This is a chapter excerpt from Guilford Publications.

Research Methods in Family Therapy, Second Edition, Edited by Douglas H. Sprenkle and Fred P. Piercy
Copyright © 2005

CHAPTER 1

Pluralism, Diversity, and Sophistication

in Family Therapy Research

DOUGLAS H. SPRENKLE

FRED P. PIERCY

One of our main hopes in editing the second edition of Research Methods in Family
Therapy is to enhance the status of research in the field, while also making the science
of marriage and family therapy (MFT) more accessible to clinicians and students. Over
the course of its history, the field of MFT has had an ambivalent relationship with re­
search. On the one hand, the early family therapy pioneers considered themselves to be
“researchers,” and both Wynne (1983) and Haley (1978) claimed that in the early
days there was no distinction between therapists and researchers. Such notables as
Lyman Wynne, Murray Bowen, Theodore Litz, Gregory Bateson, Don Jackson, Jay
Haley, and others came to family therapy though studying interactional patterns asso­
ciated with problem families (Broderick & Schrader, 1981; Sprenkle & Moon, 1996).
As the field has developed, it has always had an active (if small) research tradition—
and, based on a thorough review of outcome research in the field (Sprenkle, 2002),
one could make a case for the claim that some of the effectiveness research in MFT is
among the most impressive in the clinical social sciences.
On the other hand, one can also make a case that although MFT is now more
than 60 years old, the growth of the field has depended more on its intuitive appeal
than on solid research evidence for its efficacy (Nichols & Schwartz, 1995). One ex­
planation may be that the field’s leaders were often highly charismatic individuals who
were less interested in authenticating their claims than in building a following. An­
other explanation may be that the master’s degree was established early (1970) as the
minimal entry point into the field, and most master’s-degree programs (with notable
exceptions) have not offered rigorous research training. As the field grew, it also
seemed to attract predominantly practically oriented clinicians who had neither the
time nor the inclination for the laborious research enterprise. One study noted that
over 80% of the members of the American Association for Marriage and Family
Therapy (AAMFT) work in settings that can be considered predominantly clinical
(Sprenkle, Bailey, Lyness, Ball, & Mills, 1997).

3
4 I. INTRODUCTION

The result has been a research–practice gap, which, although it plagues all clinical
fields, may be particularly prevalent in MFT:

The culture [of MFT] does not support research. Ours remains a field where it is still possi­
ble for a highly charismatic individual to create a model of family therapy, become success­
ful on the workshop circuit, and get lucrative book contracts to promulgate the model
without offering evidence for its efficacy beyond personal testimonies. In many ways, rock-
star status is accorded the clinical model developers and the “master therapists.” Re­
searchers, when contrasted with the “stars,” are best warm-up acts, and at worst bit play­
ers. (Crane, Wampler, Sprenkle, Sandberg, & Hovestadt, 2002, p. 76)

Sprenkle (2003) has also argued that researchers have contributed to this chasm.
They too often disdain clinicians or fail to heed the wisdom of good clinicians (cf.
Piercy et al., in press). Furthermore, they often do not work very hard at making their
work accessible to clinicians. The first deleterious consequence of this researcher–
clinician gap is that research often gets dismissed as irrelevant, incomprehensible, or
both. Consequently, research does not inform practice, and thus clinicians do not re­
fine their practice. They keep doing what they’ve been doing. Second, the gap perpetu­
ates a false dichotomy between clinical judgment and the scientific method—when, in
fact, these are two overlapping ways of knowing, both to be valued and both to be
questioned. The primary benefit of the science of therapy is that it forces us to use cer­
tain rules of evidence when making assertions about effectiveness. Although science is
sometimes wrong (as is clinical wisdom), the strength of the scientific method is that it
is more readily correctable. Third, the researcher–clinician gap challenges the status of
MFT as an ethical profession. If we are sworn to advance the welfare of clients, how
can we do so if we have insufficient evidence regarding which of our interventions are
effective? Fourth, the gap diminishes the credibility of the profession to outside stake­
holders such as policymakers and health care providers, who increasingly demand
evidence-based claims. Fifth, the gap has contributed to the “outsourcing” of MFT re­
search to those whose primary professional identity is something other than MFT
(Sprenkle, 2003). We should be grateful to the psychologists and psychiatrists who
have done the majority of MFT research, but as Crane and colleagues (2002) have put
it,

We have to take responsibility for setting the research agenda and training the requisite
MFT researchers and stop depending on other disciplines to do it for us. . . . No one else
will do research on MFT training. No one else will do research on matters that are
uniquely important to [MFT practitioners]. (p. 78)

One of the major goals of the current volume, then, is to contribute to narrowing
the divide between researchers and clinicians. Although the book is about research, we
insisted that the chapter authors expend considerable effort demonstrating how the
methods they describe are connected to the world of practice. While we think it un­
likely that too many people will be able to lead professional lives where they are
equally focused on the domains of research and practice, we hope at the very least that
researchers and clinicians will each develop a mutual respect and appreciation for
what the other group has to offer. Given the focus of the book, we especially hope that
readers will come to value the varied, creative, and important ways in which research­
 1. Pluralism, Diversity, and Sophistication 5

ers are trying to shed light on the therapeutic enterprise, and that many readers will be
moved to choose “researcher” as at least one of their professional titles.

MEGATRENDS IN FAMILY THERAPY RESEARCH

In the opening chapter of the first edition of this book (Sprenkle & Moon, 1996), the
editors identified four major trends in the history of family therapy research. In the
first phase, the founders of the field, as noted above, were “researcher-clinicians” who
focused on the impact of therapeutic interventions on clients and their families. They
frequently reviewed audiotapes of their sessions, observed each other through one-way
mirrors, and spent many hours discussing sessions and formulating hypotheses. Be­
cause hypotheses were developed, tested, altered, and retested in practice settings, re­
search had direct clinical relevance (Sprenkle & Bischoff, 1995; Sprenkle & Moon,
1996; Wynne, 1983). However, what was then considered research would not be con­
sidered very rigorous by today’s standards. Indeed, it might be labeled “soft” qualita­
tive research, since it was impressionistic and there was not much effort to control for
researcher bias.
In the second phase, the field moved from these impressionistic beginnings and
started to emphasize quantitative and experimental research (Sprenkle & Bischoff,
1995). Family therapists began to operationalize some of their “fuzzy” concepts and
were challenged to develop reliable and valid measures. There was a push toward out­
come research to give credibility to this fledgling discipline. Some early studies com­
pared family treatments to conventional treatments (often inpatient or individu­
ally oriented treatments) and found the family treatments to be superior to the
conventional treatments on such important variables as recidivism (e.g., Langsley,
Flomenhaft, & Machotka, 1969). Other outcome studies (e.g., Minuchin et al., 1975)
applied a specific model of family treatment (in this case, structural family therapy) to
a specific problem area (in this case, anorexia nervosa), and found the model to pro­
duce dramatic results. Even though the Minuchin and colleagues (1975) study had a
major methodological limitation (no control group), the percentage of patients im­
proving was dramatic and made the rest of the clinical world take notice.
At the same time, another group of early researchers pursued largely quantitative
process research, which focused less on therapy outcomes and more on the processes
occurring within therapy that contribute to the ultimate outcome (see Pinsof, 1981, for
a summary of this early process research). This work would foreshadow the current
emphasis on research that focuses on how and why change takes place, as opposed to
just demonstrating that therapy “works” (see Bradley & Johnson, Chapter 14, this
volume).
The third major trend was the qualitative revolution and the growing acceptance
of methodologies that did not employ numbers (Moon, Dillon, & Sprenkle, 1990;
Sprenkle & Bischoff, 1995). This movement grew out of powerful intellectual chal­
lenges to positivism (Anderson, 1990; Gergen, 1991) and the belief that quantitative
research was often too “reductionistic” and linear. For example, Karl Tomm (1983)
argued that attempts to operationalize circular and systemic concepts typically “kill
the beast in an effort to understand him” (p. 39). Furthermore, qualitative researchers
argued that family therapy had made its quantitative leap too soon and that concepts
6 I. INTRODUCTION

were operationalized before they were truly and deeply understood. They called for
more attention to the context of “discovery,” as opposed to the context of verification,
and for descriptive research that would record in more detail the subtleties and com­
plexities of therapy (Atkinson, Heath, & Chenail, 1991). Although these arguments
were challenged by quantitative researchers (see Cavell & Snyder, 1991; Gurman,
1983), qualitative research has grown to become more acceptable and influential to­
day.
The fourth major trend has been pluralism—a growing acceptance of a wide vari­
ety of research methods, both quantitative and qualitative. We, the current editors,
welcome this trend. We live in a diverse country where political name calling and deri­
sion sometimes win out over respectful debate, tolerance, and civility. This can happen
in the world of MFT research as well. We support a collaborative, learn-from-each­
other stance toward MFT research methods, and have attempted to provide a sense of
the richness and potential of our field’s expanding methods in this edition of Research
Methods in Family Therapy.
There are advantages, for example, in family therapy researchers’ using both qual­
itative and quantitative methods, alone or in combination. As Acock, van Dulmen, Al­
len, and Piercy (2005) state, “Whether one uses numbers, narrative, poetry, drama, or
photos as data, each points to a better understanding (or multiple understandings) of
some phenomenon.” In other words, multiple methods add to family therapy research­
ers’ ability to capture and reflect change.
We believe that there is less tension today between quantitative and qualitative re­
searchers. Both groups recognize that different research questions require different
methods, and that different methods in turn give rise to different kinds of questions.
For example, it is becoming increasingly common today for qualitative investigations
to be embedded in the most rigorous quantitative clinical trials. Also, not only do
qualitative insights often have clinical relevance in their own right, but they provide a
richness that generates important research questions for quantitative investigation.
The fifth trend, which we believe is highlighted in the present volume, is the grow­
ing sophistication and multiplicity of family therapy methods. We discuss this trend in
detail in the next section of this chapter, focusing on qualitative and quantitative (and
mixed) methods separately.

SOPHISTICATION AND MULTIPLICITY

Qualitative Research
No longer can qualitative research be spoken of as one monolithic set of assumptions
and methods (if it ever could). Today, qualitative research is evolving in many direc­
tions. For example, there are increasingly sophisticated, rigorous procedures mirroring
quantitative methods that some qualitative researchers use to reflect participants’ ex­
periences. Many qualitative researchers, for example, use member checks, triangula­
tion, persistent observation, audit trails, peer review, negative case analysis, and care­
ful inductive analysis, to give their work credibility and trustworthiness.
Other evolving methods of qualitative research emphasize different goals, and
should be judged by the degree to which they achieve these goals. For example, de­
pending on their theoretical orientation, some qualitative researchers are interested in
one or more of the following questions (Piercy & Benson, 2005):
 1. Pluralism, Diversity, and Sophistication 7

• Is the research catalytic, liberating, transformative? Does it empower?

• Does the research bring findings to life? Is it evocative? Does it have a personal
impact on the reader?
• Does the researcher locate him- or herself in the process of the research, and ap­
ply reflexivity to understand and interpret the data?
• Does the research have aesthetic merit? Does it employ the standards of good
writing, art, or drama?
• Are important issues addressed? Is the research worth doing?
• Does the research have verisimilitude (the appearance of being true or real)?
• Does the research invite multiple interpretations? Does it involve the reader in
the meaning-making process?

One could argue, of course, that most if not all of these questions should be ap­
plied to quantitative methods as well. Still, certain qualitative methods have focused
primarily on one or more of these questions. Thus Patton (2002) contends that criteria
for judging qualitative research flow directly from the theory and purposes of the re­
search. For example, according to Piercy and Benson (2005),

qualitative researchers who hold to a more realistic theoretical orientation (i.e., reality can
be captured) detail elaborate methods for assuring the reliability and validity of their data
(e.g., triangulation, audit trails, member checks, etc.). Social constructionist researchers, on
the other hand, are more interested in interpretive methods and in assuring that their inter­
pretations are credible and trustworthy. Critical theorists such as feminist family therapy
researchers use research methods to critique society, raise consciousness, and bring about
change. Qualitative researchers committed to the use of art, music, creative writing, and
performance value affective as well as intellectual knowing. (p. 10)

Of course, distinctions such as these are not always this clear. For example, there
is nothing to keep a feminist family therapy researcher from using aesthetic methods
such as poetry, or more traditional qualitative procedures such as member checks. We
embrace such complexity. After all, families are complex, and we need both qualitative
and quantitative methods that capture this complexity.
In this second edition of Research Methods in Family Therapy, we have attempted
to include a sampling of many evolving qualitative methods, and to underline the theo­
retical underpinnings, methodological procedures, and evaluation standards of each.

Quantitative Research
Quantitative research has burgeoned to the point where it was not possible to include
all of the methods we would like to have seen represented in this volume. In order to
include some new material, and to keep the book the same length, we had to make the
painful decision to omit some of the topics covered in the first edition, even though
these chapters remain valuable and worth reading. Some chapters were eliminated be­
cause they were redundant with new ones (Bischoff, McKeel, Moon, & Sprenkle,
1996; Greenberg, Heatherington, & Friedlander, 1996; Volk & Flori, 1996). Others,
such as “Methods for Single-Case Experiments in Family Therapy” (Dickey, 1996),
were eliminated because they described methods that are rarely used in family therapy
research. Still others, such as “Methodological Issues and Strategies in Scale Develop­
8 I. INTRODUCTION

ment” (Snyder & Rice, 1996), were omitted only because the principles of scale devel­
opment are not unique to intervention research and can be found in various books on
methodology (see Nelson & Allred, Chapter 12, this volume, for references). An up­
dated chapter on this theme would clearly have been included if space were not a pre­
mium.
Virtually all forms of quantitative analysis appearing in leading social science
journals are now being applied to family therapy research. This volume covers family
therapy applications of such advanced techniques as canonical correlations, multiple-
discriminant-function analysis, cluster analysis, multilevel growth modeling (some­
times called “hierarchical linear modeling” or other names), and various forms of
covariance structure analysis (including path analysis and structural equation model­
ing). Some of the sophisticated software necessary to utilize these procedures is also
noted or described. Since the first edition of this book, there have been major advances
in the complexity and sophistication of procedures related to such methods as eco­
nomic evaluation and meta-analysis. The quality and sophistication of clinical trials
using family therapy approaches has improved to the point where research on family
approaches to adolescent substance abuse, conduct disorder, major mental illnesses,
and adult alcoholism ranks with the best clinical research in any discipline (Sprenkle,
2002). If it ever were the case, it will no longer be possible for a single individual to be­
come competent in all forms of family therapy research, and it will become increas­
ingly challenging to teach family therapy research courses.

GOALS AND PURPOSES OF THIS VOLUME

The goals of this second edition are similar to those of the first edition, except that a
major purpose of the current volume is to offer a state-of-the-art description of re­
search methods almost a decade later. In later sections, we note the specific chapters
that have been updated or replaced.
As in the previous edition, we remain interested in promoting methodological plu­
ralism and demonstrating the advantages of being multimethodological. We also hope
that the reader will broaden his or her understanding of what constitutes “research.”
Although white coats and number crunching may be aspects of the stereotypical vision
of research, this volume continues to offer a veritable smorgasbord of legitimate, rigor­
ous research options that may not fit the reader’s preconceptions. As noted above, we
also hope to add a few planks across the chasm that divides researchers and clinicians.
Finally, we hope that the reader will learn a lot about each of the methods described.
Each chapter is designed to be a complete introduction to a particular method, and
most of the chapters are structured similarly. They begin with a description of the as­
sumptions and the historical development of the method, and also detail the types of
questions typically addressed. Then the authors provide information on the data col­
lection and analysis procedures. The chapters conclude with a discussion of the kinds
of skills needed to use the method, the strengths and weaknesses of the approach, and
thoughts regarding how the method can be used to bridge research and practice.
The guidelines for chapter authors are reproduced in Table 1.1. We gave authors
the freedom to deviate somewhat from the outline when a chapter’s topic was less
amenable to this structure. We also encouraged the authors to address issues of style as
well as substance, in order to make most of the chapters accessible to persons with
 1. Pluralism, Diversity, and Sophistication 9

TABLE 1.1. Guidelines for Authors

In the guidelines below, we indicate suggestions for developing the chapters. While authors should feel
free to diverge from these guidelines somewhat, their purpose is to help create a consistent, coherent
volume.

I. BACKGROUND
A. Creative Introduction
Provide a creative introduction to your chapter that will “hook” the reader into wanting to
know more. Make your introduction concrete and accessible to clinicians who have little formal
training in research.
B. Philosophical Assumptions
What assumptions underlie the methodology? How do these assumptions shape the research? Be
brief here. Just hit the highlights.
C. Historical Roots and Development
How did the methodology develop both within and without the field of family therapy?

II. METHODOLOGY

In this section, we would like each author to weave at least one concrete example of the method

into the abstract description. Whenever possible, this example should be from the author’s own

work. If currently there are no good examples of the methodology in the family therapy research

literature or the author’s own research efforts, the author should invent a research example to

weave into the description.

A. Research Questions

What family therapy research questions does this methodology answer?

B. Sampling and Selection Procedures

What is important to consider in selecting participants for family therapy studies conducted
with this methodology? How is selection accomplished?
C. Data Collection Procedures
What data collection procedures do researchers usually use? What factors are important to
consider in collecting the data? How do researchers assess systemic variables? How are the data
recorded and stored?
D. Data Analysis Procedures
What methods do researchers use to analyze the data? Give concrete examples in nontechnical
language.
E. Reporting
How do researchers report the findings? What does a typical research report look like? Where
might it be likely to be published?

III. DISCUSSION
A. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Methodology
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the methodology when applied to family therapy
research?
B. Reliability and Validity
Discuss the relevance of the concepts of reliability and validity to your tradition/method. Are
reliability and validity addressed by the tradition/method? If so, how? If not, why not?
C. Skills
What special skills are needed to plan, execute, and interpret this kind of research? What are
the implications for training clinicians? Researchers?
D. Bridging Research and Practice
In what ways might this methodology contribute to bridging the research and practice
communities? How might clinicians best become involved in the methodology? How might the
results be made more accessible to clinicians?
E. Future Directions

What future directions would you suggest for this methodology in our field?

F. Exemplars
List in American Psychological Association style up to five articles that can serve as models for
the use of your method in family therapy research.
10 I. INTRODUCTION

modest research training. In addition, we asked them to provide concrete examples of

the methods, as opposed to presenting abstract accounts. An added feature of the
guidelines for this edition was that we asked authors to list several published exem­
plars, so that interested readers could read excellent examples of studies employing the
methods.

A SPECIAL CHAPTER FOR GRADUATE STUDENTS

As in the first edition of this book (Dickey, 1996), we have included a special chapter
for graduate students. Research is a new topic for many graduate students. In Chapter
2, “A Graduate Student Guide to Conducting Research in Marriage and Family Ther­
apy,” Lenore M. McWey, Ebony Joy James, and Sara A. Smock provide a useful in­
sider’s guide for graduate students who are just becoming acquainted with the family
therapy research process. Their chapter includes advice “from inception to defense” on
such topics as authorship credit; seeking institutional review board approval; and is­
sues related to selecting research questions, methodology, sampling, data collection,
and analysis. The advice comes from the authors themselves, as well as from research­
ers across the country, who responded to questions that McWey and her colleagues
posted on a listserv sponsored by the AAMFT. There is a lot of wisdom in this chapter.
It should be a useful resource to orient new students to many of the issues and expecta­
tions they will face in their graduate research training.

QUALITATIVE METHODS IN THIS VOLUME

Qualitative Methods Updated from the First Edition
Several of the chapters on qualitative methods have been updated from the first edi­
tion. For example, Silvia Echevarria-Doan and Carolyn Y. Tubbs have updated the
previous chapter on grounded theory in the current Chapter 3, “Let’s Get Grounded:
Family Therapy Research and Grounded Theory.” In the chapter, they discuss some of
the more recent debates concerning “objectivist” traditional views of grounded theory
in contrast to developing “constructivist” views. (In line with our own thesis, they
make the case that there is a place for both views in the field of family therapy re­
search.) Similarly, they expand on the strengths and weaknesses of grounded theory
methodology, ways in which grounded theory bridges research and practice, and pos­
sible future directions of grounded theory methodology in family therapy research.
Finally, the authors discuss a recent study examining client strengths and resources, to
illustrate how the family therapy researcher might apply grounded theory data analysis
and reporting.
Similarly, in “The Use of Phenomenology for Family Therapy Research: The
Search for Meaning” (Chapter 4), Carla M. Dahl and Pauline Boss elaborate both his­
torically and in terms of present applications. Historically, they explain that their as­
sumptions about phenomenology are less connected to the transcendental models of
Husserl and Heidegger (himself a Nazi), and more to the models of these men’s stu­
dents and successors, who “survived Nazism but were not sullied by it.” Their inter­
pretive phenomenology is one that appreciates perceived and socially constructed
knowledge. They describe well what phenomenology is and is not, and have added a
 1. Pluralism, Diversity, and Sophistication 11

fascinating section on ethics that addresses some of the sticky issues involved in study­
ing personal experiences.
In Chapter 5, “Focus Groups in Family Therapy Research,” Fred P. Piercy and
Katherine M. Hertlein expand on the previous edition’s focus group chapter by adding
relevant current literature (the use of focus groups in academic journals has increased
threefold in recent years) and attending to relevant ethical issues related to group inter­
viewing. Focus group research, initially developed to tap the thinking of consumers, is
a flexible qualitative method that family therapists can use for a wide range of pur­
poses, including needs assessment, intervention material development, marketing, pro­
gram design, strategic planning, and formative and summative evaluation. Although
focus groups and family therapy are clearly different processes, many family thera­
pists, by virtue of their work, already possess some of the requisite skills of focus
group facilitation (e.g., comfort with group interaction, the ability to invite discus­
sion).

Emphasizing Participation, Action, and Change: Action Research

The “gold standard” for some qualitative methods is the degree to which they em­
power participants to address problems and change oppressive systems. In action re­
search, the researcher values collaboration and applying indigenous knowledge over
strict experimental controls. In Chapter 6, “Action Research Methods in Family Ther­
apy,” Tai J. Mendenhall and William J. Doherty not only describe the theory and
practice of action research methods, but provide plenty of excellent examples. They
highlight the power of collaborative partnerships with community participants to gen­
erate useful knowledge and to solve local problems. Rather than the traditional goal of
research (i.e., bringing incremental understanding to a problem that might eventually
benefit a larger population), action research emphasizes the importance of understand­
ing that can be applied to real problems here and now.

More Sophisticated Ways to Manage Data: Computer-Aided

Qualitative Data Analysis Software
As anyone who has conducted qualitative research knows, qualitative methods can
generate a mountain of data. In Chapter 7, “Computer-Aided Qualitative Data Analy­
sis Software: General Issues for Family Therapy Researchers,” Jennifer L. Matheson
reviews the strengths and limitations of current computer-aided qualitative data analy­
sis software (CAQDAS). She discusses how CAQDAS can help qualitative family ther­
apy researchers manage their data before, during, and after their analyses. According
to Matheson, qualitative software is no panacea. At the same time, technology has ad­
vanced to the point where analysis software is becoming more user-friendly, accessible,
and robust; it provides a means for the qualitative researcher to manipulate words,
film clips, audio interviews, photographs, client-generated art, and more.
The increased use of CAQDAS flies in the face of some people’s view of quali­
tative research as necessarily less technologically sophisticated than traditional quan­
titative research methods. As qualitative analysis procedures become more refined,
and as CAQDAS provides a technological means of managing large amounts of
data, it will be difficult to pigeonhole all qualitative researchers as “low-tech” in
their methods.
12 I. INTRODUCTION

Applying Findings: Translation Research

Carolyn Y. Tubbs and Linda M. Burton describe how researchers can extend the findings
of their research to the general public in Chapter 8, “Bridging Research: Using Ethnogra­
phy to Inform Clinical Practice.” Specifically, they discuss “translation research,” in
which a researcher takes the essential features of effective evidence based practices and
applies them to nonresearch settings. Tubbs and Burton illustrate the iterative process of
translation research by describing how findings from a large, multisite ethnographic
study generated cultural insights that helped them refine a parent management training
model. Their chapter not only represents the logical application of qualitative research
findings, but is a good example of how qualitative and quantitative findings can enrich
each other, and consequently the lives of those we serve.

Research that Emphasizes Reflexivity, Critical Theory,

and Aesthetic Methods of Data Representation
In this edition, we have also included qualitative methods that grow out of both criti­
cal and postmodern theory, and that focus on evolving standards of reflexivity and
evocative impact. For example, Katherine R. Allen and Fred P. Piercy’s chapter, “Fem­
inist Autoethnography” (Chapter 9), applies both a critical and a reflexive stance to
understanding and addressing oppression in human relationships. A feminist lens helps
the researcher identify inequities and the larger systems that maintain them. A more
personal, autoethnographic lens allows the researcher to go back and forth between
inner vulnerable experience and outward social, historical, and cultural aspects of life,
searching for deeper connections and understanding. The combination of feminism
and autoethnography, according to the authors, offers a more fully human method of
inquiry. Allen, in her own sharing, demonstrates the power of this method to “touch
the soul.”
Similarly, in Chapter 10 (“Performance Methodology: Constructing Discourses
and Discursive Practices in Family Therapy Research”), Saliha Bava describes perfor­
mance methodologies and alternative forms of data representations (poetry, split dia­
logues, hypertext, interpretive writing, collages) that blur the boundaries among aca­
demic writing, literature, and art. These methods extend interpretive qualitative
research to include an evocative process of performance, community meaning making,
and shared generative inquiry. And, like Allen and Piercy, Bava “walks the walk.” Her
chapter is itself an example of a performance in discourse construction and discursive
practices in research.
Allen, Piercy, and Bava all push the boundaries of traditional research, both quali­
tative and quantitative. Some will say that what they present is not research. Our view
is that there are many ways to understand a phenomenon, and that performance and
reflexive autoethnography have something to offer our field. According to Bava, “to
diverge is to create,” and although autoethnography and performance may not meet
the traditional standards of research, they do (when well done) meet the evolving stan­
dards involving reflexivity, aesthetics, and evocative power that we mention above.

What Directions Will Qualitative Methods Take?

In Chapter 11, “Future Directions for Qualitative Methods,” Ronald J. Chenail re­
flects on what he calls the scientific, artistic, and participatory styles of qualitative re­
 1. Pluralism, Diversity, and Sophistication 13

search, and possible future directions for each. His chapter serves to introduce the
reader to the increased use of the Internet and other emerging methods, such as
autoethnography, portraiture, recursive frame analysis, the Zaltman Metaphor Elicita­
tion Technique, metasynthesis, appreciative inquiry, and narrative inquiry. In doing
so, Chenail invites us to consider new ways to think about qualitative research.
Similarly, we hope that our collection invites the reader to view qualitative re­
search as a rainbow of evolving methods, many with varying goals and specifications.
With these new methods come new ways to conceptualize and carry out family ther­
apy research.

MIXED METHODS IN THIS VOLUME

The methods described in Part III of this book are neither inherently qualitative nor
quantitative. Mixed methods often incorporate dimensions of both approaches, and
allow the researcher to capitalize on the synergistic interplay between quantitative and
qualitative approaches. Of course, more “pure” qualitative and quantitative methods
can also be combined within the same study, so the mixed methods are not the only
way to achieve this synergy.

Survey Research
In Chapter 12, Thorana S. Nelson and David D. Allred present a revision of the first
edition’s chapter on “Survey Research in Marriage and Family Therapy.” They define
survey research as a “method of collecting data from or about a group of people and
asking questions in some fashion about things of interest to the researcher for the pur­
pose of generalizing to a population represented by the group or sample” (p. 211). The
data the researcher seeks can be qualitative or quantitative, and this choice has a con­
siderable influence on the kinds of sampling used, the nature of the questions asked,
and the ways data are analyzed and reported. There is considerable new material in
this chapter, including detailed attention to use of the Internet in survey research.
The most clear-cut mixed method is probably the one described by Linda Stone
Fish and Dean M. Busby in Chapter 13, “The Delphi Method.” In every case we
have seen in the family therapy literature, this method has combined a qualitative
analysis of a panel of experts’ responses to a series of open-ended questions with a
quantitative analysis of the same panel’s responses to the researcher’s summary of
the open-ended responses. The Delphi methodology enables the researcher to formu­
late a consensus about an issue in the field without the expense of bringing experts
together physically; it has the added advantages of confidentiality and freedom from
peer pressure or the undue influence of outspoken panel members. The authors note
a number of new studies utilizing this method, which has become popular with stu­
dents because it does not demand large samples, advanced statistical expertise, or
vast financial resources.

Intensive Research
There are several approaches that focus on intensive examination of individual units of
analysis, and they may use both qualitative and quantitative methods of data collec­
tion and data analysis. The first edition included chapters on “Case Study Research”
14 I. INTRODUCTION

(Moon & Trepper, 1996) and “Methods for Single-Case Experiments in Family Ther­
apy” (Dickey, 1996).
In this second edition, Chapter 14 by Brent Bradley and Susan M. Johnson covers
“Task Analysis of Couple and Family Change Events.” Task analysis is a method for
intensive study of therapist and client behaviors that lead to change in therapy. Al­
though outcome research is important, this form of process research will probably be­
come increasingly significant, since it addresses the very practical question of what
specifically is helpful or unhelpful in therapy. Bradley and Johnson carefully examine
the key tasks and steps of two important events in emotionally focused therapy—
blamer softening and the resolution of attachment injuries. We expect that this chapter
may be a favorite among clinicians, since the results give some clear direction regard­
ing what to do (or not to do) within sessions.

Program Evaluation
In this age of accountability, family therapists must be able to identify clear interven­
tion goals and to evaluate whether or not they have reached these goals. The field of
program evaluation science can help. In Chapter 15, “Program Evaluation Science and
Family Therapy,” Jay A. Mancini, Angela J. Huebner, Eric E. McCollum, and Lydia I.
Marek introduce family therapy researchers to program evaluation and its possible ap­
plications to family intervention programs. They provide two examples of intervention
programs and then illustrate how to evaluate them systematically. They suggest the use
of a logic model that links needs identification and analysis, desired results, measur­
able indicators, activities, monitoring, and resources. Their suggestions should be help­
ful to family therapists wishing to evaluate an intervention program.

QUANTITATIVE METHODS IN THIS VOLUME

Experimental Research
The chapter in the first edition on experimental research has been rewritten as “Clini­
cal Trials in Marriage and Family Therapy Research” (Chapter 16), by Kevin P.
Lyness, Stephanie R. Walsh, and Douglas H. Sprenkle. Clinical trials use the basic ex­
perimental paradigm, which calls for a clear manipulation of an independent or treat­
ment variable, the random assignment of subjects to experimental and control groups,
and careful attention to keeping the experimental and control groups similar in all
ways other than on the treatment variables. The chapter talks about the stages of clini­
cal trials, makes important distinctions (e.g., the difference between efficacy research
and effectiveness research), and emphasizes the importance of making the interven­
tions transportable to real-world settings. Although randomized clinical trials have
been criticized, they have also become the “gold standard” for wider audiences such as
the government and health care providers, and the field of MFT will probably be
judged by its success or failure with this method.
In Chapter 17, “Meta-Analysis in Family Therapy Research,” Karen S. Wampler,
Alan Reifman, and Julianne M. Serovich note that meta-analysis is an empirical
method for summarizing different quantitative research investigations. It also has
many advantages over the traditional narrative review of the literature based on statis­
tical significance. The researcher uses a common metric, known as an “effect size,” to
 1. Pluralism, Diversity, and Sophistication 15

examine standard increments of change across a number of studies. Although it is not

limited to experimental research, meta-analysis has been used most often in family
therapy to summarize the effectiveness of interventions when grouped by such catego­
ries as model of therapy. In this revised chapter, the authors report on the proliferation
of studies using this technique in the past decade, and note exciting new developments
in this evolving method. Although the method is not without its critics, it has gained
acceptance as one of the most useful methods for establishing treatment efficacy.
Another chapter on a method that is not limited to experimental research—
Chapter 20, “Multilevel Growth Modeling in the Context of Family Research”—
deserves mention here (see “Advanced Quantitative Methods in This Volume,” be­
low). Researchers can incorporate this advanced technique into clinical trial research
to determine family members’ trajectories of change, and to help ascertain why some
members get better and some get worse.

Economic Evaluation Methodology

In Chapter 18, “Economic Evaluation Methodology for Family Therapy Outcome Re­
search,” David P. Mackinnon makes a strong case for the need to demonstrate the eco­
nomic benefit as well as the effectiveness of treatments. In this extensive revision, he
shows how cost-effectiveness research (the term that was used in the title of the chap­
ter in the first edition) is only one aspect of a full economic evaluation of treatment.
The new chapter also presents a more sophisticated methodology that is tailor-made
for the target audience of the economic evaluation. In addition, the chapter shows the
extent to which economic evaluations have been applied to many more family therapy
studies in the past decade, even though the method is still underutilized. We support
Mackinnon’s belief that a major benefit of family therapy may be its economic advan­
tages over other modalities.

Relational/Predictive Research
Relational/predictive research describes the relationships between/among variables
and/or ways to predict variables from the knowledge of other variables. Analytical
techniques used range from simple correlation and regression to such complex proce­
dures as structural equation modeling.
In Chapter 19, “Approaches to Prediction: Correlation, Regression, and Classifi­
cation Techniques,” Douglas K. Snyder and Laurel F. Mangrum describe the use of
correlation and related techniques to examine factors that contribute to marital stress
and couples’ responses to marital therapy. The presentation of methodology is divided
into two major sections. The first, “Basic Techniques,” describes correlation, regres­
sion, partial and semipartial correlations, and multiple regression. The second section,
“Advanced Techniques,” introduces the reader to canonical-correlation analysis,
multiple-discriminant-function analysis, and (new to this revision) cluster analysis. The
authors have also updated their citations of literature and have included references to
new software packages.
Although included in the special section (Part V) on “Advanced Quantitative
Methods” (see below), Chapter 21 on “Covariance Structure Analysis: From Path
Analysis to Structural Equation Modeling” merits mention here, since it focuses on
ways to study the complex relationships among multiple variables.
16 I. INTRODUCTION

ADVANCED QUANTITATIVE METHODS IN THIS VOLUME

In this edition, we have included two chapters by Margaret K. Keiley and colleagues
that focus exclusively on advanced quantitative techniques at the cutting edge of fam­
ily therapy research. They are intended primarily for doctoral-level students and grad­
uates, or for those trained at the master’s level who have strong quantitative back­
grounds and interests. Unlike most of the other chapters, they assume prior knowledge
of intermediate statistical concepts. However, the authors have also used many con­
crete illustrations throughout their treatment of these methods to make the material
come alive. If read slowly and carefully, these chapters, though challenging, will be re­
warding. They are especially valuable for those readers who want a state-of-the-art un­
derstanding of where quantitative clinical science is going.
In Chapter 20, “Multilevel Growth Modeling in the Context of Family Re­
search,” Margaret K. Keiley, Nina C. Martin, Ting Liu, and Megan Dolbin-MacNab
demonstrate how this method can be utilized to address how family members get
better, get worse, or remain the same over time. Multilevel growth modeling also ad­
dresses the issues of why some family members grow differently and why some get
better and some get worse. They illustrate the method though a careful analysis of the
response to treatment of 123 women with drug addictions and their partners. Since
this method is longitudinal, it should be of great value to a field with an inherent inter­
est in the course of treatment results over time.
In Chapter 21, “Covariance Structure Analysis: From Path Analysis to Structural
Equation Modeling,” Margaret K. Keiley, Mary Dankoski, Megan Dolbin-MacNab,
and Ting Liu describe one of the most powerful tools for answering the kinds of com­
plex questions that arise in family research. Since family relationships are complex and
multifaceted, the researcher needs complex statistical techniques to examine the rela­
tionships among variables and to determine the ways in which certain sets of variables
predict other sets of variables. For example, do emotional support and sexual commu­
nication predict marital satisfaction, and to what extent are these predictor variables
mediated by sexual satisfaction? This is but one of many concrete examples used by
the authors to guide the reader through the different types of covariance structure
analyses, such as path analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and structural equation
modeling. Although these methods are somewhat challenging to learn, they should
have long-term payoffs for the MFT field, given our need to study the complex nature
of family life.

SOME FINAL THOUGHTS ON APPROACHING THIS VOLUME

Although research can sometimes feel like a daunting enterprise, we hope that this
book conveys the authors’ enthusiasm and passion for these methods. We also hope
that the book will help to demystify the research process somewhat. For students, we
would certainly suggest beginning with Chapter 2 by McWey and collegues; it is writ­
ten in a way that is user-friendly and nonthreatening. For those new to quantitative re­
search, Chapter 16 by Lyness and colleagues on clinical trials might be a good
jumping-off point, followed by Chapter 17 by Wampler and colleagues on meta­
analysis. For those new to qualitative research, a good entry point might be Chapter 5
by Piercy and Hertlein on focus groups, or Chapter 3 by Echevarria-Doan and Tubbs
 1. Pluralism, Diversity, and Sophistication 17

on grounded theory methods. These four chapters are especially clear exemplars of the
quantitative and qualitative paradigms, respectively, and assume little prior knowl­
edge. To get a feel for the mixed methods, we suggest Chapter 14 by Bradley and
Johnson on task analysis, which is also clinician-friendly. Almost all of the chapters
are self-contained, so we hope that readers will be guided by their interests rather than
by the invariant order of our table of contents.
We hope that the book, approached in this way, will make the research enterprise
more exciting for clinicians. There are really few questions a clinician might ask that
are not amenable to research—provided that one allows for the kind of methodologi­
cal pluralism set forth here. As promised, we have provided a smorgasbord of method­
ological options for doing family therapy research. We hope you will enjoy the feast!

REFERENCES

Acock, A., van Dulmen, M., Allen, K., & Piercy, F. (2005). Contemporary and emerging re­
search methods in studying families. In V. Bengtson, K. Allen, A. Acock, P. Dilworth-
Anderson, & D. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 59–85).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Anderson, W. T. (1990). Reality isn’t what it used to be. New York: Harper & Row.
Atkinson, B., Heath, A., & Chenail, R. (1991). Qualitative research and the legitimization of
knowledge. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 17, 161–166.
Bischoff, R. J., McKeel, A. J., Moon, S. M., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1996). Systematically devel­
oping therapeutic techniques: Applications of research and development. In D. H.
Sprenkle & S. M. Moon (Eds.), Research methods in family therapy (pp. 429–443).
New York: Guilford Press.
Broderick, C. B., & Schrader, S. S. (1981). The history of professional marriage and family ther­
apy. In A. S. Gurman & D. P. Kniskern (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy (pp. 5–35).
New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Cavell, T. A., &. Snyder, D. A. (1991). Iconoclasm versus innovation: Building a science of fam­
ily therapy—comments on Moon, Dillon, and Sprenkle. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 17, 181–185.
Crane, D. R., Wampler, K. S., Sprenkle, D. H., Sandberg, J. G., & Hovestadt, A. J. (2002). The
scientist-practitioner model in marriage and family therapy doctoral programs. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 28, 75–83.
Dickey, M. H. (1996). Methods for single-case experiments in family therapy. In D. H. Sprenkle
& S. M. Moon (Eds.), Research methods in family therapy (pp. 264–285). New York:
Guilford Press.
Gergen, K. (1991). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York:
Basic Books.
Greenberg, L. S., Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (1996). The events-based approach to
couple and family therapy research. In D. H. Sprenkle & S. M. Moon (Eds.), Research
methods in family therapy (pp. 411–428). New York: Guilford Press.
Gurman, A. S. (1983). Family therapy research and the “new epistemology.” Journal of Marital
and Family Therapy, 9, 227–234.
Haley, J. (1978). Ideas which handicap therapists. In M. M. Berger (Ed.), Beyond the double
bind: Communication and family systems, theories, and techniques with schizophrenics
(pp. 301–327). New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Langsley, D., Flomenhaft, K., & Machotka, P. (1969). Follow-up evaluation of family crisis
therapy. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 39, 753–759.
Minuchin, S., Baker, L., Rosman, B., Liebman, R., Milman, L., & Todd, T. (1975). A concep­
 18 I. INTRODUCTION

tual model of psychosomatic illness in children. Archives of General Psychiatry, 32, 1031–
1038.
Moon, S. M., Dillon, D. R., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1990). Family therapy and qualitative research.
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 16, 357–373.
Moon, S. M., & Trepper, T. S. (1996). Case study research. In D. H. Sprenkle & S. M. Moon
(Eds.), Research methods in family therapy (pp. 393–410). New York: Guilford Press.
Nichols, M. P., & Schwartz, R. C. (Eds.). (1995). Family therapy: Concepts and methods (3rd
ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research in evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oak, CA:
Sage.
Piercy, F., & Benson, K. (in press). Aesthetic forms of data representation in qualitative family
therapy research. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy.
Piercy, F., McWey, L., Tice, S., James, E., Morris, M., & Arthur, K. (in press). It was the best of
times, it was the worst of times: Exploring graduate students’ experiences of research train­
ing through alternative forms of data analysis. Family Process.
Pinsof, W. M. (1981). Family therapy process research. In A. S. Gurman & D. P. Kniskern
(Eds.), Handbook of family therapy (pp. 699–741). New York: Brunner Mazel.
Snyder, D. K., & Rice, J. L. (1996). Methodological issues and strategies in scale development.
In D. H. Sprenkle & S. M. Moon (Eds.), Research methods in family therapy (pp. 216–
237). New York: Guilford Press.
Sprenkle, D. H. (Ed.). (2002). Effectiveness research in marriage and family therapy. Alexan­
dria, VA: American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy.
Sprenkle, D. H. (2003). Effectiveness research in marriage and family therapy: Introduction.
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 29, 85–96.
Sprenkle, D. H., Bailey, C. E., Lyness, K., Ball, D., & Mills, S. (1997). Submission patterns to
the archival journal of the profession of MFT. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 23,
371–380.
Sprenkle, D. H., & Bischoff, R. J. (1995). Research in family therapy: Trends, issues, and rec­
ommendations. In M. P. Nichols &. R. C. Schwartz (Eds.), Family therapy: Concepts and
methods (3rd ed., pp. 485–521). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Sprenkle, D. H., & Moon, S. M. (1996). Toward pluralism in family therapy research. In D. H.
Sprenkle & S. M. Moon (Eds.), Research methods in family therapy (pp. 3–19). New
York: Guilford Press.
Tomm, K. (1983, July–August). The old hat doesn’t fit. The Family Therapy Networker, pp.
39–41.
Volk, R. J., & Flori, D. E. (1996). Structural equation modeling. In D. H. Sprenkle & S. M.
Moon (Eds.), Research methods in family therapy (pp. 336–387). New York: Guilford
Press.
Wynne, L. C. (1983). Family research and family therapy: A reunion? Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 9, 113–117.

Guilford Publications
Copyright © 2005 The Guilford Press. All rights reserved under International Copyright 72 Spring Street
Convention. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, downloaded, or stored in New York, NY 10012
or introduced into any information storage or retrieval system, in any form or by any 212-431-9800
means, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafter invented, without the 800-365-7006
written permission of The Guilford Press. www.guilford.com