Advertisement

Interpretation-Driven Guidelines for Designing and Evaluating Grounded Theory Research: A Constructivist-Social Justice Approach

  • Heidi M. LevittEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter is meant as guidance for not only investigators designing qualitative research projects but for reviewers assessing manuscripts using qualitative methods. An interpretation-driven approach to design and review of qualitative research is proposed as an alternative to the approach of setting in stone rules that consist of procedure-driven prescriptions. It walks the reader through the process of considering the design of an individual study and its coherence with the epistemology of the researcher(s). This approach emphasizes the centrality of the role of interpretation that is best evaluated in relation to an epistemology, within the context of the specific study characteristics, and in service of the scientific, practice, and/or social justice goals at hand. It presents context-sensitive guidelines for researchers and reviewers to use in designing and evaluating qualitative research studies. Within the chapter, there is a specific focus on grounded theory (e.g., Glaser and Strauss, The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine, Chicago, 1967); however, many of the principles put forward to guide study design and research review may be relevant across qualitative methods.

Keywords

Qualitative Research Domestic Violence Qualitative Method Epistemological Belief Core Category 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank David Rennie and Omar C.G. Gelo for sharing their thoughts in response to this chapter.

References

  1. Angus L, Levitt H, Hardtke K (1999) The narrative processes coding system: research applications and implications for psychotherapeutic practice. J Clin Psychol 55(10):1255–1270. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(199910)55:10<1255::AID-JCLP7>3.0.CO;2-F PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakan D (1967) On method: toward a reconstruction of psychological investigation. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  3. Bar On BA (1993) Marginality and epistemic privilege. In: Alcoff L, Potter E (eds) Feminist epistemologies. Routledge, New York, pp 83–100Google Scholar
  4. Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3:77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charmaz K (2006) Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through data analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  6. Code, L (1996) What is natural about naturalized epistemology? Am Philos Q 33:1–22Google Scholar
  7. Code L (2006) Ecological thinking: the politics of epistemic location. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corbin J, Strauss AL (2008) Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  9. Diamond LM (2006) Careful what you ask for: reconsidering feminist epistemology and autobiographical narrative in research on sexual identity development. Signs J Women Cult Soc 31:471–491. doi: 10.1086/491684 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dourdouma A, Mörtl K (2012) The creative journey of GTA: a guideline to its principle and application. Res Psychother Psychopathol Process Outcome 15:96–106. doi: 10.7411/RP.2012.010 Google Scholar
  11. Elliott R, Fischer CT, Rennie DL (1999) Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. Br J Clin Psychol 38:215–229. doi: 10.1348/014466599162782 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fassinger RE (2005) Paradigm, praxis, problems, and promise: grounded theory in counseling psychology. J Couns Psychol 52:156–166. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fine ML (2011) Troubling calls for evidence. Fem Psychol 22:3–19. doi: 10.1177/0959353511435475 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fine ML (2012) Resuscitating critical psychology for ‘revolting’ times. J Soc Issues 68:416–438. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2012.01756.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fletcher GJO (1996) Realism versus relativism in psychology. Am J Psychol 109:409–429. doi: 10.2307/1423014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frankel ZF, Levitt HM (2008) Clients’ experiences of disengaged moments in psychotherapy: a grounded theory analysis. J Contemp Psychother 39:171–186. doi: 10.1007/s10879-008-9087-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frankel ZF, Levitt HM, Murray DM, Greenberg LS, Angus LE (2006) Assessing psychotherapy silences: an empirically derived categorization system and sampling strategy. Psychother Res 16(5):627–638. doi: 10.1080/10503300600591635 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frieze IH (2008) Publishing qualitative research in sex roles. Sex Roles 58:1–2. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9376-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frieze IH (2013) Guidelines for qualitative research being published in sex roles. Sex Roles 69:1–2. doi: 10.1007/s11199-013-0286-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gelo OCG (2012) On research methods and their philosophical assumptions: raising the consciousness of researchers again. Psychother Sozialwiss 2:111–130Google Scholar
  21. Gelo OCG, Manzo S (2015) Quantitative approaches to treatment process, change process, and process-outcome research. In: Gelo OCG, Pritz A, Rieken B (eds) Psychotherapy research: foundations, process, and outcome. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gelo OCG, Braakmann D, Benetka G (2008) Quantitative and qualitative research: beyond the debate. Integr Psychol Behav Sci 42:266–290. doi: 10.1007/s12124-008-9078-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gelo OCG, Braakmann D, Benetka G (2009) Erratum to “Quantitative and qualitative research: beyond the debate”. Integr Psychol Behav Sci 43(4):406–407. doi: 10.1007/s12124-009-9107-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gergen KJ, McNAmee S (2000) From disordering discourse to transformative dialogue. In: Neimeyer RA, Raskin JD (eds) Constructions of disorder: meaning-making frameworks for psychotherapy. APA, Washington, DC, pp 333–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Giorgi A (2009) The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: a modified Husserlian approach. Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PAGoogle Scholar
  26. Glaser B, Strauss A (1967) The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  27. Greenberg LS (2007) A guide to conducting a task analysis of psychotherapeutic change. Psychother Res 17:15–30. doi: 10.1080/10503300600720390 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Guba EG, Lincoln YS (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, London, pp 105–117Google Scholar
  29. Guba EG, Lincoln YS (2005) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In: Denzin N, Lincoln YS (eds) The sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage, London, pp 191–215Google Scholar
  30. Harding S (1986) The science question in feminism. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  31. Harding S (1998) Is science multi-cultural? Postcolonialisms, feminisms, and epistemologies. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, INGoogle Scholar
  32. Harding S (2011) The postcolonial science and technology studies reader. Duke, Durham, NCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Henretty JR, Levitt HM, Mathews SS (2008) Clients’ experiences of moments of sadness in psychotherapy: a grounded theory analysis. Psychother Res 18:243–255. doi: 10.1080/10503300701765831 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hill CE, Knox S, Thompson BJ, Williams EN, Hess SA, Ladany N (2005) Consensual qualitative research: an update. J Couns Psychol 52:196–205. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.196 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kannan D, Levitt HM (2009) Challenges facing the developing feminist psychotherapist. Women Ther 32:406–422. doi: 10.1080/02703140903153377 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Knickmeyer N, Levitt HM, Horne SG, Bayer G (2003) Responding to mixed messages and double binds: religious oriented coping strategies of Christian battered women. J Relig Abuse 5:55–82. doi: 10.1300/J154v05n02_03 Google Scholar
  37. Levitt H (1999) The development of wisdom: an analysis of Tibetan Buddhist experience. J Humanist Psychol 39(2):85–104. doi: 10.1177/0022167899392006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Levitt HM (2001) The sounds of silence in psychotherapy: the categorization of clients’ pauses. Psychother Res 11(3):295–309. doi: 10.1080/713663985 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Levitt H (2006) Butch, Femme, Bear and Leatherman: a programmatic exploration of gender identities within gay and lesbian subcultures. In: Kam-shing YIP (ed) Psychology of gender identity: an international perspective. Nova Science, Hauppauge, NY, pp 105–121Google Scholar
  40. Levitt HM, Frankel Z (2004) Pausing inventory classification system (PICS) manual, 2nd Revision. Unpublished manuscript, University of MemphisGoogle Scholar
  41. Levitt H, Hiestand K (2004) A quest for authenticity: contemporary butch gender. Sex Roles 50:605–621. doi: 10.1023/B:SERS.0000027565.59109.80 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Levitt HM, Piazza-Bonin EB (2011) Wisdom-based approaches to therapy: challenging the dominant psychotherapy culture. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Memphis, Memphis, TNGoogle Scholar
  43. Levitt H, Ware K (2006) “Anything with two heads is a monster”: religious leaders perspectives on marital equality and domestic violence. Violence Against Women 12(12):1–22. doi: 10.1177/1077801206293546 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Levitt HM, Williams DC (2010) Facilitating client change: principles based upon the experience of eminent psychotherapists. Psychother Res 10:337–352. doi: 10.1080/10503300903476708 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Levitt HM, Neimeyer RA, Williams D (2005) Rules vs. principles in psychotherapy: implications of the quest for universal guidelines in the movement for empirically supported treatments. J Contemp Psychother 35:117–129. doi: 10.1007/s10879-005-0807-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Levitt HM, Butler M, Hill T (2006) What clients find helpful in psychotherapy: principles for facilitating change. J Couns Psychol 53:314–324. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.53.3.314 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Levitt HM, Todd-Swanger R, Butler JB (2008) Male perpetrators’ perspectives on intimate partner violence, religion, and masculinity. Sex Roles 58:435–448. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9349-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Levitt HM, Williams DC, Cifci-Uruk A, Kannan D, Obana M, Smith B, Wang MC, Plexico LW, Camp J, Hardison H, Watts A, Wonch W (2009) The experience of depth curiosity: the pursuit of congruence despite the danger of engulfment. J Constr Psychol 22:187–212. doi: 10.1080/10720530902915093 Google Scholar
  49. Levitt HM, Dunnavant B (2014) Judicial wisdom: the process of forming wise decisions. J Construct Psychol (in press)Google Scholar
  50. Levitt HM, Ippolito MR, Kannan D (2013) Teaching qualitative methods using a research team approach: publishing grounded theory projects with your class. Qual Res Psychol 10:119–139. doi: 10.1080/14780887.2011.586101 Google Scholar
  51. Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Sage, Newbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  52. Longino H (1993) Subjects, power and knowledge: description and prescription in feminist philosophies of science. In: Alcoff L, Potter E (eds) Feminist epistemologies. Routledge, New York, pp 101–120Google Scholar
  53. Manley E, Levitt HM, Mosher C (2007) Understanding the bear movement in gay male culture: redefining masculinity. J Homosex 53:89–112. doi: 10.1080/00918360802103365 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mörtl K, Gelo OCG (2012) Qualitative research methods. In: Gelo OCG, Pritz A, Rieken B (eds) Psychotherapy research: general issues, process and outcome. Springer, Vienna/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  55. Morrow SL (2005) Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. J Couns Psychol 52:250–260. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mörtl K, Gelo OCG (2015) Qualitative methods in psychotherapy process research. In: Gelo OCG, Pritz A, Rieken B (eds) Psychotherapy research: foundations, process, and outcome. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  57. Neimeyer RA (2009) Constructivist psychotherapy: distinctive features. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  58. Packer MJ, Addison RB (1989) Entering the circle: hermeneutic investigation in psychology. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  59. Peirce CS (1958) A neglected argument for the existence of god. In: Wiener PP (ed) Values in a Universe of chance: Selected writings of Charles S. Peirce. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  60. Peirce CS (1965) Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  61. Pokorny D (2015) Quantitative data analysis in psychotherapy process research. Structures and procedures. In: Gelo OCG, Pritz A, Rieken B (eds) Psychotherapy research: foundations, process, and outcome. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  62. Ponterotto JG (2005) Qualitative research in counseling psychology: a primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. J Couns Psychol 52:126–136. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Raskin JD, Bridges SK (eds) (2008) Studies in meaning 3: constructivist psychotherapy in the real world. Pace University, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  64. Rennie DL (1997) Methodical hermeneutics and humanistic psychology. Humanist Psychol 35:1–14. doi: 10.1080/08873260709336693 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rennie DL (2000) Grounded theory methodology as methodical hermeneutics: reconciling realism and relativism. Theory Psychol 10:481–502. doi: 10.1177/0959354300104003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rennie DL (2006) The grounded theory method: application of a variant of its procedure of constant comparative analysis to psychotherapy research. In: Fischer CT (ed) Qualitative research methods for psychologists: introduction through empirical studies. Elsevier, Boston, MA, pp 59–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rennie DL (2010) Humanistic psychology at York University: retrospective: focus on clients’ experiencing in psychotherapy: emphasis of radical reflexivity. Humanist Psychol 38:40–56. doi: 10.1080/08873261003635856 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rennie DL (2012) Qualitative research as methodical hermeneutics. Psychol Methods 17(3):385–398. doi: 10.1037/a0029250 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rennie DL, Fergus KD (2006) Embodied categorizing in the grounded theory method: methodical hermeneutics in action. Theory Psychol 16:483–503. doi: 10.1177/0959354306066202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rennie DL, Frommer J (2015) Applications of qualitative and mixed-methods counseling and psychotherapy research. In: Gelo OCG, Pritz A, Rieken B (eds) Psychotherapy research: foundations, process, and outcome. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  71. Rennie DL, Phillips JR, Quartaro GK (1988) Grounded theory: a promising approach to conceptualization in psychology? Can Psychol 29:139–150. doi: 10.1037/h0079765 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schilling J (2006) On the pragmatics of qualitative assessment: designing the process for content analysis. Eur J Psychol Assess 22:28–37. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.22.1.28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Slife BD, Gantt E (1999) Methodological pluralism: a framework for psychotherapy research. J Clin Psychol 55:1453–1465. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(199912)55:12<1453::AID-JCLP4>3.0.CO;2-C PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stringer JV, Levitt HM, Berman JS, Mathews SS (2010) A study of silent disengagement and distressing emotion in psychotherapy. Psychother Res 20:495–510. doi: 10.1080/10503301003754515 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wertz FJ (2005) Phenomenological research methods in counseling psychology. J Couns Psychol 52:167–177. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.167 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Williams DC, Levitt HM (2008a) Clients’ experiences of difference with therapists: sustaining faith in psychotherapy. Psychother Res 18:256–270. doi: 10.1080/10503300701561545 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Williams DC, Levitt HM (2008b) When constructs collide: constructivist research on when and how to challenge clients. In: Raskin JD, Bridges SK (eds) Studies in meaning III. Pace University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Massachusetts BostonBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations