Determining the focus of inquiry

Determining a focus area serves to establish boundaries for the study as well as the inclusion – exclusion criteria for new information that comes to light. Even with

160 inquiry boundaries that are based on contextual knowledge, a researcher is exposed to excessive information that, while interesting, is not relevant. Reflexive focusing helped at arriving at a decision to retain or discard specific information. For purposes of clarity these elements will be discussed in terms of; Phase 1 – Design – how the element was designed for in this study; Phase 2 – Modifications made to the design based on findings in the field; and Phase 3 - Implementation of the design elements.

Phase 1 – Design: My area of focus was the conceptualizations and practices of play therapists in the middle phase treatment of children who were exposed to complex trauma. The goal of my research was to identify the processes of therapeutic change within the treatment process that affected positive outcomes with children exposed to complex trauma.

Phase 2 – Modifications to this focus: In the naturalistic inquiry, changes in focus are expected and seen as constructive because they signal movement to a more

sophisticated and insightful level of inquiry (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). It became clear very early in the interview process that processes of therapeutic change could not be discussed in isolation, or separately from other phases of therapy. All participants incorporated discussions of the beginning phase of treatment as a means of leading into the discussion of middle phase treatment. Participants unanimously highlighted the aspects of relationship building and safety as foundations to all trauma work with

children, and therefore determined that these components required significant discussion in order to lead into the topic of change processes. Therefore, modifications were made to expand the boundaries of the study to incorporate discussion of the phases of treatment, and the importance of both therapeutic relationship building and therapeutic safety, while

161 maintaining focus on the research questions. The naturalistic inquiry enabled me to follow these modifications, which then led me to where I needed to go throughout the interviews to find answers. Also incorporated into these modifications was the inclusion and analysis of resources that were recommended (and at times provided) by participants.

By including these resources as a form of data, this researcher was able to incorporate new information into subsequent interviews, to seek a deeper understanding of the

research questions. These recommended resources, as described later, became part of this researcher’s audit trail. Changes in focus were recorded in my field journal, which

became part of the study’s audit trail.

Phase 3 – Implementation: As researcher, I began my interviews with a focus on identifying processes within middle phase treatment that led to therapeutic change. My working hypothesis, which developed with the first collection of data, was that there were change processes that could be identified, however they could not be studied

independently of other aspects of treatment, and therefore had to be found within the discussion of the whole treatment process. A working hypothesis is tentative and is always different in context from one situation to the next. Beginning with the first interview, it became evident that my focus would have to change to accommodate the preliminary discovery that change processes were interconnected with all phases of treatment, not only the middle phase. Finding and understanding these processes would require expanding my study’s boundaries to include discussions of all phases of

treatment. From these discussions the processes of therapeutic change would be then be extricated for further study.

162 All changes in the focus of inquiry were recorded. Record keeping began with my entry into the field, starting with travel to the site. My record keeping consisted of field journals and a logbook, which were kept throughout my study. Field journals included notes of day-to-day activities, communications, records of contact with peer advisor including peer debriefings, interviews, changes - including changes in focus with explanations of same, budgetary documentation, and any other information relevant to recording for an audit trail. The logbook included individual daily reflections throughout the interview period. These also became part of my audit trail. As recommended in the naturalistic inquiry, the audit trail included all recordings, raw data, data reduction and analysis notes, data reconstruction and synthesis notes, process notes, instrument development notes, and any notes on my intentions as researcher.

The audit trail also consisted of records related to methodological safeguards within the naturalistic research process intended to prevent both bias and being

presumptive (i.e. making presumptions about the data, before the data are in). The use of the same grand tour question for each and every interview is one such safeguard that was utilized. Another is the use of triangulation whereby all new information is validated against at least one other source before given serious consideration. Additionally, a crucial technique called member checking, both formal and informal, was utilized repeatedly throughout the research process, to ensure credibility. Each of these safeguards is discussed throughout this study’s design.

163 3.3.3.2 Fit of paradigm to focus area.

A paradigm is defined as “a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated” (Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary, www.merriam-webster.com). The Oxford English Dictionary (2005) (online version) defines a paradigm as “a conceptual or methodological model underlying the theories and practices of a science or discipline at a particular time; hence, a generally accepted world view”. The Cambridge Dictionary (online version) defines a paradigm as

“a very clear or typical example used as a model”. Thus qualitative paradigms are based on sets of beliefs or axioms whereby the research problem is examined in terms of its relation to the naturalistic axioms.

My research adhered to all five axioms of the naturalistic inquiry, as indicated earlier. First, there was an assumption of multiple realities (ontology) of the individual play therapy participants and of the inquirer. Participants used case examples to identify their vastly different experiences in working with children who had been exposed to complex trauma. These experiences, their years of experience in this field, their training and their specializations, and their interventions with severely traumatized children, created their own unique and individual set of realities. Second, the influence of the knower to the known (epistemology) had an impact on the inquiry. The play therapy participants in this context were the experts, selected for their unique knowledge and experience in using play therapy and trauma-informed practices to intervene with complex trauma. However, as researcher, I guided that knowledge through meaningful interaction. This required me to be very familiar with my topic from a ‘known’

164 perspective, to be able to direct the inquiry to where it needed to go and to have the skills to keep it focused there. Third, this research was context dependent, and therefore cannot be generalized. In the naturalistic inquiry, local conditions make it impossible to

generalize. However, by providing sufficient information about the context of the inquiry, anyone interested in transferability has a base of information to work from. Fourth, causal linkages, also referred to as mutual shaping, took into account the many influences of all participants as well as any influences of the inquirer. These four factors influenced the direction as well as the outcome of the inquiry. And fifth, participant’s values (axiology), both individually and as a group, were recognized to be of great importance to this research and were taken into account in the context of the inquiry.

Other considerations for ‘fit of paradigm to focus area’ are the degree of

cooperation expected from participants (which as expected was high), and the constraints that might be placed on the researcher by participants (which were expected to be few).

These expectations were met. Participants as a group welcomed this research into what they considered to be a significantly under-researched topic. They also appreciated being selected as a professional group for participation in this study, which recognized and acknowledged their expertise with children, inclusive of children exposed to complex trauma.