Rationale for a qualitative approach

Both quantitative and qualitative approaches are empirical methods as they concern the collection, analysis and interpretation of data (Ponterotto, 2005). Which is selected as most appropriate depends on the research questions being asked, and what answers are being sought.

Generally speaking, quantitative methods are characterised by the use of measurable (quantifiable) data, strict control of variables, large scale samples and statistical procedures to test hypotheses by analysing group means and variances (Ponterotto & Grieger, 1999). The RCT is considered the ‘gold standard’ of quantitative methodology today (Salkovskis, 2002). Such positivist paradigms take a nomothetic and etic perspective, focusing on findings which are considered objective and impersonal, and attempt to discover generalizable truths which can apply to all humans.

69

Humanistic psychological approaches, upon which counselling psychology is founded, have increasingly questioned the legitimacy of using positivist methods designed to investigate the natural sciences in order to study humans (Woolfe et al., 2010). Ponterotto (2005) argues we are in the middle of a much larger paradigm shift (Kuhn, 1970) to a broader and more balanced use of both quantitative and qualitative methods, which will serve to promote more rapid scientific advances in the field of counselling psychology. Rafalin (2010) too, champions a methodological pluralism for counselling psychologists, arguing we “need to be willing to engage with qualitative and quantitative paradigms as our object dictates” (p.48).

Qualitative methods are a broad class of procedures designed to explore, describe and interpret the experiences of individuals in context-specific settings (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000); they often use participants’ own words to describe psychological experiences, events, or other phenomena. The particular procedure, or method, used depends on the underlying research paradigm which guides the chosen methodological approach (McLeod, 2001; 2015).

Rafalin (2010) suggests, however, that currently the pendulum may have swung too far, pointing to the “flurry of small-scale, interpretative qualitative research studies carried out by counselling psychologists in training” (Rafalin, 2010, p.46). Kasket (2016) similarly argues that, whilst the aim of generating practice-applicable research is vital to the professional doctorate in counselling psychology, a significant proportion of trainee research has focused attention on the experiences of other counselling psychologists in their roles either as trainees or as therapists. Whilst she allows that pragmatic considerations, such as the time needed for NHS ethical clearance, often restrict choice of research focus, she cites Blocher’s (2000) comments

regarding the limitations of American qualitative research, as equally applicable to the UK: “The myopia induced by navel-gazing on the part of organized counselling psychology has had a pronounced negative effect on the growth and acceptance of the field” (Blocher, 2000, cited in Kasket, 2016; p.230). The overarching aim of my research question therefore is to generate

70

valid information within an appropriately selected qualitative methodology which will have the potential to improve the evidence base for counselling psychology research and practice, and hopefully to be relevant also to the wider field of carers working in trauma.

Aside from prevailing fashions in empirical research, the key factor in selecting a

quantitative, qualitative or indeed mixed methodology must, however, surely be consideration of what the objective dictates – that is, in an ideal world, the most appropriate approach to answer the research question effectively in order to produce valid, useful results (Cresswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Roth & Fonagy (2005) argue there can be no optimum research design, as each methodology is designed to answer only a limited range of questions. In the real world a good fit can still be achieved between research question, methodology and researcher and, as West (2013) suggests, an elegance results when a relevant research question produces rich and useful data that, in turn, leads to significant and impactful findings.

When the research question is focused on exploring clinicians’ experiences of the impact of delivering different trauma treatments, qualitative approaches may be considered more appropriate or relevant, as they have been specifically developed to enable the in-depth description and interpretation of subjective experiences and the textured meanings individuals make of them (McLeod, 2001, 2015). In contrast to positivist quantitative paradigms, qualitative methodologies take an ideographic and emic approach which values the unique constructs and behaviours arising in specific individuals and socio-cultural contexts. These values resonate well with counselling psychology’s emphasis on subjective experience and the importance of relational ways of being (Woolfe et al., 2010); this also celebrates the inter-subjectivity (literally meaning ‘between subjects’) inherent in a view of the researcher as an ‘impassioned listener’ rather than a dispassionate and ‘objective’ scientist (Orford, 2008).

Rasmussen (2005) posits that a limitation of previous research in this area has been the quantitative attempts to measure the impact of delivering trauma treatment on the clinician. In

71

contrast, inter-subjectivity theory would recommend defining research questions that explore the “reciprocal and dynamic interplay of subjectivities of therapist and client and the ways in which they interact to help or hinder the therapeutic process” (Rasmussen, 2005, p.27). And, in a context where clinicians’ experiences have traditionally been accorded a lower profile than that of patient outcomes, most importantly qualitative methods give a voice to all human beings. This enables a balance to be redressed in terms of the potential, as yet unexplored, long-term costs (personal, professional, and organizational) which may be associated with delivering particular trauma treatments. My goal therefore is to explore clinicians’ subjective lived

experiences of delivering both treatments and to attempt to describe and interpret the meaning they make of these experiences from my perspective as a practitioner/scientist who, in turn, can relate personally to the experience of delivering trauma treatment (Finlay, 2011). My

overarching aim is to generate new insights into how practitioners can work more safely and effectively in trauma settings. In order to do this I need to be able to justify my epistemological position within this qualitative research paradigm.