Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology © 2010 American Psychological Association

2010, Vol. 16, No. 4, 581–589 1099-9809/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0012051

Qualitative Research in Multicultural Psychology: Philosophical

Underpinnings, Popular Approaches, and Ethical Considerations
Joseph G. Ponterotto
Fordham University

This article reviews the current and emerging status of qualitative research in psychology. The particular
value of diverse philosophical paradigms and varied inquiry approaches to the advancement of psychol-
ogy generally, and multicultural psychology specifically, is emphasized. Three specific qualitative
inquiry approaches anchored in diverse philosophical research paradigms are highlighted: consensual
qualitative research, grounded theory, and participatory action research. The article concludes by
highlighting important ethical considerations in multicultural qualitative research.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Keywords: multicultural, qualitative research, research ethics, philosophy of science

The need for multicultural psychologists to be knowledgeable of
multiple-research paradigms and competent in conducting both
quantitative and qualitative research, is now made clear in the
American Psychological Association’s (APA, 2003) “Guidelines
on Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice, and Or-
ganizational Change for Psychologists,” which state the following:
Culturally centered psychological researchers are encouraged to seek
appropriate grounding in various modes of inquiry and to understand
both the strengths and limitations of the research paradigms applied to
culturally diverse populations . . . They should strive to recognize and
incorporate research methods that most effectively complement the
worldview and lifestyles of persons who come from a specific cultural
and linguistic population, for example quantitative and qualitative
research strategies. (p. 389)
The reality, however, is that most psychologists, including those
focused on research across cultures, continue to operate from a
primarily postpositivist research paradigm and their associated
quantitative procedures (Haverkamp, Morrow, & Ponterotto,
2005b; Ponterotto, 2005a; Rennie, Watson, & Monteiro, 2002). In
this article I promote the increased use of qualitative research
methods anchored in diverse research paradigms. To that end, this
article (a) describes leading research paradigms for qualitative
research, (b) reviews the current and emerging status of qualitative
methods in the field, (c) highlights the potential value of qualita-
tive approaches to psychology generally and multicultural psy-
chology specifically, (d) presents a brief overview of select qual-
itative inquiry approaches advocated for multicultural research,
and (e) highlights important ethical issues in conducting qualita-
tive research with diverse populations.
Consistent with the APA’s (2003) “Multicultural Guidelines,”
when referring to multiculturalism or multicultural psychology
Joseph G. Ponterotto, Division of Psychological & Educational Ser-
vices, Fordham University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Joseph
G. Ponterotto, Division of Psychological & Educational Services, Room 1008,
Fordham University at Lincoln Center, 113 West 60th Street, New York, NY
10023-7478. E-mail: jponterott@aol.com
throughout this article, I recognize the broad scope of the dimen-
sions of ethnicity, race, gender, language, sexual orientation, age,
disability, education, spiritual or religious orientation, socioeco-
nomic class, education, as well as other cultural dimensions.
Research Paradigms Anchoring Qualitative Research
Though many psychologists have a good idea about some of the
general distinctions between quantitative and qualitative research,
most have not been trained to understand the depth and variety of
philosophical paradigms and inquiry approaches anchoring quali-
tative research in psychology (Ponterotto, 2005a; Rennie et al.,
2002). As noted by McLeod (2001), “It may be possible to do good
quantitative research without knowing much about epistemology
of the philosophy of (social) science, but good qualitative research
requires an informed awareness of philosophical perspectives” (p.
203). Relatedly, Morrow (2005) highlighted differential criteria for
evaluating the rigor and quality of a qualitative study based on its
anchoring paradigm. Thus knowledge of philosophy of science and
competence in qualitative research are inextricably intertwined.
The research literature presents varied classifications of research
paradigms (see Denzin & Lincoln, 2005a); however, one that I find
particularly concise yet comprehensive is that proposed by Guba
and Lincoln (1994) and adapted by Ponterotto (2005b). This clas-
sification presents four research paradigms: positivism, postposi-
tivism, constructivism-interpretivism, and the critical-ideological
perspective. Of these four paradigms, positivism is the exclusive
province of quantitative research; however the other three para-
digms can all serve as anchors for qualitative research. Table 1
summarizes the defining characteristics of postpositivism,
constructivism-interpretivism, and the critical-ideological perspec-
tive. The descriptive characteristics include the paradigm’s per-
spective on key philosophy of science parameters, including on-
tology (nature of reality), epistemology (relationship between
researcher and participant in the quest for knowledge), axiology
(role of values in research), rhetorical structure (language used to
present research findings), and methodology (specific procedures
of research; see Table 1).
Postpositivist qualitative research aims to use traditional quali-
tative methods (e.g., interviews, case studies) in as quantifiable a

581
 582 PONTEROTTO

Table 1
Research Paradigms for Multicultural Research

Research paradigm Defining characteristics and qualitative approaches

Postpositivism One true approximal reality; researcher attempts to be as dualistic and objective as
possible; must monitor closely and bracket any value biases; attempts control of
variables and systematization of research procedures; generally third person,
objective report presentation; chiefly quantitative methods, with some more
structured qualitative approaches such as consensual qualitative research (Hill,
Thompson, & Williams,1997).
Constructivism-Interpretivism Multiple, equally valid, and socially coconstructed realities; highly interactive
researcher-participant relationship that leads to discovered meaning and
expression of experience; researcher values to be expected and should be
discussed and bracketed; report writing is first person with adequate “voice” of
participants (e.g., through quotes or documents); incorporates only qualitative
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

methods. More discovery oriented qualitative inquiry models such as grounded

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

theory (Fassinger, 2005).

Critical Theory and Related Ideological Positions
An apprehendable reality shaped by political, economic, and social factors;
interactive and proactive researcher role that promotes emancipation and
transformation through research; researcher values are clearly explicated and
help shape inquiry process; usually first person written reports relying
extensively on participant voices; incorporates chiefly qualitative methods, but
may incorporate quantitative procedures. Qualitative approaches in which
researcher’s social justice values help direct inquiry, such as participatory action
research (Kidd & Kral, 2005).

Note. Paradigm characteristics adapted from Guba and Lincoln (1994), Ponterotto (2005b), and Ponterotto & Grieger (2007).

manner as is possible. Thus for example, a researcher may prepare
a lengthy (25 questions) semistructured interview protocol based
on a review of the literature (explanatory, verification oriented),
administer the interview protocol to 40 participants averaging 40
min an interview. The protocol is the same for all interviewers and
the data is analyzed by a team of coresearchers and auditors for a
sense of reliability in coding (agreeing on single reality). Further-
more, the researcher, in staying close to the protocol during the
interview process, does not emotively connect with the participant
(concept of dualism).
By marked contrast, a parallel interview in the constructivist-
interpretivist paradigm would involve preparing a short (five ques-
tions) semistructured protocol and interviewing 10 participants for
roughly 2 hr each. The protocol can change from interview to
interview (discovery-oriented) as new insights emerge. Further-
more, the researcher and participants become emotively con-
nected, facilitating deeper levels of communication and topic ex-
ploration. Only the interviewer analyzes the data as multiple
realities are valid under this paradigm, and no coresearcher or
auditing team is necessary to identify a single agreed-on reality.
The critical-ideological paradigm has at its core an assumption
that inequity and oppression characterize real-world human inter-
actions, and that during the process of empirical inquiry the re-
searcher’s own social justice values can and should play a role in
the research process. This role is manifested in the goal of em-
powerment and emancipation of groups who experience oppres-
sion (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2000). An example of a qualitative
study in the critical-ideological paradigm might involve lengthy
interviews or focus groups with migrant farm workers, who during
and after the study gain a sense of unity and empowerment that
leads to coordinated demands for better working conditions. Coun-
seling psychologists have been particularly vocal in advocating for
increased research anchored in the critical theory paradigm (e.g.,
Toporek, Gerstein, Fouad, Roysircar, & Israel, 2006).
Current Status of Qualitative Research in Psychology
Though qualitative research featured prominently in the early
development of the psychology profession (e.g., the work of All-
port, Erikson, Fanon, Freud, Horney, and Piaget), during the last
half century qualitative methods, as a collective group, have taken
a back seat to quantitative research procedures (see historical
review in Ponterotto, Kuriakose, & Granovskaya, 2008). The
reason for this lies in the profession’s strong preference for the
positivist and postpositivist research paradigms over alternate par-
adigms such as constructivism and critical theory (Camic, Rhodes,
& Yardley, 2003; Haverkamp et al., 2005b).
Evidence of the profession’s strong reliance on positivism and
postpositivism, and their associated quantitative methods, is pre-
sented in a number of studies. For example, Rennie et al. (2002)
entered five search terms qualitative research, grounded theory,
discourse analysis, phenomenological psychology, and empirical
phenomenology in the PsycINFO database for the 100-year period,
1900 through 1999, and found that less than 1% of the articles
included one of these terms.
A number of other studies examined published journal literature
to assess the relative representativeness of both quantitative and
qualitative studies. For example, in a review of outcome studies
published worldwide across a large number of journals in coun-
seling, psychotherapy, and psychiatry, Sexton (1996) found that
less than 5% of the studies relied on qualitative methods. Focusing
specifically on journals in counseling and counseling psychology,
Berrios and Lucca (2006) and Ponterotto, Kuriakose, et al., (2008)
found that qualitative research represented under 20% of the
published empirical studies during the 1990s and 2000s. Finally, in
 SPECIAL SECTION: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
a 25-year review of journals focused on the psychology of religion
and spirituality, Aten and Hernandez (2005) found that less than
1% of published articles represented qualitative research studies.
It appears that the meager representation of published qualita-
tive research in psychology journals may, in part, stem from
graduate training programs that give minimal attention to qualita-
tive methods training. For example, with regard to research train-
ing in counseling psychology, Ponterotto (2005c) found that only
10% of programs required a course in qualitative research meth-
ods, and the median percentage of doctoral dissertations across
programs that employed qualitative methods was only 10%. It
follows that if graduate students in psychology are not being
adequately trained in alternate research paradigms and qualitative
inquiry procedures, they will be less likely to conduct and publish
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
qualitative research.
Despite the clear dominance of quantitative methods in the
psychology profession, there is mounting evidence that qualitative
methods are slowly increasing in popularity among psychology
researchers. For example, in a 12-year content analysis of major
journals in counseling psychology, Ponterotto, Barnett, Ticinelli,
Kuriakose, and Granovskaya (2008) found the representation of
qualitative studies to increase from 13% during the 1995 to 2000
period, to 18% during the 2001 to 2006 time period. Focusing on
research in family process and family therapy, Faulkner, Klock,
and Gale (2002) found the overall number of qualitative studies
published roughly doubled from the 1980s to the 1990s, though the
overall percentage of qualitative studies to quantitative studies was
still very low (percentage not specified). Ponterotto, Barnett, et al.
concluded that there is a slow, gradual research paradigm shift
underway, with qualitative research in applied psychology becom-
ing more accepted and increasingly popular.
Potential Value of Qualitative Research
In this section I briefly highlight the particular value of
qualitative methods, relative to traditional quantitative meth-
ods, to advancing psychology generally and multicultural psy-
chology specifically. A review of the literature of the past
decade has uncovered strong rationales for the psychology
profession to expand its repertoire of operating research para-
digms and empirical procedures. There is a clear sense in the
literature that both quantitative and qualitative methods have
their inherent strengths and limitations, and that there is a time
and place for both sets of approaches in psychological research.
Table 2 summarizes the particular benefits of qualitative meth-
ods to psychology (see Table 2).
Value of Qualitative Research
to Multicultural Psychology
In addition to the general advantages of qualitative research
summarized in Table 2, various authors have highlighted the
particular relevance and value of qualitative inquiry to the study of
multicultural psychology (Morrow, Rakhsha, & Castaneda, 2001;
Ponterotto, 2005a; Trimble & Fisher, 2006a). Constructivist and
critical theory qualitative procedures often involve intense, ongo-
ing, and prolonged interaction with participants. This emotive
interaction is transformative (Ponterotto, 2005b), thus creating
change in both the researcher and the participants. In a country
583
where race relations have been replete with misunderstanding,
stereotyping, and conflict, qualitative research can bring deeper
appreciation and understanding across cultures. Sciarra (1999)
stated that “not only are emotions allowed in qualitative research,
they are crucial. Because entering the meaning-making world of
another requires empathy, it is inconceivable how the qualitative
researcher would accomplish her goal by distancing herself from
emotions” (pp. 44 – 45).
Sciarra’s (1999) quote highlights one of the benefits of con-
structivist qualitative methods to the study of multicultural psy-
chology. That is, researchers attempt to understand the worldview
of our participants through intensely listening to and respecting
their own voice and their own interpretation of life events. Addi-
tional benefits of qualitative methods to multicultural research are
outlined below.
1. By entering culturally diverse communities, researchers
can demonstrate strong interest in participants’ life expe-
riences through respectful interviews and observations.
In this way, researchers achieve close personal contact
with the participants that lead to suspension of previously
held conceptions and stereotypes of the group. As the
instrument of their own research, this close interaction
helps transform researchers as well as the participants
(Mohatt & Thomas, 2006; Morrow et al., 2001; Pon-
terotto & Grieger, 2008).
2. In some qualitative approaches, the researcher and par-
ticipants are equivalent co-investigators, thus leveling the
power hierarchy common to many quantitative designs.
The empowerment of research participants serves to re-
duce the chances of marginalizing and stereotyping study
participants (Mohatt & Thomas, 2006; Ponterotto,
2005a).
3. Qualitative research is often effective at empowering
participants to navigate complex and sometimes oppres-
sive systems (particularly within the critical theory par-
adigm) leading to interventions in schools and organiza-
tions, and contributing to social change (Ditrano &
Silverstein, 2006; Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005; Kidd &
Kral, 2005; Morrow, 2007).
4. Quantitative research often forces participants to respond
to predesigned instruments or protocols that isolate indi-
vidual attitudes, beliefs, feelings, and behaviors. For re-
search participants who hail from more collectivist
worldviews, this kind of research is challenging. Mohatt
and Thomas (2006) summarized this concern well in their
work with Native American and Alaska Native popula-
tions: “Many traditional Native people would not isolate
behaviors, emotions, or cognitions and assign values to
them, measure them, manipulate them, and interpret the
results” (p. 109).
From a cross-cultural perspective, another concern with many
quantitative designs anchored in positivism and postpositivism is
the value given to random sampling. Once again Mohatt and
Thomas (2006) addressed this concern quite directly:
 584 PONTEROTTO

Table 2
Specific Benefits of Qualitative Inquiry Procedures

Benefit claim Supporting citations

Applied psychologists are drawn to constructivist qualitative Hill, 2005; McLeod, 2001; Morrow, 2007; Ponterotto, Kuriakose et al.,
methods because they often involve studying the emotive and 2008; Sciarra, 1999
cognitive aspects of participants’ life experiences interpreted
within the context of their socially constructed worldviews.
Qualitative methods are useful in exploratory phases of research Hill, 2005; Morrow, 2007; Nelson & Quintana, 2005.
given their “discovery” rather than “explanatory” or
“confirmatory” goals.
Qualitative research compliments quantitative research by adding Morrow, 2007; Nelson & Quintana, 2005.
descriptive depth.
Qualitative methods are excellent for theory development given Hill, 2005; Morrow, 2007; Nelson & Quintana, 2005.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

the inductive, iterative process of ongoing data collection,

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

analysis, and interpretation; researchers become “intimate”

with data through this process.
Qualitative research is particularly useful in studying and Hill, 2005; Morrow, 2007.
understanding process in counseling and psychotherapy.
Qualitative research is effective in examining very complex Hill, 2005; Morrow et al., 2001.
psychological phenomena as it is not constrained by pre-
selected and limited variables; such research can examine all
variables as they emerge during the discovery process.
Qualitative research is excellent at establishing clinical relevance Hill, 2005; Nelson & Quintana, 2005; Silverstein, Auerbach, & Levant,
of research given participants’ active involvement in defining 2006.
research questions, and in assessing and interpreting data; it
ultimately increases clinical relevance to both clients and
psychologists.
Qualitative research and writing can increase the public’s Morrow, 2007; Ponterotto, 2006; Ponterotto & Grieger, 2007;
understanding of and receptivity to research. Silverstein et al., 2006.
Qualitative research can effectively bridge the noted rift between Morrow, 2007.
the objective hypothetico-deductive model of science (from
positivism/postpositivism) and the subjective everyday
experience of practitioners helping clients and patients.
Qualitative research is effective in establishing “procedural Hill, 2005; Morrow, 2005.
evidence” (i.e., study methods and findings are intelligible,
consistent, and credible, and become self-evident in the
iterative, emergent analysis process).

I believe that random sampling procedures violate a fundamental
principle of every indigenous group with whom I have worked. It
assumes that a statistical or mathematical rationale should determine
whom we talk to or with whom we intervene. It is . . . . both exclusive
and dangerous because not all members of the community would be
included, and there would be no evidence of comembership on the
part of the researchers and therefore no sense of protection from harm.
(pp. 110 –111)
By contrast, qualitative designs often give voice to previously
disempowered, marginalized, and silenced groups who share their
worldview and lived experiences in their own words, in their own
way, and under conditions set forth through comembership in the
research endeavor (Ponterotto, 2005a).
Steps in Conducting Qualitative Multicultural Research
In the last decade, many excellent sources on conducting qual-
itative research have been put forth (e.g., Camic et al., 2003;
Denzin & Lincoln, 2005b; McLeod, 2001). In this section I draw
on these and other sources as well as my own experience conduct-
ing and supervising multicultural qualitative research to summa-
rize important steps for conceptualizing and conducting multicul-
turally focused qualitative research.
Decide on Operating Research Paradigm
The first step in conducting a qualitative study is to decide on
the research paradigm anchoring the study. The paradigm will
serve as a roadmap guiding the researcher to an appropriate qual-
itative inquiry approach, directing the course and methods of the
study, and promoting a careful evaluation of the quality of the
study (Morrow, 2005). Paradigm choices were reviewed earlier in
this article and are summarized in Table 1.
Graduate students and psychologists should understand the
politics of research in their working environment and be pre-
pared to address supervisory resistance to certain paradigms and
research approaches. For example, some PhD programs in psy-
chology dissuade students from conducting a qualitative study
anchored in constructivism or critical theory in favor of quan-
titative studies or qualitative studies anchored in postpositivism
(see related discussion in Ponterotto, 2005c; Ponterotto &
Grieger, 2007).
 SPECIAL SECTION: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Select Qualitative Inquiry Approach
There are at least 20 acknowledged and popular qualitative
inquiry approaches emanating from a host of intellectual disci-
plines. Qualitative inquiry approaches that have been particularly
popular with psychologists are reviewed in recent edited books
(e.g., Fischer, 2006; Willig & Stainton-Rogers, 2008) and special
journal issues (e.g., Carter & Morrow, 2007a, 2007b; Haverkamp,
Morrow, & Ponterotto, 2005a). In this section I briefly review
three popular qualitative inquiry approaches that will appeal to
both seasoned researchers and students new to qualitative research.
For paradigmatic breadth I have chosen one inquiry approach from
each of the three potential qualitative-anchoring paradigms.
CQR. Consensual qualitative research (CQR) is the most
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
postpositivist of our three selected qualitative inquiry approaches.
CQR was developed by Clara E. Hill in response to her dissatis-
faction with the depth and richness of data emanating from quan-
titative research in psychotherapy. In developing the CQR model,
Hill, Thompson, and Williams (1997) drew on established quali-
tative approaches, while retaining some of the scientific rigor
common to quantitative methods (e.g., consensus, replicability,
concrete procedural guidelines). The particular qualitative ap-
proaches that Hill et al. (1997) borrowed from were grounded
theory, comprehensive process analysis, phenomenology, and fem-
inist theories. Thus, CQR actually has components of constructiv-
ism and critical theory in addition to an anchoring in postpositiv-
ism.
More recently, Hill et al. (2005) reviewed and updated proce-
dures for conducting CQR studies. The updated guidelines were
developed in response to reviewing and evaluating 27 different
published CQR studies from 1994 to 2003. Ponterotto (2005b)
noted that the 2005 CQR model is somewhat more constructivistic
than the original 1997 model in terms of reducing the number of
interview questions to promote more probing, greater depth of
participant responses and, ultimately, greater discovery.
Hill et al. (2005) posit five essential elements of the CQR
method. First, researchers prepare semistructured interview proto-
cols for use in face-to-face and/or phone interviews (though focus
groups have also been used). The authors recommended preparing
roughly 8 to 10 scripted questions per planned hour of interview.
Probing responses further is encouraged as a means of additional
exploration and discovery. The interview protocols are prepared in
consideration of a thorough literature review on the topic at hand,
on talking with people from the target group to garner insights for
the protocol, and on researchers’ own self-reflections and experi-
ence related to the topic. CQR samples tend to be randomly
selected from within an identified homogeneous population with
in-depth experience of the phenomena under study. Hill et al.
(2005) recommend 8 to 15 participants per study when only one or
two interviews are conducted with each participant. Generally
speaking, one thorough interview is sufficient in a CQR study,
with a second interview sometimes helping to capture further
participant thinking in the area.
The second component of CQR is the reliance on multiple
judges/coders throughout the data analysis process in the hopes of
fostering diverse perspectives. Hill et al. (2005) recommended a
minimum of three primary research team members for each CQR
study. The third component of CQR emphasizes consensus in
arriving at the meaning of the coded data. Hill et al. (2005)
585
considered consensus critical to the CQR method and that is why
“consensus” forms the first word in CQR. The construct of con-
sensus emanates from a postpositivist position as research team
members discuss and come to agreement on data interpretation.
Thus there is an ontological assumption of one approximal reality
in terms of the generated results (refer back to Table 1). However,
the construct of consensus as operationalized by Hill et al. (1997)
also drew on the critical theory paradigm in that the consensus
generation among CQR team members relies on mutual respect,
equal co-involvement, and shared power, which is central to
ideological positions in feminism, multiculturalism, and liber-
ation psychology.
The fourth component of CQR advocates the use of at least one
auditor (not part of the primary research team) to review the work
of the researchers, minimize the potential effects of groupthink,
and independently assess the coding and analysis procedures. The
final CQR component addresses the steps of data analysis in
working with the transcribed interviews. These steps involve (a)
identifying domains that are topics used to group or cluster the
data; (b) developing core ideas that are brief summaries of the data
that capture descriptively and concisely the essence of the partic-
ipants’ voices; and (c) cross-analysis, which involves constructing
categories that describe common emergent themes across all study
participants.
The broad paradigmatic base of CQR makes it an attractive
qualitative design to a wide variety of seasoned qualitative re-
searchers as well as to traditionally trained quantitative researchers
looking to move into qualitative inquiry. The approach is also
popular among graduate students because of the crystal clear user
guidelines put forth by Hill and her colleagues (Hill et al., 1997,
2005), and because the strong postpositivist leaning of CQR make
it an acceptable qualitative approach in traditional quantitative
research training programs in psychology. The CQR method is
being used increasingly in the study of multiculturalism in psy-
chology, and the reports of these studies are being published in
premier, high impact journals. (For a reference list of recent
multiculturally focused studies incorporating the CQR, GT, and
PAR inquiry approach, please email Joseph G. Ponterotto at
jponterott@aol.com.)
GT. Grounded theory (GT) is the most established of our three
selected qualitative approaches, and is also the approach most
firmly grounded in the constructivist research paradigm. Two
sociologists, Glaser and Strauss (1967), fashioned the procedures
of grounded theory as a result of their research on the awareness of
dying among terminally ill patients. As with CQR, elements of GT
can be anchored in multiple-research paradigms (Ponterotto,
2005b), and over the last four decades at least five variations of
grounded theory have been put forth (McLeod, 2001). However,
the model of GT that I advocate for multicultural research is the
constructivist-leaning approach described by Fassinger (2005)
who further shaped grounded theory to be more applicable to the
field of multicultural psychology.
Like CQR, GT often centers on individual interviews, usually
face-to-face. GT researchers rely on the long interview procedure
with (adult) interviews often lasting beyond 1 hr and up to 3 hr
(Ponterotto, 2005b). Many GT researchers embed their interview
protocol questions in part on previous knowledge, experience, and
literature; however, “the researcher must strike a delicate balance
between enough knowledge to focus the sampling and data col-
 586 PONTEROTTO
lection effectively and yet not so much immersion in existing
perspectives that the investigation becomes circumscribed by pre-
ordained constructs and limited expectations” (Fassinger, 2005, p.
158). Thus, as a constructivist approach, GT is more discovery
oriented than CQR. Also, unlike CQR which randomly selects 8 to
15 participants from a carefully identified homogenous population,
GT relies more on theoretical sampling in which additional par-
ticipants are decided on as the interviewing progresses, as discov-
ery emerges, and as the research questions evolve from interview
to interview. Unlike CQR that uses the same interview protocol for
each participant, GT protocols may change (e.g., adding certain
questions), as discovery emerges within interviews.
In GT research, interviewing, transcribing, coding, and analysis
happen concurrently in an iterative, constant comparative process. As
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
an interview is transcribed and reviewed, the researcher develops
ongoing and perhaps new questions for the next interview. Subse-
quent interview questions are thus grounded in an emergent database.
Furthermore, in GT, interviewing ends when theoretical satura-
tion is reached, that is when the researcher finds that adding new
participants does not contribute substantively to the emerging data
patterns.
The ultimate goal of a GT study is to outline an innovative,
substantive theory generated from the “erblenis” (i.e., lived expe-
riences) of participants who engage in deep dialogic interaction
with skilled interviewers within the participants’ real-world social
context. The data analysis process in GT usually involves three
major steps: open, axial, and selective coding. During open coding,
transcribed data are broken down into meaning units (e.g., a few
words or sentences that present a meaningful description, experi-
ence, feeling or attitude set), which are labeled with language
emerging directly from participants, compared to other emerging
meaning units, and then gradually integrated into larger groupings.
In axial coding, relationships among categories are further de-
scribed and organized into broader more concept-encompassing
categories. During this process a constant comparative process is
used to continuously compare categories to one another and
against new data coming in from subsequent interviews. As this
process unfolds, the depth, density, complexity, and descriptive
clarity of the axial codes are markedly enhanced. The researcher
also explores variations in axial code development and looks for
disconfirming cases as a trustworthiness test of the emergent codes
(see Morrow, 2005).
In the final phase of analysis, selective coding, the GT researcher
examines the interrelationship among all the selective codes and
attempts to extract and fashion a core story that connects the selective
codes in an interrelated (sometimes sequential) and meaningful way.
This core story encompasses all of the selective codes and serves as
the substantive theory that is the heart of GT research. Naturally the
substantive theory is unique to the sample on which the GT is
developed. When and if this substantive theory is replicated and/or
modified across multiple samples and contexts, a more formal theory
can be explicated (see Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
In keeping with the constructivist perspective on ontology that
posits equally valid multiple realities, the GT research process
does not call for consensus, interjudge reliability of coded data, or
multiple researchers. In fact, Glaser and Strauss (1967) were quite
clear on this point when they stated that “dependent on the skill
and sensitivities of the analyst, the constant comparative method is
not designed (as methods of quantitative analysis are) to guarantee
that two analysts working independently with the same data will
achieve the same results” (p. 103).
PAR. Participatory action research (PAR) refers to forms of
action research anchored in the belief that the research process
itself serves as a mechanism for social change (Schwandt, 2001).
PAR is clearly the most critical-theory focused inquiry approach of
the three covered in this section. At the core of PAR is empow-
erment of community participants that leads to emancipation (from
some oppressive condition) and enhanced quality of life (Kemmis
& McTaggart, 2005). Describing the overriding purpose of PAR in
laypersons’ terms, Kidd and Kral (2005) stated “you get people
affected by a problem together, figure out what is going on as a
group, and then do something about it” (p. 187). The research
study is the means to gather the necessary knowledge about the
problem and to incite intervention or change directly useful to the
community.
In part, the origins of PAR can be traced to the critical con-
sciousness construct of Freire (1970), who participated in long-
term program to increase adult literacy in Brazil. According to
Kemmis and McTaggart (2005), PAR generally involves a spiral
of self-reflection and action as a community problem is addressed.
Participants and researchers establish a collaborative relationship
as they ask critical questions about their current life situation. This
dialogue moves the group from a passive acceptance stance to one
of action as they develop knowledge and further explore the
community problem and how it can be addressed. With enhanced
knowledge and empowerment in hand, the PAR collaborators
begin a stage of social action to incite change. Specific procedures
for change emerge and shift as part of the self-reflective cycles.
Once the initial action plan is implemented, subsequent PAR
phases may involve documenting, evaluating, and replicating the
action plan (Ditrano & Silverstein, 2006).
PAR implies full participation on the part of study participants.
However, as noted by Kidd and Kral (2005),
the creation of such participatory contexts is far from the norm . . .
disempowered groups are seldom given the opportunity and, arguably,
are discouraged from this type of action because many factors, in-
cluding a lack of respect for the knowledge of stigmatized peoples . . .
Further compounding this problem is the tendency for established
forums (e.g., academia) to claim exclusive ownership of methods of
knowledge gathering and avenues for change. (pp. 187–199)
PAR does not propose a clear series of procedural and analytic
steps as is the case with CQR and GT reviewed earlier. Rather,
during the reflective and action spiral, PAR investigators rely on a
wide variety of methods and procedures as they come to under-
stand the needs of the community. As such, many PAR studies
take on varied ethnographic methods such as storytelling, sharing
experiences, individual and focus group interviews, participant
observation, drawings, and even the more structured qualitative
interview or quantitative survey. Kidd and Kral (2005) noted that
each PAR project is a “custom job,” that emerges and changes as
levels of critical consciousness rise, “much like building a factory
in which the tools may be made rather than necessarily using tools
already at hand” (p. 187).
Of the three inquiry approaches promoted in this article, it is
PAR that is the least utilized in psychology (Ponterotto, Barnett, et
al., 2008). This is likely due to the axiology of PAR as a critical
theory method that advocates a value-directed (rather than value-
 SPECIAL SECTION: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
neutral postpositivism or value-bracketed constructivism) stance.
Traditionally trained postpositivist psychologists are generally un-
comfortable with research that is so value mediated (Ponterotto &
Grieger, 2007), as they were trained to see research as objective, in
which participants are studied without changing them or the re-
searchers (dualism).
Consider Ethical Issues Throughout the
Research Process
The history of psychology (and medicine) is replete with exam-
ples of ethical abuses of research participants from racial and
ethnic minority communities (Ponterotto & Grieger, 2008; Trimble
& Fisher, 2006a). Most psychologists are well versed in the
Tuskegee Syphilis Study conducted by the U.S. Public Health
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Service in Alabama from 1932 through 1972. In this study, 600
African American men (399 in the treatment group and 201 in the
control group) were never informed that they had syphilis. Fur-
thermore, when penicillin became the standard treatment for syph-
ilis, the medicine was not made available to the participants.
Roughly 100 men died because they failed to receive penicillin
(Wallace, 2006). Less familiar to psychologists than the infamous
Tuskegee Syphilis Study is the more recent Havasupai tribe study
conducted in the early 1990s by university researchers in the
Southwest. According to a lawsuit filed by 52 tribal members,
blood samples ostensibly collected to study the correlation to
diabetes were also used without consent to study correlations with
schizophrenia, migration patterns, and inbreeding (Trimble &
Fisher, 2006b).
Though the above ethical abuse examples revolved around
experimental or correlational research designs, it is clear that
vigilant ethical practice is more a function of the researcher’s own
self-awareness, multicultural competence, and collaborative com-
mitment than it is a function of design characteristics. In other
words, researchers hailing from any philosophical research para-
digm and using any variety of research methods can fail to attend
to ethical care in research practice (see Trimble & Fisher, 2006a).
Having said that, it is important to acknowledge that qualitative
research methods present some unique ethical challenges given the
researcher’s often intense, personal, and prolonged interaction
with participants in their own community environments.
A full explication of ethical challenges in qualitative research is
beyond the scope of this article, and has been adequately covered
in both long-standing (e.g., Cieurzo & Keitel, 1999) and recent
(Haverkamp, 2005) publications. Suffice it to say that qualitative
research poses unique ethical challenges in terms of informed
consent, recruiting participants and gaining access to diverse com-
munities, confidentiality, researcher dual roles and multiple rela-
tionships, interpretation and ownership of knowledge generated,
and challenges posed by Institutional Review Board’s (IRB) of
universities and communities. In all cases, when researchers are
bridging to new culturally diverse communities who may represent
varied worldviews (e.g., collectivism vs. individualism), the ethi-
cal challenges are magnified.
For example, regarding informed consent, in constructivist research
designs that focus on emergent, discovery-oriented qualitative ap-
proaches (e.g., grounded theory, phenomenology), neither the re-
searcher or participants know where personal interviews will lead, as
the interview protocol can change from interview to interview as new
directions for inquiry are uncovered. Thus it is difficult to prepare
587
participants for what will take place or what will be ultimately
discussed during the interviews. Furthermore, it is difficult to antici-
pate participants’ reactions during, immediately after, and sometime
after the interviews take place, thus participants cannot be adequately
informed about what their experience will be like during and after the
research process (Cieurzo & Keitel, 1999; Haverkamp, 2005). In
communities-of-color, language nuances and cultural attitudes regard-
ing the appropriateness of “questioning” the researchers may further
compromise informed consent.
Another example of an ethical challenge in qualitative research
is deception of research participants and gatekeepers controlling
access to these communities. Cieurzo and Keitel (1999) noted that
in gaining access to diverse communities researchers must con-
vince gatekeepers that the research will benefit the studied com-
munity. Yet for both fear of scaring off the gatekeepers, and
because researchers themselves may not know all they will be
asking or observing in emergent designs, they may be purposefully
vague when describing a study.
Terminating a study can also pose particular ethical challenges
to qualitative researchers. For example, in most quantitative de-
signs there is a dualistic perspective on the relationship between
the research and study participants. That is, researchers have
minimal direct contact with participants in an effort not to bias or
influence the research results. The exact opposite is the case in
many qualitative approaches where an intense interaction between
an interviewer and her or his participants is a prerequisite to
facilitating the participants’ ability to access and describe their
“lived experience” (Ponterotto, 2005b). Thus for many quantita-
tive designs one poststudy debriefing is often sufficient in termi-
nating a study. However, in qualitative designs, it is often neces-
sary for researchers to follow-up and maintain contact with the
study participants for a significant period of time. In research in
diverse minority communities where there may be initial mistrust
of “ivory tower” researchers, the implications of researchers even-
tually establishing trust within the community, and then leaving
the study and community abruptly is particularly worrisome.
Finally, given that many university IRB boards are dominated
by researchers trained in positivism and postpositivism who favor
quantitative designs, qualitative researchers face numerous barriers
to receiving timely study approval. In fact, Lincoln (2005) recently
devoted a whole chapter to discussing IRB challenges relative to
qualitative research, particularly those in constructivist and critical
theory paradigms. She noted four particular areas of challenge: (a)
a general increased scrutiny of all human participant research
given the ethical failures of past bio-medical research (e.g., Tuske-
gee study); (b) long-term effects of the National Research Coun-
cil’s position on what constitutes scientific inquiry; (c) in the field
of education, a heightened scrutiny of qualitative research in
classroom-based studies; and (d) the emphasis placed on evidence-
based research in universities and grant funding agencies.
In what can considered a “classic” discussion of applied psy-
chologists’ ethical responsibility in planning and conducting qual-
itative research, Haverkamp (2005) emphasized that the overriding
ethical mandate of researchers is competence. She noted “It is
difficult to imagine how one could establish a trustworthy research
relationship, one that achieves a favorable balance of benefits and
risks, without performing one’s research role in a competent man-
ner” (p. 153). Haverkamp emphasized the need for researcher
 588 PONTEROTTO

Table 3
Competencies for Ethical Qualitative Research With Culturally Diverse Communities

The researcher

1. Is well versed in various research paradigms (e.g., constructivism and critical theory) and specific data-gathering tools such as participant
observation, in-depth interviewing, focus group interviewing, document analysis, oral history, and life-story analysis.
2. Plans all phases of research in collaboration with community representatives.
3. Makes all attempts to avoid or limit deception in research.
4. Works diligently to directly benefit the studied community in some way; “gives back” to the community in a tangible and pragmatic way.
5. Is sensitive to appropriate procedures for accessing the population and has a cultural guide throughout the process.
6. Understands the impact on participants and communities in highly researcher-involved interactions such as participant observation and in-depth
interviews.
7. To the extent possible, fully explores with participants the purpose, procedures, and potential impact of study participation; updates informed
consent procedures as needed.
8. Carefully monitors interviewing procedures and is clear on the distinction between qualitative interviewing and therapy; is careful not to fall into
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

the therapist’s role.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

9. Is sensitive to the impact of terminating (withdrawing from) the interactive researcher role—for example the impact on community when in-depth
interviews or participant observation ends. Follows up on participant/community welfare as long as needed.
10. In describing samples in reports, is careful to provide adequate descriptions without compromising the anonymity of participants in small samples.
11. In preparing final reports, takes care to present “thick description” of procedures and results so that participants’ voices and worldviews are
accurately represented.
12. Has completed ethical research training (course, workshop) particularly on the topic of qualitative research.

Adapted from Ponterotto and Grieger (2008, Table 4.1) by permission of Sage Publications; see also Ponterotto (2006); Trimble and Fisher (2006).

competence in philosophical paradigms and qualitative approaches
as well as in knowledge relative to the community under study.
To that end, Ponterotto and Grieger (2008) recently outlined 32
individual competencies for the multicultural researcher in psy-
chology. Table 3 extracts a selection of the research competencies
most applicable to qualitative research. The competencies are
intended to transcend the various research paradigms and qualita-
tive inquiry approaches promoted in this article (see Table 3). This
table may serve as a useful guide to psychology students planning
their qualitative research in multicultural communities.
Conclusions
This article reviewed the current and emerging status of qualitative
research in psychology. Though still representing a minority of the
published research in psychology, qualitative methods anchored in
diverse philosophical paradigms are gaining momentum and scientific
credibility (Hill, 2005). Qualitative approaches anchored in construc-
tivism and critical theory are advocated in the study of multicultural
issues. These paradigms promote meaningful, collaborative, and pro-
longed contact between researchers and study participants. Such an
epistemology breaks the dualism (researchers and participants are
independent entities) mantra at the heart of positivist and postpositiv-
ist anchored research, and therefore promotes participant understand-
ing and empowerment within their cultural contexts. In this way,
qualitative research itself may serve as a tool for social justice and
improving intergroup relations (see Toporek et al., 2006).
The psychology profession has a long way to go before its
members are as competent in qualitative approaches as they are in
quantitative designs. Yet, it is essential that psychologists develop
bimethodological research skills so that they can select inquiry
models most appropriate to the research question at hand and most
consistent with the worldview of the people under study (APA,
2003; Ponterotto & Grieger, 2008). I fear that until applied psy-
chologists develop adequate culturally sensitive qualitative re-
search skills, the research needs of culturally diverse individuals
and communities will not be adequately addressed. Therefore, a
next step for the psychology profession is to commit to an ex-
panded research training model for present and future students. An
expanded training curriculum would emphasize competence in
philosophy of science, research paradigms, and a variety of quan-
titative and qualitative inquiry models. Ponterotto (2005a) recently
introduced multiparadigmatic research training curriculums for
both masters and doctoral programs in applied psychology.
References
American Psychological Association. (2003). Guidelines on multicultural
education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for
psychologists. American Psychologist, 58, 377– 402.
Aten, J. D., & Hernandez, B. C. (2005). A 25-year review of qualitative
research published in spiritually and psychologically oriented journals.
Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 24, 266 –277.
Berrios, R., & Lucca, N. (2006). Qualitative methodology in counseling
research: Recent contributions and challenges for a new century. Journal
of Counseling & Development, 84, 174 –186.
Camic, P. M., Rhodes, J. E., & Yardley, L. (Eds.). (2003). Qualitative
research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and
design. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Carter, R. T., & Morrow, S. L. (Eds.). (2007a). Qualitative issues and
analyses in counseling psychology: Part III [Special issue]. The Coun-
seling Psychologist, 35(2).
Carter, R. T., & Morrow, S. L. (Eds.). (2007b). Qualitative issues and
analyses in counseling psychology: Part IV [Special issue]. The Coun-
seling Psychologist, 35(3).
Cieurzo, C., & Keitel, M. A. (1999). Ethics in qualitative research. In M.
Kopala & L. A. Suzuki (Eds.), Using qualitative methods in psychology
(pp. 37– 48). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005a). Introduction: The discipline and
practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1–32). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005b). The sage handbook of
qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ditrano, C. J., & Silverstein, L. B. (2006). Listening to parents’ voices:
Participatory action research in the schools. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 37, 359 –366.
Fassinger, R. E. (2005). Paradigms, praxis, problems, and promise:
 SPECIAL SECTION: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Grounded theory in counseling psychology research. Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology, 52, 156 –166.
Faulkner, R. A., Klock, K., & Gale, J. E. (2002). Qualitative research in
family therapy: Publication trends from 1980 to 1999. Journal of Marital
and Family Therapy, 28, 69 –74.
Fischer, C. T. (Ed.). (2006). Qualitative research methods for psycholo-
gists: Introduction through empirical studies. New York: Academic.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder & Herder.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory:
Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative
research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of quali-
tative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Haverkamp, B. E. (2005). Ethical perspectives on qualitative research in
applied psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 146 –155.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Haverkamp, B. E., Morrow, S. L., & Ponterotto, J. G. (Eds.). (2005a).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Knowledge in context: Qualitative methods in counseling psychology
research [Special issue]. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2).
Haverkamp, B. E., Morrow, S. L., & Ponterotto, J. G. (2005b). A time and
place for qualitative and mixed methods in counseling psychology
research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 123–125.
Hill, C. E. (2005). Qualitative research. In J. C. Norcross, L. E. Beutler, &
R. F. Levant (Eds.), Evidence-based practices in mental health: Debate,
dialogue on the fundamental questions (pp. 74 – 80). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Hill, C. E., Knox, S., Thompson, B. J., Williams, E. N., Hess, S. A., &
Ladany, N. (2005). Consensual qualitative research: Update. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 52, 196 –205.
Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to
conducting consensual qualitative research. The Counseling Psycholo-
gist, 25, 517–572.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research: Com-
municative action and the public sphere. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp.
559 – 604). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kidd, S. A., & Kral, M. J. (2005). Practicing participatory action research.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 187–195.
Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. L. (2000). Rethinking critical theory and
qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 279 –313). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Institutional review boards and methodological
conservatism: The challenge to and from phenomenological paradigms.
In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of quali-
tative research (3rd ed., pp. 165–190). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McLeod, J. (2001). Qualitative research in counselling and psychotherapy.
London: Sage.
Mohatt, G. V., & Thomas, L. R. (2006). “I wonder, why would you do it
that way?” Ethical dilemmas in doing participatory research with Alaska
native communities. In J. E. Trimble & C. B. Fisher (Eds.), The hand-
book of ethical research with ethnocultural populations & communities
(pp. 93–115). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative re-
search in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
52, 250 –260.
Morrow, S. L. (2007). Qualitative research in counseling psychology:
Conceptual foundations. The Counseling Psychologist, 35, 209 –235.
Morrow, S. L., Rakhsha, G., & Castaneda, C. L. (2001). Qualitative
research methods for multicultural counseling. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M.
Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicul-
tural counseling (2nd ed., pp. 575– 603). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
589
Nelson, M. L., & Quintana, S. M. (2005). Qualitative clinical research with
children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
Psychology, 34, 344 –356.
Ponterotto, J. G. (2005a). Integrating qualitative research requirements into
professional psychology training programs in North America: Rationale
and curriculum model. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2, 97–116.
Ponterotto, J. G. (2005b). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A
primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 52, 126 –136.
Ponterotto, J. G. (2005c). Qualitative research training in counseling psy-
chology: A survey of directors of training. Teaching of Psychology, 32,
60 – 62.
Ponterotto, J. G. (2006). Brief note on the origins, evolution, and meaning
of the qualitative research concept “thick description.” The Qualitative
Report, 11, 538 –549.
Ponterotto, J. G., Barnett, P., Ticinelli, I. B., Kuriakose, G., &
Granovskaya, Y. (2008). A paradigmatic and methodological content
analysis of qualitative research published in three counseling journals.
Manuscript in progress.
Ponterotto, J. G., & Grieger, I. (2007). Effectively communicating quali-
tative research. The Counseling Psychologist, 35, 404 – 430.
Ponterotto, J. G., & Grieger, I. (2008). Guidelines and competencies for
cross-cultural counseling research. In P. B. Pedersen, J. G. Draguns,
W. L. Lonner, & J. E. Trimble (Eds.), Counseling across cultures (6th
ed., pp. 57–72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ponterotto, J. G., Kuriakose, G., & Granovskaya, Y. (2008). Counselling and
psychotherapy. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The Sage hand-
book of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 455– 471). London: Sage.
Rennie, D. L., Watson, K. D., & Monteiro, A. M. (2002). The rise of
qualitative research in psychology. Canadian Psychology, 43, 179 –189.
Schwandt, T. A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sciarra, D. T. (1999). The role of the qualitative researcher. In M. Kopala
& L. A. Suzuki (Eds.), Using qualitative methods in psychology (pp.
37– 48). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sexton, T. L. (1996). The relevance of counseling outcome research:
Current trends and practical implications. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 74, 590 – 600.
Silverstein, L. B., Auerbach, C. F., & Levant, R. F. (2006). Using quali-
tative research to strengthen clinical practice. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 37, 351–358.
Toporek, R. L., Gerstein, L. H., Fouad, N. A., Roysircar, G., & Israel, T.
(Eds.). (2006). Handbook for social justice in counseling psychology:
Leadership, vision, and action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Trimble, J. E., & Fisher, C. B. (Eds.). (2006a). The handbook of ethical
research with ethnocultural populations & communities. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Trimble, J. E., & Fisher, C. B. (2006b). Our shared journey: Lessons from
the past to protect the future. In J. E. Trimble & C. B. Fisher (Eds.), The
handbook of ethical research with ethnocultural populations & commu-
nities (pp. xv–xxix). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wallace, S. A. (2006). Addressing health disparities through relational
ethics: An approach to increasing African American participation in
biomedical and health research. In J. E. Trimble & C. B. Fisher (Eds.),
The handbook of ethical research with ethnocultural populations &
communities (pp. 67–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Willig, C., & Stainton-Rogers, E. (Eds.). (2008). The Sage handbook of
qualitative research in psychology. London: Sage.