Reflective Paper on Cultural Brokerage

Reflective Paper on Cultural Brokerage



Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Reflective Paper on Cultural Brokerage
Just from $15/Page
Order Essay


Warm-Up Activity 2.1: How to Read a Scientific Research Paper

A scientific or research paper is a special type of document and requires special reading skills. Review Durbin (2009), located under your weekly resources, for some tips on how to read a research paper efficiently to make the most of the material in the least amount of time.


For this task you will explain what challenges exist in addressing multicultural issues in conducting psychological research. Your final product will include the following items:

  1. If you were to propose a research study, identify questions you would need to use to ensure cultural sensitivity. You should include a minimum of 5 questions.
  2. Using the questions that you compiled, prepare a checklist to assist you in assessing what elements you need to address.
  3. Locate two current research studies and evaluate how well they have addressed the elements in your checklist.
  4. King, p E.,OakesMueller, R. A.,&Furrow,J. (2013). Cultural and contextual issues in exemplar research. In M. K. Matsuba, P. E. King, & K. C. Bronk (Eds.), Exemplar methods and research: Strategies Jor investigation. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 142 41-58. 4 Cultural and Contextual Issues in Exemplar Research Pamela Ehstyne King, Ross A. Oakes Mueller, fames Furrow Abstract This chapter specifically addresses how exemplar methods are especially relevant to examining cultural and contextual issues. Cross-cultural, cultural, and indigenous psychologies are discussed in order to highlight how studying actual exemplars in their unique and complex developmental contexts has the potential to identify themes that either differ between or hold constant across distinct peoples and cultures. The chapter addresses basic assumptions of exemplar research and specifics of the method that are sensitive to the incorporation of cultural and contextual influences. Suggestions are made as to how exemplarity research can be even more effective to explore development in a valid means across cultures and be more attentive and applicable to local cultures. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. NEW DIRECTIONS EOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT, no. 142, Winter 2013 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley Online Library • DOI: 10.1002/cad.20048 4 1 42 EXEMPLAR METHODS AND RESEARCH: STRATEGIES EOR INVESTIGATION O ne of the most acute challenges facing the field of developmental psychology today is finding means and methods of understanding how culture and context impact development (Arnett, 2008; Brown, Larson, & Saraswathi, 2002; Jensen, 2008, 2012). Although culture and context have long been recognized as seminal influences on development, currently the field’s dominant methodologies emphasize nomothetic findings and universals across populations. Frequently used quantitative strategies restrict the depth and richness of investigation, and all too often do not allow for variation among diverse contexts to emerge. Exemplar methods, especially those that combine quantitative and qualitative approaches, have been demonstrated to be effective for discovering both nomothetic and idiographic findings (Bronk, King, & Matsuba, this volume; Colby & Damon, 1992; King, Clardy, & Ramos, 2013), providing opportunities for the particularities of cultural and contextual influences to be revealed. Although exemplar methods generally have been employed to investigate psychological constructs that are less understood (e.g., thriving, purpose, spirituality), this chapter addresses how exemplar strategies are especially relevant to examine cultural and contextual issues that influence development. In order to highlight some of the potential opportunities and chaflenges of exemplar research, this chapter identifies some of the key challenges in the broaderfieldof psychology that are specifically raised by the unique subfields of cross-cultural, cultural, and indigenous psychology and discusses them in hght of exemplar research. Further, because personal and cultural narrative has been identified as being particularly relevant to addressing cultural issues (Shweder et al, 2006), this chapter discusses the particularly valuable role of participants’ narratives. Therefore, although exemplarity research has historically employed both quantitative and qualitative methods, this chapter refers primarily to the qualitative or case study approach to exemplar research. From this perspective, we then discuss some of the guiding assumptions of qualitative exemplar strategies with regard to understanding the participant in context. In order to illustrate how cultural approaches are relevant to exemplar methods, we present and discuss a specific study on adolescent spiritual exemplars from around the world (King et al., 2013). The sample of 30 youth, ranging from 12 to 21 years old, was geographically and culturafly diverse, with six exemplars from India, six from Kenya, six from the United Kingdom, six from the United States, four from Peru, and two from Jordan. The sample contained atheist, Buddhist, Catholic, Hindu, Muslim, Protestant, Jewish, Sikh, and one self-identified mixed-religion youth. In addition to the youth spiritual exemplars, we offer examples from other exemplar studies that iflustrate both the cultural considerations illuminated by exemplar research, as well as the ways in which such research may be made relevant when appUed in various settings. We then discuss existing and potential chaflenges to current exemplar strategies that are NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD .WD ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad CULTURAL AND CONTEXTUAL ISSUES IN EXEMPLAR RESEARCH 43 evident in the literature. Einally recommendations for further investigation and understanding of cultural and contextual influences using exemplar methods are offered. Cross-Cultural, Cultural, and Indigenous Psychologies Given the increased awareness of global diversity and its relevance to human development and functioning, psychologists have begun to question many long-held assumptions of the field. In his prominent article in the American Psychologist, Arnett (2008) chaflenges the premise that most human science studies may generalize to afl human beings regardless of their sample’s nationality and culture of origin. The massive diversity of living conditions—value systems, socioeconomics, education, ethnicity, and resources—throughout the world challenges the current field’s tendency to generahze across cultures and developmental contexts. Similarly Shweder et al. (2006) posit that studies on the development of the self have generally proceeded primarily from one cultural viewpoint and draw upon a set of untested assumptions about the self. Eurthermore, Jensen (2012) has challenged the broader field of developmental psychology to bridge cultural and universal approaches in order to identify theoretical and methodological frameworks that are sensitive to cultural issues, just as she has done so effectively in the moral domain Qensen, 2008). The fields of cross-cultural psychology, cultural psychology, and indigenous psychology have arisen, in part, to address such concerns (Allwood, 2011; Chirkov, Ryan, & Sheldon, 2011; Jensen, 2008; Kim, Yang, & Hwang, 2006; Shweder et al, 2006). While each of these fields differs in its particular approach to psychological phenomena, they all draw upon theoretical frameworks and methodologies that are sensitive to issues of particularity in developmental processes and outcomes.’^ All three fields have emerged as a response to the tendency in psychology to speak in terms of universal traits. In seeking to identify the possible cultural biases of psychological theories, cross-cultural psychology has historically emphasized the existence of universals, but has paid attention to assumptions and methods that enable researchers to understand how universal qualities are expressed differently across a variety of distinct settings. One example of such an approach can be found in cross-cultural positive psychology, which seeks to identify both psychological universals (e.g., well-being) and their diverse expression given culturespecific characteristics of various populations (e.g., collectivist vs. individualist goals). As such, cross-cultural psychological research design pays attention to the dialectic between universal human capacities and needs and specifically examines cultural influence on the expression and fulfillment of these needs (Chirkov et al, 2011). Nevertheless, the often controversial assumption of universal traits is foundational to this approach. Although cross-cultural psychology represents a much-needed step forward for the field, other approaches have emphasized the shortcomings of N E W DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI; 10.1002/cad 44 EXEMPLAR METHODS AND RESEARCH: STRATEGIES FOR INVESTIGATION the cross-cultural framework. Specifically, the fields of both cultural and indigenous psychology argue that researchers need to expand their understanding of cultural sensitivity beyond a search for universal tendencies and their potentially unique expressions in different cultural contexts (Cheung, van de Vijver, & Leong, 2011; Jensen, 2012; Shweder et al, 2006). They argue for a movement beyond treating cultural perspective as a form of bias, and therefore something to be eliminated from research procedures or controlled for in data analysis. Instead, their aim is to employ theory and methods that allow for cultural and contextual particularities to surface. Thus, the question of cultural psychology is: How do cultural practices and mentalities shape who humans become, what they believe, and how they behave Qensen, 2008; Shweder et al, 2006)? Cultural psychology aims to understand the psychologies of different people groups by means of culturally sensitive theories and methods. For developmental psychologists working within a cultural psychology framework, such contextspecific distinctions might offer insight into the healthy development or treatment of children and adolescents from divergent contexts and cultures. From this perspective, cultural psychologists use ecologically sensitive theories and methods, and value the search for both cultural differences and cultural similarities Qensen, 2012). While both cultural and indigenous approaches to psychology are interested in intracultural particularities, indigenous psychology is unique insofar as it emerges exclusively within a specific culture and for that culture. As such, indigenous psychology is based on the philosophical assumptions and intellectual history of the specific culture. In contrast, cultural psychology often involves experts from one people group seeking a deeper understanding of the key beliefs and practices of another people group. Indigenous studies are led by local scholars and experts in the culture, and research is conducted among the indigenous population. It gives priority to the study of culturally unique psychological and behavioral phenomena or characteristics of the people. From an indigenous psychology perspective, culture is as much under scrutiny as the psychological phenomenon being studied; culture is inseparably bound up with psychological phenomenon. Thus, given that a fundamental premise of indigenous psychologies is that they are to be anchored in local culture, from an indigenous approach it is often to be expected that many unique indigenous psychologies will be developed around the globe (Poortinga, 1999). Although cross-cultural, cultural, and indigenous psychologies all examine psychological phenomena and processes, they each have a different emphasis that stems from important philosophical assumptions and results in different methodologies. One distinguishing ontological issue is how the field’s assumptions about universality guides the theories and methods used for inquiry in each approach. At the risk of oversimplifying these important fields, one could say that cross-cultural psychology examines psychological differences between cultures, cultural psychology emphasizes psychological N E W DIRECTIONS FÜR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOl: 10.1002/cad CULTURAL AND CONTEXTUAL ISSUES IN EXEMPLAR RESEARCH 45 diversity within another culture, and indigenous psychology emphasizes the exploration of psychological phenomena by a culture. While all are sensitive to cultural differences, each holds different implications for exemplar methods. Exemplar Methods Although often intended to examine an aspect of human development that is recognized across different peoples, exemplar methods allow for cultural and contextual issues to emerge in the data. Exemplar tnethods explicitly examine a specific construct in actual lives of individuals who exhibit it in an intense and highly developed manner. Studying the lives of exemplar participants reveals what the development of the construct looks like (Bronk, 2012). Qualitative case study exemplar methods consider youth in their unique and complex developmental contexts. In this way, exemplar methods provide a “real world” look at development of a given trait. As described in the introduction to this volume, whereas other methods, such as purely quantitative approaches, may strip away potentially “muddling” influences of experience, context, and confounding variables, the exemplar approach does not (Bronk et al, this volume). As a result of focusing on lived experience, qualitative exemplar methodologies, in particular, may provide insight into characteristics and processes related to the phenomenon under investigation that are hard to capture through other methods, allowing researchers to distinguish what is nomothetic, differential, and idiographic—and therefore potentially contextually salient. The following section addresses some of the basic assumptions of exemplar research and specifics of the method that are sensitive to the incorporation of cultural and contextual influences. At every step of the research design, cultural and contextual variation may be taken into consideration. Participants as Experts Consistent with the various cultural psychologies, exemplar methods take seriously the meanings and interpretations of the participants. Most qualitative exemplar methods explore lesser-understood and multifaceted domains of development by specifically engaging the exemplar-participant as a collaborator in investigation, allov«ng the participant to bring his or her cultural ideology and experiences to the data. This is done, in large part, through interviews designed to evoke reflection by asking exemplars to narrate, interpret, and share their opinions on particular experiences from their own lives. In doing so, such interviews enable participants to express their own interpretations of the meaning of their actions, commitments, and ideals. Indeed, when compared with standardized questionnaires, these types of in-depth, semi-structured interviews allow for “thicker” data that have the capacity to reveal the complexity of exemplars’ experiences and interpretations of self and meaning (Reimer, Dueck, Adelchanow, & Muto, NEW DIRECTIONS EOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad 46 EXEMPLAR METHODS AND RESEARCH: STR^ATEGIES EOR INVESTIGATION 2009). This aim is consistent with all three forms of cultural psychologies. Because participants are nominated for exemplifying the construct under investigation, they are viewed as “experts,” and their unique stories, experiences, and interpretations are taken seriously. Their expertise in the area of study and high levels of self-awareness make their own representations and interpretations an invaluable resource in the exploration (Colby & Damon, 1992). It is important to note that although exemplar participants are viewed as experts in the phenomenon under examination, the method promotes a dialectic between data and existing literature, and between participant and researcher. Indeed, it is critical to recognize that although the participant might be a “procedural expert” (i.e., I do something well), this does not necessarily make them a “declarative expert” (i.e., I can explain what I am doing, why I do it, and how I do it). Fxisting research suggests that at times what is happening with moral exemplars is implicit, procedural, automatic, and nonconscious (Haidt, 2001). Consequently, a method that allows for in-depth interaction between existing theory, participant input, and researchers’ insight is critical to maximizing understanding of the expression and development of the construct under investigation. Nomination Process Given the expert status of the participants in exemplar methodology, selection procedures are seminal to the methodology and are an important opportunity for cultural considerations. As presented previously in this volume, exemplar methodologies use a form of nomination criteria for selection of participants. Criteria are usually developed through a systematic and rigorous process based on theory, literature, and recognized experts in the field of the domain (see Colby & Damon, 1992; Hart & Fegley, 1995; Reimer et al., 2009). Although theory or existing definitions may inform initial criteria, iterative processes are then used, in which various diverse and (hopefully) culturally informed experts revise and refine criteria in order to maximize cultural sensitivity Bronk (2012) points out that, ideally, nomination criteria should be made as concrete as possible, being both narrow enough to be descriptive of a “highly developed” group of individuals who manifest the construct under investigation and simultaneously broad enough to capture a range of characteristics and experiences within the exemplary sample. The issue of nomination criteria is addressed differently from crosscultural, cultural, and indigenous psychologies. Like traditional psychology, cross-cultural positive psychology would utilize nomination criteria designed to sohcit individuals who possess a potentially universal trait or who embody a potentially universal psychological phenomenon. As such, cross-cultural psychologists begin with broad criteria capable of “catching” a range of behaviors in different cultures or adjust the criteria in particular N E W DIRECTIONS EOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 1 0 . 1 0 0 2 / c a d CULTURAL AND CONTEXTUAL ISSUES IN EXEMPLAR RESEARCH 47 settings in order to allow for the nomination of exemplars who manifest the construct differently in different cultures. In contrast, from the perspective of cultural psychology, the criteria for nomination are initially created taking the ideology, practices, and norms of different culture(s) into account, with the intention of yielding a sample representative of the variability of the phenomenon within a culture. In both cross-cultural and cultural psychology, experts on or from the culture may have input on the nomination criteria in order to be sensitive to cultural nuances. On the other hand, in an indigenous psychology research design, the nomination criteria could be devised by local experts and based on local ideology and practices with the intent to solicit a sample that highlights the unique values and behaviors of that culture. As such, indigenous psychologists would likely be minimally concerned with creating nomination criteria that could generalize across cultures. Instead, the validity of such criteria within the culture becomes paramount. The adolescent spiritual exemplar study (considered a hybrid of the cultural and cross-cultural approaches) highlights how nomination criteria may take cultural issues into consideration (King et al., 2013). For instance, the construction of nomination criteria involved social scientists, theologians, clergy, and youth practitioners from different countries and diverse spiritual traditions, who provided four iterations of feedback on the criteria. In addition, the study employed a local researcher in each country where data was collected to ensure that local religious and cultural issues were included in the nomination criteria. This iterative process was designed to minimize the potential impact of Western, American, and Christian intellectual and religious biases into the definition of exemplary spirituality. In addition to the content of nomination criteria, nominators themselves also contribute to the contextualization of the criteria. Specifically, the use of individual nominators in exemplar research influences the interpretation of the criteria in local settings. So although criteria may be based on theory or a normative understanding of the topic, indigenous nominators interpret the criteria for themselves when making their selections of potential participants and thereby infuse the data with cultural and contextual variability. For example, in the spiritual exemplar study, most nominators identified young people who practiced a religion as an expression of their spirituality. However, one nominator from Northern Ireland nominated an atheist as a spiritual exemplar. This boy’s family had experienced much violence and loss in the name of religion. The political-religious climate in which he was raised greatly impacted his experience of spirituality. The case of this boy demonstrates how researchers influence the study by their selection of the nominators, and must take into consideration the diversity of their nominators. Typically, researchers select informed nominators, who although not scholars, are expert practitioners who have a clear understanding of how N E W DIRECTIONS EOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad 48 EXEMPLAR METHODS AND RESEARCH: STRATEGIES FOR INVESTIGATION the nomination criteria are manifested in real lives in their context (see Bronk et al., this volume). By using local, lay people as nominators, investigators hope to elicit a local, context-specific interpretation of the nomination criteria, in order to increase the construct validity of the exemplar nominations in each culture being studied. The importance of nominator choice is evident in a study by Oakes Muefler, Sando, and Eurrow (2010), who found that the same nomination criteria sohcited significantly different “caring exemplars” when used by nominators from varying organizational contexts within the same city Specifically, although all nominators were asked to identify adolescents who had demonstrated particular, concrete acts of caring, youth nominated through schools reported significantly different values than youth nominated through community-based organizations. Specifically, teacher-nominated exemplars reported stronger endorsement of academically oriented personal values such as conformity and achievement (Schwartz, 1996), suggesting teachers may have included academic responsibility in their understanding of “care.” Selection of nominators varies between the different cultural approaches. Gross-cultural psychologists would select individuals that understand the potential universality of the construct, but are sensitive to its potential unique manifestations in different cultures. In contrast, cultural psychologists would select nominators that are sensitive to the diversity of cultural ideologies of the sample. Such nominators would be attentive to and have intimate knowledge of the culturally specific expressions of values, beliefs, and behaviors relevant to the construct under scrutiny In an indigenous study, both researchers and nominators would be native to the culture and have a deep understanding of the beliefs and meaning systems of the culture. It is important to note that after nominations are completed, researchers again can influence the cultural variation and depth of understanding by using practical criteria to select the final sample from the nomination pool to ensure cultural diversity. Researchers often use demographics to select a sample balanced with gender, age, income, ethnicity, religion, and other demographic variables. Eor example, in the spiritual exemplar study (King et al, 2013), scholars and expert practitioners from multiple different religious and spiritual traditions were recruited as nominators. Specifically of the 17 nominators, six countries were represented, and nine spiritual/religious traditions were represented. In addition, in order to increase the diversity of their sample and, thereby, sensitivity to within- and between-culture variations, researchers oversampled U.S. exemplars from Buddhist, Jewish, and Muslim communities. Interview Protocol In addition to sample selection, data collection also provides many opportunities for contextual and cultural influences. An interview itself is a cultural NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILB AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI; 10.1002/cad • ‘ CULTURAL AND CONTEXTUAL ISSUES IN EXEMPLAR RESEARCH 49 construct, and the format of the interview (e.g., one-to-one, collective) is a cultural concern. For example, the development of the interview protocol involves many of the same issues as the development of the nomination criteria. So from a cross-cultural or cultural psychology perspective, although often initially based on existing theory, the protocol will be refined by different cultural experts, adding probes sensitive to issues of meaning and interpretation. This will allow the protocol to either (a) reveal culturalspecific characteristics of a psychological universal (as is the intention of cross-cultural psychology) or (b) yield findings that describe the variation within a given culture (as is the aim of cultural psychology). For example, within the adolescent spiritual exemplar study, the local research consultant in India pointed out the importance of asking about spirituality in the context of the family and not just as an individual experience (King et al., 2013). Within an indigenous design, the protocol would be created expressly by locals and based on local theory, ideology, and literature so as to better reveal particularities of the culture. Again, in order to be relevant in the different religious and cultural contexts, the protocol used in the spiritual exemplar study underwent 11 iterations of feedback from scholars and practitioners from different academic disciplines, religious traditions, and cultures (King et al., 2013). In addition, the local research coordinators reviewed and modified questions when necessary in order to elicit cultural nuances in each setting. The interview protocol was also pilot tested on subjects from various religious traditions and ages in order to give feedback regarding cultural and religious relevance. Some of the modifications of the content of the protocol included the importance of asking about a young person’s sense of self-concept from their own perspective, as well as the perspective of others. Expert input also raised the issue of probes that were sensitive to potentially pertinent settings within a young person’s ecology that may not be as obvious from a Western perspective, such as grandparents or even ancestors. In addition, local researchers gave guidance on appropriate behaviors and dress for interviews. Use of Narrative Although mixed methods are often used in exemplar research, the richest descriptions of exemplary lives typically result from semi-structured clinical interviews (Colby & Damon, 1992; Piaget, 1929). Narratives gained through interviews allow for “thick” data and unique interview experiences with enough structure to explore common themes across interviews, while simultaneously retaining enough flexibility to identify unique characteristics and experiences that highlight sources of cultural and contextual influence (see Colby & Damon, this volume; Reimer et al, 2009). Indeed, the solicitation of narrative is a methodological tool often used in cross-cultural, cultural, and indigenous approaches to data gathering. It provides a means NEW DlREcnoNS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOl: 10.1002/cad 50 EXEMPLAR METHODS AND RESEARCH: STRATEGIES FOR INVESTIGATION of capturing the reality of participants’ psychological lives, while allowing for the emergence of specific individual and cultural meanings and values. Specifically, Shweder et al. (2006) identify narrative as a cultural universal, and one of the most powerful interpretive tools that humans possess for organizing, interpreting, and valuing human experience and behavior. Narrative data allows researchers to distinguish between universal human capacities and needs, culture-specific characteristics or expressions of these universals, and entirely unique cultural phenomena (Chirkov et al, 2011). In addition, interviews are generally conducted in person and administered in the participant’s indigenous context, allowing for researchers to get to know participants’ environments and make contextual observations about personal meanings. It is noted that the emphasis on participants’ meanings and interpretations of their experiences and life are only as good as the protocol allows and the clinical skills of the interviewer. Thus, protocol development and training of the interviewer cannot be underestimated. While indigenous studies would involve local interviewers, cross-cultural and cultural psychologists might utilize culturally astute interviewers from another culture. Although many exemplar studies are based on the assumption of the existence of universal qualities (see Walker, this volume), some studies approximate an indigenous approach. When examining a specific psychological phenomenon, indigenous researchers investigate both the specific content and the involved processes of the phenomenon. Such research begins with a thorough immersion into the natural, concrete details of the phenomenon under exploration (Kim et al., 2006). Essentially, this is the intention of exemplar strategies—for the researcher to immerse him- or herself in the life, perspectives, and opinions of the exemplar. For example. Walker and Hennig’s (2004) study of Canadian heroes was an exemplar study designed by Canadians, using national Canadian awards as nomination criteria, data gathering, and analysis by Canadians (see also Walker, this volume, for further discussion). Data Analysis Although exemplar methods are defined more by participant selection and sample than by analysis, data analysis allows for opportunities for cultural and contextual input. Although the depth and complexity of data common among qualitative exemplar studies makes comparisons between samples challenging, common themes across exemplars may be identified. Eor example, three common themes of spirituality, specifically transcendence, fidelity, and action, emerged from the analysis of the adolescent spiritual exemplars (King et al., 2013). From a cross-cultural perspective, qualitative or quantitative findings may be compared between cultures by using culture or context as a predictor variable to highlight cultural distinctions and particularities. N E W DIRECTIONS EOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10,1002/cad CULTURAL AND CONTEXTUAL ISSUES IN EXEMPLAR RESE.ARCH 51 Nevertheless, such researchers remain vigilant to context-specific meanings in their interpretations offindings.For example, transcendence was experienced between the individual and Cod or Allah in Christianity and Islam, respectively. However, transcendence was more often reported to be apparent in communal experiences among family members or faith community for the Jewish and Hindu youth. From a cultural psychology perspective, analysis would include culturally relevant predictor variables that differ within the local population, so as to uncover the diversity of the expression of a psychological phenomenon within a culture (Shweder et al., 2006). Within indigenous psychology, analysis would be conducted by locals who are familiar with the meanings of the culture; ideally, empirical findings would be distributed and reviewed by different members of the culture to ensure that the various meanings and interpretations of the culture were accounted for in the data gathering and analysis. Although not a purely indigenous design, findings from the spiritual exemplar study illustrate this point. From a Western positive youth development perspective, we anticipated volunteer service as relevant to youth spirituality; however, cultural norms greatly informed how spirituality was enacted in different contexts. Specifically, in more industrialized contexts, exemplars described engaging in service to the poor. For example, American and British exemplars often participated in “mission” trips to developing nations where they assisted locals in various ways. In less industrialized contexts, however, the exemplars served through leading worship or teaching younger children within their mosque or church (King et al., 2013). In summary, the complex and arduous methods that comprise exemplar research—especially qualitative exemplar research—allow for complex data that may facilitate the identification of themes that either differ between or hold constant across distinct peoples and cultures. Whether the investigator is more concerned with commonalities or particularities, exemplar research may be adapted to maximize the inclusion of culture and context. The findings are usually descriptive in nature, and may both highlight cultural issues and generate hypotheses to be further tested or explored in more diverse or specific samples. Future Directions Although, for the most part, existing exemplar studies have focused primarily on highly developed psychological characteristics, and to a lesser extent culture, exemplar methods are well poised to explore development in a valid means across cultures and be more attentive and applicable to local cultures. Fven so, some modifications of typical exemplar strategies could significantly enhance the cross-cultural sensitivity and applicability of their findings. An interdisciplinary approach that considers the perspectives of cross-cultural, cultural, and/or indigenous psychologies gives specific NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad 52 EXEMPLAR METHODS AND RESEARCH: STRATEGIES EOR INVESTIGATION direction for deliberate cultural and contextual inquiry Indeed, while some studies are explicitly designed to explore and examine cultural issues (King et al, 2013; Reimer et al., 2009), the identification of culture-specific expressions is secondary, at best. The following discussion addresses specific methodological recommendations for exemplarity research of both types, with an aim to increasing their sensitivity to issues of culture and context. Exemplar researchers will better understand developmental-cultural issues when methods allow for the consideration of an individual’s reciprocal interactions with his or her environment. Currently, qualitative exemplar methods consider the lives of actual individuals in the complexity of their developmental contexts. In-depth inquiry naturally facilitates developmental psychologists’ aim at revealing the “person-context” interaction (Lerner, 2006), the “dialectical synthesis” (Valsiner, 2011), or “transactional events” (Rogoff, 1990). Narratives, as well as other potential qualitative or quantitative sources of data, illuminate the complexities of the bidirectional influences between the developing person and their peers, famihes, culture, faith, and so forth. Not only do qualitative exemplar methods allow for social and macrocultural issues to be considered, but they also allow for historical trends relevant to exemplarity to be included in analysis (see Colby & Damon, 1992, this volume). Furthermore, given the “thick” narrative data common to exemplarity research, these methods allow for the emergence in analysis of less familiar systems of development than those typically assumed by dominating Western theories. In addition, exemplar methods maximize their understanding of developmental-cultural issues when methods include the analysis of developmental trajectories across the lifespan. The field of developmental psychology would benefit from exemplarity research that not only focuses on the characteristics or nature of a psychological phenomenon (e.g., spirituality, thriving), but also on the different developmental trajectories across and within cultures that lead to them. In other words, research is needed that not only reveals what is embodied in these exemplary lives, but also how it came to be the case. For example, researchers might ask: What influences in childhood and adolescence occurred, and how do such influences differentially affect exemplars from different contexts? Or what culture-specific personal experiences shaped their ability to exemplify the quality? The inclusion of different-aged exemplars and/or longitudinal data would enable researchers to better answer such questions. Specifically, Jensen (2012) suggested that analyzing the developmental trajectories of different cultures affords a window into the relative influences of nature and (cultural) nurture. She posits that children often represent a clearer test for universality whereas adults represent a cleaner examination of cultural diversity Specifically, because adults have had longer to become acculturated to the values and narratives of their community, they serve as a more adequate representation of larger cultural norms of their community. In contrast, because of their youth and their station in life, children NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad CULTURAL AND CONTEXTUAL ISSUES IN EXEMPLAR RESEARCH 53 are more malleable and less culturally socialized. Because of this, future exemplar studies would benefit from conducting parallel analyses of child, adolescent, adult, and later-life exemplars, as well as longitudinal exemplar studies. Both within and across cultures, such analyses could help to differentiate idiosyncratic qualities of individual exemplars both from universal qualities of exemplars and from culture-specific particularities and developmental achievements. A further area for improvement involves the explicit acknowledgment of researchers’ guiding assumptions regarding the “goods” being exemplified in their participants. Specifically, because the focus of exemplarity research is on highly developed qualities or “end states,” the method raises teleological issues. All exemplar studies involve culturally circumscribed assumptions about exemplarity Eor example. Walker and Hennig’s (2004) study of bravery, courage, and compassion of national heroes in Ganada studied a Ganadian conception of hero. Bronk’s (2008) study of youth purpose exemplars explored a sense of purpose in youth in the United States. King et al.’s (2013) study on youth spiritual exemplars attempted to study the commonalities and differences of youth in different cultures and faith traditions. However, each of these studies operated under different cultural teleological assumptions. Exemplar methods naturally allow for the acknowledgment of the role of culture in this way. In particular, the creation of nomination criteria and nomination procedures assume culturally preferred end states. Gonsequently exemplar researchers must be explicit about their nomination strategies and recognize the cultural and contextual assumptions on which their studies are based. Do researchers take a normative or folk understanding of the construct under investigation (e.g., Maclean, Walker, & Matsuba, 2004; Reimer et al, 2009), in which lay people are assumed to be experts in nomination criteria? Or do they take an expert-scholar approach to identifying nomination guidelines (e.g., Golby & Damon, 1992; King et al., 2013)? Such assumptions must be explicitly stated so as to avoid either conflating such perspectives or unwittingly imposing one’s own teleology on a culture. Although the current literature calls for attention to less-Western psychological constructs such as interdependence Qensen, 2012), it is important to remain open to different cultures’ developmental teleology— a culture’s goals for development. Given that most existing developmental research is based on Western theories and their often-implicit assumptions regarding goals for human development, the field of developmental psychology would benefit from future studies that explicitly focus on exploring different cultures’ goals for development through careful and rigorous exemplar methods. Exemplar researchers need to be clear of their goals and aware of the cultural teleology they are examining. No doubt, culture and context matter. Indeed, Oakes Mueller et al.’s (2010) finding that, despite the use of standardized nomination criteria, “care exemplars” nominated by teachers appeared to possess traits of NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOl; 10.1002/cad 54 EXEMPLAR METHODS AND RESEARCH: STRATEGIES FOR INVESTIGATION “academic exemplars” should serve as a cautionary lesson. Suchfindingsremind future researchers to heed the challenges of identifying effective nomination criteria, assessing the appropriateness and influence of the context in which nominations occur, and considering such complexities in their analysis and interpretation offindings.Specifically, while exemplar studies may inform observations of what is and speculation as to what may be, such findings do not necessarily offer a final validation of the specific “universal qualities” being investigated. Indeed, this is a point of cultural and indigenous psychologies, that although a certain characteristic maybe manifested within a certain set of exemplars, we cannot know how common or prevalent these characteristics are among others without both investigating those from other contexts and importing particular teleological and epistemological assumptions. In addition, Oakes Mueller et al. (2010) also raised the potential confounding issue of the “halo effect” (Thorndike, 1920), whereby an individual who is viewed favorably on one dimension may be viewed favorably on other dimensions. For example, the Oakes Mueller et al. (2010) finding that teachers nominated achievement-oriented students as “caring exemplars” raises the question of whether the expression of a high-value behavior in the school context led teachers to perceive academic performers as caring youth as well. Further exemplar research must consider the extent to which context may influence the way in which nominators understand and apply specific evaluative terms. In addition to being aware of the potential influence of context, scholars using an exemplar strategy have much to gain from being intentional about their specific approaches to considering culture and context in their studies (see also discussion of dispositional and situational issues by Walker, in Chapter 3 of this volume). As discussed in this chapter, cross-cultural, cultural, and indigenous psychologies have very specific theoretical and methodological approaches that are consistent with their unique understanding of culture. In many ways, exemplar research is well poised to help bridge the exploration of commonalities and particularities in developmental psychology. Because exemplar studies focus on a highly developed psychological construct, there is the possibility for relevance to different people groups (Colby & Damon, this volume), but issues of generalizability need to be explicitly addressed in light of culture and ecological validity. In addition, the descriptive nature of qualitative exemplar findings also allows for culturally unique expressions or culturally ideographic findings to be acknowledged (Cheung et al., 2011). Future studies would benefit from clearly stating as research goals whether the primary intention is to study commonalities and/or particularities, describing how their methods account for culture, pointing toward potential commonalities and differences across participants, and discussing the inevitable limitations regarding issues of generalizability across cultures. NEW DIRECTIONS FÜR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOl: 10.1002/cad CULTURAL AND CONTEXTUAL ISSUES IN EXEMPLAR RESEARCH 55 Although exemplar methods provide an effective means of bridging universal and cultural approaches (Jensen, 2012), further improvements can be made so as to increase an understanding of cultural developmental issues. Specifically, studies that balance the tyranny of universals with an obsession with fragmentation will facilitate an understanding of psychological phenomena that illuminate different trajectories in different contexts. Although the field is currently short on indigenous approaches and would gain from a deeper and more nuanced understanding of non-Western cultures, the greatest benefit will come when indigenous or culture-centered studies are effectively translated to other settings and cultures. Specifically, by developing an indigenous psychological framework that uses the native language and meaning systems of a culture to speak authentically to that culture, the corresponding danger is that the conclusions of such studies become relatively inaccessible to those from other cultures. Although it is helpful to document and describe ideographic particularities, theoretical and methodological frameworks that can include them in the larger scientific dialogue will benefit our current understanding and care of children and youth. Eor example, the procedures taken in the adolescent spiritual exemplars study (King et al., 2013) represent an attempt at such first steps in collaborating among different cultures. To be sure, the study was still led predominantly by Western researchers, and therefore likely carries with it the biases of this perspective. Nevertheless, the researchers in this study attempted to partner at almost every level of investigation (nomination criteria, protocol development, ethical guidelines, data collection, and analysis), so as to minimize such bias and maximize the study’s sensitivity to culturespecific narratives, values, and meaning systems. Euture exemplar studies might also benefit from utilizing native leaders as creators of and collaborators in the research process. In short, with the exception of indigenous studies that aim primarily to collect culture-specific data, future exemplar studies would benefit from expanding and innovating the methods for collaboration across cultures. Eurthermore, just as the field of literature benefits from translations and compendia of literary works, indigenous exemplar studies may benefit from discussions or commentaries that aim to use the languages of other fields (e.g., anthropology) to help situate their native findings within their larger cultural narratives and meaning systems. Indeed, the field as a whole might benefit from the qualitative equivalent of meta-analyses, wideranging commentaries on multiple exemplar studies that aim both to contextualize the findings of each study within its native culture, and to identify across studies various culture-specific expressions of more universal phenomenon. Of course, such analyses must walk a narrow line. Just as indigenous exemplar studies risk missing the universals in human development, any failure to attend to the uniqueness of exemplars in different cultures risks mistaking real qualitative differences between cultures for N E W DIRECTIONS EOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 1 0 . 1 0 0 2 / c a d 56 EXEMPLAR METHODS AND RESEARCH: STRATEGIES EOR INVESTIGATION quantitative differences in apparently universal (and typically Western) psychological constructs. By walking this line, such analyses may allow the findings of one indigenous study to serve as hypothesis generators for crosscultural studies, even while respecting indigenous psychology’s cautious refusal to simply use their own populations to test the hypotheses of other cultures’ psychologies. In summary, future exemplar studies will benefit from increased collaboration between researchers and local indigenous leaders, a greater effort both to contextualize findings and to generalize across studies, and the nomination and study of exemplars at multiple developmental levels from within the same culture. Such shifts have the potential to maximize the native strength of exemplar research to identify both universal and culturally particular qualities and behaviors associated with a given construct. Conclusion Although, for the most part, current exemplar studies share the traditional “universalistic aspirations” Qensen, 2012) of the greater field of developmental psychology and have aimed to elucidate less understood domains of human development, exemplar strategies are well positioned to illumine both common and particular expressions of human development. The method’s focus on exemplarity allows for the exploration of cultural ideals, potentially revealing psychological constructs that Western-centric theories and methods may overlook. In addition, rigorous nomination procedures, data gathering, and analysis allow for universal and cultural investigation. Fxemplar strategies yield rich descriptions of remarkable lives of individuals who embody a construct under examination with consistency and intensity. Although exemplar methods are designed to point to common characteristics and processes associated with the construct of interest, qualitative methods can prevent these commonalities from being stripped of the context and culture from which they emerge. As such, exemplar studies highlight idiographic findings and pay special attention to individual variance, allowing for the role of culture and content to be evident. In this way, the study of exemplarity provides the opportunity to study the diversity of what is deemed exceptional and noble in different cultural contexts, which nevertheless serves to inspire a sense of common humanity. References Allwood, C. M. (2011). On the foundation of the indigenous psychologies. Soda! Epistemology, 25, 3-14. Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63(7), 602-614. Bronk, K, C. (2008). Humility among adolescent purpose exemplars. Jouma! of Research on Character Education, 6(1), 35-51. N E W DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 1 0 . 1 0 0 2 / c a d CULTURAL AND CONTEXTUAL ISSUES IN EXEMPLAR RESEARCH 57 Bronk, K. C. (2012). The exemplar methodology: An approach to studying the leading edge of development. Manuscript under review. Brown, B. B., Larson, R. W, & Saraswathi, T. S. (2002). The world’s youth: Adolescence in eight regions of the globe. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Cheung, E M., van de Vijver, E R., cSi Leong, E L. (2011). Toward a new approach to the study of personality in culture. American Psychologist, 66(7), 593-603. Chirkov, V. I., Ryan, R. M., 61 Sheldon, K. M. (Eds.). (2011). Human autonomy in crosscultural contexts. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Colby, A., & Damon, W (1992). Some do care: Contemporary lives of moral commitment. New York, NY: The Free Press. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814-834. Hart, D., & Eegley, S. (1995). Altruism and caring in adolescence: Relations to moral judgment and self-understanding. Child Development, 66, 1346-1359. Jensen, L. A. (2008). Coming of age in a multicultural world: Globalization and adolescent cultural identity formation. In D. L. Browning (Ed.), Adolescent identities: A collection of readings (pp. 3-17). New York, NY: The Analytic Press/Taylor & Erancis Group. Jensen, L. A. (2012). Bridging universal and cultural perspectives: A vision for developmental psychology in a global world. Child Development Perspectives, 6(1), 98-104. Kim, U., Yang, K., & Hwang, K. (2006). Indigenous and cultural psychology: Understanding people in context. New York, NY: Springer Science -I- Business Media. King, P E., Clardy, C. E., & Ramos, J. S. (2013). Adolescent spiritual exemplars: Exploring spirituality in the lives of diverse youth. Journal of Adolescent Research. doi: 10.1177/0743558413502534 Lerner, R. M. (2006). Developmental science, developmental systems, and contemporary theories of human development. In R. M. Lerner & W Damon (Eds.), Handbook of childpsychology: Theoretical models of human development (6th ed.. Vol. 1, pp. 1-17). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Maclean, A., Walker, L. J., & Matsuba, M. (2004). Transcendence and the moral self: Identity integration, religion, and moral Wie. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 43(3), 429-437. Oakes Mueller, R. A., Sando, L., & Eurrow, J. L. (2010, March). Contextual influences on exemplar nominations: Value differences between teacher- and community leadernominated moral exemplars. Paper presented at the biannual meeting of the Society for Research in Adolescence, Philadelphia, PA. Piaget, J. J. (1929). The child’s conception of the world. Oxford, England: Harcourt, Brace. Poortinga, Y. H. (1999). Do differences in behaviour imply a need for different psychologies? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(4), 419-432. Reimer, K. S., Dueck, A. C, Adelchanow, L. V, & Muto, J. D. (2009). Developing spiritual identity: Retrospective accounts from Muslim, Jewish, and Christian exemplars. In M. Souza, L. J. Francis, J. O’Higgins-Norman, & D. Scott (Eds.), International handbook of education for spirituality, care and wellbeing (pp. 507-523). Amsterdam: Springer Netherlands, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9018-9-28 Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Schwartz, S. H. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of integrated value systems. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson, & M. P Zanna (Eds.), The psychology of values: The Ontario symposium, 8 (pp. 1-24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Shweder, R. A., Goodnow, J. J., Hatano, G., LeVine, R. A., Markus, H. R., & Miller, P. J. (2006). The cultural psychology of development: One mind, many mentalities. In R. M. Lerner & W Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (6th ed.. Vol. 1, pp. 716-792). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. N E W DIRECTIONS EOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad 58 EXEMPLAR METHODS AND RESEARCH: STRATEGIES FOR INVESTIGATION Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Jouma! of Applied Psychology, 4(1), 25-29. Valsiner,J. (2011). The development of individual purposes: Creating actuality through novelty. In L. Jensen (Ed.), Bridging cultural and developmental approaches to psychology: New syntheses in theory, research, and policy (pp. 212-232). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Walker, L. J., & Hennig, K. H. (2004). Differing conceptions of moral exemplarity: Just, hrave, and caring. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(4), 629-647. Note 1. Although a full discussion of the complexity and interrelatedness of these fields is beyond the scope of this chapter, distinctions Ijetween cross-cultural, cultural, and indigenous psychologies evident in the literature are generalized in order to illuminate the nuances of culturally oriented approaches. is an associate professor of marital and family studies with the Thrive Center for Human Development in the School of Psychology at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California. PAMELA EBSTYNE KING Ross A. OAKES MUELLER is an associate professor of psychology at Point Loma Nazarene University, San Diego, California. JAMES FURROW is Evelyn and Frank Freed Professor of Marital and Family Therapy in the School of Psychology at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California. N E W DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOl; 10.1002/cad Copyright of New Directions for Child & Adolescent Development is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 2010, Vol. 16, No. 4, 581–589 © 2010 American Psychological Association 1099-9809/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0012051 Qualitative Research in Multicultural Psychology: Philosophical Underpinnings, Popular Approaches, and Ethical Considerations Joseph G. Ponterotto This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Fordham University This article reviews the current and emerging status of qualitative research in psychology. The particular value of diverse philosophical paradigms and varied inquiry approaches to the advancement of psychology generally, and multicultural psychology specifically, is emphasized. Three specific qualitative inquiry approaches anchored in diverse philosophical research paradigms are highlighted: consensual qualitative research, grounded theory, and participatory action research. The article concludes by highlighting important ethical considerations in multicultural qualitative research. Keywords: multicultural, qualitative research, research ethics, philosophy of science throughout this article, I recognize the broad scope of the dimensions of ethnicity, race, gender, language, sexual orientation, age, disability, education, spiritual or religious orientation, socioeconomic class, education, as well as other cultural dimensions. The need for multicultural psychologists to be knowledgeable of multiple-research paradigms and competent in conducting both quantitative and qualitative research, is now made clear in the American Psychological Association’s (APA, 2003) “Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice, and Organizational Change for Psychologists,” which state the following: Research Paradigms Anchoring Qualitative Research Culturally centered psychological researchers are encouraged to seek appropriate grounding in various modes of inquiry and to understand both the strengths and limitations of the research paradigms applied to culturally diverse populations . . . They should strive to recognize and incorporate research methods that most effectively complement the worldview and lifestyles of persons who come from a specific cultural and linguistic population, for example quantitative and qualitative research strategies. (p. 389) Though many psychologists have a good idea about some of the general distinctions between quantitative and qualitative research, most have not been trained to understand the depth and variety of philosophical paradigms and inquiry approaches anchoring qualitative research in psychology (Ponterotto, 2005a; Rennie et al., 2002). As noted by McLeod (2001), “It may be possible to do good quantitative research without knowing much about epistemology of the philosophy of (social) science, but good qualitative research requires an informed awareness of philosophical perspectives” (p. 203). Relatedly, Morrow (2005) highlighted differential criteria for evaluating the rigor and quality of a qualitative study based on its anchoring paradigm. Thus knowledge of philosophy of science and competence in qualitative research are inextricably intertwined. The research literature presents varied classifications of research paradigms (see Denzin & Lincoln, 2005a); however, one that I find particularly concise yet comprehensive is that proposed by Guba and Lincoln (1994) and adapted by Ponterotto (2005b). This classification presents four research paradigms: positivism, postpositivism, constructivism-interpretivism, and the critical-ideological perspective. Of these four paradigms, positivism is the exclusive province of quantitative research; however the other three paradigms can all serve as anchors for qualitative research. Table 1 summarizes the defining characteristics of postpositivism, constructivism-interpretivism, and the critical-ideological perspective. The descriptive characteristics include the paradigm’s perspective on key philosophy of science parameters, including ontology (nature of reality), epistemology (relationship between researcher and participant in the quest for knowledge), axiology (role of values in research), rhetorical structure (language used to present research findings), and methodology (specific procedures of research; see Table 1). Postpositivist qualitative research aims to use traditional qualitative methods (e.g., interviews, case studies) in as quantifiable a The reality, however, is that most psychologists, including those focused on research across cultures, continue to operate from a primarily postpositivist research paradigm and their associated quantitative procedures (Haverkamp, Morrow, & Ponterotto, 2005b; Ponterotto, 2005a; Rennie, Watson, & Monteiro, 2002). In this article I promote the increased use of qualitative research methods anchored in diverse research paradigms. To that end, this article (a) describes leading research paradigms for qualitative research, (b) reviews the current and emerging status of qualitative methods in the field, (c) highlights the potential value of qualitative approaches to psychology generally and multicultural psychology specifically, (d) presents a brief overview of select qualitative inquiry approaches advocated for multicultural research, and (e) highlights important ethical issues in conducting qualitative research with diverse populations. Consistent with the APA’s (2003) “Multicultural Guidelines,” when referring to multiculturalism or multicultural psychology Joseph G. Ponterotto, Division of Psychological & Educational Services, Fordham University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Joseph G. Ponterotto, Division of Psychological & Educational Services, Room 1008, Fordham University at Lincoln Center, 113 West 60th Street, New York, NY 10023-7478. E-mail: 581 PONTEROTTO 582 Table 1 Research Paradigms for Multicultural Research Research paradigm Postpositivism This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Constructivism-Interpretivism Critical Theory and Related Ideological Positions Defining characteristics and qualitative approaches One true approximal reality; researcher attempts to be as dualistic and objective as possible; must monitor closely and bracket any value biases; attempts control of variables and systematization of research procedures; generally third person, objective report presentation; chiefly quantitative methods, with some more structured qualitative approaches such as consensual qualitative research (Hill, Thompson, & Williams,1997). Multiple, equally valid, and socially coconstructed realities; highly interactive researcher-participant relationship that leads to discovered meaning and expression of experience; researcher values to be expected and should be discussed and bracketed; report writing is first person with adequate “voice” of participants (e.g., through quotes or documents); incorporates only qualitative methods. More discovery oriented qualitative inquiry models such as grounded theory (Fassinger, 2005). An apprehendable reality shaped by political, economic, and social factors; interactive and proactive researcher role that promotes emancipation and transformation through research; researcher values are clearly explicated and help shape inquiry process; usually first person written reports relying extensively on participant voices; incorporates chiefly qualitative methods, but may incorporate quantitative procedures. Qualitative approaches in which researcher’s social justice values help direct inquiry, such as participatory action research (Kidd & Kral, 2005). Note. Paradigm characteristics adapted from Guba and Lincoln (1994), Ponterotto (2005b), and Ponterotto & Grieger (2007). manner as is possible. Thus for example, a researcher may prepare a lengthy (25 questions) semistructured interview protocol based on a review of the literature (explanatory, verification oriented), administer the interview protocol to 40 participants averaging 40 min an interview. The protocol is the same for all interviewers and the data is analyzed by a team of coresearchers and auditors for a sense of reliability in coding (agreeing on single reality). Furthermore, the researcher, in staying close to the protocol during the interview process, does not emotively connect with the participant (concept of dualism). By marked contrast, a parallel interview in the constructivistinterpretivist paradigm would involve preparing a short (five questions) semistructured protocol and interviewing 10 participants for roughly 2 hr each. The protocol can change from interview to interview (discovery-oriented) as new insights emerge. Furthermore, the researcher and participants become emotively connected, facilitating deeper levels of communication and topic exploration. Only the interviewer analyzes the data as multiple realities are valid under this paradigm, and no coresearcher or auditing team is necessary to identify a single agreed-on reality. The critical-ideological paradigm has at its core an assumption that inequity and oppression characterize real-world human interactions, and that during the process of empirical inquiry the researcher’s own social justice values can and should play a role in the research process. This role is manifested in the goal of empowerment and emancipation of groups who experience oppression (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2000). An example of a qualitative study in the critical-ideological paradigm might involve lengthy interviews or focus groups with migrant farm workers, who during and after the study gain a sense of unity and empowerment that leads to coordinated demands for better working conditions. Counseling psychologists have been particularly vocal in advocating for increased research anchored in the critical theory paradigm (e.g., Toporek, Gerstein, Fouad, Roysircar, & Israel, 2006). Current Status of Qualitative Research in Psychology Though qualitative research featured prominently in the early development of the psychology profession (e.g., the work of Allport, Erikson, Fanon, Freud, Horney, and Piaget), during the last half century qualitative methods, as a collective group, have taken a back seat to quantitative research procedures (see historical review in Ponterotto, Kuriakose, & Granovskaya, 2008). The reason for this lies in the profession’s strong preference for the positivist and postpositivist research paradigms over alternate paradigms such as constructivism and critical theory (Camic, Rhodes, & Yardley, 2003; Haverkamp et al., 2005b). Evidence of the profession’s strong reliance on positivism and postpositivism, and their associated quantitative methods, is presented in a number of studies. For example, Rennie et al. (2002) entered five search terms qualitative research, grounded theory, discourse analysis, phenomenological psychology, and empirical phenomenology in the PsycINFO database for the 100-year period, 1900 through 1999, and found that less than 1% of the articles included one of these terms. A number of other studies examined published journal literature to assess the relative representativeness of both quantitative and qualitative studies. For example, in a review of outcome studies published worldwide across a large number of journals in counseling, psychotherapy, and psychiatry, Sexton (1996) found that less than 5% of the studies relied on qualitative methods. Focusing specifically on journals in counseling and counseling psychology, Berrios and Lucca (2006) and Ponterotto, Kuriakose, et al., (2008) found that qualitative research represented under 20% of the published empirical studies during the 1990s and 2000s. Finally, in This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. SPECIAL SECTION: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH a 25-year review of journals focused on the psychology of religion and spirituality, Aten and Hernandez (2005) found that less than 1% of published articles represented qualitative research studies. It appears that the meager representation of published qualitative research in psychology journals may, in part, stem from graduate training programs that give minimal attention to qualitative methods training. For example, with regard to research training in counseling psychology, Ponterotto (2005c) found that only 10% of programs required a course in qualitative research methods, and the median percentage of doctoral dissertations across programs that employed qualitative methods was only 10%. It follows that if graduate students in psychology are not being adequately trained in alternate research paradigms and qualitative inquiry procedures, they will be less likely to conduct and publish qualitative research. Despite the clear dominance of quantitative methods in the psychology profession, there is mounting evidence that qualitative methods are slowly increasing in popularity among psychology researchers. For example, in a 12-year content analysis of major journals in counseling psychology, Ponterotto, Barnett, Ticinelli, Kuriakose, and Granovskaya (2008) found the representation of qualitative studies to increase from 13% during the 1995 to 2000 period, to 18% during the 2001 to 2006 time period. Focusing on research in family process and family therapy, Faulkner, Klock, and Gale (2002) found the overall number of qualitative studies published roughly doubled from the 1980s to the 1990s, though the overall percentage of qualitative studies to quantitative studies was still very low (percentage not specified). Ponterotto, Barnett, et al. concluded that there is a slow, gradual research paradigm shift underway, with qualitative research in applied psychology becoming more accepted and increasingly popular. where race relations have been replete with misunderstanding, stereotyping, and conflict, qualitative research can bring deeper appreciation and understanding across cultures. Sciarra (1999) stated that “not only are emotions allowed in qualitative research, they are crucial. Because entering the meaning-making world of another requires empathy, it is inconceivable how the qualitative researcher would accomplish her goal by distancing herself from emotions” (pp. 44 – 45). Sciarra’s (1999) quote highlights one of the benefits of constructivist qualitative methods to the study of multicultural psychology. That is, researchers attempt to understand the worldview of our participants through intensely listening to and respecting their own voice and their own interpretation of life events. Additional benefits of qualitative methods to multicultural research are outlined below. 1. By entering culturally diverse communities, researchers can demonstrate strong interest in participants’ life experiences through respectful interviews and observations. In this way, researchers achieve close personal contact with the participants that lead to suspension of previously held conceptions and stereotypes of the group. As the instrument of their own research, this close interaction helps transform researchers as well as the participants (Mohatt & Thomas, 2006; Morrow et al., 2001; Ponterotto & Grieger, 2008). 2. In some qualitative approaches, the researcher and participants are equivalent co-investigators, thus leveling the power hierarchy common to many quantitative designs. The empowerment of research participants serves to reduce the chances of marginalizing and stereotyping study participants (Mohatt & Thomas, 2006; Ponterotto, 2005a). 3. Qualitative research is often effective at empowering participants to navigate complex and sometimes oppressive systems (particularly within the critical theory paradigm) leading to interventions in schools and organizations, and contributing to social change (Ditrano & Silverstein, 2006; Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005; Kidd & Kral, 2005; Morrow, 2007). 4. Quantitative research often forces participants to respond to predesigned instruments or protocols that isolate individual attitudes, beliefs, feelings, and behaviors. For research participants who hail from more collectivist worldviews, this kind of research is challenging. Mohatt and Thomas (2006) summarized this concern well in their work with Native American and Alaska Native populations: “Many traditional Native people would not isolate behaviors, emotions, or cognitions and assign values to them, measure them, manipulate them, and interpret the results” (p. 109). Potential Value of Qualitative Research In this section I briefly highlight the particular value of qualitative methods, relative to traditional quantitative methods, to advancing psychology generally and multicultural psychology specifically. A review of the literature of the past decade has uncovered strong rationales for the psychology profession to expand its repertoire of operating research paradigms and empirical procedures. There is a clear sense in the literature that both quantitative and qualitative methods have their inherent strengths and limitations, and that there is a time and place for both sets of approaches in psychological research. Table 2 summarizes the particular benefits of qualitative methods to psychology (see Table 2). Value of Qualitative Research to Multicultural Psychology In addition to the general advantages of qualitative research summarized in Table 2, various authors have highlighted the particular relevance and value of qualitative inquiry to the study of multicultural psychology (Morrow, Rakhsha, & Castaneda, 2001; Ponterotto, 2005a; Trimble & Fisher, 2006a). Constructivist and critical theory qualitative procedures often involve intense, ongoing, and prolonged interaction with participants. This emotive interaction is transformative (Ponterotto, 2005b), thus creating change in both the researcher and the participants. In a country 583 From a cross-cultural perspective, another concern with many quantitative designs anchored in positivism and postpositivism is the value given to random sampling. Once again Mohatt and Thomas (2006) addressed this concern quite directly: PONTEROTTO 584 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Table 2 Specific Benefits of Qualitative Inquiry Procedures Benefit claim Supporting citations Applied psychologists are drawn to constructivist qualitative methods because they often involve studying the emotive and cognitive aspects of participants’ life experiences interpreted within the context of their socially constructed worldviews. Hill, 2005; McLeod, 2001; Morrow, 2007; Ponterotto, Kuriakose et al., 2008; Sciarra, 1999 Qualitative methods are useful in exploratory phases of research given their “discovery” rather than “explanatory” or “confirmatory” goals. Hill, 2005; Morrow, 2007; Nelson & Quintana, 2005. Qualitative research compliments quantitative research by adding descriptive depth. Morrow, 2007; Nelson & Quintana, 2005. Qualitative methods are excellent for theory development given the inductive, iterative process of ongoing data collection, analysis, and interpretation; researchers become “intimate” with data through this process. Hill, 2005; Morrow, 2007; Nelson & Quintana, 2005. Qualitative research is particularly useful in studying and understanding process in counseling and psychotherapy. Hill, 2005; Morrow, 2007. Qualitative research is effective in examining very complex psychological phenomena as it is not constrained by preselected and limited variables; such research can examine all variables as they emerge during the discovery process. Hill, 2005; Morrow et al., 2001. Qualitative research is excellent at establishing clinical relevance of research given participants’ active involvement in defining research questions, and in assessing and interpreting data; it ultimately increases clinical relevance to both clients and psychologists. Hill, 2005; Nelson & Quintana, 2005; Silverstein, Auerbach, & Levant, 2006. Qualitative research and writing can increase the public’s understanding of and receptivity to research. Morrow, 2007; Ponterotto, 2006; Ponterotto & Grieger, 2007; Silverstein et al., 2006. Qualitative research can effectively bridge the noted rift between the objective hypothetico-deductive model of science (from positivism/postpositivism) and the subjective everyday experience of practitioners helping clients and patients. Morrow, 2007. Qualitative research is effective in establishing “procedural evidence” (i.e., study methods and findings are intelligible, consistent, and credible, and become self-evident in the iterative, emergent analysis process). Hill, 2005; Morrow, 2005. I believe that random sampling procedures violate a fundamental principle of every indigenous group with whom I have worked. It assumes that a statistical or mathematical rationale should determine whom we talk to or with whom we intervene. It is . . . . both exclusive and dangerous because not all members of the community would be included, and there would be no evidence of comembership on the part of the researchers and therefore no sense of protection from harm. (pp. 110 –111) By contrast, qualitative designs often give voice to previously disempowered, marginalized, and silenced groups who share their worldview and lived experiences in their own words, in their own way, and under conditions set forth through comembership in the research endeavor (Ponterotto, 2005a). Steps in Conducting Qualitative Multicultural Research In the last decade, many excellent sources on conducting qualitative research have been put forth (e.g., Camic et al., 2003; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005b; McLeod, 2001). In this section I draw on these and other sources as well as my own experience conduct- ing and supervising multicultural qualitative research to summarize important steps for conceptualizing and conducting multiculturally focused qualitative research. Decide on Operating Research Paradigm The first step in conducting a qualitative study is to decide on the research paradigm anchoring the study. The paradigm will serve as a roadmap guiding the researcher to an appropriate qualitative inquiry approach, directing the course and methods of the study, and promoting a careful evaluation of the quality of the study (Morrow, 2005). Paradigm choices were reviewed earlier in this article and are summarized in Table 1. Graduate students and psychologists should understand the politics of research in their working environment and be prepared to address supervisory resistance to certain paradigms and research approaches. For example, some PhD programs in psychology dissuade students from conducting a qualitative study anchored in constructivism or critical theory in favor of quantitative studies or qualitative studies anchored in postpositivism (see related discussion in Ponterotto, 2005c; Ponterotto & Grieger, 2007). SPECIAL SECTION: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Select Qualitative Inquiry Approach There are at least 20 acknowledged and popular qualitative inquiry approaches emanating from a host of intellectual disciplines. Qualitative inquiry approaches that have been particularly popular with psychologists are reviewed in recent edited books (e.g., Fischer, 2006; Willig & Stainton-Rogers, 2008) and special journal issues (e.g., Carter & Morrow, 2007a, 2007b; Haverkamp, Morrow, & Ponterotto, 2005a). In this section I briefly review three popular qualitative inquiry approaches that will appeal to both seasoned researchers and students new to qualitative research. For paradigmatic breadth I have chosen one inquiry approach from each of the three potential qualitative-anchoring paradigms. CQR. Consensual qualitative research (CQR) is the most postpositivist of our three selected qualitative inquiry approaches. CQR was developed by Clara E. Hill in response to her dissatisfaction with the depth and richness of data emanating from quantitative research in psychotherapy. In developing the CQR model, Hill, Thompson, and Williams (1997) drew on established qualitative approaches, while retaining some of the scientific rigor common to quantitative methods (e.g., consensus, replicability, concrete procedural guidelines). The particular qualitative approaches that Hill et al. (1997) borrowed from were grounded theory, comprehensive process analysis, phenomenology, and feminist theories. Thus, CQR actually has components of constructivism and critical theory in addition to an anchoring in postpositivism. More recently, Hill et al. (2005) reviewed and updated procedures for conducting CQR studies. The updated guidelines were developed in response to reviewing and evaluating 27 different published CQR studies from 1994 to 2003. Ponterotto (2005b) noted that the 2005 CQR model is somewhat more constructivistic than the original 1997 model in terms of reducing the number of interview questions to promote more probing, greater depth of participant responses and, ultimately, greater discovery. Hill et al. (2005) posit five essential elements of the CQR method. First, researchers prepare semistructured interview protocols for use in face-to-face and/or phone interviews (though focus groups have also been used). The authors recommended preparing roughly 8 to 10 scripted questions per planned hour of interview. Probing responses further is encouraged as a means of additional exploration and discovery. The interview protocols are prepared in consideration of a thorough literature review on the topic at hand, on talking with people from the target group to garner insights for the protocol, and on researchers’ own self-reflections and experience related to the topic. CQR samples tend to be randomly selected from within an identified homogeneous population with in-depth experience of the phenomena under study. Hill et al. (2005) recommend 8 to 15 participants per study when only one or two interviews are conducted with each participant. Generally speaking, one thorough interview is sufficient in a CQR study, with a second interview sometimes helping to capture further participant thinking in the area. The second component of CQR is the reliance on multiple judges/coders throughout the data analysis process in the hopes of fostering diverse perspectives. Hill et al. (2005) recommended a minimum of three primary research team members for each CQR study. The third component of CQR emphasizes consensus in arriving at the meaning of the coded data. Hill et al. (2005) 585 considered consensus critical to the CQR method and that is why “consensus” forms the first word in CQR. The construct of consensus emanates from a postpositivist position as research team members discuss and come to agreement on data interpretation. Thus there is an ontological assumption of one approximal reality in terms of the generated results (refer back to Table 1). However, the construct of consensus as operationalized by Hill et al. (1997) also drew on the critical theory paradigm in that the consensus generation among CQR team members relies on mutual respect, equal co-involvement, and shared power, which is central to ideological positions in feminism, multiculturalism, and liberation psychology. The fourth component of CQR advocates the use of at least one auditor (not part of the primary research team) to review the work of the researchers, minimize the potential effects of groupthink, and independently assess the coding and analysis procedures. The final CQR component addresses the steps of data analysis in working with the transcribed interviews. These steps involve (a) identifying domains that are topics used to group or cluster the data; (b) developing core ideas that are brief summaries of the data that capture descriptively and concisely the essence of the participants’ voices; and (c) cross-analysis, which involves constructing categories that describe common emergent themes across all study participants. The broad paradigmatic base of CQR makes it an attractive qualitative design to a wide variety of seasoned qualitative researchers as well as to traditionally trained quantitative researchers looking to move into qualitative inquiry. The approach is also popular among graduate students because of the crystal clear user guidelines put forth by Hill and her colleagues (Hill et al., 1997, 2005), and because the strong postpositivist leaning of CQR make it an acceptable qualitative approach in traditional quantitative research training programs in psychology. The CQR method is being used increasingly in the study of multiculturalism in psychology, and the reports of these studies are being published in premier, high impact journals. (For a reference list of recent multiculturally focused studies incorporating the CQR, GT, and PAR inquiry approach, please email Joseph G. Ponterotto at GT. Grounded theory (GT) is the most established of our three selected qualitative approaches, and is also the approach most firmly grounded in the constructivist research paradigm. Two sociologists, Glaser and Strauss (1967), fashioned the procedures of grounded theory as a result of their research on the awareness of dying among terminally ill patients. As with CQR, elements of GT can be anchored in multiple-research paradigms (Ponterotto, 2005b), and over the last four decades at least five variations of grounded theory have been put forth (McLeod, 2001). However, the model of GT that I advocate for multicultural research is the constructivist-leaning approach described by Fassinger (2005) who further shaped grounded theory to be more applicable to the field of multicultural psychology. Like CQR, GT often centers on individual interviews, usually face-to-face. GT researchers rely on the long interview procedure with (adult) interviews often lasting beyond 1 hr and up to 3 hr (Ponterotto, 2005b). Many GT researchers embed their interview protocol questions in part on previous knowledge, experience, and literature; however, “the researcher must strike a delicate balance between enough knowledge to focus the sampling and data col- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 586 PONTEROTTO lection effectively and yet not so much immersion in existing perspectives that the investigation becomes circumscribed by preordained constructs and limited expectations” (Fassinger, 2005, p. 158). Thus, as a constructivist approach, GT is more discovery oriented than CQR. Also, unlike CQR which randomly selects 8 to 15 participants from a carefully identified homogenous population, GT relies more on theoretical sampling in which additional participants are decided on as the interviewing progresses, as discovery emerges, and as the research questions evolve from interview to interview. Unlike CQR that uses the same interview protocol for each participant, GT protocols may change (e.g., adding certain questions), as discovery emerges within interviews. In GT research, interviewing, transcribing, coding, and analysis happen concurrently in an iterative, constant comparative process. As an interview is transcribed and reviewed, the researcher develops ongoing and perhaps new questions for the next interview. Subsequent interview questions are thus grounded in an emergent database. Furthermore, in GT, interviewing ends when theoretical saturation is reached, that is when the researcher finds that adding new participants does not contribute substantively to the emerging data patterns. The ultimate goal of a GT study is to outline an innovative, substantive theory generated from the “erblenis” (i.e., lived experiences) of participants who engage in deep dialogic interaction with skilled interviewers within the participants’ real-world social context. The data analysis process in GT usually involves three major steps: open, axial, and selective coding. During open coding, transcribed data are broken down into meaning units (e.g., a few words or sentences that present a meaningful description, experience, feeling or attitude set), which are labeled with language emerging directly from participants, compared to other emerging meaning units, and then gradually integrated into larger groupings. In axial coding, relationships among categories are further described and organized into broader more concept-encompassing categories. During this process a constant comparative process is used to continuously compare categories to one another and against new data coming in from subsequent interviews. As this process unfolds, the depth, density, complexity, and descriptive clarity of the axial codes are markedly enhanced. The researcher also explores variations in axial code development and looks for disconfirming cases as a trustworthiness test of the emergent codes (see Morrow, 2005). In the final phase of analysis, selective coding, the GT researcher examines the interrelationship among all the selective codes and attempts to extract and fashion a core story that connects the selective codes in an interrelated (sometimes sequential) and meaningful way. This core story encompasses all of the selective codes and serves as the substantive theory that is the heart of GT research. Naturally the substantive theory is unique to the sample on which the GT is developed. When and if this substantive theory is replicated and/or modified across multiple samples and contexts, a more formal theory can be explicated (see Glaser & Strauss, 1967). In keeping with the constructivist perspective on ontology that posits equally valid multiple realities, the GT research process does not call for consensus, interjudge reliability of coded data, or multiple researchers. In fact, Glaser and Strauss (1967) were quite clear on this point when they stated that “dependent on the skill and sensitivities of the analyst, the constant comparative method is not designed (as methods of quantitative analysis are) to guarantee that two analysts working independently with the same data will achieve the same results” (p. 103). PAR. Participatory action research (PAR) refers to forms of action research anchored in the belief that the research process itself serves as a mechanism for social change (Schwandt, 2001). PAR is clearly the most critical-theory focused inquiry approach of the three covered in this section. At the core of PAR is empowerment of community participants that leads to emancipation (from some oppressive condition) and enhanced quality of life (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005). Describing the overriding purpose of PAR in laypersons’ terms, Kidd and Kral (2005) stated “you get people affected by a problem together, figure out what is going on as a group, and then do something about it” (p. 187). The research study is the means to gather the necessary knowledge about the problem and to incite intervention or change directly useful to the community. In part, the origins of PAR can be traced to the critical consciousness construct of Freire (1970), who participated in longterm program to increase adult literacy in Brazil. According to Kemmis and McTaggart (2005), PAR generally involves a spiral of self-reflection and action as a community problem is addressed. Participants and researchers establish a collaborative relationship as they ask critical questions about their current life situation. This dialogue moves the group from a passive acceptance stance to one of action as they develop knowledge and further explore the community problem and how it can be addressed. With enhanced knowledge and empowerment in hand, the PAR collaborators begin a stage of social action to incite change. Specific procedures for change emerge and shift as part of the self-reflective cycles. Once the initial action plan is implemented, subsequent PAR phases may involve documenting, evaluating, and replicating the action plan (Ditrano & Silverstein, 2006). PAR implies full participation on the part of study participants. However, as noted by Kidd and Kral (2005), the creation of such participatory contexts is far from the norm . . . disempowered groups are seldom given the opportunity and, arguably, are discouraged from this type of action because many factors, including a lack of respect for the knowledge of stigmatized peoples . . . Further compounding this problem is the tendency for established forums (e.g., academia) to claim exclusive ownership of methods of knowledge gathering and avenues for change. (pp. 187–199) PAR does not propose a clear series of procedural and analytic steps as is the case with CQR and GT reviewed earlier. Rather, during the reflective and action spiral, PAR investigators rely on a wide variety of methods and procedures as they come to understand the needs of the community. As such, many PAR studies take on varied ethnographic methods such as storytelling, sharing experiences, individual and focus group interviews, participant observation, drawings, and even the more structured qualitative interview or quantitative survey. Kidd and Kral (2005) noted that each PAR project is a “custom job,” that emerges and changes as levels of critical consciousness rise, “much like building a factory in which the tools may be made rather than necessarily using tools already at hand” (p. 187). Of the three inquiry approaches promoted in this article, it is PAR that is the least utilized in psychology (Ponterotto, Barnett, et al., 2008). This is likely due to the axiology of PAR as a critical theory method that advocates a value-directed (rather than value- SPECIAL SECTION: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH neutral postpositivism or value-bracketed constructivism) stance. Traditionally trained postpositivist psychologists are generally uncomfortable with research that is so value mediated (Ponterotto & Grieger, 2007), as they were trained to see research as objective, in which participants are studied without changing them or the researchers (dualism). This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Consider Ethical Issues Throughout the Research Process The history of psychology (and medicine) is replete with examples of ethical abuses of research participants from racial and ethnic minority communities (Ponterotto & Grieger, 2008; Trimble & Fisher, 2006a). Most psychologists are well versed in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service in Alabama from 1932 through 1972. In this study, 600 African American men (399 in the treatment group and 201 in the control group) were never informed that they had syphilis. Furthermore, when penicillin became the standard treatment for syphilis, the medicine was not made available to the participants. Roughly 100 men died because they failed to receive penicillin (Wallace, 2006). Less familiar to psychologists than the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis Study is the more recent Havasupai tribe study conducted in the early 1990s by university researchers in the Southwest. According to a lawsuit filed by 52 tribal members, blood samples ostensibly collected to study the correlation to diabetes were also used without consent to study correlations with schizophrenia, migration patterns, and inbreeding (Trimble & Fisher, 2006b). Though the above ethical abuse examples revolved around experimental or correlational research designs, it is clear that vigilant ethical practice is more a function of the researcher’s own self-awareness, multicultural competence, and collaborative commitment than it is a function of design characteristics. In other words, researchers hailing from any philosophical research paradigm and using any variety of research methods can fail to attend to ethical care in research practice (see Trimble & Fisher, 2006a). Having said that, it is important to acknowledge that qualitative research methods present some unique ethical challenges given the researcher’s often intense, personal, and prolonged interaction with participants in their own community environments. A full explication of ethical challenges in qualitative research is beyond the scope of this article, and has been adequately covered in both long-standing (e.g., Cieurzo & Keitel, 1999) and recent (Haverkamp, 2005) publications. Suffice it to say that qualitative research poses unique ethical challenges in terms of informed consent, recruiting participants and gaining access to diverse communities, confidentiality, researcher dual roles and multiple relationships, interpretation and ownership of knowledge generated, and challenges posed by Institutional Review Board’s (IRB) of universities and communities. In all cases, when researchers are bridging to new culturally diverse communities who may represent varied worldviews (e.g., collectivism vs. individualism), the ethical challenges are magnified. For example, regarding informed consent, in constructivist research designs that focus on emergent, discovery-oriented qualitative approaches (e.g., grounded theory, phenomenology), neither the researcher or participants know where personal interviews will lead, as the interview protocol can change from interview to interview as new directions for inquiry are uncovered. Thus it is difficult to prepare 587 participants for what will take place or what will be ultimately discussed during the interviews. Furthermore, it is difficult to anticipate participants’ reactions during, immediately after, and sometime after the interviews take place, thus participants cannot be adequately informed about what their experience will be like during and after the research process (Cieurzo & Keitel, 1999; Haverkamp, 2005). In communities-of-color, language nuances and cultural attitudes regarding the appropriateness of “questioning” the researchers may further compromise informed consent. Another example of an ethical challenge in qualitative research is deception of research participants and gatekeepers controlling access to these communities. Cieurzo and Keitel (1999) noted that in gaining access to diverse communities researchers must convince gatekeepers that the research will benefit the studied community. Yet for both fear of scaring off the gatekeepers, and because researchers themselves may not know all they will be asking or observing in emergent designs, they may be purposefully vague when describing a study. Terminating a study can also pose particular ethical challenges to qualitative researchers. For example, in most quantitative designs there is a dualistic perspective on the relationship between the research and study participants. That is, researchers have minimal direct contact with participants in an effort not to bias or influence the research results. The exact opposite is the case in many qualitative approaches where an intense interaction between an interviewer and her or his participants is a prerequisite to facilitating the participants’ ability to access and describe their “lived experience” (Ponterotto, 2005b). Thus for many quantitative designs one poststudy debriefing is often sufficient in terminating a study. However, in qualitative designs, it is often necessary for researchers to follow-up and maintain contact with the study participants for a significant period of time. In research in diverse minorit…