Qualitative Research and Family Psychology by Jane F. Gilgun

ThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers.
Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.
Qualitative Research and Family Psychology
Jane F. Gilgun
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
Qualitative approaches have much to offer family psychology. Among the uses for qualitative
methods are theory building, model and hypothesis testing, descriptions of lived experiences,
typologies, items for surveys and measurement tools, and case examples that answer ques-
tions that surveys cannot. Despite the usefulness of these products, issues related to gener-
alizability, subjectivity, and language, among others, block some researchers from appreci-
ating the contributions that qualitative methods can make. This article provides descriptions
of procedures that lead to these useful products and discusses alternative ways of under-
standing aspects of qualitative approaches that some researchers view as problematic.
Keywords: deductive qualitative analysis, grounded theory, qualitative family research
As a researcher originally trained in logico-deductive
methods, I have found that qualitative approaches are useful
for accomplishing many tasks, such as theory and model
building, hypothesis testing, concept development, the de-
lineation of social processes, descriptions of lived experi-
ences, the development of typologies, and the creation of
items for surveys, assessment instruments, and evaluation
tools among many others. Such approaches are particularly
useful for understanding meanings that human beings at-
tribute to events in their lives and, through discourse anal-
ysis, can aid in understanding intersections of cultural
themes and practices and individual lives. Qualitative meth-
ods can be used in basic, applied, and evaluation research.
Qualitative approaches are not useful for establishing
prevalence and incidence. Although they can inform re-
searchers about the contexts of experiments and quasi-
experiments, how and what treatments were implemented,
and participants’ responses to the treatment, they will not
yield an effect size or any other quantified outcome. Be-
cause of the volume of data generated, they are difficult to
use in large-scale surveys. They will not show a mathemat-
ical relationship between variables, but they can provide the
model to be tested, the hypotheses that compose the model,
and the items of instruments that represent the hypotheses.
Despite the usefulness of the products of qualitative re-
search to social science, many researchers steeped in logico-
deductive, mathematical approaches are wary. Several is-
sues block a serious consideration of qualitative approaches.
Among these are questions about generalizability, subjec-
tivity, and language.
The purpose of this article is to describe some fundamen-
tal uses for qualitative methods and to examine common
concerns that block some researchers from doing qualitative
research. The topics covered are not exhaustive, but they
represent some core issues as I have learned them through
experience. My intended audience is other researchers
trained in logico-deductive methods and who are interested
in exploring whether qualitative approaches can help them
answer their research questions. I will not address the many
complex and interesting philosophies of science issues con-
nected to qualitative approaches. (See authors such as Den-
zin & Lincoln, 2000; McMullen, 2002; O’Neill, 2002 for
discussions.) As important as these are, I also believe that
by doing qualitative research, researchers will learn through
their own experience how philosophical ideas are relevant
to their work. In this article, my considerations of philo-
sophical issues are linked to procedures of research.
Definitions and Other Fundamentals
I define models as a set of interrelated hypotheses that
account for significant social phenomena, typically how
something works, such as how persons overcome adversi-
ties or how family members enact family rituals. Hypothe-
ses are statements of relationships among concepts or vari-
ables. Concepts are the components of hypotheses and thus
are also part of theories and models. In my work, theories
are composed of hypotheses that have been tested qualita-
tively and/or quantitatively but are always subject to further
testing. A set of interrelated theories becomes a model when
the theories together are thought to account for how some-
thing works. Models may not have been tested beyond the
testing that researchers conducted to formulate them in the
first place. In qualitative research, there are two general
sources of models: those whose components are drawn from
analysis of qualitative data only or models that integrate
these analyses with related research and theory that en-
hance, amplify, and lend significance to the results of the
analysis. Models from both sources can be further docu-
mented through excerpts from transcripts, field notes, and
other relevant documents.
Methods of data collection in qualitative research are
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Jane F. Gilgun, School of Social Work, University of Minnesota,
Twin Cities, 1404 Gortner Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108. E-mail:
jgilgun@umn.edu
Journal of Family Psychology Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association
2005, Vol. 19, No. 1, 40–50 0893-3200/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0893-3200.19.1.40
40

texts of interviews, observations, and document analysis.
Videotapes, audiotapes, and cameras can provide some of
the documents that compose the texts that are analyzed as
well as archived narrative material such as oral histories,
photographs and other graphic materials, and case records.
Analysis of texts generated through the Internet represents
an emerging source of material. I often use the term text
rather than data, as text fits more closely with my usual
philosophy of science, which is realist (the world outside of
me exists independently of me), combined with construc-
tivism (the world as I know it is a construction that I share
with others to various degrees), and also infused with post-
structural thought (what I perceive outside of me and even
within me are signs in the sense that they stand for them-
selves and also have multiple meanings; signs are texts to be
read, that is, interpreted).
There are three ways that qualitative researchers think of
data collection and analysis: one is a naı¨ve empiricism
where researchers believe they have set aside their precon-
ceptions and are doing the analysis inductively, a second is
an informed quasi-inductive approach where researchers
recognize that they have preconceptions and attempt to put
them aside while seeking to understand the perspectives of
research informants, and the third is a deductive approach
that begins with a conceptual framework that helps re-
searchers identify the social processes and attribute mean-
ings to their texts but that researchers hope to transform
through processes of doing research.
I consider the first approach naı¨ve because, as Glaser and
Strauss (1967) stated in a footnote, we are not tabula rasa
but bring our personal theories, values, and experiences, as
well as our more formal training and knowledge, into the
analysis. It is better to state clearly what our assumptions,
values, and hypotheses are so that we can test them against
the texts we produce. Unchecked, naı¨ve empiricism can
result in researchers shaping findings in ways they do not
recognize and missing potentially important analyses. Pur-
posefully seeking to undermine emerging understanding is a
check against collecting information that fits preconceptions
rather than testing for fit, as is having more than one
researcher shape data collection, interpret findings, and par-
ticipate in the analysis. This strategy of undermining emerg-
ing understandings is used in the second and third under-
standings of how to collect and analyze data.
Furthermore, qualitative researchers focus most often on
what it means to be human and the meanings that human
beings attribute to the events in their lives. We are con-
cerned with fidelity—that is, do we understand what infor-
mants are telling us in words and in actions? How well do
we represent informants’ points of view? Issues of reliabil-
ity and validity are important but most of us prefer not to
use these terms because they connote distance from mean-
ings and lived experience. Instead, most qualitative re-
searchers use the term trustworthiness, which requires that
researchers demonstrate how they arrived at their analysis
and conclusions. We are concerned with application: How
can these findings be used in other settings with other
persons? We assume that we have to test our findings for
their fit in these other settings. Many of us are concerned
with social justice and fostering social change and use our
research to advocate for policy changes and program
development.
There are other fundamental issues, such as the recogni-
tion that the texts (e.g., data) we produce are co-creations in
that how informants represent themselves is in response to
how they perceive researchers; they may have presented
themselves differently with different researchers under dif-
ferent conditions at different times. We recognize the ten-
tative nature of knowledge, enjoy it in fact, and look for-
ward to undermining our own findings in the hope that we
can come up with something even more useful and
representative.
In general, the products of qualitative research are (a)
theory: concepts, hypotheses, and models; (b) descriptive
accounts of lived experience; and (c) close analyses of texts,
such as discourse analysis. This first type of product is
usually documented with excerpts from texts and accompa-
nied by theoretical analysis that shows how related research
and theory enhance the constructs and how the constructs
add to, replicate, or transform related research and theory.
Descriptive qualitative research is composed of several
types of research, and documentation can vary by type. Oral
histories, for example, usually are simple narrative accounts
with little reference to related research and theory, whereas
interpretive phenomenology may organize findings into ty-
pologies and make substantial references to related research
and theory. Close analysis of texts can take several forms.
The type with which I am most familiar is a form of critical
discourse analysis that seeks to connect individual lives
with cultural themes and practices so as to identify oppres-
sive processes embedded in cultural mores. Close analyses
of texts demonstrate how the components of a conceptual
model work. Because qualitative research typically gener-
ates both concepts and indicators of concepts, researchers
are positioned to construct surveys and standardized instru-
ments that are closely aligned with human experience, as is
discussed later.
These are some of the fundamentals that help me think
about qualitative research. In the remainder of this article, I
will discuss the three main products of qualitative research,
procedures for doing three main types of qualitative re-
search, and the ways that qualitative approaches can work in
concert with surveys and other forms of quantitative re-
search. I end with an examination of common concerns
about qualitative research.
The Products of Qualitative Research
Theory Building and Model Testing
Family scholars have a long-term interest in theory build-
ing. Qualitative methods can make unique contributions to
the identification, development, testing, refinement, and re-
formulation of concepts, hypotheses, and theoretical models
of family processes. One approach to theory building and
model testing is deductive qualitative analysis (Gilgun,
2004a), which begins with a conceptual model for the
41SPECIAL ISSUE: QUALITATIVE FAMILY RESEARCH

purpose of testing it, refining it, or refuting it and coming up
with a better set of concepts and hypotheses. “Better” means
models that research shows fit well with various types of
evidence and have implications for theory, research, policy,
and practice. A second approach is grounded theory
(Charmaz, 2000; Clarke, 2003; Glaser, 1978; Glaser &
Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998), which involves
entering the field with an open mind and trusting that a
researchable problem will emerge. The goal of grounded
theory is to develop concepts and hypotheses that are linked
to data, an idea that builds on Lazarfeld’s (1959) concept-
indicator model. Deductive qualitative analysis and
grounded theory can contribute to the refinement and refor-
mulation of existing theory and lead to the creation of new
theory in overlooked areas.
Deductive qualitative analysis. Researchers trained in
logico-deductive approaches prefer to begin their studies
with conceptual models. Many researchers assume that to
do qualitative studies, they have to forsake well-formulated
conceptual models and hypothesis testing and begin their
research in an open-ended way (see Kidd, 2002, as one
example). This widespread impression stems from the pro-
cedures of grounded theory, to be discussed later, that are
designed for researchers who want to identify research
problems through preliminary studies. Yet, researchers in-
terested in particular theoretical models cannot, nor should
they be expected, to start anew, or act as if they do not
already know something about their areas of interest. There
is no reason why they cannot test their models qualitatively.
Furthermore, dissertation committees are unlikely to ap-
prove studies that do not build on what is already known,
and funders are not inclined to commit money to such
studies.
Deductive qualitative analysis recognizes these issues
and provides guidelines for doing qualitative research that
begins with an initial conceptualization that can range from
a parsimonious theory to a rather loose set of ideas. I coined
the term deductive qualitative analysis after trying out many
others, because my experience had led me to conclude that
having a prior conceptual framework is an important way to
do qualitative research. I pieced together the procedures of
deductive qualitative analysis from earlier work on analytic
induction (Cressey, 1953; Gilgun, 1995; Lindesmith, 1947;
Znaniecki, 1934) and the thinking of philosophers John
Dewey (1910) and Karl Popper (1969). For Dewey, hypoth-
eses are always open to modification when researchers
identify new evidence. Popper’s thought provides a ratio-
nale for negative case analysis, a sampling strategy in ana-
lytic induction that involves actively searching for cases that
will modify, amplify, or undermine developing theory and
descriptive material.
Coding, analysis, and interpretation in deductive qualita-
tive analysis can be done any number of ways, such as the
generic three-level codes described in Strauss (1987) and
Strauss & Corbin (1998) or the kinds of analysis associated
with interpretive phenomenology (Benner, 1994), which
includes several levels of analysis, discussed below.
Through experience, I have found team analysis of texts to
be effective in that I can test my emerging understandings
against the interpretations of others who have different life
experiences, training, knowledge, and other preconceptions.
Crist and Tanner (2003) provided an overview of group
analysis using a phenomenological approach.
In deductive qualitative analysis, the initial conceptual
model with which researchers begin their studies may range
from tightly defined to rough and unfocused, as mentioned
earlier. One possible type of initial conceptual model is
highly abstract and parsimonious and is based on previous
research and theory, permitting researchers to deduce hy-
potheses to be tested qualitatively. Though this type of
analysis is conceivable, I am unaware of any qualitative
family research like this. This shows how rare formal hy-
pothesis testing is in qualitative research but also shows the
availability of opportunities for doing what I believe is an
important form of qualitative research.
A second type of conceptual model is composed of a
loose set of ideas and concepts derived from one or more
sources, such as previous research and theory, professional
experience, and personal experience. Researchers can put
this model to many different uses, such as developing open-
ended hypotheses that bring some focus to the study, using
the model to do pattern matching, or drawing on the theory
as a guide in exploring new areas of understanding. In
pattern matching, researchers use the conceptual model as a
screen that they place over their findings (Campbell, 1979).
They then compare the patterns of the conceptual model
with the patterns of the findings they construct from data.
An example of hypothesis testing based on a loose frame-
work is my analysis of the moral discourse of incest perpe-
trators, where I began with hypotheses I developed from
theories of feminist moral development and ended with
revised hypotheses resulting from my analysis (Gilgun,
1995). An example of pattern matching is my work with
Brommel on emotion display rules and the accounts prison
inmates gave of their violent behaviors in families and
communities (Gilgun & Brommel, 2004). We first devel-
oped a framework that delineated possible ways that men
display their emotions and then we compared this frame-
work based on existing research and theory with how the
men in the study actually displayed their emotions. An
example of theory-guided research is the analysis of
Abrams (2003) on young women’s gender identity negoti-
ations with their male partners. Abrams used a loose con-
ceptual framework to illuminate and interpret her analysis.
A third type of deductive qualitative analysis begins with
roughly formulated ideas and hunches, sometimes based on
professional and/or personal experience. The guidance that
this type of deductive qualitative analysis provides is that of
a general orientation or framework. Elizabeth Bott’s (1957)
work on family social networks is a classic example, where
she used Lewin’s ecology theory as her initial general
framework, had no hypotheses to test, and ended with a
richly described social network theory, where she shared her
processes of theorizing in some detail. Undoubtedly, there
are many other ways to use conceptual models at the onset
of qualitative research, and there are probably more to be
developed. In psychology, as in many other fields, examples
42 GILGUN

of qualitative research are relatively rare but are growing
rapidly, as Kidd (2002) and Rennie, Watson, and Monteiro
(2002) noted.
Researchers must be on the alert to ensure that they are
not fitting their findings into pre-established categories or
imposing theory onto findings. Negative case analysis, men-
tioned earlier, guards against this. The final product of
model building efforts in qualitative research is a set of
concepts and interrelated hypotheses that have been sub-
jected to rigorous testing. Researchers typically fold into the
model related research and theory that enhance and clarify
the meanings and significance of the components of the
model. Such a well-documented and well-tested model can
be used to guide policy and programs, and it can also be
subjected to statistical analysis. As Lenzenweger (2004)
stated in his discussion of taxometric analysis, a salient
issue in statistical analysis is the adequacy of the underlying
model. Deductive qualitative analysis is a significant way to
construct conceptual models. As researchers explore the
potential of this approach, relevant, generative theories
about families and other social phenomena will grow.
Grounded theory approaches. The purposes of grounded
theory, according to Strauss and Corbin (1998), are “to
build rather than test theory” and to “identify, develop and
relate the concepts that are the building blocks of theory” (p.
13). A key idea is the emergence of the research problem as
a result of immersion in the field. The “field” can be
interviews, observations, document analysis, and analysis of
quantitative data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin,
1998).
To generate grounded theory, researchers enter the field,
according to Glaser (1992), with “an open mind to the
emergence of the subjects’ problem” (p. 23), a trust that the
central problem will emerge, and a commitment “not to
know” until the problem emerges (p. 24). Many influences
“core out” the central problem, such as the researchers’
training, the location of the study, the nature of the research
participants, and funding, among others. Both Strauss and
Glaser maintained career-long interests in basic social pro-
cesses, derived from Lazarfeld’s (1959) elaboration analy-
sis, and symbolic interaction theory (Glaser, 1978, 1992;
Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss, 1987; Strauss & Corbin,
1998). Thus, emergence might not be an accurate term
because, as readers of the literature, we have a tendency to
see in texts what we have already been sensitized to see; our
own favored theories and other coring out influences shape
our interpretations of texts. Nonetheless, the point here is to
make every effort to understand and theorize informants’
points of views.
In the original formulation of grounded theory, Glaser
and Strauss (1967) considered initial conceptual frame-
works to be preconceptions and a way of attaining “a
grounded modifying of theory” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p.
2). In their first book-length publications, Glaser and Strauss
(1967) and Glaser (1978) expressed concern that when
researchers begin with a preconception, they will force data
into the model rather than construct concepts and hypothe-
ses on the basis of their observations or what research
respondents tell
them. My experience as a researcher has shown that nega-
tive case analysis helps researchers avoid such forcing of
the data.
Glaser and Strauss (1967) proposed grounded theory in
response to the kinds of theory that they observed was
prevalent at the time: highly abstract, disconnected from
relevant social problems, nonmodifiable, and whose sources
were not always clear. They also had concerns about the
imposition of theory onto observations and the tacking on of
theory at the end of a report based on atheoretical research.
Over time, Strauss softened his stance on the place of prior
research and theory in the conduct of grounded theory (cf.
Strauss & Corbin, 1998), whereas Glaser (1992) remained
committed to the earlier idea.
Sampling in grounded theory is theoretical, which means
that sampling depends on what researchers want to know
next, and this usually involves a principle of comparison
within and across cases (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss &
Corbin,1998). Rarely is there reason to do random or con-
venience sampling in grounded theory, although descriptive
qualitative researchers make use of these methods. In doing
theoretical sampling, researchers select a homogeneous
sample on which to focus. They continue interviewing
and/or observing this sample until they find that they are
learning little or nothing that adds to their emerging under-
standing, thus reaching the point of theoretical saturation.
Researchers then reflect on what comparisons they need to
make next to deepen their understanding. These reflections
lead to a decision of which kind of sample to recruit next.
One example can be seen in a study I conducted on incest
perpetrators and the women who were married to them
(Gilgun, 1992b), in which I wanted to isolate qualities that
differentiated incest perpetrators from persons with similar
social histories.
Strauss and colleagues’ coding scheme is a set of generic
procedures that can be used in research other than grounded
theory such as oral histories and other narrative approaches.
They originated a coding scheme that at first accounted for
two levels of analysis (Glaser, 1978; Glaser & Strauss,
1967) and then added selective coding as the third (Strauss
& Corbin, 1998). The first level consists of open coding,
which attaches labels to concrete instances of phenomena
identified in texts. These labels are the codes. The second
level consists of selective coding, which happens after re-
searchers have tentatively chosen the concepts on which
they want to focus. In axial coding, researchers seek to
identify the various dimensions that compose a concept.
They also seek to identify the processes that occur when the
phenomena that the concepts represent occur. Thus, for
example, if the concept under consideration is “dysregula-
tion,” then in axial coding researchers seek to document the
contexts, conditions, processes, and consequences of dys-
regulation. If this “dimensionalizing” does not result in a
well-described concept, then researchers either gather
more data or discard the concept and seek others that are
more central. The concepts that researchers consider
well-documented become core concepts. In the third
stage of coding, researchers conduct selective coding,
which involves additional documentation of core con-

cepts through re-reading and re-analyzing data. The prod-
ucts of these three types of coding constitute a strongly
documented account of a core concept and the social
processes that co-occur with it.
Another point that the originators of grounded theory
made is their understandings of qualitative research ques-
tions and hypotheses. From their points of view, the purpose
of research questions is to provide a general focus to the
research, a focus that will sharpen as researchers engage
with respondents, listen to their stories, and observe them in
interaction with others. The idea of independent and depen-
dent variables is rare in qualitative research. Instead, re-
searchers want to know how respondents experience some-
thing, think about something, or respond to something, and
researchers look for the processes involved. Hypotheses can
be written in any number of ways. The hypotheses that
Strauss and Corbin (1998) and other qualitative researchers
use are statements of relationships that link two or more
concepts, as stated earlier. For example, a hypothesis I
tested in my research on the moral discourse of incest
perpetrators (Gilgun, 1995) was that “incest perpetrators
have special regard for themselves and do not have regard
for the impact of incest on their victims” (p. 268). Persons
unfamiliar with qualitative methods might not recognize
this as a hypothesis at all.
Summary. Though widely thought of as an approach
that eschews the formulation of conceptual frameworks
prior to entering the field, contemporary grounded theorists
at least entertain this as a possibility. Deductive qualitative
analysis is my attempt to encourage researchers to test,
refine, reformulate, refute, and replace theoretical models
qualitatively. This approach acknowledges the importance
of logico-deductive methods, although I depart in many
ways from traditional ways of doing this kind of research.
Qualitative thinking underlies all science, and qualitative
analysis in the end, regardless of whether or not it begins
with a conceptual model, is a way of thinking qualitatively.
Finally, grounded theory is a far more detailed set of
procedures for doing qualitative research than is deductive
qualitative analysis. What deductive qualitative analysis
adds is an invitation to do deductive research, suggestions
for several different types of deductive qualitative research,
guidelines for ensuring that researchers do not impose pre-
conceptions onto their findings (search for negative
evidence/conjectures and refutations), and guidelines for
ensuring that findings account for diversities (negative case
analysis). Many of the notions and procedures of grounded
theory fit well with deductive qualitative analysis, including
the coding scheme that grounded theory encourages, the
notions of core concepts and their dimensions, definitions of
hypotheses, commitment to identifying and representing the
points of view of informants, and open-mindedness as to
how researchers present their findings, among many others.
The notions of processes, contexts, and consequences are
embedded within grounded theory, and although research-
ers may not use these terms, much qualitative research
involves these ideas.
Descriptions of Lived Experiences
Qualitative researchers in general seek to understand sub-
jective human experience. Researchers might want answers
to the following questions: What is it like to fall in love?
How do widows experience the influence of God in their
lives? How does living in the United States affect the gender
role negotiations of Liberian refugee couples? Open-ended
questions such as these lead to new analyses that can be
used in a variety of ways, both theoretical and applied.
Researchers recognize that their findings are representative
of the particularities of their research—the persons, settings,
times, and cultures—and they test the fit of their findings in
new particular situations.
An example of descriptive qualitative research is the
work of Skinner, Bailey, Correa, and Rodriguez (1999) on
how Latina mothers of children with special needs construct
their identities. Sensitivity on the part of interviewers is
required to elicit such personal material. Many types of
qualitative research build on lived experience, such as oral
histories, portraiture, dramaturgy, ethnographies, cultural
studies, and interpretive phenomenology. Discussion of
each of these types of qualitative research is beyond the
scope of this article, but I provide an overview of some to
show the range of types of such research.
Oral histories are probably the most descriptive type of
qualitative research. Their purpose is to understand histor-
ical events from the points of view of individuals who lived
through them. The texts of oral history interviews are com-
posed primarily of the accounts of interviewees. The role of
interviewers is challenging in that they should be knowl-
edgeable about the historical events that are the focus, and
at the same time they must be relatively unobtrusive so that
interviewees can tell their stories in their own ways. Mar-
tin’s (1995) oral history of African American families in
Tampa, Florida, is an example. Her purpose was to establish
a legacy of the family experiences of older African Amer-
icans born around the turn of the 20th century. A great deal
of information about oral histories is available online.1
Portraiture intends to convey the complexity and richness
of human experience from the points of view of informants.
In the words of its originators, Lawrence-Lightfoot and
Davis (1997), portraiture seeks “to combine systematic,
empirical description with esthetic expression, blending art
and science, humanistic sensibilities and scientific rigor”
(p. 3). Thus portraiture involves adhering to tenets of social
science research, such as giving clear accounts of the pro-
cesses of analysis and providing evidence for any conclu-
sions that are drawn, as well as using literary techniques in
written reports of findings.
Interpretive phenomenology focuses on lived experiences
and the understanding of persons within the contexts of
families, communities, and institutions such as hospitals and
schools. The emphasis is more on what it means to be a
human being and less on explaining and predicting human
1
The Oral History Society’s Web page is particularly informa-
tive (http://www.oralhistory.org.uk/).
44 GILGUN

phenomena. Ontology—what it means to be human—takes
precedence over epistemology, or concerns about reliability,
validity, and universal theory (Benner, 1994; Leonard,
1994). An example of interpretive phenomenological re-
search is Nehls’s (2000) work on recovery from borderline
personality disorder. She showed that research on such a
vulnerable population requires an approach that is deeply
attuned to the meanings and responses of informants. A
detached style of interviewing could be harmful to vulner-
able informants.
Descriptive research lends itself to the development of
typologies, a strategy for organizing findings that show
similarities, differences, and overlaps between and within
classes of phenomena. Typologies are particularly helpful in
educational and clinical settings, where practitioners are
confronted with complex human behaviors. Often inter-
ventions, such as medication, educational strategies, and
forms of therapy, are linked to classifications that typolo-
gies can provide. Robinson, Prest, Susman, Rouse, and
Crabtree (2001) used observations of family physicians’
responses to patients’ emotional distress and developed a
four-quadrant typology: the technician, the friend, the de-
tective, and the healer. They noted that this typology can
contribute to physician training, and it can also provide
direction to future research that asks such questions as
whether physician style is linked to outcome and whether
patients select physicians who suit their personal prefer-
ences. A classic example of the use of typologies is Fra-
zier’s (1932) The Negro Family in Chicago, in which Af-
rican Americans living in Chicago during the early part of
the 20th century were classified as migrants, old settlers,
and nouveaux riches.
Theoretical Analyses of Texts
Theoretical analysis of texts involves demonstrating a
theoretical framework or model through the use of case
material. An example is my work with Abrams on two case
studies involving a woman and a man who perpetrated
violence (Gilgun & Abrams, in press). We first presented
our theoretical model on the development of violent behav-
iors and then showed how the model worked on these two
cases. We developed the model itself through previous
qualitative research integrated with related research and
theory.
Some forms of cultural studies involve close analyses of
texts. Cultural studies is a multidisciplinary field, practiced
in sociology, anthropology, English, communication stud-
ies, and history, among other disciplines. It is a flexible
approach to the analysis of ideologies embedded in lan-
guage, everyday interactions, and objects such as clothes,
cars, and houses. Researchers in this tradition often build on
lived experience in their quest to critique culturally based
power structures in a wide range of social institutions, such
as scouting, the mass media, and families (Schulman, 1993).
At least two of my own pieces of published research are part
of cultural studies that took the form of a critical discourse
analysis. One is a feminist, semiological analysis of the
gender-based ideologies that a young man invoked to ac-
count for his murder of his children, his fianceé, and an
unrelated woman (Gilgun, 1999b). The second is an analy-
sis of the narratives of two upper-class White men who
committed sexual assaults (Gilgun & McLeod, 1999). The
purpose of both articles was to examine and critique gender-
based hegemonic discourses associated with the commis-
sion of serious and at times lethal assaults on other human
beings, sometimes family members whom perpetrators
stated they loved.
Using Qualitative Methods With Surveys and Other
Quantitative Approaches
Qualitative approaches can be used in conjunction with
surveys and other quantitative approaches. As mentioned,
they produce hypotheses and models that can be tested on
large samples, supply items for surveys and other instru-
ments, and answer questions that surveys, experiments, and
quasi-experiments cannot.
Hypotheses That Can Be Tested on Large Samples
Because qualitative studies rarely have large samples,
questions about the generality of findings often arise. How
widespread are the findings from a qualitative study? Will
there be similar findings with a large sample using a survey?
Surveys are a logical way to test this wider applicability.
Therefore, qualitative research produces hypotheses that
researchers can test through statistical analysis of survey
data. An example is a survey I conducted to test hypotheses
on whether the addition of variables representing resources
increases the fit of risk-only models (Gilgun, Klein, &
Pranis, 2000). I developed these hypotheses from life his-
tory case studies of persons with many risks for poor out-
comes, some of whom proved to overcome childhood risks
and others who did not (Gilgun, 1990, 1991, 1992b, 1996,
1999c), and found that my qualitatively derived hypotheses
were not refuted.
Items for Surveys, Standardized Instruments, and
Clinical Tools
Concepts developed from qualitative research are com-
posed of concrete indicators. Thus, qualitative data are rich
sources of items for both research instruments and clinical
assessment tools. Items developed from this kind of quali-
tative research focus on perspectives of informants, and the
language of the items will be at the appropriate level of
abstraction. The survey instrument used in the inmate study
mentioned earlier (Gilgun et al., 2000) was deeply informed
by my life history case studies as well as my knowledge of
related research on developmental psychopathology.
The findings of qualitative research are readily amenable
to the construction of clinical rating scales (Gilgun, 2004b).
I have developed three instrument packets. The CASPARS
(Clinical Assessment Package for Assessing Risks and
Strengths; Gilgun, 1999a, 2004c; Gilgun, Keskinen, Marti,
& Rice, 1999) is a set of five instruments that represent the
core concepts that appear to distinguish at-risk persons who

demonstrate resilience from those who are imprisoned for
felony-level violence. I drew the items of these instruments
from the indicators of these concepts. The CASPARS has
excellent psychometric properties, including coefficient al-
phas above .9 for each of the five scales.
In addition to the CASPARS, I contributed to the devel-
opment of the 4-D, a set of four instruments based on
Reclaiming Youth at Risk (Brendtro, Brokenleg, & Van
Bockern, 1990), a book that distills Native American wis-
dom on child rearing and shows how families and commu-
nities have responsibilities for providing resources to chil-
dren and adolescents if they are to thrive. These instruments
have excellent psychometric properties, with coefficient al-
phas above .9 (Gilgun, in press).2
In an article summarizing her decades-long research on
women who had experienced miscarriages, Swanson (1999)
provides another example of the continuity between de-
scriptive qualitative research, theory building in qualitative
research, and the development of valid, reliable instruments.
Multiple Method Research
The statistical analysis of survey data provides an under-
standing of the distributions and relationships among a
limited number of variables in large samples. Yet, these
results do not account for the deeper meanings and subjec-
tive dimensions of the phenomena under investigation.
Combining case studies with demographic data and survey
findings provides a fuller picture than surveys alone. For
example, Seccombe’s (1999) research includes a statistical
portrait of women on welfare as well as the results of 47
in-depth interviews that undermine the stereotype of the
“welfare queen.”
Multiple-method research is as old as social research,
extending back in time to the research of Frederic LePlay
(1855) on European families and Charles Booth’s (1891)
studies of the London poor (Gilgun, 1999d). These studies
used surveys, in-depth interviews, participant observation,
document analysis, and analysis of demographic data.
Booth also used the technique of social mapping, which
involves constructing a detailed diagram of salient land-
marks in communities that affect the quality of family life.
Multiple method research crossed the Atlantic and took seed
in the United States early in the 20th century. The Pitts-
burgh, Pennsylvania, survey (Kellogg, 1914) is an example.
Its purpose was to present a portrait of a city using a range
of methods and viewpoints. Methods included observations,
interviews, and use of written documents.
In sum, mixed-methods research originated with the ear-
liest social science research projects. Today, many funders,
such as the National Institute of Mental Health, encourage
the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods so as to
obtain both in-depth and comprehensive research results.
Some Common Concerns
Analytic and Probabilistic Generalizability
Researchers accustomed to think in terms of probability
theory find it difficult to understand how the results of
qualitative research can be generalized. Qualitative ap-
proaches rarely have random samples or even randomized
assignment to groups. The samples can be small. I have
published studies based on a sample size of 1 (Gilgun,
1999b) and a sample size of 2 (Gilgun & McLeod, 1999).
What can these minute samples tell us? The question can be
reformulated as, What can case studies tell us? This discus-
sion goes far beyond the scope of this article, but I refer the
interested reader to a published article (Gilgun, 1994) and
an article on the Internet (Gilgun, 1994) that discuss these
issues in detail. Yin (2002) and Stake (1995) have published
informative books on the subject. The unit of analysis of a
case study can be an individual, a family, a town, a school,
or any other institution. In general, case studies are useful
for studying a phenomenon in depth so as to develop a
comprehensive understanding and to identify key processes,
concepts, and hypotheses. What researchers learn from the
particularities of a case can be used for many different
purposes such as (a) feedback to the individuals, families, or
institutions studied; (b) part of an analytic strategy that
compares case study material with what research and theory
tell us, so as to enlarge understandings; and (c) as a source
of concepts and hypotheses that can be tested and imple-
mented in other settings for research purposes or practical
applications. Finally, case studies can provide the founda-
tion for theoretical analyses and theory development.
Generalizability has several different meanings, and only
one of them is probabilistic and dependent on random
samples. As Cronbach (1975) observed in his presidential
address to the American Psychological Association, all
findings, regardless of how they are derived, are working
hypotheses when applied to new settings. Some well-
established philosophies of science lead to detailed studies
of cases, such as work done on chaos and complexity
theory, genetics, astrophysics, and the work of early behav-
iorists. The usefulness of case study findings depends on
their analytic generalizability, meaning whether they shed
new light on phenomena of interest. In the social sciences,
the concern is whether the findings can make contributions
to theory, policies, programs, and interventions. As men-
tioned, researchers test the usefulness of case study findings
by testing their fit in new settings with new subjects. In
qualitative research, generalizability is not assumed, but
must be tested. The issue is whether findings are useful in
new settings.
Subjectivity
Qualitative research typically involves the immersion of
researchers in the field, which means that researchers seek
to understand persons and their cultures in great detail and
from many points of view (Gilgun, 1992a, 2001a, 2001b).
Geertz (1973) calls this “thick description.” To develop
thick descriptions requires that researchers make personal
2
I’ve developed other clinical instruments from qualitative data,
and they are available at http://ssw.che.umn.edu/Faculty_Profiles/
Gilgun_Jane/Gilgun_pubs.html
46 GILGUN

connections with those they research. Otherwise, informants
might not trust them enough to reveal details important to
understanding.
With few exceptions, the conduct of qualitative family
research involves highly personal and sometimes painful
topics that can evoke powerful emotions in researchers and
informants. In such evocative situations, researchers have
opportunities to explore deep meanings of the phenomena
of interest and thus develop new theories and understand-
ings that have rich and nuanced dimensions. At the same
time, researchers have a significant task in managing their
own emotions. Qualitative research on families can be re-
search that “breaks your heart” (Behar, 1996).
Researcher self-awareness is important in emotion-laden
situations. Academic integrity requires fair presentations of
informants’ experiences. Knowing the difference between
one’s own responses and the views of informants is central
to the interpretation of research material. Informants too
have emotional reactions to being part of a research project.
Especially when working in emotionally sensitive areas,
researchers are bound ethically to ensure that no harm
comes to participants.
Whereas informants—also known as subjects or research
participants—have the power to define researchers as well
as to choose what to withhold and to share, researchers have
the power to represent informants in research reports and
public presentations. Attention to issues such as how re-
searchers represent informants, how and whether research-
ers influence informants, and how to account for any such
influences improves the quality of the research.
How researchers perceive themselves in relationship to
informants is a topic worthy of serious consideration. For
example, in my research, I am a woman who talks to men
about their violence toward women. Do I have a point of
view on men who commit violence? Do I have a point of
view of myself as a member of a class of persons oppressed
by male violence? Certainly I do. How I manage these
issues greatly affects what the informants say to me. Can I
shape and manage my own reflexivity so that my represen-
tation of these men is balanced? There are no easy answers.
Subjectivity, then, provides many opportunities for the
development of rich and deep data, but subjective reactions
can also result in researchers’ losing their analytic stance.
As a result, we can fall back on stereotypes, biases, and
familiar ways of thinking that do not fit the phenomena we
want to understand. Group analysis of data helps researchers
to avoid or work themselves out of emotional reactions that
are disconnected from analytic thinking. Members of the
group have not been immersed in the field and thus are not
affected emotionally, as researchers may be. Also, as dis-
cussed earlier, members of the group have perspectives that
differ from researchers who have been in the field. Thus,
group members can help researchers engage in conjectures,
refutations, and reformulations. These strategies help qual-
itative researchers represent informants and their cultures in
ways that reflect the perspectives of informants more than
they reflect the biases of researchers. These are enduring
issues in social research, not only qualitative research.
Making Sense of the Hodgepodge of Terms
A significant by-product of learning how to do qualitative
studies is researchers’ increased appreciation of the philos-
ophies of science underlying their work. In the not so distant
past, students had little or no choice regarding which re-
search methods to learn and the philosophical assumptions
on which they were based (Gilgun, 1999d). The general
approach was based on measurement of observables and
quantification. Controlled experiments, often in laboratory
settings, became an ideal type of research, where internal
validity became more important than research and applica-
tions in real-world settings. Surveys and quantification also
took center stage. In general, the assumptions of researchers
and the quantification of variables took precedence over the
experiences and perceptions of research participants that
were articulated in words.
Somehow, this form of research acquired the label scien-
tific. Yet, doing science also involves subjectivities, reflex-
ivities, conjectures, refutations, and reformulations, as well
as strong conceptual skills, creativity, and capacities for
interpreting complex phenomena. In understanding human
lives, unobservables are as important as observables: Ac-
counts of experience and motivation, perceptions, and mem-
ories are examples.
Qualitative approaches have joined the postmodern turn
in social research, where social scientists moved toward
methodological pluralism and the recognition that human
experience can be viewed from many different perspectives
using many different methods (Gilgun, 1999d). Qualitative
research itself is pluralistic, with some researchers strongly
focused on issues of reliability, validity, and objectivity and
others seeking trustworthy representations of human expe-
rience. At the top of the agenda in many academic depart-
ments in North America and Europe are topics such as
chaos theory, critical race and queer theory, feminist re-
search, narrative research, critical theory, participatory ac-
tion research, and cultural studies among many others.
Much of the research within these areas is qualitative.
No one method can yield everything researchers want to
know about social phenomena, and no one researcher can be
an expert in all approaches to qualitative methods.3
Varia-
tions within types of qualitative research results from re-
searchers’ view on what counts as the focus of research
3
I, for example, place myself within the Chicago School of
Sociology tradition (Bulmer, 1984), which has multi-disciplinary
roots beyond sociology, including psychology, anthropology, so-
cial work, and philosophy. Deductive qualitative analysis, analytic
induction, and grounded theory are outgrowths of the Chicago
School. I also place myself within an emancipatory tradition; that
is, the long-range purpose of my research is to contribute to social
justice related to such categories as age, gender, race, social class,
and abilities. Thus, the guiding concept in my research on violence
is power—who uses it, how, and for what purposes. I have focused
primarily on men’s violence against women, children, and other
men. This work has led me to think deeply about my relationship
to the violent men I interview. Thus, I have had to become familiar
with a wide range of thought on the conduct of qualitative
research.

(ontologies); concerns about the well-being of research in-
formants and researchers themselves (ethics); the emphases
they place on credibility and validities of procedures and
findings (epistemologies); their rationales for procedures of
data collection, analysis, and representation (methodolo-
gies); and methods, or the procedures they follow.
A downside of this explosion of thought on the many
aspects of doing social research is the sheer number of terms
that interested persons encounter. I could fill pages with
them.4
I recommend that when researchers begin to do
qualitative studies, they assume they are steeped in positiv-
istic and post-positivistic philosophies of science. By re-
maining flexible and open in their thinking as well as
challenging their assumptions, they will gradually come to
appreciate the perspectives that qualitative approaches of-
fer. Simply being open to the experiences of informants can
lead researchers to new perspectives.
Furthermore, given time, effort, and study, this flock of
terms possibly could be rounded up and organized under
relatively few rubrics, such as post-positivism, social con-
structivism, and critical theory, three orientations to social
research, or paradigms of social research (Schwandt, 2000).
Qualitative research can be done within any one of these
frameworks or within all three in a single study. My final
thought about the hodgepodge of terms and the meanings
they represent is that, for researchers, linking philosophies
of science to research procedures is what is important.
Philosophical issues are important for their own sake, but
researchers have an urgent need to apply them in their work.
Discussion
Qualitative approaches have much to offer family psy-
chologists, including theory building and hypothesis testing,
rich descriptions of family phenomena, close analyses of
texts, and items for various types of measurement tools and
surveys. In addition, they may constitute an important com-
ponent of multimethod social research. Deductive qualita-
tive analysis in particular invites researchers trained in
logico-deductive methods to develop theory and to test
hypotheses. Issues related to what constitutes science give
some researchers pause about whether to do qualitative
research. Popper’s (1969) view that science consists of
conjectures and refutations counters views that mistake
quantification and distance from participants as science.
Skills required to do qualitative theory building and
model testing are (a) capacities to draw detailed descriptions
of phenomena of interest from respondents, from observa-
tions of settings, and from documents of various types; (b)
capacities for conceptual thinking, that is, the ability to
conceptualize social phenomena and identify them in data;
(c) capacities for flexible thinking, where researchers are
willing to challenge and undermine their own preconcep-
tions and favorite theories, some of which may be out of
their awareness; and (d) the discipline to answer questions
such as, How do my findings add to, modify, transform, or
undermine what is already known? For many researchers,
qualitative research is a way of thinking.
Increasingly, funding agencies encourage researchers to
conduct studies that combine qualitative and quantitative
research. For example, the document Qualitative Methods
in Health Research,5
provides guidance on proposal writing
that fulfills requirements of the U.S. National Institutes of
Health (NIH). Developed by a working group of 12 quali-
tative researchers who are recipients of NIH funding and/or
served as NIH reviewers, this document helps qualitative
researchers interpret the instructions in Public Health Ser-
vice Grant Application PHS 398, which is used for propos-
als submitted to NIH for funding (Gilgun, 2002).
In the long run, many forces lead to increased interest in
qualitative research methods. Books, journal articles, and
new journals devoted to qualitative research are appearing
at a growing rate. The first issue of the journal Qualitative
Research in Psychology was published in the United King-
dom in January 2004. No approach or sets of approaches
will resolve the many pressing issues with which family
psychologists contend. However, qualitative approaches can
add to the social science repertoire of research methods by
increasing capacities for constructing knowledge that has
promise of relevance to both application and theory
development.
4
The following is a short list of terms associated with qualita-
tive inquiry: grounded theory, phenomenology, ethnography, cul-
tural studies, semiotics, discourse analysis, conversation analysis,
analytic induction, social constructionism, constructivism, inter-
pretive phenomenology, feminist empiricism, deconstructionism,
postmodernism, post-structuralism, post-positivism, feminist stand-
pointism, feminist postmodernism, hermeneutics, critical theory,
reflexivity, participant observation, sensitizing concepts, praxis,
ethnomethodology, emancipation, constant comparative method,
negative case analysis, theoretical sampling, axial coding, open
coding, selective coding, dimensional analysis, cultural analysis,
hermeneutics, genealogy, methods, methodologies, ontologies,
ethics, epistemologies, narrative analysis, in vivo codes, human
sciences, relativism, pragmatism, verstehen, meaning-making, in-
duction, deduction, lived experience, and paradigm cases.
5
This document is available online at http://obssr.od.nih.gov/
Publications/Qualitative.PDF http://obssr.od.nih.gov/publications/
qualitative.pdf
References
Abrams, L. S. (2003). Contextual variations in young women’s
gender identity negotiations. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
27, 64–74.
Behar, R. (1996). The vulnerable observer: Anthropology that
breaks your heart. Boston: Beacon.
Benner, P. (Ed.) (1994). Interpretive phenomenology. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Booth, C. (1891). Labour and life of the people: London (Vols. 1
& 2). London: Williams & Norgate.
Bott, E. (1957). Family and social network. New York: Free Press.
Brendtro, L., Brokenleg, M., & Van Bockern, S. (1990). Reclaim-
ing youth at risk: Our hope for the future. Bloomington, IN:
National Educational Service.
Bulmer, M. (1984). The Chicago School of Sociology: Institution-
alization, diversity, and the rise of sociological research. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.
Campbell, D. T. (1979). “Degrees of freedom” and the case study.
48 GILGUN

In T. D. Cook & C. S. Reichardt (Eds.), Qualitative and quan-
titative methods in evaluation research (pp. 49–67). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and construc-
tivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Hand-
book of qualitative research (2nd ed.; pp. 509–535). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clarke, A. E. (2003). Situational analyses: Ground theory mapping
after the postmodern turn. Symbolic Interaction, 26, 553–576.
Cressey, D. (1953). Other people’s money. Belmont, CA: Wads-
worth.
Crist, J. D., & Tanner, C. A. (2003). Interpretation/analysis meth-
ods in hermeneutic interpretive phenomenology. Nursing Re-
search, 52, 202–205.
Cronbach, L. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific
psychology. American Psychologist, 30, 116–127.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of
qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
Frazier, E. F. (1932). The Negro family in Chicago. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of culture. New York: Basic
Books.
Gilgun, J. F. (1990). Factors mediating the effects of childhood
maltreatment. In M. Hunter (Ed.), The sexually abused male:
Prevalence, impact, and treatment (pp. 177–190). Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
Gilgun, J. F. (1991). Resilience and the intergenerational transmis-
sion of child sexual abuse. In M. Q. Patton (Ed.), Family sexual
abuse: Frontline research and evaluation (pp. 93–105). New-
bury Park, CA: Sage.
Gilgun, J. F. (1992a). Definitions, methodologies, and methods in
qualitative family research. In J. F. Gilgun, K. Daly, & G. Handel
(Eds.), Qualitative methods in family research (pp. 22–39). New-
bury Park, CA: Sage.
Gilgun, J. F. (1992b). Hypothesis generation in social work re-
search. Journal of Social Service Research, 15, 113–135.
Gilgun, J. F. (1994). A case for case studies in social work
research. Social Work, 39, 371–380.
Gilgun, J. F. (1995). We shared something special: The moral
discourse of incest perpetrators. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 57, 265–281.
Gilgun, J. F. (1996). Human development and adversity in eco-
logical perspective: Pt. 2. Three patterns. Families in Society, 77,
459–576.
Gilgun, J. F. (1999a). CASPARS: New tools for assessing client
risks and strengths. Families in Society, 80, 450–459. (Tools
available at http://ssw.che.umn.edu/Faculty_Profiles/
Gilgun_Jane/Gilgun_pubs.html).
Gilgun, J. F. (1999b). Fingernails painted red: A feminist, semiotic
analysis of “hot” text. Qualitative Inquiry, 5, 181–207.
Gilgun, J. F. (1999c). Mapping resilience as process among adults
maltreated in childhood. In H. I. McCubbin, E. A. Thompson,
A. I. Thompson, & J. A. Futrell (Eds.), The dynamics of resilient
families (pp. 41–70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gilgun, J. F. (1999d). Methodological pluralism and qualitative
family research. In S. K. Steinmetz, M. B. Sussman, & G. W.
Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (2nd ed.;
pp. 219–261). New York: Plenum Press.
Gilgun, J. F. (2001a, November). Case study research, analytic
induction, and theory development: The future and the past.
Paper presented at the 31st Preconference Workshop on Theory
Construction and Research Methodology at the annual National
Conference on Family Relations, Rochester, NY.
Gilgun, J. F. (2001b). Grounded theory, other inductive methods,
and social work methods. In B. Thyer (Ed.), Handbook of social
work research (pp. 345–364). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gilgun, J. F. (2002). Conjectures and refutations: Governmental
funding and qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 1,
359–375.
Gilgun, J. F. (2004a). Deductive qualitative analysis and family
theory-building. In V. Bengston, P. Dillworth Anderson, K.
Allen, A. Acock, & D. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory
and research (pp. 83–84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gilgun, J. F. (2004b). Qualitative methods and the development of
clinical assessment tools. Qualitative Health Research, 14,
1008–1019.
Gilgun, J. F. (2004c). A strengths-based approach to child and
family assessment. In D. R. Catheral (Ed.), Handbook of stress,
trauma and the family (pp. 307–324). New York: Bruner-
Routledge.
Gilgun, J. F. (in press). The 4-D: Strengths-based assessments for
youth who have experienced adversities. Journal of Human
Behavior in the Social Environment.
Gilgun, J. F., & Abrams, L. W. (in press). Gendered adaptations,
resilience, and the perpetration of violence. In M. Ungar (Ed.),
Pathways to resilience: A handbook of theory, methods, and
interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gilgun, J. F., & Brommel, S. (2004). Emotion display rules in the
accounts of violent men. Unpublished manuscript, University of
Minnesota, Twin Cities, School of Social Work.
Gilgun, J. F., & McLeod, L. (1999). Gendering violence. Studies in
Symbolic Interaction, 22, 167–193.
Gilgun, J. F., Keskinen, S. Marti, D. J., & Rice, K. (1999). Clinical
applications of the CASPARS instruments: Boys who act out
sexually. Families in Society, 80, 629–641.
Gilgun, J. F. Klein, C., & Pranis, K. (2000). The significance of
resources in models of risk. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
14, 627–646.
Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Soci-
ology Press.
Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence
vs. forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (l967). The discovery of grounded theory.
Chicago: Aldine.
Kellogg, P. U. (1914). The Pittsburgh Survey: Vol. I. The Pitts-
burgh district–civic frontage. New York: Survey Associates.
Kidd, S. A. (2002). The role of qualitative research in psycholog-
ical journals. Psychological Methods, 7, 126–138.
Lawrence-Lightfoot, S., & Davis, J. H. (1997). The art and science
of portraiture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lazarfeld, P. F. (1959). Problems in methodology. In R. K. Merton
et al. (Eds.), Sociology today (pp. 47–67). New York: Basic
Books.
Lenzenweger, M. F. (2004). Consideration of the challenges, com-
plications, and pitfalls of taxometric analysis. Journal of Abnor-
mal Psychology, 113, 10–23.
Leonard, V. W. (1994). A Heideggerian phenomenological per-
spective on the concept of person. In P. Benner (Ed.), Interpre-
tive phenomenology: Embodiment, caring, and ethics in health
and illness (pp. 43–63). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
LePlay, F. (1855). Les ouvriers europeéns [European workers].
Tours, France: Alfred Mame.
Lindesmith, A. R. (l947). Opiate addiction. Bloomington, IN:
Principia.
Martin, R. R. (1995). Oral history in social work: Research,
assessment, and intervention. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McMullen, L. U. (2002). Learning the language of research: Tran-

scending illiteracy and indifference. Canadian Psychology, 43,
195–204.
Nehls, N. (2000). Recovering: A process of empowerment. Ad-
vances in Nursing Science, 22(4), 62–70.
O’Neill, P. (2002). Tectonic change: The qualitative paradigm in
psychology. Canadian Psychology, 43, 190–194.
Popper, K. R. (1969). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of
scientiﬁc knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Rennie, D. L., Watson, K. D., & Monteiro, A. M. (2002). The rise
of qualitative research in psychology. Canadian Psychology, 43,
179–189.
Robinson, W. D., Prest, L. A., Susman, J. L., Rouse, J., &
Crabtree, B. F. (2001). Technician, friend, detective, and healer:
Family physicians’ responses to emotional distress. Journal of
Family Practice, 50, 864–870.
Schulman, N. (1993). Conditions of their own making: An intel-
lectual history of the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies
at the University of Birmingham. Canadian Journal of Commu-
nication, 18. Retrieved from http://cjc-online.ca
Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for quali-
tative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social construc-
tionism. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (2nd ed.; pp. 189–213). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Seccombe, K. (1999). “So you think I drive a Cadillac?” Welfare
recipients’ perspectives on the system and its reform. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Skinner, D., Bailey, D. B., Jr., Correa, V., & Rodriguez, P. (1999).
Narrating self and disability: Latino mothers’ construction of
identities vis-a`-vis their child with special needs. Exceptional
Children, 65, 481–495.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research:
Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Swanson, K. M. (1999). Research-based practice with women who
have had miscarriages. Image: The Journal of Nursing Scholar-
ship, 31, 339–345.
Yin, R. K. (2002). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Znaniecki, F. (l934). The method of sociology. New York: Farrar
& Rinehart.
Received January 22, 2004
Revision received August 1, 2004
Accepted September 29, 2004 Ⅲ
50 GILGUN

Qualitative Research and Family Psychology by Jane F. Gilgun

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Qualitative Research and Family Psychology by Jane F. Gilgun

Similar to Qualitative Research and Family Psychology by Jane F. Gilgun (20)

More from Jim Bloyd

More from Jim Bloyd (12)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Qualitative Research and Family Psychology by Jane F. Gilgun