigmatic differences. On thesubject of methodology, the two major areas of criti-cism were generalizability (brought up by 4 partici-pants), and questions about bias/validity and relatedparadigmatic issues (2 participants). Regarding gen-eralizability, the concern raised was how useful quali-tative results were beyond the small and select groupof participants in a given study. One participant said,“The major concern I would have here is that theresults of such research without either statistics orcareful description of the sample might prove to berather non-generalizeable.” Another participant com-mented, “The weakness I see is that it tends not to uselarge samples, and regardless of whether it is quali-tative or quantitative you run into potential problemsof representativeness and generality.”

Questions of bias and validity were framed as aguardedness regarding whether information not ob-tained through scientific inquiry could be trusted as

being more than just a reflection of the beliefs andgoals of the researcher. The 2 participants who voicedthis concern linked the validity problem with moregeneral paradigmatic clashes. For these editors, it ap-peared that the identity and the foundation of psychol-ogy were closely linked to the quantitative scientificparadigm and to consider qualitative approacheswould be to compromise such foundational principlesand beliefs. According to one of these editors,

As a psychologist by definition, I think we are a scienceof human behavior. As a science I think we need to payattention to human bias. And I think if we are going topay attention to making sense of data and be cautious toavoid the potential unwanted human bias, we are goingto need large sample size and the benefit of some sta-tistical testing, and reliability and validity.

Another editor said,

I think the history and tradition of psychology is in pub-lishing empirical work and statistical method. . . at thispoint I would not be ready to publish it because it wouldbe a fairly significant change in the type of materialtraditionally published.

Improvement on current practices in qualitative re-search. This category arose as some of the partici-pants spoke about changes that they felt would im-prove the position of qualitative research inpsychology. Although only a few participants broughtup these points, they were felt to be valuable given thecurrent state of development of qualitative method-ologies in psychology. There were three subcategoriesunder this heading. First, 2 participants spoke of theneed to develop more sophisticated methods. Theyfelt that the current level of knowledge and practice ofqualitative methods in psychology needed to be de-veloped both in the classroom and in general practice.One of these participants said, “I think that the devel-opment of more sophisticated methods will play a bigrole. I know that it is being taught more in graduateprograms now.”

One editor’s comments formed the second subcat-egory, which was the need for investigators to linktheir qualitative work with current theory in a clearand creative manner. This participant felt that if itcould be demonstrated how qualitative research cancontribute to and help advance existing psychologicaltheory, this would help in developing a case for theacceptance of such methods in psychology:

It is a matter of in a couple of areas having investigatorsuse it creatively so that its worth can become more sa-lient or clear. It has to be married with a creative use of


theory so that the information can be understood, and theimportance can be made more salient.

Finally, the third subcategory was formed by 1 par-ticipant’s opinion that a major step toward advancingthe position of qualitative methodologies in psychol-ogy would be the endorsement of such methods by arecognized official body such as APA:

To my mind it [call for qualitative submissions] requireda policy change in terms of the type of research that thejournal would publish, the kind of change that wouldrequire approval by APA. I was not prepared to requestthat kind of policy change.

Role in editor’s journal. This category arose asthe participants discussed the place qualitative re-search had or did not have in the journal they wereediting. The first point that arose in this category wasthe opinion of 4 editors that among the psychologicalresearch community there was a growing acceptanceor openness toward the use of qualitative methodol-ogy. One editor felt that this was due at least in part toa less rigid adherence to the values and practices ofthe scientific paradigm: “I think that in general it isbecoming more acceptable. It is certainly not in themainstream psychological literature very much, but Ithink it is gaining acceptance.” Another editor saidthat “the role of qualitative methods in psychology isincreasing as psychology becomes less rigid.”

The second subcategory concerned the quality ofthe qualitative work received. Six editors stated thatthey did not feel that qualitative research was inferioror inherently flawed and would treat such submissionsin exactly the same manner they would quantitativework. In other words, if the work met the standards ofgood research practice as based on criteria developedwithin qualitative theory, they would not hesitate topublish it: “We are in no ways biased against quali-tative research. We in no way demand that people doresearch of a positivist nature. We just insist that it begood research no matter what type it is.”

Finally, 4 participants stated that they did not thinkthat their journals were appropriate forums for quali-tative work. They did not entirely dismiss qualitativeresearch, but thought that paradigmatic and method-ological differences could not be negotiated or recon-ciled. According to one of the participants,

I think if you had a qualitative paper that was somehowgoing to spark incredible interest and be generative andexciting and ignite a whole new area that I would expectwould then be much more quantitative in focus. It wouldprobably be a tough sell.

Another participant indicated the following:

Unless there is a real strong rationale, and real favoramong reviewers, it is not likely to get published in ourjournal. That would be like sending a narrative descrip-tion to Science. The reviewers would say nice work, butit doesn’t belong here.

Central theme. The theme that ran across the 10interviews was a general acceptance of the usefulnessof qualitative methods with reservations of varyingdegrees influencing whether they believed that suchwork should find a forum in their journals. Of the 10editors, 5 felt that qualitative methods had significantstrengths, were relevant, and said that they wouldpublish such work in their journals. One editor be-lieved that the weaknesses were a liability but wouldconsider publishing such work. Four editors ex-pressed that while such studies have strengths, theweaknesses limit the applicability of qualitative meth-ods to psychology and that they would not considerpublishing such work. No participant stated that theybelieved that qualitative methods were fatally flawed.All agreed that this approach could be conceived of asa useful source of information.

Discussion

The results of the present study bring to light acontradiction between the status of qualitative re-search in APA publications and the field at large. Asthe journal content analysis indicated, few qualitativestudies are being published in APA journals and thereis little indication that this situation has changed in thepast 10 years. The overall percentage of qualitativepublication in the selected journals was approximately1% and 5 of the 15 journals examined have not pub-lished any qualitative work. This continued paucity ofqualitative work in APA publications exists despite anapparently dramatic increase in the number of quali-tative studies being conducted in psychology and re-lated social science fields. The number of qualitativestudies generated by the PsycINFO search more thandoubled between 1989 and 1994 and, again, morethan doubled between 1994 and 1999. This findingsupports the often stated but seldom studied hypoth-esis that the amount of qualitative research being con-ducted and published is rapidly increasing in the so-cial sciences (Elliot et al., 1999; Rennie, 2000; Strean,1998).

This lack of qualitative publication exists despitethe finding that several chief editors of these APAjournals appeared interested in and willing to publish

KIDD134

research studies in which qualitative methods areused. The interviews revealed that all of the chiefeditors interviewed recognized a number of thestrengths of qualitative designs, with 6 editors believ-ing that these strengths were substantial enough towarrant inclusion in their journals. These editors sawqualitative research as being a valid way of accessingmeaning/experience, relationships, and variables dif-ficult to illuminate with quantitative designs. Further-more, several editors recognized the strength of quali-tative methods in addressing special problems andpopulations, and they particularly saw qualitative re-search’s potential as part of a larger research program.The interest in qualitative research expressed by theeditors in the current study appears to be consistentwith the increasing interest commented on elsewhere(Krahn et al., 1995; Lee et al., 1999; Stiles, 1993).

The discrepancy between a lack of qualitative pub-lication and editor interest is likely influenced to alarge degree by an apparent lack of clarity in thesejournals’ (and APA’s) position regarding qualitativeresearch. Qualitative researchers are probably not go-ing to be inclined to submit their work to journals thathave in the past published little if any qualitative workand that do not encourage such submissions in theirmission statements. Most of the mission statementsexamined in the present study did not indicate wheth-er they were interested in qualitative submissions. In-deed, four of the mission statements analyzed in thepresent study indicated a heavy emphasis on empiricaland scientific study, despite the fact that two of themhave published qualitative work. Only 1 editor inter-viewed in the present study reported receiving quali-tative submissions in substantial numbers. Such asmall number of submissions is obviously going tolimit the number of publications, regardless of theenthusiasm of the reviewers for qualitative research.Additionally, such small numbers of qualitative sub-missions are not likely to demonstrate to more skep-tical editors and reviewers the potential of such re-search. Thus, there exists what appears to be a largegap between the impression given by a review of thejournals and the interests and opinions of several ofthe chief editors. This argument must be qualified,however, by the fact that there are relatively few re-searchers using qualitative methods compared withthe number of researchers conducting quantitativestudies (Lee et al., 1999). To expect, therefore, largenumbers of qualitative studies to be published in psy-chology journals would not represent the current stateof psychological research.

Although the previously indicated findings may beencouraging to qualitative researchers wishing to pub-lish in APA journals, the interviews revealed a con-siderable amount of criticism of the methodology.Four of the editors interviewed felt that the weak-nesses of qualitative work were problematic enoughto make it unlikely that they would ever accept aqualitative submission. The problematic areas wereidentified as (a) a lack of generalizability, (b) con-cerns about bias and validity, and (c) paradigmaticdifferences. The paradigmatic or epistemological dif-ferences between positivist and more constructivistphilosophies have been extensively commented on asbeing the central impediment to an acceptance ofqualitative methodology (Langenhove, 1995). Stem-ming from this metaphysical basis for disagreementare more specific concerns such as generalizabilityand validity. Regarding the lack of generalizability,this appears to be related to the previously noted ten-dency to apply quantitative criteria to qualitative stud-ies (Elliot et al., 1999; Goldman, 1993; Rogers, 2000).Most qualitative researchers believe that generaliz-ability, as it is understood in quantitative designs interms of external validity, is not relevant to qualitativeresearch (Janesick, 2000; Kazdin, 1998; Merrick,1999). The criticism regarding generalizability is alsoinappropriate because many qualitative researchersare interested in generalizability of their findings, al-though in a different way than what is meant in thequantitative context. Qualitative researchers are ofteninterested in if and how the themes generated in theirstudies might apply to other types and groups of in-dividuals. In-depth descriptions of findings are en-couraged to aid in the process of determining howsuch findings or elements may be found among ortransferred to another individual(s) (Merrick, 1999).As such, this criticism is not only inappropriate to thiskind of research but also ill informed and likely stemsfrom epistemological differences.

The concerns about bias and validity are shared bymany qualitative researchers from a different perspec-tive (for a more detailed description, see Gergen &Gergen, 2000; Merrick, 1999). In recent years, therehas been a proliferation of articles and books describ-ing procedures and practices designed to address thisissue (Maxwell, 1998; Stiles, 1993; Strauss & Corbin,1990). Most qualitative researchers struggle to de-velop and utilize methodologies that result in moreaccurate and truthful representations of the experi-ences of their participants. For 2 of the editors inter-viewed, however, this problem appeared to be deeply


embedded within qualitative design and again likelyindicates an epistemological clash rather than a par-ticular methodological question.

There appears to be a growing number of research-ers in the field of psychology who are utilizing quali-tative methods and working within the theoreticalparadigms associated with these methods. This move-ment is complemented by an openness and interest inestablished quarters of psychology as seen in the com-ments and views of several chief editors of majorjournals in the field. The continuing development ofqualitative methodology in psychology is, however,being hampered by skepticism and doubt regardingthe validity of such methods and also by the smallamount of qualitative work being sent to journalswhere it would be received and reviewed as poten-tially informative and important. This is a situationfound in the histories of several other fields (Denzin& Lincoln, 2000a; Vidich & Lyman, 2000) fromwhich psychology, by examining such histories, couldbenefit. First, there must exist a substantial body ofqualitative research meeting high standards so that itsutility and possibilities can be explored. In psychol-ogy, the interest and practice appear to exist but likelyneed to be matched with improved instruction in uni-versities (Elliot et al., 1999; Krahn et al., 1995) andthe development of a body of literature describinghow to conduct such research within psychology. Sec-ond, the skepticism toward such methods within thefield must be addressed, and established entities andorganizations within the field of psychology must de-velop a clearer position on the topic. This will likelyinvolve debate and demonstration of research in con-ferences, the publication in major forums of studies ofthe highest quality that clearly demonstrate the valueof such work, endorsement and practice of qualitativeresearch by major figures in the field, and policy andposition statements made by bodies such as APA. Ifthe histories of other disciplines may be applied topsychology, the above points will be important ele-ments in the establishment of qualitative methods inpsychology.

In summary, in the present study I have found thatthere exists a substantial amount of interest in main-stream psychology regarding the potential contribu-tion of qualitative research. Qualitative studies, if onlyin small numbers, are being published in APA jour-nals, and 6 of the 10 chief editors interviewed statedthat they would seriously consider qualitative submis-sions for publication. There are, however, several el-ements likely impeding a more thorough exploration

of the potential of qualitative methodologies in psy-chology. First, the position of mainstream psychologyon the subject appears to be unclear. Both acceptanceand serious reservations are found readily with journaldescriptions, and the number of qualitative publica-tions currently shed little light on the situation. Thisambiguity may be due, in part, to the problem thatmost psychologists are unfamiliar with qualitativemethods and, therefore, are unsure of how to approachresearch of this nature. Second, there appears to exista significant and, for some, insurmountable paradig-matic clash between traditional empirical psychologi-cal study and the more interpretivist philosophies ofqualitative work. Third, and likely related to the abovetwo points, insufficient qualitative research is beingsent to these journals in order for it to be adequatelyrepresented or assessed as to the potential contributionof such methods.

The amount of qualitative research being conductedis rapidly increasing. Concurrent to this is an interestin this research as expressed by several major psy-chological journals and their editors. An appeal couldbe made to approach the problem as scientists. Thiswill entail looking past one’s personal philosophicaldifferences and testing the degree to which this toolcan contribute to the study of human behavior. Ob-serving a significant number of such studies and thor-oughly investigating their strengths and weaknesses isessential. It is only after engaging in such a processthat a strong case can be made for supporting or re-futing this set of methods.

References

Azar, B. (1999, February). Consortium of editors pushesshift in child research method. Retrieved February 28,2000, from http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb99/qual.html

Banyard, V. L., & Miller, K. E. (1998). The powerful po-tential of qualitative research for community psychology.American Journal of Community Psychology, 26,485–505.

Burman, E. (1996). Continuities and discontinuities in in-terpretive and textual approaches in developmental psy-chology.Human Development, 39,330–345.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000a). Introduction: Thediscipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K.Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (2nd ed.),Handbook of qualita-tive research(pp. 1–29). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000b)Handbook of quali-tative research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

KIDD136

Elliot, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999). Evolvingguidelines for publication of qualitative research studiesin psychology and related fields.British Journal of Clini-cal Psychology, 38,215–229.

Fiese, B. H., & Bickham, N. L. (1998). Qualitative inquiry:An overview for pediatric psychology.Journal of Pedi-atric Psychology, 23,79–86.

Gergen, M. M., & Gergen, K. J. (2000). Qualitative inquiry:Tensions and transformations. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.Lincoln (2nd ed.),Handbook of qualitative research(pp.1025–1046). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Glaser, B. J., & Strauss, A. (1967).The discovery ofgrounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.Chicago: Sociology Press.

Goldman, L. (1993). Reaction: A broader scientific base forprofessional psychology.Professional Psychology: Re-search and Practice, 24,252–253.

Janesick, V. J. (2000). The choreography of qualitative re-search design: Minuets, improvisations, and crystalliza-tion. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (2nd ed.),Hand-book of qualitative research(pp. 379–400). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Kazdin, A. E. (1998).Research design in clinical psychol-ogy.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Keeley, S. M., Shemberg, K. M., & Zaynor, L. (1988).Dissertation research in clinical psychology: Beyondpositivism? Professional Psychology: Research andPractice, 19,216–222.

Krahn, G. L., Hohn, M. F., & Kime, C. (1995). Incorporat-ing qualitative approaches into clinical child psychologyresearch.Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 24,204–213.

Lather, P. (1991).Getting smart: Feminist research andpedagogy within the postmodern.New York: Routledge.

Langenhove, L. V. (1995). The theoretical foundations ofexperimental psychology and its alternatives. In J. A.Smith, R. Harre, & L. V. Langenhove (Eds.),Rethinkingpsychology(pp. 10–23). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

LeCompte, M. D., Millroy, W. L., & Preissle, J. (1992).Preface. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle(Eds.),The handbook of qualitative research in education(pp. xv–xvi). London: Academic Press.

Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., & Sablynski, C. J. (1999).Qualitative research in organizational and vocationalpsychology.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55,161–187.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic contro-versies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K.

Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (2nd ed.),Handbook of qualita-tive research(pp. 163–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Maxwell, J. A. (1998). Designing a qualitative study. In L.Bickman & D. S. Rog (Eds.),Handbook of applied socialresearch methods(pp. 69–100). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Merrick, E. (1999). An exploration of quality in qualitativeresearch. In M. Kopala & L. A. Suzuki (Eds.),Usingqualitative methods in psychology(pp. 25–36). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Patton, M. Q. (1980).Qualitative evaluation methods.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rennie, D. L. (1999). Qualitative research: A matter of her-meneutics and the sociology of knowledge. In M. Kopala& L. A. Suzuki (Eds.),Using qualitative methods in psy-chology(pp. 3–14). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rennie, D. L. (2000, June).The rise of qualitative researchin psychology.Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe Canadian Psychological Association, Ottawa, On-tario, Canada.

Rennie, D. L., Phillips, J. R., & Quartaro, G. K. (1988).Grounded theory: A promising approach to conceptual-ization in psychology?Canadian Psychology, 29,139–150.

Rogers, A. G. (2000). When methods matter: Qualitativeresearch issues in psychology.Harvard Educational Re-view, 70,75–85.

Schwandt, T. A. (1996). Farewell to criteriology.Qualita-tive Inquiry, 2,59–73.

Shank, G. (1994). Shaping qualitative research in educa-tional psychology.Contemporary Educational Psychol-ogy, 19,340–359.

Smith, J. A. (1995). Semi-structured interviewing and quali-tative analysis. In J. A. Smith, R. Harre, & L. V. Lan-genhove (Eds.),Rethinking methods in psychology(pp.9–26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Smith, J. A., Harre, R., & Langenhove, L. V. (1995a).Re-thinking methods in psychology.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Smith, J. A., Harre, R., & Langenhove, L. V. (1995b). In-troduction. In J. A. Smith, R. Harre, & L. V. Langenhove(Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology(pp. 1–8).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stewart, A. (1998).The ethnographer’s method.ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Stiles, W. B. (1993). Quality control in qualitative research.Clinical Psychology Review, 13,593–618.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990).Basics of qualitative re-search.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.


Strean, W. B. (1998). Possibilities for qualitative research insport psychology.The Sport Psychologist, 12,333–345.

Streubert, H. J., & Carpenter, D. R. (1995).Qualitativeresearch in nursing.Philadelphia: Lippincott.

Vidich, A. J., & Lyman, S. M. (2000). Qualitative methods:Their history in sociology and anthropology. In N. K.Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (2nd ed.),Handbook of qualita-tive research(pp. 37–84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zeller, N., & Farmer, F. M. (1999). “Catchy, clever titles arenot acceptable”: Style, APA, and qualitative reporting.International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Educa-tion, 12,3–19.

Received October 24, 2000Revision received August 21, 2001

Accepted August 21, 2001■

KIDD138

The Role of Qualitative Research in Psychological...

Documents

Transcript of The Role of Qualitative Research in Psychological...