Journal of Marital and Family Therapy

April 2001,Vol.27, No. 2,261- 274

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN FAMILY THERAPY:

A SUBSTANTIVE AND METHODOLOGICAL REVIEW
Diane R. Gehart
California State University

Dan A. Ratliff and Randall R. Lyle

St. Mary’s University

Over the last decade, marriage and family therapy (MFT) researchers have developed a growing
interest in qualitative research. In this article, we review substantive and methodological trends in
the published qualitative studies within the MFTjeld. The research is compared and contrasted
in the following areas: General topic, epistemological theory, methodological theory, sampling
and sample, data collection, data analysis procedure, and approach to reliability and validity. We
also provide recommendationsfor future research.

In the last decade, marriage and family therapy (MFT) researchers have become increasingly interested
in qualitative approaches to inquiry. Moon, Dillon, and Sprenkle (1990) encouraged the development of
qualitative research because it is isomorphic to the cybernetic foundations of family therapy. Similarly,
social constructionists and constructivists have also advocated qualitative forms of inquiry (Kvale, 1996;
Morris, Gawinski, & Joanning, 1994). The recent interest in qualitative research has produced a growing
number of qualitative studies in MFT theory and practice.
In this article, we review the qualitative studies published in family therapy through early 1999 by
considering the accumulated research from two perspectives: The substantive aspects of the research and the
methodological issues in the studies. The purpose of this type of review is to identify both trends and the
corresponding areas for future research. We identified 24 studies by searching two reference databases,
PsychLit and PsychInfo. The search relied on database indexing for “qualitative research” and
“ethnography” in “family” and “couple/marital” therapy and included indexed literature from the past 20
years. These studies should not be considered to be an exhaustive list, but they provide an adequate
foundation for this review. Appendix A contains an overview of the substantive and methodological features
of the reviewed studies.

SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW

The substantive review highlights trends in research topics within qualitative family therapy research
and specifically outlines four general research categories: A single therapeutic approach (1 1 studies), general
family therapy process (4 studies), specific client populations (4 studies), and supervision and professional
issues (5 studies). Qualitative family therapy researchers have focused primarily on process and outcome of
a single approach to therapy. The majority of qualitative studies on a specific approach have considered
postmodem therapies: reflecting teams (4 studies), narrative/constructivist (3 studies), solution-focused (2
studies), and collaborative language systems (1 study). The research by Newfield, Joanning, Kuehl, and
Quinn (1991; also see Kuehl, Newfield, & Joanning, 1990) is the only notable exception with its focus on

Diane R. Gehart, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Counseling and Special Education, California State University, 5005
N. Maple ED 3, Fresno, CA 93740, e-mail: dianeg@csufresno.edu.
Dan Ratliff, PhD, and Randall R. Lyle, PhD, Associate Professors, Department of Counseling and Human Services, St. Mary’s
University, One Camino Santa Maria, San Antonio, TX 78228.

April 2001 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 261

Close Next
structural-strategic family therapy. Investigating a broader range of family therapy theories would provide
an interesting foundation for comparison and dialogue.
Although published qualitative research in family therapy emphasizes one specific therapeutic
approach, dissertations that are indexed as “qualitative” or “ethnographic” family therapy research in
Dissertation Abstracts International include proportionally more studies on specific client populations than
did the published literature. Thus, there appears to be a significant amount of research on specific clinical
family populations that is never published.

METHODOLOGICAL REVIEW

In describing essential characteristicsof qualitative research and methodology, Moon et al. (1990) and
Gale (1993) describe several dimensions in which qualitative researchers make methodological choices:
Epistemological theory, methodological theory, sampling, data collection, data analysis, and reliability and
validity. In this review, we evaluate the choices in each domain made by qualitative researchers in MFT. In
Appendix A, we present an overview of the methodological choices made in the reviewed studies and
attempt to maintain the language and distinctions of the original researchers.

Epistemological Theory
Qualitative researchers are typically expected to specify their philosophical and epistemological
premises because these assumptions guide all aspects of the research project, including the choice of
methodology, data collection procedures, and analysis (Gale, 1993; LeCompte & Preissle, 1993).
Historically, most research, particularly quantitative, has relied on the scientific method, which is inherently
grounded in logical-positivist assumptions. This method has been used almost universally with little
discussion of epistemological issues. However, the majority of current qualitative research and a small
minority of quantitative research is conducted from other theoretical perspectives, including postpostivism,
phenomenology, social constructionism, critical theory, feminism, and constructivism (Denzin & Lincoln,
1994), and the researcher is expected to clearly state the underlying assumptions of each study. The inherent
sensitivity of qualitative research to epistemological issues makes it a natural partner to a field that has
consistently explored these concerns (Anderson, 1997; Bateson, 1972).
~~~~~ ~

TABLE 1
Epistemological Theories Used in Family Therapy Qualitative Research
Epistemological theory Freauency
Postpositivism:
Phenomenology 5
Ethnoscience 2
Systemic 1
Multimethod research model 1
Unspecified postpositivism 1
Total 10
Postmodernisdconstructivism:
Social constructionism 4
Constructivism 1
Hermeneutics 1
Unspecified postmodernism 2
Total 8
Critical theory: Feminism 1
Unspecified 6

262 J O U M L OFMARLGILAND FMLYTHERAPY April 2001

Previous First Next

 To help classify these epistemological theories, Gale (1993) cites Guba’s (1990; also see Guba &
Lincoln, 1994) four paradigmatic distinctions of positivist, postpositivist, critical theory, and constructivist
as general approaches to understanding the nature of reality and knowledge. Positivist research “strives to
know reality as it really is, rather than as the way human beings make it to be” (Gale, 1993, p. 77).
Postpositivists modify the positivist stance by maintaining that a real world exists, but they add that we must
carefully account for human bias and sensory limitations when attempting to understand it. Critical theory,
which is associated with feminism and neo-Marxism, emphasizes that our perceptions of the world are
significantly influenced and shaped by our social values. Finally, constructivism considers knowledge
construction about the real world at the individual and interpersonal levels; Guba’s (1990) broad use of the
term constructivism equates it with the more general use of the term postmodemism.
As indicated in Table 1, qualitative family therapy researchers favor a postpositivist approach to episte-
mology. Phenomenology, the most frequently used postpositivist theory, attempts to identify the lived
experience around a given phenomenon (Moustakas, 1994). Phenomenological researchers strive for rich or
“thick” description of experience, rather than for explanation. When interviewing and analyzing data,
researchers focus on “the basic structures of lived experience” (Polkinghorne, 1983, p. 203), including
consciousness, perception, intentionality, and action (Moustakas, 1994). Another frequently used postposi-
tivist approach, ethnoscience, has its roots in sociological and anthropological qualitative research and
involves the study of culture by analyzing language to determine social thought patterns (Sells, Smith, Coe,
Yoshioka, & Robbins, 1994).
Qualitative family therapy researchers also frequently ground their studies in what can generally be
described as postmodemism, which includes more specific forms of social constructionism, constructivism,
and hermeneutics (Schwandt, 1994). Social constructionism emphasizes the social and intersubjective
aspects of knowledge construction, and therefore social-constructionist research is responsive to the
interpersonal aspects of meaning construction and interpretive process (Anderson, 1997; Gergen, 1994). In
comparison, constructivism considers the individual cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Family
therapy research has been particularly influenced by the work of “radical” constructivists (von Foerster,
1991; von Glasersfeld, 1991),who are skepticalof the possibility of directly knowing an ontologically “real”
world. Although philosophically related to phenomenology, hermeneutics shares many similarities with
constructivism and social constructionism in a research context because of its interest in interpretation and
the construction of knowledge (Schwandt, 1994). Hermeneutics relies heavily on textual metaphor and
distinguishesitself from other approaches by emphasizing that interpretation is an ontological fact of human
existence (Schwandt, 1994).

Methodological Theory
Within the numerous qualitative methodologies (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994), family therapy researchers
have used ethnography most often (Table 2). Ethnography is a research approach that developed in anthro-
pology to study cultural groups and that has more recently been used to study small-group culture (Boyle,
1994).This research method relies primarily on interviews and participant observation to access the emic or
native perspective (Geertz, 1983; Spradley, 1979). Emphasis is placed on understanding human behavior
within a given context or culture. Family therapy’s historic link to Gregory Bateson (1972), an anthro-
pologist and ethnographer, and the two fields’ similar tasks of understanding social interaction may explain
the family therapists’ preference for this research approach (Moon et al., 1990). As a research methodology
designed to capture the complexities of human systems, ethnography provides a methodological language
and framework that is more sensitive to the dynamics of family/therapist/team/supervisor interactions than
many other methodologies.

Sampling and Sample

Sampling in qualitative research differs significantly from that in quantitative research, in which the
researcher’s interest in generalizing results gives preference to a random sample. In contrast, the qualitative
researcher’s intent to better understand a specified phenomenon demands that participants have certain

April 2001 JOURNAL OFI1.DIRIlXL AND F M I L Y THERAPY 263

Previous First Next

 Table 2
Methodologies Used in Qualitative Family Therapy Research

Methodology Frequency
Ethnography 7
Conversation analysis 3
Phenomenological interviews 2
Ethnographic content analysis 1
Interpretive interactionism 1
Naturalistic inquiry 1
Modified analflc induction 1
Participant action research 1
Critical incident study 1
Grounded theory 1
Unspecified 5

characteristics. Reflective of this, purposive (n = 5), criterion-based n = 3), and opportunistic (n = 7),
sampling were the most common methods used in the studies included in this overview (Appendix A).
Opportunistic sampling, the most frequently cited sampling procedure in the qualitative MFT research,
involves selecting participants based on availability (Honigman, 1970, as cited in Newfield et al., 1991).
Purposive sampling requires selecting participants with specific characteristics, such as extreme cases,
typical cases, maximum variation, or politically important cases (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Similarly, when
using criterion-based sampling, the researcher sets criteria and recruits participants who meet them
(LeCompte & Preissle, 1993). Theoretical sampling requires selecting a sample for theoretical reasons,
typically either to target a specific group after a first round of interviews (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) or to
provide a variety of opinions about the topic under investigation (Smith, Yoshioka, & Winton, 1993).
Unlike quantitative research, qualitative studies do not necessarily gain power with increased sample
size. Typically, researchers strive for “saturation” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) or “completeness” (Rubin &
Rubin, 1995) of the data, which requires enough cases to clearly identify and substantiate the analysis
results. Researchers cannot predetermine the number of cases that are needed to reach saturation based on
statistics and instead must assess the requisite number throughout the analysis process.
Comparing sample sizes across the reviewed studies is difficult because the studies varied in the
number of persons andor interviews represented in a “case.” The number of persons in a case varied within
and across studies because individuals, couples, andor entire families were counted as a client case and
some studies included the therapist as part of the case. Furthermore, in some studies all persons in a single
case were interviewed several times. Studies that considered both client and researcher perspectives
typically required more interviews (Gehart & Lyle, 1999; Sells et al., 1994). The number of interviews in
the reviewed studies that involved interviews fell into these categories: 4-8 interviews, n = 7 studies; 10-18
interviews, n = 5 studies; and 24-36 interviews, n = 3 studies.
Studies that analyzed therapeutic discourse without using interviews varied greatly in the number of
sessions analyzed. Some considered a single session (Gale, 1991; Kogan & Gale, 1997), whereas another
analyzed 12 (Ratliff & Morris, 1995), and still another analyzed 33 (Friedlander, Heatherington, Johnson,
& Skowron, 1994). The range in the number of cases for both interview and analyzed-discourse studies
underscores the importance of evaluating each qualitative study based on its purpose and methodology,
rather than on its numbers-a critical but often forgotten distinction from quantitative research.

264 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND F M I L Y THERAPY April 2001

Previous First Next

Data Collection
Qualitative data collection can take many forms, including interviews, participant observation,
questionnaires, and video recordings and transcriptions of everyday language. The type of data collected is
determined by the research question and the study’s purpose. LeCompte and Preissle (1993) divide data-
collection methods into two categories based on the role of the researcher: Interactive (interviews, surveys,
and participant observation) and noninteractive (nonparticipant observation, artifact collection, archival
materials).
Several of the reviewed M I T studies used more than one method. The majority included an interactive
component, such as interviews (18 studies), field notes (4 studies), surveys (3 studies), and participant
observation (2 studies). Six studies used primarily noninteractive data collection methods, including
recordings of therapy sessions and results from a previous study.
The formats of qualitative interviews, the most frequently used data collection method, ranged from
highly structured to emergent and unstructured and were determined by the researcher’s theoretical
assumptions and chosen methodology (Gale, 1993). Family therapy researchers tend to prefer moderately
structured to unstructured interview formats, which is consistent with their epistemological preferences for
postpositivist and postrnodern theories. Although interviews are a natural choice for a discourse-based
discipline, family therapists should continue to explore other approaches to data collection that offer
alternative perspectives.

Data Analysis
Analysis of qualitative data is a complex process that typically requires multiple readings of transcribed
material to code and identify themes. The focus of the analysis process is to elicit meaning from the data
(LeCompte & Preissle, 1993). Rather than conceptualizing this process as a discrete stage of the research
process, qualitative researchers often describe the analysis as a process that begins with the first interview
and evolves in multiple stages throughout the research process (Kvale, 1996).
Few consistent patterns were evident in analysis procedures. For example, although four studies specif-
ically cited Corbin and Strauss (1990) or Strauss and Corbin (1990) for their analysis methodology, three
different names were given to this analysis procedure: Grounded theory (Smith et al., 1993), iterative
process (Smith et al., 1992), and constant comparison (Coulehan, Friedlander, & Heatherington, 1998;
Lewis & Moon, 1997). Despite the different names, these studies drew from the grounded-theory tradition
of data analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), the most frequently cited analysis approach. The fundamental aim
of this methodology is to generate data-derived theory regarding the phenomenon at hand. The theory
develops from and is verified through an iterative process of comparing data to the emerging theory (Strauss
& Corbin, 1990). Family therapy researchers tend to emphasize constant comparison and iterative process
to identify themes, rather than to develop a formal theory about the phenomenon studied, which is the goal
of traditional grounded theory. Thus, most family therapy researchers are not using a grounded theory
methodology but rather the constant-comparative approach to data analysis.
Another analysis procedure that was used in three studies (Kuehl, et al., 1990; Sells, et al., 1994, 1996),
was Spradley’s (1979) domain analysis. In this approach to qualitative analysis, complex sentences and
meaning units are analyzed by identifying the semantic relationship of topics discussed. The nine semantic
relationships are inclusion, spatial, cause-effect, rationale, location for action, function, means-end,
sequence, and attribution. The researcher develops a list of domains based on these relationships and then
collapses these into a core category system that highlights themes and patterns.
Conversation analysis was also used in three studies (Gale, 1991; Kogan & Gale, 1997; Ratliff &
Morris, 1995). It “is a method of analysis that describes how language is used by speakers to achieve
particular results” (Gale & Newfield, 1992, p. 154). More than the other procedures, conversation analysis
relies on a highly detailed and specified method of transcription that captures digital as well as analog
communication, such as pauses, breaths, and inflection (Atkinson & Heritage, 1984). Researchers analyze
transcripts by carefully examining the data for patterns in language use and conversational turns.
Two studies used content analysis, a quantitative process, to complement qualitative analysis. Content
analysis involves coding based on predefined categories, which were the results of previous qualitative

April 2001 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FMILY THERAPY 265

Previous First Next

 TABLE 3
Reliability and Validity Procedures in Qualitative Family Therapy Research

Reliabilitvhaliditv procedures Freauency

Participant verification 9
Multiple coders 7
Triangulation 3
Peer debriefing 3
Researcher bias made explicit 2
Read against interpretatioddeviant ex. 2
Low inference descriptors 1
Jouma1ing 1
Intercoder reliability 1

analyses in both studies (Piercy et al., 1994; Smith et al., 1994). By applying the predefined coding
categories, researchers are able to refine categories and identify categorization rules based on newly
discovered ambiguities.

Establishing Trustworthinessof Results

Unlike quantitative research, the issues of reliability and validity in qualitative research can be
approached in many different ways and are typically determined by one’s epistemological theory and
methodology. Thus, researchers expect to see different evaluative criteria used with different approaches.
LeCompte and Preissle (1993) believe that “seeking some unitary meaning for validity in qualitative
research is a mistake” (p. 330).
In most cases, reliability and validity in qualitative research differ significantly from the traditional
quantitative criteria and, therefore, must be redefined (Guba & Lincoln, 1981, 1994; Kirk & Miller, 1986).
Some qualitative researchers have encouraged the use of new terminology to avoid confusion. They believe
that these terms “violate the philosophy, purpose, and intent of the qualitative paradigm, which is to discover
in-depth meanings, understandings, and quality attributes of phenomena studied” (Leininger, 1994, p. 97).
Family therapy researchershave argued that the legitimization of knowledge generated from qualitative
research cannot rest on the shoulders of the researcher alone; the burden is shared communally with
consumers and stakeholders of the research endeavors (Atkinson,Heath, & Chenail, 1991). Therefore, when
considering the validity and reliability of qualitative research, these issues must be considered with the
following question in mind: For whom is it valid and reliable and for what purpose? Research consumers
must also remember that, although researchers may use various procedures to address issues of validity and
reliability, these measures alone do not establish the validity of the research.
Given the complexity of the task, MFT researchers have used several approaches to address the issues
of reliability and validity. In Table 3, we highlight the reliability and validity procedures specifically
identified by researchers when describing their study.
Participant verification and feedback, the most commonly used procedures, typically involved
presenting the preliminary results to the original informants to determine if the results accurately describe
their reported experience and to receive feedback on researcher interpretation (Leininger, 1994; Linclon &
Guba, 1985). Another commonly means of establishing reliability was the use of multiple coders and the
closely related technique of peer examiners (LeCompte & F’reissle, 1993), which reduced potential bias in

266 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2001

Previous First Next

the analysis and reporting phase by using multiple perspectives to validate results (Kvale, 1996). In studies
that use a strict coding procedure, such as content analysis, intercoder reliability was used.
Triangulation was another technique that family therapy researchers used to establish reliability and
validity. This involves using multiple data-collection techniques andor multiple data sources to provide a
crosscheck of the findings (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993). Although only a handful of studies specifically
cited this technique, many included triangulation in their study designs, such as interviewing both clients
and therapists about a given phenomenon. In situations in which triangulation is difficult, such as conversa-
tional analysis, deviant examples and reading against interpretation have been used to provide a similar type
of check.
Only a couple of studies specifically named explication of researcher role and bias as a means to
establish reliability and validity; however, most studies included this information as part of their reporting.
Unlike quantitative studies, most qualitative researchers are typically expected to explicitly state their role
and biases, especially in studies that are grounded in phenomenology or postmodernism (Kvale, 1996).
When qualitative research is grounded in a subjective or intersubjective epistemology, it is critical that the
researcher explicate his or her position so that the reader understands the full context of the study.
Researcher journaling has also been used to track the development of the researcher’s thoughts, interpre-
tations, and assumptions.
Another infrequently cited approach to reliability and validity is the use of low-inference descriptors.
This typically involves the inclusion of direct quotes from persons interviewed to support themes reported
in the results. These low-inference descriptors allow the reader to better assess the trustworthiness of the
research report (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The variety and number of methods used by MFT researchers to
establish trustworthiness highlight multiple epistemologicalperspectives on “truth” and support Atkinson et
al.’s (1991) call for critical and active research consumers.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The introduction and development of qualitative research in the field of family therapy has been an
exciting and invigorating process. A comparison of these studies reveals a common interest in deepening the
theoretical and practical understanding of family therapy and its usefulness in the “real” world. Combined,
these studies reflect a growing desire to delve more deeply into human experience and to better understand
on how we relate to one another and our common world. Qualitative research has had a “humanizing” effect
on research in the field as the voices of clients and therapists are brought into the profession’s formal
dialogue. These new voices are a radical shift from a traditional research paradigm that privileges the
researcher’s distinctions by representing therapy participants solely on their numeric performance on
researcher-defined measures. The human perspective provided through qualitative investigation will allow
future research and theory to be more representative of and responsive to the actual experiences of clients
and therapists. Among its many benefits, qualitative research has the potential to ensure that family therapy
remains helpful and humane. However, as the MFT research community further explores this rich,
multifaceted method of inquiry, the following contextual issues should be considered: Methodological
diversity, topic diversity, reporting, and relationship to quantitative research.

Methodological Diversity
Qualitative researchers have numerous options for methods and analysis procedures. Although certain
trends have developed in the field, we hope that no one method becomes regarded as “standard” or
“superior.” Ultimately, the field benefits from the different forms of knowledge offered by different method-
ologies and procedures. For example, the knowledge produced from an ethnographic interview study is
qualitatively different than information acquired through a conversation analysis study of the same topic.

Diversity of Topics
As noted above, published research seems to favor qualitative studies on specific therapeutic models,
although numerous studies on specific populations have been conducted as dissertations in the field. Studies

April 2001 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 267

Previous First Next

on specific populations allow clinicians and researchers access to client voices and perspectives that would
otherwise go unheard and, therefore, these studies are potentially valuable to family therapy clinicians.
Similarly, family therapy process and outcome is an area that is also in need of additional research.

Reporting
The further development of qualitative research in the field may benefit by routinely including the type
of methodological information identified in Appendix A: Epistemological theory, methodological theory,
sampling procedure, data collection methods (role of the researcher), data analysis, and reliability and
validity. By providing this information, researchers specify the epistemological and theoretical frame in
which they wish to have the study interpreted and evaluated. Because qualitative research is considerably
more varied than quantitative research, a universal standard (or perceived set of standards) is impossible;
therefore the researcher must communicate more to the audience and stakeholders (Atkinson et al., 1991).

Relation to Quantitative Methods

Qualitative research should not be considered to be a replacement or rival of more traditional quanti-
tative approaches but, rather, a necessary complement that produces a different type of knowledge.
Quantitative research provides us with the general knowledge and trends of which we need to be aware,
whereas qualitative research can provide us with the specific knowledge and personal stones that add depth
and life to the statistics. The potential “dialogue” between these two perspectives produces a richer
understanding than either approach alone.

CONCLUSION

Qualitative research is a relatively new approach to seeking understanding and explanation in the field
of family therapy. The richness and diversity of qualitative methods are welcome additions to the quanti-
tative research that is already being done because neither methodology is complete or sufficient in and of
itself. We believe that even as the MFT field has been enriched through the cross-pollination of diverse
disciplines in its formation, so it will continue to be enriched and strengthened as it embraces the diversity
of available research methodologies. The discourse represented by the qualitative research studies in this
survey is a welcome sign of the continued vibrancy and growth of MFT research and its application to real
families and therapists.

REFERENCES

Andersen, T. (1997). Researching client-therapistrelationships:A collaborative study for informing therapy. Journal of Systemic
Therapies, 16, 125-144.
Anderson, H. (1997). Conversations, language and possibilities: A postmodern approach to therapy. New York Basic.
Atkinson, B., Heath, A., & Chenail, R. J. (1991). Qualitative research and the legitimization of knowledge. Journal of Marital
and Family Therapy, 17, 175-180.
Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (1984). Structures of social action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bateson, G . (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S . K. (1992). Qualitative researchfor education (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, M A Allyn & Bacon.
Boyle, J. S. (1994). Styles of ethnography. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 159-185).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Caldwell, K., Becvar, D. S., Bertolino, R., & Diamond, D. (1997). A postmodem analysis of a course on clinical supervision.
Contemporary Family Therapy, 19, 269-287.
Christensen, L. L., Russell, C. S., Miller, R. B., & Peterson, C. M. (1998). The process of change in couples therapy: A
qualitative investigation.Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 24, 177-188.
Colaizzi, P. F. (1978). Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. In R. Valle and M. King (Eds.), Existential-
phenomenological alternatives for psychology (pp. 48-71). New York: Oxford University.
Corbin, J., & Straw, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology,
13, 3-2 1 .
Coulehan, R. Friedlander, M. L., & Heatherington, L. (1998). Transforming client narratives: A change event in constructivist

268 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND F M I L Y THERAPY April 2001

Previous First Next

 family therapy. Family Process, 37, 17-33.
Dallos, R., Neale, A,, & Strouthos, M. (1997). Pathways to problems-the evolution of “pathology.” Journal of Family Therapy,
19, 369-399.
Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretive interactionism. Newbury Park, C A Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Friedlander, M. L., Heatherington, L., Johnson, B., & Skowron, E. A. (1994). Sustaining engagement: A change event in family
therapy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41, 438448.
Gale, J. E. (1991). Conversation analysis of therapeutic discourse: The pursuit of a therapeutic agenda. Nonvood, NJ: Ablex.
Gale, J. E. (1993). A field guide to qualitative inquiry and its clinical relevance. Contemporary Family Therapy, 15, 73-91.
Gale, J., & Newfield, N. A. (1992). A conversational analysis of a solution-focused marital therapy session. Journal of Marital
and Family Therapy, 18, 153-165.
Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York Basic.
Gehart, D. R., & Lyle, R. R. (1999). Client and therapist perspectives of change in collaborative language systems: An
interpretive ethnography. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 18(4), 78-97.
Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and relationships: Soundings in social constructionism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
Gilgun, J. F., Daly, K., & Handel, G. (Eds.). (1992). Qualitative methods in family research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Guba, E. G. (Ed.). (1990). The paradigm dialog. Newbury Park, C A Sage.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive
and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-1 17). Thousand Oaks, C A Sage.
Howe, D. (1996). Client experiences of counselling and treatment interventions: A qualitative study of family views of family
therapy. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 24, 367-375.
Kirk, J., & Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kogan, S. M., & Gale, J. E. (1997). Decentering therapy: Textual analysis of a narrative therapy session. Family Process, 36,
101-126.
Kuehl, B. P., Joanning, H., & Newfield, N. A. (1990). A client-based description of family therapy. Journal of Family
Psychology, 3, 31&321.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews. Thousand Oaks, C A Sage.
LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. San Diego, C A Academic
Press.
Leininger, M. (1994). Evaluation criteria and critique of qualitative research studies. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in
qualitative research methods (pp. 95-1 15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lewis, K. G., & Moon, S. (1997). Always single and single again women: A qualitative study. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 23, 115-134.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, G. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Mauzey, E., & Erdman, P. (1997). Trainee perceptions of live supervision phone-ins: A phenomenological inquiry. Clinical
Supervisor; 15, 115-128.
Metcalf, L., & Thomas, F. (1994). Client and therapist perceptions of solution focused brief therapy: A qualitative analysis.
Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 5(4), 4 9 4 6 .
Moon, S. M., Dillon, D. R., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1990). Family therapy and qualitative research. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 16, 357-313.
Moms, J., Gawinski, B. A,, & Joanning, H. (1994). The therapist-investigatorrelationship in family therapy research. Journal
of Systemic Therapies, I3(2), 24-28.
Moustakas. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Newfield, N. A,, Joanning, H., Kuehl, B. P., & Quinn, W. H. (1991). We can tell you about “psychos” and “shrinks.” In T. C.
Todd & M. D. Selekman (Eds.), Family therapy approaches with adolescent substance abusers @p. 277-310). Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Nylund, D., & Thomas, J. (1997). Situating therapist’s questions in the presence of the family: A qualitative inquiry. Journal oj
Systemic Therapies, 16, 21 1-228.
Piercy, F. P, Moon, S. M., & Bischof, G. P. (1994). Difficult journal article rejections among prolific family therapists: A
qualitative critical incident study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 20, 231-245.
Polkinghome, D. (1983). Methodology for the human sciences: Systems of inquiry. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Ratliff, D. A,, & Moms, G. H. (1995). Telling how to say it: A way of giving suggestions in family therapy supervision. In G.
H. Moms & R. J. Chenail (Eds.), The talk of the clinic: Explorations in the analysis of medical and therapeutic discourse

April 2001 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY TH-RAPY 269

Previous First Next

 (pp. 131-147). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (199.5). Qualitarive interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook ofqualitative research (pp. 118-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sells, S. P., Smith, T. E., Coe, M. J., Yoshioka, M., & Robbins, J. (1994). An ethnography of couple and therapist experiences
in reflecting team practice. Journal ofMantal and Family Therapy, 20, 247-266.
Sells, S. P., Smith, T. E., & Moon, S. (1996). An ethnographic study of client and therapist perceptions of therapy effectiveness
in a university-basedtraining clinic. Journal ofMarita1 and Family Therapy, 22, 321-342.
Smith, T. E., Sells, S. P., & Clevenger, T. (1994). Ethnographic content analysis of couple and therapist perceptions in a
reflecting team setting. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 20, 267-286.
Smith, T. E., Winton, M., & Yoshioka, M. (1992). A qualitative understanding of reflecting-teams II: Therapists’ perspectives.
ContemporaryFamily Therapy, 14, 419432.
Smith, T. E.,Yoshioka, M., & Winton, M. (1993). A qualitative understanding of reflecting teams I: Client perspectives. Journal
of Systemic Therapies, 12, 2 8 4 3 .
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic intervia. Fort Worth, Tx: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics ofqualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Intmduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meanings. New York Wiley.
Usherwood, A., & Hermansson, G. (199.5). The “counseled-deciding-self’ in separation and custody: An analysis of narrative.
Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 22(3/4), 221-240.
von Foerster, H. (1991). Through the eyes of the other. In F. Steier (Ed.), Research and reflexivity (pp. 63-75). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1991). Knowing without metaphysics: Aspects of the radical constructivist position. In F. Steier (Ed.),
Research and reflexivity @p. 12-29). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Whipple, V. (1996). Developing an identity as a feminist family therapist: Implications for training. Journal of Martial and
Family Therapy, 22, 381-396.

270 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 2001

Previous First Next

r
Research Epistemological Methodological Samplingl Data
topic theory thoery sample collection

Kuehl, Joanning, Structural-strate- Constructivism Ethnography Opportunistic Moderately

and Newfield gic therapy (client sampling; 12 structured
(1990); Newfield, perspectives) families interviews
Joanning, Kuehl,
and Quinn (199 1)

Gale (1991); Solution-focused Details assump- Conversation Purposive Videotape/transcript

Gale and therapy tions of analysis sampling; single of single therapy
Newfield (1992) conversation session session
analysis; systemic

Solution-focused Unspecified Unspecified Puposive sam- Interviews using

Thomas (1994) brief therapy pling; 6 couples. colloquial language
(client and thera-
pist perspectives)

I Smith, Yoshioka,
and Winton
(1993)
Reflecting teams
(client
perspectives)
Social
constructionism
Ethnography Theoretical

cases

Smith, Winton, Reflecting teams Unspecified Participant- Opportunistic Open-ended inter-

and Yoshioka (therapist observation sampling; 4 views; field notes;
( 1992) perspectives) person team observation

Sells, Smith, Coe, Reflecting Ethnoscience Ethnography Opportunistic Open-ended inter-

Yoshioka, and teamdcouples (cognitive theory) sampling; 7 cou- views; field notes.
Robbins (1994) ples; 5 therapists 3 interviews each

Previous First Next

 APPENDIX A (continued)
Qualitative Research Studies in Marriage and Family Therapy
Research
topic
Qualitative studies on specific therapeutic approaches (continued)
I Sampling/
sample I collection
Data I
Smith, Sells, and Reflecting Multimethod Ethnographic N/A Domain cate-
Clevenger (1994) teamdcouples research model content analysis gories from Sells
et al. (1994)

Coulehan, Fried- Constructivist Phenomenology Unspecified Purposive sam- Videotapes of

lander, & (Sluzki’s narrative pling; 8 families/l therapy sessions;
Heatherington approach) therapists post-session ques
( 1998) tionnaire for ther
apist/observers

Nylund & Narrative tech- Social Naturalistic Unspecified Informal,

Thomas (1997) nique: “situating constructionism inquiry (Lincoln sampling; 11 conversational
therapist” (client & Guba, 1985) client cases interviews
perspectives)

Kogan & Gale Narrative therapy Details assump- Textual analysis; Fkposive Videotape/tran-
(1 997) tions of conversa- conversation sampling; single script of therapy
tion analysis; analysis; ethno- session session
postmodernism methodology

Gehart-Brooks & Collaborative Social Interpretive Criterion-based Interviews,

Lyle (1999) Language Sys- constructionism ethnography sampling; 5 emergent design.
tems (client and (Geertz, 1983) families and 3 interviews each
therapist 5 therapists
perspectives)
Qualitative studies on general family therapy process
Friedlander, Sustaining Unspecified Modified analytic Purposive Videotapes of 33
Heatherington, engagement induction method sampling; 6 sessions; field
Johnson, & families notes
Skowron (1994)
I I I I I I

Previous First Next

 APPENDIX A (continued)
Qualitative Research Studies in Marriage and Family Therapy
Research Epistemological Methodological Samplingl Data
topic theory thoery sample collection
therapy process (continued)
~~ ~

Andersen (1997) Client-therapist Social Participatory Opportunistic Interviews based

relationships constructionism action research on reflecting team
procedure

Howe (1996) Family therapy Hermeneutics Unspecified Unspecified; 32 Interviews with

client families broad, open-endec
questions

Sells, Smith, & Therapy effective- Ethnoscienc Ethnography opportunistic Interviews with
Moon (1996) ness (systemic sampling; 14 open-ended, spe-
therapies; client client families; 4 cific questions
and therapist therapists
I perspectives)
Qualitative Studies on Specific Client Population:
Usherwood & Separation/ Phenomenology; Interpretive Inter-
Hermansson Divorce (client ethnographic trac- actionism sampling; 2 interviews; read-
( 1995) perspectives) tion.
apists

Lewis & Moon Single women & Phenomenology Ethnography Criterion based; Focus groups
( 1997) single again newspaper ad to using phenomeno.
recruit; 37 in logical interview-
groups and 39 ing and semi-
survey respon- structured, mailed
dents questionnaire

Christensen, Rus- Couples in Unspecified Grounded theory Unspecified Individual

sell, Miller & therapy for sampling; 13 cou- interviews with
Peterson (1998) relational distress ples; 9 therapists partners; semi-
structured.

Previous First Next

 APPENDMA (continued)
Qualitative Research Studies in Marriage and Family Therapy
Research Epistemological Methodological Sampling/
topic theory thoery sample collection

Dallos, Neale, & Comparison of Unspecified Unspecified Unspecified sam- Semi-structured

Strouthos (1997) families with pling; 10 families interviews with “life
pathology to with psychiatric path” and geno-
families without history; 8 without grams. Reviewed
case notes; consulted
with psychiatric
ctaff

Qualitative studies on supervision and professional issues:

~ ~

Conversation Unspecified; 12 Transcripts of 12

(1995) analysis supervision ses- supervision ses-
sions; 3 supervisors sions

Phenomenologica Unspecified Interviews using

man (1997) phone-ins interviews sampling; 8 grand tour and min
doctoral students tour questions
(Spradley, 1979)

Whipple (1996) Identity develop- Feminism; Phe- Phenomenology Opportunistic Phenomenologica

ment of feminist nomenology sampling; 13 interviewing; fielc
family therapists therapists notes

Caldwell, Becvar, Supervision Postmodernism Unspecified Unspecified sam- Pre- and postinter
Bertolino, & Dia- course pling; 6 supervi- views; in-class
mond (1997) sors in training observations

Piercy, Moon, & Difficult journal Postpositivism Critical-incident Criterion-based Semi-structured,

Bischof (1994) article rejections study selection; 17 written survey
authors total; 5 with open-ended
were interviewed items; follow-up
phone interviews
I I

Previous First