Data Verification

Quality considerations of the research “permeate” the entire research undertaking (Boeije, 2010) and assessing the trustworthiness of the data analysis and the interpretation of research findings is regarded as the “acid test” of qualitative research (Niewenhuis, 2013, p. 113). The underpinnings of qualitative research, unlike quantitative research which stresses validity, reliability and generalisation, are based upon four criteria of trustworthiness namely, credibility (as opposed to internal validity), dependability (as opposed to reliability),

transferability (as opposed to external validity or generalisability) and confirmability (as opposed to objectivity) as explicated by Lincoln and Guba (1985), and Shenton (2004).

78 Similarly, Whittemore, Chase, and Mandle (2001) advocate evaluating qualitative

research primarily in terms of credibility (reflecting participants’ experiences plausibly),

authenticity (the emic perspective allowing for subtle differences), criticality (critical appraisal of data), and integrity (recursive and ongoing checks leading to humble findings). Rolfe (2006) points out that ‘validity’ in qualitative studies is understood and hinged upon “appraising” (p. 308) the quality of the individual study according to its own merits in terms of consensus as opposed to evaluating quality in “blanket application of predetermined criteria” (p. 305).

When conducting the data analysis I implemented measures of quality to meet the criteria of data trustworthiness outlined (Drisko, 1997; Flick, 2007, 2009, 2014; Krefting, 1991; Loh, 2013; Morrow, 2005; Saville Young, 2016; Tracy, 2010). The themes and interpretations

generated remained closely reflective of the participants’ responses and conceptualisations, in an attempt to stay true to the meanings of the participants themselves and the distinctive purpose of the qualitative approach of the current study.

The following recommendations of Shenton (2004), and Merrick (1999) were

implemented to enhance credibility, firstly, prolonged engagement in the field of psychotherapist development was undertaken (Creswell, 2009; Creswell & Millar, 2000; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Maxwell, 2005, 2009; Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2011, 2015). A key facet of credibility is addressed, in the current study, through transparency in the qualitative research design and implementation of the study and in-depth description of the thematic analysis of the data. According to Morrow (2005) credibility can be achieved by prolonged engagement with participants as well as observation and immersion in the field of interest.

Fassinger (2005), and Shenton (2004) point out that background, qualifications and experience of the researcher aids in enhancing the truth value or credibility of research. As a South African clinical psychologist in independent practice since 2012, I am familiar with the phenomenon of psychologists’ development as psychotherapists and have previously conducted a qualitative study with a sample of eleven participants (Laidlaw, 2010) of the psychotherapist development of clinical and counselling psychologists. I also form part of the training team that teaches student clinical psychologists completing their masters training at Unisa, especially in relation to teaching psychotherapy and supervising their therapeutic work with clients at the university psychology clinic. My research promoters were a senior clinical psychologist and senior research psychologist and thus well-acquainted with the field of the current study.

79 Secondly, the qualitative interview of the current study adopted a line of questioning that has been used in a number of studies within the research area of psychotherapist development. Each question posed had been used in one or more prior qualitative studies (See Appendix C). The data analysis method of thematic analysis has been used in previous comparable projects as well. All data gathered underwent thorough analysis (Shenton, 2004).

Furthermore, I interviewed participants originating from various contexts within South Africa in order to access as many vantage points of psychotherapist development of South African psychologists as possible. Thus site triangulation was of central importance in the current study, in that recruitment of participants was purposefully broad to allow for a wide variety of participants in an attempt to reduce local factors inadvertently giving a skewed picture of psychotherapist development in South Africa. Different universities and their milieu have different emphases in their psychotherapy training and CPD activities. For example, in

Stellenbosch, Westen Cape an equal emphasis is placed upon CBT and Psychodynamic Therapy as well as specifically Emotionally Focused Couples Therapy for couple clients. In

Johannesburg, Gauteng, a strong emphasis is placed upon the psychoanalytic schools of Object Relations and Interpersonal psychotherapy (www.witsclinselections.wordpress.com/about/). In Pretoria, Gauteng, systems psychotherapy and psychotherapy being informed by an African epistemology and traditional healing methods are emphases (van der Merwe, 2013). Sampling a range of psychologists from various contexts in the country was critical in order to ensure that the study has circled reality/ies sufficiently to provide a stable picture of being a psychotherapist (Dervin, 1992).

The use of debriefing with research promoters and scholars in the field of interest and negative case analysis in terms of looking for participants who had differing opinions to other participants was prioritised. Stakeholder checking of the findings was also implemented (Niewenhuis, 2013). Stakeholders in the current study reviewed the credibility of the findings. The stakeholder process involves “allowing research participants and other people wo may have a specific interest in the research to comment on or assess the research findings, interpretations and conclusions” (Niewenhuis, 2013, p. 114). Stakeholder checking is differentiated from member-checking as it focuses more on the holistic picture of the research process together with the embedded findings rather than a participant verifying exactly what they said in isolation to what the other participants contributed. I asked a clinical psychologist who is well-versed in

80 practicing psychotherapy, training and supervising psychotherapists as well as familiar with a qualitative research approach to read and critique the findings of the current study. The stakeholder provided feedback on all the findings and found that a focus on the ingredients of psychotherapists though interesting detrated from the just of the study which is focused on describing developmental processes of psychotherapists. In addition, the research promoters offered input regarding the refinement of the extensive findings.

This study prioritised reproducing detailed extracts (Niewenhuis, 2013) to both honour and capture the way psychotherapists make sense of and talk about themselves and their work. As seen in the lengthy extracts, within Chapter Four, psychotherapists by nature and training, formulate and tell stories of actual experiences to make an argument and having given an answer to my interview question they then tended to then give an example of where their argument or formulation would not apply, as open-mindedness and alternative viewpoints is valued by many psychotherapists. As a researcher, I became rather ‘torn’ as to how to represent the essence of the data. Over six months as I poured over the transcripts (Bird, 2005), I attempted to stay on the side of brevity, however in reducing the length of the extracts from the data corpus I often found the relayed anecdote, vignette or experience losing its richness and complexity thereby becoming bland and linear.

There are no shortcuts to the demanding process of reading and re-reading the data, and searching to unfold the meanings constructed by the participants to your study. Only the human mind can begin to see and understand the world through the eyes of the participants (Niewenhuis, 2013, p. 117).

The final extracts of the current study represent a compromise of sorts between capturing the essence and yet the rich fullness of the participants’ sharing.

To ensure the dependability of the current study a detailed description of the design and implementation of the study has been be explicated so that readers of the study can assess the extent which correct and feasible ways of doing qualitative research have been adhered to. I also continually appraised the effectiveness of such procedures to increase the dependability of the current study (Shenton, 2004).

Importantly, the strength of qualitative research lies in providing findings from real-world contexts (Willig & Stainton-Rogers, 2008). Transferability is enhanced in the current study through the use of a diverse pool of participants from different contexts in South Africa to

81 capture alternative perspectives. Applicability to other contexts or the transferability of the current study in the future (Krefting, 1991; Shenton, 2004) will be aided by keeping and providing on request an audit trail of the research process and anonymous data should future researchers wish to conduct comparisons with other research endeavours. In addition, potential future transferability was achieved by providing sufficient information about myself and the research context and processes so that the reader can determine how far the findings can be meaningful to other contexts. As the data of the current study come from a diverse South African sample in a particular time period (2014 to 2017) and context, the findings’ transferability needs to be carefully considered by others when contemplating future studies in relation to

psychotherapist development.

Confirmability of the current study occurred through the self-reflexivity (See 5.2) or personal reflexivity of the researcher (King & Horrocks, 2010; Krefting, 1991). Yet to further enhance overall trustworthiness of data a reflective journal/log was kept to track the subjectivity of myself as the researcher throughout the current study and keep track of potential points of discussion to raise and disclose in the writing up or reporting phase of the current study (Morrow, 2005; Ortlipp, 2008; Smith, 2006).