Mixed Methods Research in Marriage and Family Therapy: A Content Analysis

Considering mixed methods research is gaining reputability in the marriage and family therapy field (Research methods in family therapy, Guilford, 2005), we conducted a mixed methods content analysis to examine the prevalence and quality of published mixed and multimethod research during the past 10 years in eight prominent MFT journals (N = 32). Our purpose was to determine the characteristics of studies that utilized both qualitative and quantitative methods, the themes of the rationales for combining methods, and their respective topics of study. We found 16 mixed methods articles, many of which used surveys and interviews, focused on the process of therapy, and did not discuss their methodology as mixed. We encourage authors of mixed methods studies to explicitly define design types, to establish a clear rationale for the combination of methods, to state how qualitative and quantitative methods and data were mixed, and to use theory effectively.     

The use of theory in family therapy research: a content analysis of family therapy journals

Ninety-five studies from Family Process and Journal of Marital and Family Therapy were evaluated with regard to their use of theory. While a majority of the articles were judged to use theory in either an explicit or an implicit manner, 42% did not appear to draw on theory in either the introductory or discussion sections. Studies that used qualitative methods appeared to use theory more frequently and explicitly than those using quantitative methods alone. Systems theory was found to be the most common conceptual framework, followed by feminism. We conclude that the link between theory and research in family therapy needs strengthening and suggest that the role of theory in family therapy be reexamined.     

Evidenztriangulation in der Gesundheitsforschung

The contribution starts with weaknesses of a strict quantitative methodology in social research. Especially in health research variable connections are so complex that a broader understanding of research methods seems to be necessary. The dominance of quantitative-experimental ongoing in the sense of randomized controlled trials (RCT) at the top of the evidence hierarchy is criticized and a concept of evidence triangulation in the sense of mixed methods is proposed as alternative. An example study shows the logic of this research design. An institution of drug addicts counseling and therapy is analyzed in its effects through an evaluation study, using four different methodological approaches, an experimental pre-post design, qualitative interviews with the clients, and qualitative and document analysis using qualitative content analysis are combined. Each of them is developed in criticizing and supplementing the other approaches. The mixed methods procedure therefor follows a dialectical theory of science.     

Reintegrating Theories,Methods, and Historical Analysis in Teaching Sociology

We discuss ways of bringing theory and methods into conversation with each other within courses and across the sociology curriculum. Theory is often taught completely separately from research methods, which in turn are simplistically divided into quantitative and qualitative. To counter this fragmented approach to the discipline we discuss two major paradigms, a social-forces paradigm often linked to quantitative research and an interpretive paradigm often linked to qualitative inquiry. But at a deeper level both paradigms require an understanding of historical context. The relationship between these two paradigms and more familiar categories of theory such as "functionalism" and "conflict theories" is not straightforward. We conclude the discussion by describing classroom-tested strategies that help students explore the complexity of the linkages between theories and empirical inquiry.     

A content analysis of research in family therapy journals

In order to assess trends in family therapy research, empirical articles (N = 195) from three family therapy journals over a 5-year period were coded for several variables: authorship, external funding, methodology, sample, purpose, cost effectiveness, use of therapeutic model, and topic. Results indicated that a large pecentage of research in these journals focused on nonclinical issues and used nonclinical samples. Authors were affiliated with a wide variety of disciplines and reported low levels of external funding for their research. While a majority of the studies used quantitative methods, there appeared to be a growing number of studies using qualitative methods. Implications of these findings are discussed in light of research reviews over the past two decades.     

Aesthetic forms of data representation in qualitative family therapy research

In this article we provide a rationale for using alternative, aesthetic methods of qualitative representation (e.g., creative writing, art, music, performance, poetry) in qualitative family therapy research. We also provide illustrative examples of methods that bring findings to life, and involve the audience in reflecting on their meaning. One problem with such forms of data representation has been that, until recently, there have not been standards with which to evaluate them. We summarize evolving standards and explain when the forms are appropriate and when they are not. We also address issues of legitimacy and conflicting standards held by others.     

A qualitative study of intimate partner violence universal screening by family therapy interns: implications for practice, research, training, and supervision

Although a few family therapy researchers and clinicians have urged universal screening for intimate partner violence (IPV), how screening is implemented-and, in particular, client and therapist response to screening-is vaguely defined and largely untested. This qualitative study examined the dilemmas experienced by couples and family therapy interns when implementing universal screening for IPV in an outpatient clinic setting. Twenty-two graduate students in a COAMFTE-accredited program were interviewed using qualitative research methods grounded in phenomenology. Three domains, 7 main themes, and 26 subthemes were identified. The three domains that emerged in this study include (a) therapist practice of universal screening, (b) client response to universal screening, and (c) therapist response to universal screening. Implications for practice, research, training, and supervision are discussed.     

Quality and quantity: Reconstructing feminist methodology

Many feminist sociologists have rejected quantitative in favor of qualitative methods, a position which might seem justified by feminist critiques of positivism. This paper examines both quantitative and qualitative methods in light of two major themes in radical feminist epistemology, the critique of objectivity and the politics of the research process, and finds both classes of methods vulnerable. We argue that underlying the argument against quantitative methods is a rejection of abstraction and a dichotomization of methodologies, both of which are inconsistent with feminist insights. We call for a reconstruction of methodology that transforms both quantitative and qualitative techniques in ways informed by feminist epistemology and builds research agendas that integrate both approaches. Her main research interests are in the development of social measures of gender and in the study of the impact of gender and class on consciousness. Her research concerns medical knowledge, social organization, and the health and well-being of women.     

FAMILY THERAPY AND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH*

Qualitative research is becoming accepted by the scientific community as a viable way to explore and understand socialscience phenomena. The purpose of this paper is to describe the essential features of the qualitative research paradigm and to encourage further development of that paradigm in the field of family therapy. First, typical characteristics of qualitative research designs are delineated; these characteristics are illustrated with two extended examples from the qualitative research literature in the field of education. Next, possible applications of the qualitative paradigm to research issues in the field of family therapy are discussed. Finally, potential pitfalls that could inhibit the development of qualitative family therapy research are examined. It is hoped that this paper will serve as a stimulus for the development of qualititative research in the field of family therapy.     

Time,Work, and Family Life: Reconceptualizing Gendered Time Patterns Through the Case of Children’s Organized Activities1

This article considers the understudied phenomenon of children’s organized leisure as it relates to the division of labor in the family. Using both quantitative and qualitative data, we first ask whether the labor entailed by children’s organized leisure is divided evenly between mothers and fathers. Both data sets indicate that this is not the case, with the majority of the work falling to mothers; they also indicate that at least some employed mothers face a tradeoff between time devoted to paid work and time devoted to facilitating their children’s leisure. Subsequently, we consider key qualitative aspects of these leisure activities, including deadline sensitivity, authority over scheduling, and degree of predictability. These factors, we find, serve to exacerbate the inequity of the allocation of responsibility between mothers and fathers. We conclude by suggesting that organized leisure has become an important part of the familial landscape and thus warrants further attention. We also suggest that research on the gender division of labor would be enhanced in important ways by greater attention to qualitative dimensions of time use. Researchers should not simply assume that “an hour is an hour.”     

Methodological Issues in Combining Diverse Study Types in Systematic Reviews

In this paper we discuss mixing methods at the level of reviews of research, combining the findings of multiple, already existing, studies that are labelled broadly as using either ‘qualitative’ or ‘quantitative’ methods. We define systematic reviews and outline the ‘mixed methods’ we have developed for combining diverse study types within them. Traditional systematic reviews usually answer a single question, use one type of study and, hence, only require one method of synthesis to combine the findings of studies. Our methods involve conducting three types of synthesis: (1) a statistical meta‐analysis to pool trials of interventions tackling a particular health, social or educational problem; (2) a synthesis of studies examining people’s perspectives or experiences of that problem using qualitative analysis; and (3) a mixed methods synthesis bringing the products of (1) and (2) together. We discuss the strengths of these mixed methods at the review level, reflect on their lessons for the concept of ‘triangulation’ and raise questions about the utility of the terms ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’ and ‘mixed methods’ for classifying different types of research.     

Qualitative research in family therapy: publication trends from 1980 to 1999

In the early 1990s, scholars from a variety of disciplines encouraged greater inclusion of qualitative research methodology in the mental health field. Moon, Dillon, and Sprenkle (1990) hoped their paper “Family therapy and qualitative research” would serve as a stimulus for further development of qualitative research in the field of family therapy. Ten years later, entering the new millennium, has the field been influenced by recommendations for an increase in use of qualitative methodology in family therapy? A content analysis was conducted on articles published in the marriage and family therapy literature from 1980 to 1999. Of the numerous articles examined in four journals, 131 articles were published using qualitative research methodology. Findings support the contention that qualitative research is increasing, but still accounts for a small number of research articles published in marriage and family therapy journals.     

Getting Comfortable as “Fish Out of Water”: Using Qualitative Research Methods Training to Enhance the Technical Capacity of Family Therapy Trainees

This article describes a qualitative research methods training project undertaken in a COAMFTE‐accredited family therapy master’s‐level program. Graduate students were trained to collect research data for a qualitative study on the resilience of families displaced to the United States because of war and politically motivated violence in their country of origin. By involving trainees in a research project with refugees, the project was intended to address a gap in clinicians’ training, specific to the refugee population (Miller, Muzurovic, Worthington, Tipping, and Goldman, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 2002; 72 : 341). However, the training process was also a way to increase the students’ skills at interviewing in complex situations, develop their cultural sensitivity beyond awareness, enhance their capacity for routine self‐reflection, and introduce them to basic practices of qualitative research methodology. In this article, we focus on the students’ experience of the training and discuss the potential implications of their feedback for family therapy training.     

The Potential Contributions of Quantitative Research to Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism is often mischaracterized as a perspective that rejects quantitative research. We argue that the rich conceptual tradition of symbolic interactionism allows for the use of quantitative data and statistical analysis within a pragmatist epistemology and that this is desirable, especially in conjunction with qualitative data. We discuss types of quantitative data and their appropriate uses and then describe types of contemporary multivariate statistical methods and what they offer. To illustrate these data and analytic techniques, we draw from examples in our area of specialization, criminology, and from our own quantitative work. Researchers can use quantitative data and methods in the service of six core symbolic interactionist concerns—meaning, variation, comparisons, situations, contexts, and probability—and we contend that quantification and statistics pose no threat to the interactionist perspective. In fact, the principled, critical use of quantitative research can enhance it.     

Applicability of standards for evaluations of educational programs, projects and materials in an international setting: Qualitative research

Qualitative studies are much more the practice in Europe and increasingly elsewhere than in the United States. For an international audience, therefore, there needs to be much greater emphasis on qualitative techniques than there is in the standards report. The most difficult ethical problem arises from the conflict between the right to privacy of research subjects and the right to know of audiences. By its nature, qualitative research focuses on the particular, the detailed analysis of the specific incident. It is therefore often difficult to conceal the identity of the individual organisations and people concerned. Even a confidential report might work to the detriment of the subjects studied. Published reports pose the same problem. Have subjects the right to have material they believe to their disadvantage excised from a report even if that renders the report valueless? There are two technical points in the standards document that should be amplified. The first concerns the verification of data. We need to specify procedures to ensure credibility for qualitative studies. The second concern is the specification of quantitative techniques for the analysis of qualitative data. The statement in the standards document is too weak. We need to define much more clearly the steps that should be taken to ensure that qualitative data can be tested rigorously. Finally, there is the problem of collusion, the danger that the qualitative evaluators will select from their material the data which are in conformity with their own predilictions or presuppositions, the expectations of their audience, or the requirements of their sponsors. This problem may be acute in some parts of the world. To be of maximum international value, the standards report needs to be extended and to pay much greater attention to problems arising with qualitative evaluation.     

Discursive Methodologies for Couple and Family Therapy Research: Editorial to Special Section

In this article, we aim to introduce the special JMFT section on discursive research methodologies for couple and family therapy research. These are qualitative research methodologies which resonate with the systemic emphasis on the semantics and the pragmatics of therapy discourse. First, we provide a brief overview of such methodologies and their use in the family therapy field. We then introduce the context and the content of the special section, where four approaches, including conversation analysis, discursive psychology type of discourse analysis, poststructurally informed discourse analysis (subject positioning analysis), and semantic analysis, are introduced by means of analyzed extracts from a Tom Andersen consultation session with a couple in distress and their therapist. We conclude with implications for the field. For Tom and Michael     

Intervention research in couple and family therapy: a methodological and substantive review and an introduction to the special issue

This article serves as an introduction to this third version of research reviews of couple and family therapy (CFT) that have appeared in this journal beginning in 1995. It also presents a methodological and substantive overview of research in couple and family therapy from about 2001/2002 to 2010/2011 (the period covered in this issue), while also making connections with previous research. The article introduces quantitative research reviews of family-based intervention research that appear in this issue on 10 substantive areas including conduct disorder/delinquency, drug abuse, childhood and adolescent disorders (not including the aforementioned), family psycho-education for major mental illness, alcoholism, couple distress, relationship education, affective disorders, interpersonal violence, and chronic illness. The paper also introduces the first qualitative research paper in this series, as well as a paper that highlights current methodologies in meta-analysis. The first part of this article rates the 10 content areas on 12 dimensions of methodological strength for quantitative research and makes generalizations about the state of quantitative methodology in CFT. The latter part of the papers summarizes and makes comments on the substantive findings in the 12 papers in this issue, as well as on the field as a whole.     

On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher: The Importance of Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methodologies

The last 100 years have witnessed a fervent debate in the USA about quantitative and qualitative research paradigms. Unfortunately, this has led to a great divide between quantitative and qualitative researchers, who often view themselves as in competition with each other. Clearly, this polarization has promoted purists, namely, researchers who restrict themselves exclusively either to quantitative or to qualitative research methods. Mono‐method research is the biggest threat to the advancement of the social sciences. Indeed, as long as we stay polarized in research, how can we expect stakeholders who rely on our research findings to take our work seriously? Thus, the purpose of this paper is to explore how the debate between quantitative and qualitative is divisive and, hence, counterproductive for advancing the social and behavioural science field. This paper advocates that all graduate students learn to utilize and to appreciate both quantitative and qualitative research. In so doing, students will develop into what we term as pragmatic researchers.