People Think All You Do is Tea and Biscuits? Got Stories?

So your a qual researcher in a big quant-oriented organisation? Need therapy? C'mon talk to Uncle Paul..

Im keen to hear from peoples experience of doing qual research, specifically in terms of how they have negotiated things organizationally? Promise I wont code it?

Have you been considered the soft touch? Not real research? Not enough participants? Whats the point if you have no hypotheses ? Been told your qual work is only fine if its a preamble to a quant study?

Plus how did you deal with it? Knock heads? Bring people along ? Prove them wrong ? Win all the prizes?

Doesn't matter if you want to keep the actual organisation anonymous...

 

Interpersonal Process Research: What Has It helped Us Understand About Therapy ?

 

Yes, this is another "sneak peak" post where I sneak out an excerpt from something currently being written in its draft from...is this advisable? This is a paper reporting on a Systematic review of the use of Interpersonal Process Recall in studying therapeutic processes...IPR means you interview the therapist/client or both while you watch a video of a session that has just been completed....they pause the video when the phenomenon under scrutiny appears so it can be explored...

This review aimed to organize the body of information available in empirical studies, which use Interpersonal Process Recall to investigate therapeutic processes and treatment effectiveness, through a systematic literature review. It was expected that the majority of studies reviewed will incorporate IPR with GTA for a qualitative analysis. Although the majority of studies included were qualitative in design, only half the studies utilised GTA.

Overall, the literature suggests that research into therapeutic processes using IPR has focused upon non-verbal processes, verbal response modes, positive and negative significant moments in therapy and developing a taxonomy of specific types of experiences, such as sadness. The examination of both modes of verbal communication and non-verbal communication demonstrate that these two aspects of communication do impact upon perceived empathy in session. The exploration of significant moments in therapy have allowed for a broader and more in-depth analyses of these processes through qualitative analysis. The research suggests that clients and counsellors are able to identify such moments with a high degree of accuracy, however, differ in the perception of why it is significant, and the impact of such moments. Finally, the development of taxonomies for pauses and moments of sadness in therapy demonstrate the utility of IPR and qualitative analysis in developing an empirically grounded theory of therapeutic processes, such that they inform clinical practice.

Limitations of the Literature

Although IPR has been identified as an effective means of investigating therapeutic processes (Elliott, 1983; Rhodes, 2011), there is still a dearth of research. Only ten studies were found to examine interpersonal processes relating to treatment efficacy using IPR in individual, face-to-face treatment settings. Moreover, no study directly examined psychotherapeutic processes in relation to treatment outcomes.

Furthermore, the majority of studies included were marked by methodological limitations. This includes inappropriate or unjustified sampling strategies, limited rigour in GTA, and poor reporting of ethical concerns and researcher bias. Moreover, some studies did not take the full advantage of IPR as a means of accessing the process-rich data from within actual therapy sessions, which limited findings. Namely, such studies employed IRP for the identification of significant moments only or obtaining a rating score, rather than free recall.

Implications for Clinical Practice and Research

Nonetheless, the studies reviewed do lend support to the call by Elliott (1983) and Rhodes (2011)  reveals information that cannot be gleaned from the reading of transcripts alone (Levitt & Rennie, 2006). It provides data regarding the mutiny of psychotherapy processes on a moment-to-moment basis. that IPR is an effective means of examining therapeutic processes as it

As suggested by Rhodes (2011), future research should combine IPR with GTA to allow for the development of empirically grounded theory into therapeutic processes. However, the rigour of analysis of the qualitative data needs to be at the standard established for this practice (Chiovitti & Piran, 2003). Research in this field can benefit especially with triangulation of data, “a process of using multiple perceptions to clarify meaning” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003, p. 148). This would allow for outcome measures to be used to provide another perspective on the therapeutic processes, therefore directly bridging the gap between practice and research.

Coding: Don't Forget the Forest

It’s a horrible but inescapable fact that it takes more

time to organise, write and present material well than

it does to gather it . . . The sensible researcher will

allow as much free time to write his [sic] report as he

spent in the field. If he is really astute and can get

away with it, he will allow more time. (Wax 1983,

193–4; in Cook and Crang 2007, 131)

I'm writing up a study at the moment and reflecting on the coding process. After wrestling with the data for a few years Im flabbergasted that its only really when Im writing it up that I have come to fully understand it....Ive looked carefully at every bloody leaf and branch, at every tiny free code as it becomes part of a larger set of thematic relationship, Ive even developed a lovely theory, cross checked it with participants but only now as I have nearly finished writing it did i finally get it.

Coding is a combination of paying close attention to every detail and simultaneously keeping your eye on the big picture...hopefully something bigger emerges than the data..call it 'higher order' themes....some that transcends the data and leads eventually to a creative product rather than just a research report.

Here's an interesting paper relating to this 

Coding then, if you are informed by Grounded Theory can go through the following steps:

1. Immerse yourself in the data by reading thru the transcript many times
2. Free code loosely, not every word but proper chunks of meaning
3. As interviews progress you'll start to commit to codes
4. The hierarchy of codes will start to emerge, ie, which are leaves, which are branches
5. You can then look for differences between participants
6. Complex relationships may then emerge between codes and between codes and attributes of participants
7. Your model emerges and you can fill gaps in through selective sampling of new participants
8. You could then augment your analysis through theoretical triangulation: ie..try and use a variety of theories
9. You can also use investigator triangulation and have a group of people help you code, preferably from other disciplines or orientations.
10. Then go for a walk, a run, have a bath, go clubbing, get drunk, go out for dinner, ride your bike and if your lucky all the higher order themes might emerge

The Qualities of a Good Qualitative Researcher

How Trainees Think on Their Feet In Session? An Interpersonal Process Recall Study

Here's a sneak peak at a study I'm writing up at the moment based on research done by Burgess, Rhodes and Wilson over the past few years using Interpersonal Process recall as a method 

(Kagan’s Interpersonal Process Recall (IPR) (Kagan, 1969, 1975; Kagan, Krathwohl & Miller, 1963a, 1963b) was initially developed as a training tool for therapists to develop self-awareness and critical thinking skills but has since been employed in psychotherapy research (e.g. Levitt, 2001; Lokken & Twohey, 2004; McLeod, 2001; West & Clark, 2004). A typical IPR interview involves video-recording a single therapy session and then asking the participant to stop the tape when they notice the phenomenon under investigation (Larsen et al, 2008). 

We looked at how trainees manage their own distress in the therapy room

Here's what we found (Draft only)

Findings from this study demonstrate that training as a Clinical Psychologist can be a challenging experience. Trainees enter the therapy room, equipped with their treatment plan, formulation and technique but are then faced with the interpersonal dynamics of the therapy room, including their own distressing reactions. Watzlawick, Bavelas and Jackson (1967) differentiate between content and process in therapy. The former is seen as the digital or rational and messages are unequivocal and can be analysed easily. The latter is analogue or emotional and messages as more subtle and hard to interpret. In this study we saw how trainees become distressed when they are equipped with digital tools but faced with potentially analogous information. Trainees were able to recognising this distress rather than engaging in suppression (Cox, 200; Nutt-Williams & Hill, 1996 ) and stopping briefly to reflect in-action (Schon,). Given their relative inexperience some found it helpful to refer to an internalised supervisor, in Julia’s case an idealised television clinician and some were able to briefly review their original formulations and treatment plan and check if intervention was possible given the current status of the therapeutic relationship. Paradoxically, in this cohort, some identified technical proficiency as a factor that enhanced their ability to respond on their feet in a flexible manner, highlighting the fact that structured learning may be a prerequisite to creative application (Rhodes, 2010). Many however abandoned treatment per se, retreating to the safety of non-directive counselling. 

OMG!!! Lyn Richards…Rock Goddess of Qual Research Says Hello to QRIP!!!!

Here’s her Bio!!!

Lyn Richards (B.A. Hon., political science; M.A., sociology) is a qualitative research writer and consultant and Adjunct Professor in the Graduate School of Business at RMIT University in Melbourne. As a family sociologist, she published four books and many papers on Australian families and women’s roles. As a methodologist, she taught graduate and undergraduate qualitative research at La Trobe University and went on to write for and teach the teachers. Her most recent book is Handling Qualitative Data, Second Edition (SAGE, 2009). In university research with Tom Richards, she developed the NUD*IST software and founded QSR International, Melbourne. In interaction with the researchers using the software, and later development teams at QSR, she worked on the design of the subsequent versions (to N6) and then NVivo, as a principal member of the QSR software-development teams and author of the software’s documentation. She was an invited speaker at all of the conferences in the first decade of qualitative computing and a leading teacher and trainer internationally in qualitative computing and the handling of qualitative data. Richards has taught qualitative methods and qualitative software to some 4,000 researchers in 15 countries, and learned from them all.

Here’s Lyn talking to QRIP exclusively about her work over many decades!!!!

For me it’s a self indulgence – I really like being useful.  I’ve learned an awful lot about the challenges of novice qualitative researchers and the difficulties of doing justice to qualitative data, but I learned it all a weird way. I’ve been out of academia ‘proper’ for a long time – a very long time since I thought of myself as a family sociologist and my last family sociology book was Intermission, in 1997. Tom Richards and I left La Trobe after he wrote the NUDIST software for my family sociology work, and the university was totally unable to deal with us trying to give it to them. So for the next decade I taught the researchers and the professors – round the world, as we found to our horror we were leading this field – and I learned hugely from that. We founded QSR back in 1995, said we’d give it a decade and did – that was hard work but we met a lot of marvellous people and I did a lot of thinking about what qualitative researchers are trying to do with data, and how software could help (and hinder). Escaped the corporate cage in 2006 – and dropped into an adjunct position.

My writing is now purely practical – trying to spill all methods ideas I’ve learned and developed during these years of methods teaching and talking directly with amazing people like Strauss and Huberman. I’ve just managed to finish the third ed of Readme First –http://www.sagepub.com/books/Book236735 - launched this month at AERA which I had great pleasure in not attending! Sage wants a third ed of Handling Qualitative Data next year. Both are out in Japanese and Italian now and RF in Korean.

QIG meets monthly. I launched it as an informal discussion group, emphatically not a lecture series, and I ban any attempt to turn it into an NVivo advice session! (I actually don’t have the current rev of NVivo – decided the only way to stop people coming to me for training and help  was to cut myself off from software teaching and advice entirely. QIG’s base rules are no papers, no pressures, bring your problems and feel able to talk about them.  I used to run such a group at La Trobe (it was nicknamed the Gourmet Group because they all brought food and a very international cuisine resulted!) QIG changes constantly in membership as folks shift jobs and finish projects or theses. They come in from all over Melbourne and all over the spectrum of qualitative areas.

Here’s Lyn saying how brilliant our Blog is !!!

Love your blog – and your openness and practical de-mystifying approach. Qualitative research needs so much more such input – and an ability to laugh at itself.

Lyn welcomes visitors to her own meetings.......if your interested contact me and Ill post the topics

Can Process Research Help Bridge the Science Practitioner Divide?

One of the major contributions of clinical psychology to the helping professions has been the scientist practitioner model. This model, first developed at the Boulder Conference in 1949 (Petersen, 2007), stipulates that clinicians both rely on empirical evidence to guide their choice of treatments and contribute towards the research endeavour (Jones & Mehr, 2007). The primary aim of the Boulder Conference was to develop guidelines for the training of clinical psychologists, setting a standard approach, given the diversity of training curriculum in the United States at the time. This conference was successful in ensuring that the majority of clinical training programmes include astrong research dimension.

Despite this contribution there is a growing consensus that the ideals of the Boulder Conference have failed to be realized (Chwalisz, 2003; Stricker, 2002, 2003). Of particular concern is an emphasis on the use of randomized controlled trials as the primary research methodology. This method relies on a uniform sample of clients and a strict adherence to techniques and the timing of sessions, circumstances that do not mirror the complexity of the real world of clinical practice (Rothwell, 2005). There is also increasing recognition that a reliance on manualized treatments can fail to recognize the critical role of the therapeutic relationship in determining efficacy (Wampold et al., 1997), a factor that has been found to be responsible for a much as 30 percent of variance (Lambert & Barley, 2001). In addition, manuals do not adequately consider the role of the clinician in guiding the client to recovery (Duncan & Miller, 2005), including dealing with common obstacles, such as ‘non-compliance’, clinical impasses or difficulties between therapist and client (Pachankis & Goldfried, 2007; Persons & Silberschatz, 1998). 

Sackett, Strauss, Richardson, Rosenberg and Haynes’s (2000) tripartite model of evidence based medicine allows for a greater integration of science and practice, by recognizing the role of clinical wisdom in the implementation of treatment techniques. These notions are far from novel, with Kuhn (1962) proposing that scientific theory is insufficient and that ‘puzzle solving’ was required for a scientist to be considered as competent. The American Psychological Society (APA) (2006) also recognizes this approach, stating that practitioners need to consider research findings, clinical expertise and patient characteristics in decision making. Clinical expertise is seen to include self-reflection, interpersonal skills and patient characteristics, including their unique strengths, cultural context and preferences.

The APA also recommends greater methodological diversity in research, with methods based on the research question being asked. These questions include the exploration of how clinicians make decisions in a sensitive and flexible manner, the effects of race and culture on the treatment process, how the psychologist manages the therapeutic relationship and its connection to outcomeand more. Norcross, Beutler and Levant (2005) mirror this recommendation in their important edited book, Evidence-based practices: Debate and dialogue on the fundamental questions. The authors represented call for greater recognition of a host of methodologies, including single-participant designs (Hurst & Nelson-Gray, 2005), qualitative research (Hill, 2005) and process studies(Greenberg & Watson, 2005). Critics from counselling and family therapy (Chwalisz, 2003;Sexton, Kinser, & Hanes, 2008) argue that such endeavours imply an expansion of what is considered evidence. From the APA’s perspective, however, this simply implies a more faithful and open-minded interpretation of the existing definition. 

Process research can play a critical role in supporting the further integration of science and clinical practice. Greenberg and Watson (2005) argue for this eloquently, stating that the interplay of therapist and patient variables needs to be studied in all its complexity if we are to understand the means by which outcomes are established. This is reinforced by Duncan and Miller’s (2005) statement that ‘the manual is not the territory,’ a reference to Bateson (1972) and an assertion that structured protocols do not describe the dynamic of psychotherapeutic change. 

Excerpt from paper: Link

Rhodes, P. (2011). Why we need process research in Clinical Psychology. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry