Chapter 18
APPLYING QUALITATIVE AND
MIXED METHODS RESEARCH
IN FAMILY PSYCHOLOGY
Vicki L. Plano Clark, Sherry C. Wang, and Sinem Toraman
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
Families are inherently complex and dynamic
systems. This complexity poses many challenges
for family psychologists who want to understand,
explain, and improve family systems. Family psy-
chology is multifaceted, multidimensional, and
understood to be both a phenomenon and a process.
Scholars and practitioners addressing the field of
family psychology not only work with individuals,
couples, families, and extended groups but must
also contend with the realities of assessing families’
experiences in fluid and dynamic contexts. Given
the complexity of studying individuals in many
systems and contexts, scholars and practitioners
in the field of family psychology are continuously
pushing to incorporate new and emerging methods
to account for the nuances of individuals, couples,
dyads, and families.
Fortunately, family psychology researchers have
access to a wide array of research approaches that
can be used to study family systems, including quan-
titative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Each of
these different approaches to research is best suited
for addressing specific types of research intents and
produces different types of knowledge. These dif-
ferences mean that the approaches collectively offer
great potential for the field of family psychology to
gain insights into the family system. However, that
potential can only be realized if family psychologists
understand the value of different approaches, know
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0000099-018
APA Handbook of Contemporary Family Psychology: Vol. 1. Foundations, Methods, and Contemporary Issues Across the Lifespan, B. H. Fiese (Editor-in-Chief)
Copyright © 2019 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.
APA Handbook of Contemporary Family Psychology: Foundations, Methods, and
Contemporary Issues Across the Lifespan, edited by B. H. Fiese, M. Celano, K.
Deater-Deckard, E. N. Jouriles, and M. A. Whisman
Copyright © 2019 American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.
how to implement rigorous procedures associated
with different approaches, and are able to critically
assess the quality of research that applies different
approaches.
While much has been written about quantitative
research in family psychology (see Chapters 15–17,
19–22, this volume), family psychologists need to
understand qualitative research and how it can be
used on its own and in combination with quantita-
tive research in mixed methods approaches. Each
different research approach encompasses its own
set of foundational assumptions, research designs,
methods decisions, and standards of quality (Crotty,
1998). Therefore, consumers and producers of fam-
ily psychology research need to understand the basic
underpinnings of these different methodologies
in order to identify, design, and evaluate the most
appropriate methods for the research questions that
concern them.
The purpose of this chapter is to introduce quali-
tative and mixed methods research, so that family
psychologists can understand and critically evaluate
the application of these approaches to examining
family systems. Although it is beyond the scope
of this chapter to cover all the details needed to
implement different qualitative and mixed methods
research approaches, our goal is to present an over-
view of key methodological concepts and to identify
examples and suggested resources for readers wanting
317
 Plano Clark, Wang, and Toraman
further information. We begin by discussing rea-
sons why family psychologists need to develop
expertise in qualitative and mixed methods research
approaches. We then provide an introduction to
qualitative research, by describing key characteris-
tics of the approach along with common research
designs and examples from the family psychology
literature. We subsequently present an introduc-
tion to mixed methods research. We conclude the
chapter with implications and recommendations for
family psychologists interested in reading, review-
ing, and conducting research using qualitative and
mixed methods research.
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
WHY DO FAMILY PSYCHOLOGISTS
NEED TO UNDERSTAND QUALITATIVE
AND MIXED METHODS APPROACHES
TO RESEARCH?
The field of family psychology has historically
grappled with the challenges of using a broad and
diverse range of methodologies to adequately cap-
ture the diversity of family science. To date, several
scholars in the field have taken a stance against
researchers using only one set of methods and advo-
cated for expanding methodological approaches to
include a broader set of tools for studying family
topics. Overreliance on a single methodology,
referred to as methodocentrism (Weisner, 1996), has
been recognized as a problem that not only delays
the progress of the field but also makes it difficult
to deepen our understanding of a particular issue
by using different perspectives and approaches
(Weisner, 2014). Building on this concern, there
have been two special issues on methodology in the
Journal of Family Psychology, both calling attention
to the need to make conceptual and methodologi-
cal advances through nontraditional approaches
(Snyder & Kazak, 2005; Weisner & Fiese, 2011).
As concisely argued by the editors of the 2005 spe-
cial issue: “The diversity of family science demands
equally broad methods” (Snyder & Kazak, 2005, p. 3).
Despite these calls for methodological pluralism in
the field, our examination of the family psychology
literature has documented that a disproportionate
number of quantitative studies are present in con-
trast to qualitative and mixed methods studies.
318
A conceptual problem related to methodo-
centrism is the lack of a consistent definition of
qualitative research as a stand-alone methodology,
rather than an approach that is defined only when
juxtaposed with quantitative methodology (Weisner,
2014). Such a contrast pits the two approaches
against one another, treating them as opposites,
when both can operate independently and should be
understood as being uniquely and distinctly different.
To counter this conceptual limitation, we draw from
the work of Creswell (2013) to provide a broad
definition of qualitative research that encompasses
theoretical lens, worldview and subjectivity, data
collection, analysis, and final write-up. Specifically,
Creswell (2013) offers the following definition:
Qualitative research begins with
assumptions and the use of interpretive/
theoretical frameworks that inform the
study of research problems addressing
the meaning individuals or groups
ascribe to a social or human problem.
To study this problem, qualitative
researchers use an emerging qualita-
tive approach to inquiry, the collection
of data in a natural setting sensitive to
the people and places under study, and
data analysis that is both inductive and
deductive and establishes patterns or
themes. The final written report or
presentation includes the voices of
participants, the reflexivity of the
researcher, and a complex description
and interpretation of the problem, and
its contribution to the literature or a call
for change. (p. 44)
Based on Creswell’s (2013) definition, qualitative
methods can be understood as a process by which
deliberate decisions are made regarding the types
of theoretical lens being used to frame a research
question, explicit attention toward recognizing the
subjectivity of the researcher, sensitivity in how the
researcher collects and analyzes the data, and how
the findings are presented in a way that brings to
light varied voices and perspectives on an issue.
All of these processes fall within the spectrum of
using qualitative methodology so that each step of
 Applying Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research in Family Psychology
the research process is intentionally designed and
implemented in the research process from beginning
to end. This means that good qualitative research
starts with conceptualization and concludes with
the researcher’s discussion of the implications of the
study findings.
In addition to the need to have a comprehen-
sive understanding of the meaning of qualitative
research, family psychologists need to understand
the meaning of mixed methods research to recog-
nize the ways in which it influences decisions in the
research process. This understanding includes the
ways in which two sets of philosophical assump-
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
tions undergird the research process, which in turn
affect the research question, the researcher’s role in
the process, the data collection and analysis, and
the study implications. We draw from Creswell
and Plano Clark (2007) to define mixed methods
research as follows:
Mixed methods research is a research
design with philosophical assumptions
as well as methods of inquiry. As a
methodology, it involves philosophical
assumptions that guide the direction
of the collection and analysis of data
and the mixture of qualitative and
quantitative approaches in many phases
of the research process. As a method,
it focuses on collecting, analyzing, and
mixing both quantitative and qualitative
data in a single study or series of studies.
Its central premise is that the use of
quantitative and qualitative approaches
in combination provides a better under-
standing of research problems than
either approach alone. (p. 5)
The comprehensive definition set forth by
Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) underscores that
mixed methods research is a research approach
with its own set of philosophical assumptions.
Mixed methods research simultaneously houses two
methods of inquiry, each with its respective para-
digmatic distinctiveness, in creative tension. Each
approach is distinguishable and serves as a guide
for the researcher to follow through a structured
process that permeates every step of the decision-
making process, from the theory being selected; to
the explicitness of the researcher’s role; to the pro-
cesses of data collection, analysis, validation, and
interpretation.
Researchers using a mixed methods design ben-
efit from recognizing the underlying philosophical
assumptions that drive the theory and process of
quantitative and qualitative research. If they fail to
recognize those assumptions, they will have diffi-
culty knowing what processes to follow to conduct
research that is replicable; holds strong validity and
reliability, rigor, and credibility; and is applicable
to real-world settings. These problems may arise
as early as the conceptualization of the research,
including the issues of posing a research question
that is answerable, collecting and analyzing data
that fits with the intentions of the study, and provid-
ing an interpretation of the findings in a way that
aligns with the aims of the study. Knowing how to
assess the quality of a research approach is therefore
dependent on knowing which approach to select
and following its process in a systematic manner.
As one example, the application of theory to
practice differs greatly from qualitative to quantita-
tive research. Qualitative research aims to particu-
larize findings with descriptive detail so that the
results may be considered transferable to similar
populations in comparable contexts. Conversely, in
quantitative research emphasis is placed on the gen-
eralizability of findings, rather than on recognizing
the contextual and descriptive nature of participants’
experiences. That is, the strength and purpose of
quantitative research is to extend the findings to the
larger population; in a qualitative inquiry, the find-
ings are meant to be written in a descriptive manner,
so that readers themselves are positioned to deter-
mine the extent to which the results as well as the
research process are applicable to other people and
other settings. A mixed methods study that com-
bines both approaches would have to both engage
with and gain insight from the juxtaposition of the
different philosophies and emphases.
To advance methodological strengths within
family psychology, it is important for researchers
and practitioners to have adequate knowledge
to not only understand but also evaluate scien-
tific inquiry that is considered nontraditional in
319
 Plano Clark, Wang, and Toraman
mainstream quantitative training. A problematic
consequence of methodocentrism is scholars’
unwillingness or inability to critically review and
appraise research that is outside the scope of their
familiarity. Specialists remain hesitant to review
and assess research that is conducted in a method
different from what they know. In the 2011 special
issue of the Journal of Family Psychology, the editors
commented on the ways in which they observed
reluctance when soliciting reviewers for submissions
to the methodology issue. Weisner and Fiese (2011)
noted, “experts in the substantive topics covered
in the articles . . . were reluctant to review submis-
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
sions that used methods they were not experts in
(either quantitative or qualitative) in spite of their
expertise on the topics of the submission” (p. 797).
It is therefore imperative to de-mystify the process
of how qualitative and mixed methods research is
conducted, as well as explicitly identify the indica-
tors that should be used to assess the rigor of these
studies as a response to ongoing methodocentrism.
Only in doing so can we assist researchers, scholars,
and practitioners working with families in becoming
good consumers, producers, and critics of the science
and theory of understanding families. The sections
that follow provide a general overview of the essential
considerations and methods associated with high-
quality qualitative and mixed methods studies.
APPLYING INTERPRETIVE QUALITATIVE
RESEARCH APPROACHES
It is important for researchers and practitioners
to understand the basic principles that guide the
application of high-quality interpretive qualitative
research approaches. Not only does this provide a
shared conception of the methodological approach
but understanding the terminologies and decisions
associated with qualitative research is a precursor
to conducting and comprehending mixed methods
research. We start this section by defining interpreta-
tive qualitative research. Subsequently, we identify
the decisions that follow in conducting an inter-
pretive qualitative research study, including issues
pertaining to participant selection, data collection
and analysis, and the types of conclusions that can
be drawn using this approach. After providing a big-
320
picture understanding of qualitative research, we
then discuss concrete examples of four qualitative
research designs widely used in the field of family
psychology.
Defining Interpretive Qualitative Research
Although qualitative methods can be used with
many perspectives and for many different purposes,
we intentionally choose to emphasize interpretive
qualitative research that encompasses a wide range
of approaches that provide clear alternatives to
quantitative research (Creswell, 2013, 2015; Gilgun,
2005). By interpretive qualitative research, we mean
the use of qualitative methods that is shaped by
constructivist assumptions (for further discussion,
see Chapter 8, this volume). These assumptions
include the perspective that individuals construct
their own unique realities and that knowledge about
multiple realities of the social world can be best
achieved by constructing understandings through
close personal interactions with participants (Crotty,
1998; Ponterotto, 2005). When researchers use
interpretive qualitative approaches, they value rich
descriptions and subjective interpretations of the
idiosyncratic perceptions, experiences, and contexts
salient for individuals, dyads, and social systems.
Such approaches are particularly relevant to family
psychology because they are able to provide unique
insights into the contextualized complexity and
dynamic nature of families. As such, they are also
exceptionally well aligned with systems theories
that provide fundamental theoretical foundations
for the field of couple and family psychology (for
further discussion, see Chapter 1, this volume).
Unlike traditional quantitative research approaches,
the purpose of interpretive qualitative research is
to explore, describe, and interpret the meaning of a
phenomenon as perceived and experienced by
participants, instead of as defined and measured by
the researcher.
Researchers and methodologists have developed
a large toolbox of procedures that are well suited
for accomplishing the exploratory goals of interpre-
tive qualitative research (Creswell, 2013; Denzin &
Lincoln, 2011; Maxwell, 2013; Patton, 2015). These
goals demand particular considerations for how to
select participants, gather data, analyze the data,
 Applying Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research in Family Psychology
and draw conclusions. When selecting participants,
interpretive qualitative researchers use purposeful
sampling strategies to intentionally select a small
number of participants. The goal is to identify par-
ticipants who can share rich information from their
experiences with the phenomenon being studied
and to select a small enough number that they can
be studied in depth. Examples of purposeful sam-
pling strategies include intensity sampling, typical
sampling, extreme sampling, maximum variation
sampling, and snowball sampling.
To collect data, interpretive qualitative research-
ers use strategies that provide in-depth and exten-
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
sive information about the phenomenon of interest.
The strategies emphasize data forms that are rela-
tively unstructured, dynamic and emergent, and
open ended, so that participants decide the type of
response to give and researchers shape the direc-
tion of the questions throughout the study based on
those responses. Qualitative researchers make use of
many different data types, including individual and
group interviews; participant observations; and doc-
uments and artifacts, including participant journals,
images, and artwork. In good interpretive qualita-
tive research, the researcher develops an extensive
database with in-depth information, often gathered
using multiple forms and over a prolonged period
of time.
The process of data analysis and interpretation
in interpretive qualitative research is iterative, per-
sonal, and reflexive. Data analysis begins during
each data collection event as the researcher listens,
interprets, and makes decisions about questions;
probes what is being learned; and records reflec-
tive notes immediately following the interview or
observation. As soon as possible, the researcher
transcribes the gathered information verbatim, so
that there is a detailed record of the participant’s
words, actions, and thoughts. The text analysis
process involves reading the data to get a sense of
the holistic meaning, coding individual text seg-
ments to track the meaning of the data, and build-
ing themes and descriptions based on the codes. In
good qualitative research, the researcher not only
develops themes that describe the complexity of
the phenomenon but also interprets relationships
and connections among the themes. The analysis
process is personal, because the researcher is mak-
ing subjective judgments about the meaning of the
data; it is also reflexive, because the researcher is con-
stantly reflecting about the process of creating this
meaning and keeping records of the interpretations
that emerge from the data and how they are used
to inform the ongoing data collection process. The
interpretations are focused on the larger meaning
of the thematic and descriptive findings for partici-
pants, theory, and practice.
Although it is essential to consider the basic
methods associated with interpretive qualitative
research, the diversity of approaches and options can
make it a challenge to design, implement, understand,
and review qualitative research studies within family
psychology. It is particularly helpful for family psy-
chologists to realize that there are numerous research
designs (also referred to as methodologies) that fall
under the qualitative research umbrella. Qualitative
research designs are overall plans for qualitative
sampling, data collection, data analysis, and data
interpretation in the service of specific research
purposes. Many such designs have been developed
across different disciplines and for different
purposes—too many to discuss in one chapter.
Thus, we have selected four specific qualitative
designs to examine in this chapter: case study,
ethnography, grounded theory, and narrative
research. As summarized in Table 18.1, these
designs are best suited to address different types of
research questions. Specifically, they differ in terms
of the rationale for using qualitative methods, the
study focus, the methodological procedures used,
and the types of conclusions made. As such, this set
of four research designs conveys a range of interpre-
tative qualitative approaches that may be of interest
to family psychologists.
Case Study Qualitative Design
Suppose a researcher is interested in studying a new
therapy program aimed at developing feelings of
hope in elementary school-aged children whose par-
ents are going through a divorce, in order to develop
lessons learned from this program. There are many
such research situations in which family psycholo-
gists are interested in describing and interpreting the
complexity of what happens in a specific program,
321
 Plano Clark, Wang, and Toraman

TABLE 18.1

Comparing Four Qualitative Research Designs

Dimensions for
comparison Case study Ethnography Grounded theory Narrative
Illustrations How does a new program What are the rituals that What is the theory that What are the stories of
of possible promote hope for provide signs of hope explains the conse- hope told by an
research children of couples for families within one quences of fathers of immigrant family?
questions for undergoing divorce? community? adolescents being
studies about hopeful?
hope in families
Rationale for To describe and interpret To identify and explore To develop a theory To uncover the meaning
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

using qualita- a case sociocultural elements of experiences

tive methods
Design focus An event, program, or
activity that occurs for a
bounded system
Key methods ■ Gather multiple forms of
strategies data about each case
■ Analyze the data for
description, themes, and
lessons learned
Types of Particularized knowledge
conclusions about the complexity of
a case
Example studies Pighini, Goelman,
from couple Buchanan, Schonert-
and family Reichl, and Brynelsen
psychology (2014); Wang, Plano
Clark, and Scheel (2016)
Values, norms, and lan- A process, action, or Stories about a few
guage of a culturally interaction expe- individuals’
defined group rienced by many experiences
people
■ Conduct extensive field- ■ Gather in-depth inter- ■ Gather field texts
work with the group views with those who that document an
■ Analyze the data in have the experience individual’s story
terms of describing ■ Analyze data by open ■ Analyze the data for
and reflecting on coding, axial coding, the story elements
sociocultural themes and selective coding and larger contextual
themes
Detailed knowledge about Theory-oriented In-depth knowledge
a group’s day-to-day knowledge that of an individual’s
cultural elements and explains a experience over time
the meaning of those phenomenon
elements
Collier, Phillips, and Ganong, Coleman, Lalvani (2011);
Iedema (2015); Nixon, Jamison, and Saltzman, Pynoos,
Greene, and Hogan Feistman (2015); Lester, Layne, and
(2012) Larsen, Clauss-Ehlers, Beardslee (2013)
and Cosden (2015)

event, or activity. Case study design is a set of pro-
cedures that provides an in-depth examination of
a bounded system that the researcher identifies as
a case (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2014). Examples of cases
include a couple, a family, a program, a committee,
or an organization, and they could be bounded by
space (e.g., a neighborhood or a state) or by time
(e.g., a semester or decade). Case studies are a
natural fit for family psychologists working from
a system-based perspective, because they already
focus on how different entities in a system interact
and influence each other. In case study research,
the researcher selects one or more cases to study
in depth; gathers multiple forms of data from each
case; and analyzes the data to describe each case,
identify within-case and cross-case themes, and
draw larger lessons learned. This approach provides
researchers and practitioners with practical informa-
tion about how a case works.
Pighini, Goelman, Buchanan, Schonert-Reichl,
and Brynelsen (2014) used a multiple case study
approach to explore what happened to six families who
received infant development program (IDP) early
intervention services for their children. Consistent
with good case study procedures, the researchers
gathered multiple forms of data, including

322
 Applying Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research in Family Psychology
IDP file reviews, focus groups, and individual inter-
views with adult parents. They analyzed the data with
coding, using qualitative content analysis and thematic
analysis procedures, and used a member check strategy
as a part of the validation process following analysis of
the interviews. They interpreted parents’ experiences
in four categories; the findings demonstrated that
parents perceived that the use of specific therapies or
program regimes made a difference in the lives of their
children. The authors concluded with lessons learned
for delivering such programs to parents.
Ethnographic Qualitative Design
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
Qualitative research is especially well suited for identi-
fying and exploring sociocultural elements of people’s
everyday lives. In order to best meet the needs of
different families, family psychologists need to recog-
nize and adapt to families’ unique cultural contexts.
Sociocultural elements include patterns of beliefs,
language, and behaviors that are common among
members of a culture-sharing group. For example,
a researcher might be interested in studying rituals
that develop as sociocultural expressions of hope
for families in one community. Ethnographic research
is a qualitative approach that uses anthropological
methods to describe and interpret a group’s culture
(Atkinson & Hammersley, 2007; Fetterman, 2010).
When conducting an ethnographic study, researchers
identify a group and focus on the group’s culturally
salient rituals and beliefs. They gather data through
prolonged engagement with the group, emphasizing
participant observations, interviews, and cultural
artifacts. Researchers then analyze the data to both
describe the daily lives of individuals and interpret the
larger cultural meaning of the identified patterns.
An example of using an ethnographic approach
in family psychology is found in Collier, Phillips,
and Iedema’s (2015) study of the meaning of home
for dying patients and their families in two hos-
pital sites. The researchers spent 18 months gath-
ering and analyzing data at the sites, where they
interacted with 29 patients, five family members,
and 36 clinicians. The extensive database included
observations, field interviews, semistructured
interviews, videos, and participants’ accounts
of the video content. Using inductive analysis,
the researchers identified emergent themes and
focused on the meaning of home as the primary
finding of the analysis. They concluded their study
with interpretations of the dynamic and elusive
nature of the meaning of home for people who
are dying and the beliefs, language, and behaviors
associated with home.
Grounded Theory Qualitative Design
There are research problems that call for family
psychologists to go beyond description and develop
a theory that provides an explanation for how a
process, action, or interaction works. Grounded
theory design is a set of qualitative procedures that
researchers use to inductively build a theoretical
explanation of a phenomenon that is grounded in
the experiences of individuals (Charmaz, 2014;
Corbin & Strauss, 2015). For example, a researcher
might want to develop a theory that explains the
process that fathers of adolescents experience when
they are being hopeful. In developing this theory, the
researcher collects and analyzes data to identify
the conditions that lead fathers to be hopeful, the
actions fathers take when being hopeful, the con-
texts that shape their actions, and the outcomes that
occur. When researchers conduct a grounded theory
study, they use theoretical sampling to purposefully
select individuals who can best inform the develop-
ment of the theory and gather in-depth qualita-
tive data to learn about the process. The defining
features of the grounded theory approach are most
evident in the multiple stages of data analysis. The
researchers use open coding to develop categories
from the data, move to axial coding to interrelate
the categories (often in a diagram), and then undergo
selective coding to develop theoretical propositions
from the data. Throughout the process the researchers
compare new data to existing categories to further
refine the developing theory.
Larsen, Clauss-Ehlers, and Cosden (2015) used
a grounded theory design to develop a theoretical
model of the process of military wives’ coping in
response to the stress of spousal deployment. They
recruited a total of 18 women who had experienced
having their spouse deployed. Each woman par-
ticipated in a 2-hour in-depth interview with the
lead researcher. The team conducted an inductive,
multi-stage analysis process that included identify-
ing emergent themes through open coding and
inter­relating the themes through axial coding. The
323
 Plano Clark, Wang, and Toraman
authors developed a visual diagram that depicted
the cycle of stressors experienced by the military
wives as their spouses were deployed and described
three categories of protective factors that emerged in
response to these stressors. The authors concluded
by considering how the theoretical model could be
used to inform clinical practices for clinicians work-
ing to support military wives.
Narrative Inquiry Qualitative Design
Instead of developing a theory based on the expe-
riences of many individuals, researchers may be
interested in learning about the meaning of an
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
experience as told through a few individuals’ stories.
Narrative inquiry is a qualitative approach that har-
nesses the importance of storytelling, both in terms
of understanding personal experiences and identifying
larger themes and narratives that shape individuals’
stories (Clandinin, 2007, 2013; Kim, 2016). For
example, family psychologists working with refugee
families might study the stories that parents tell of
their journeys to the United States, to examine the
meaning of hope in their experiences. In such a
study, the researchers would identify one or a few
refugees who are parents and gather data about their
stories through multiple interviews as well as docu-
ments and artifacts that help to fill in the stories.
The data would be analyzed using a process referred
to as “restorying” to identify story elements (e.g.,
key characters, plots, resolutions), place the story
in chronological order, and interpret the meaning
of the story within the family history and the larger
sociopolitical narratives.
An example of using narrative research comes
from Lalvani’s (2011) study of the experience of
mothering as told by mothers of children with
Down syndrome. Using a Vygotskian sociocultural
psychology lens, the researcher examined stories as
social devices by which meaning unfolds for per-
sons. The researcher conducted in-depth interviews
with 19 mothers and constructed their narratives
about the births and diagnoses of their children and
their experiences of motherhood, then conducted
an in-depth analysis to identify the larger narratives
and conceptual themes found in the mothers’ sto-
ries. She concluded by examining how the mothers’
own narratives contrasted with master narratives
324
about motherhood and mothers of children with
disabilities.
INTEGRATING QUALITATIVE
AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
IN MIXED METHODS APPROACHES
Despite the utility and value of quantitative and
qualitative research approaches, there are situations
where one methodology alone—qualitative or
quantitative—is insufficient to address the com-
plexity of family systems. Although still relatively
uncommon, family psychology researchers can
choose to combine different methods to address this
complexity, for example, by describing quantitative
trends and qualitative meanings of interactions
that occur within family systems, delineating the
bidirectional contexts that shape and are shaped by
families, addressing heterogeneity among families,
documenting outcomes from and experiences with
interventions, and describing dynamic changes in
family systems over time (Gambrel & Butler, 2013;
Gilgun, 2005; Weisner, 2014; Weisner & Fiese,
2011). Such complexity calls for researchers to use
an assortment of methodological tools in comple-
mentary ways to produce dynamic, multilevel, and
contextualized knowledge and insights.
Defining Mixed Methods Research
When addressing complex situations, family psy-
chologists can turn to mixed methods approaches to
combine different perspectives, research questions,
methods, data, and results associated with tradi-
tional quantitative and qualitative approaches. It is
important to note, however, that mixed methods
research is more than the sum of its quantitative and
qualitative components. Researchers using mixed
methods research explicitly and meaningfully inte-
grate these two components to achieve insights that
could not be attained using the single approaches
alone (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). It is this
emphasis on integration that defines mixed methods
research as its own methodology, alongside quantita-
tive and qualitative research.
Since the late 1980s, an entire body of literature
has developed to provide researchers with philo-
sophical, methodological, and practical guidance
for understanding and implementing mixed methods
 Applying Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research in Family Psychology
research (e.g., Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Greene,
2007; Hesse-Biber & Johnson, 2015; Plano Clark &
Ivankova, 2016; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010; Teddlie
& Tashakkori, 2009). This literature addresses essen-
tial topics including identifying different philosophical
foundations that can support the integration of quan-
titative and qualitative methods, describing analytic
procedures for integrating quantitative and qualitative
methods, and advancing quality standards for assess-
ing the integration of quantitative and qualitative
methods. In addition, scholars writing about mixed
methods research have focused considerable attention
on delineating different research designs, which
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
provide the overall logic and blueprint for mixing
methods within studies to draw credible and valid
conclusions. In the discussion that follows, we focus
on different mixed methods research designs, because
family psychology researchers and practitioners can
benefit from understanding the different logics that
scholars use to plan, implement, understand, and
review mixed methods studies.
Drawing on previous publications (Creswell &
Plano Clark, 2018; Plano Clark & Ivankova, 2016),
we have selected three core mixed methods designs
to examine in this chapter: convergent, explana-
tory sequential, and exploratory sequential. As
summarized in Table 18.2, these designs differ in
five important ways: (a) the type of research ques-
tions they address, (b) the rationale or justification
for mixing quantitative and qualitative methods,
(c) the relative timing or order in which the two
methods are implemented, (d) the strategies used to
integrate the two methods, and (e) the types of con-
clusions that can be drawn at the end of the study.
Collectively, these designs convey the primary ways
that researchers integrate quantitative and qualita-
tive methods and therefore provide a useful frame-
work for understanding different mixed methods
approaches used by family psychology researchers.
Convergent Mixed Methods Design
In many situations, family psychology researchers
choose to use a convergent mixed methods design to
combine the results of different methods as a way
to obtain more complete and corroborated conclu-
sions. The underlying logic of the convergent design
is that researchers can capitalize on the different
strengths associated with different methods by using
them to examine different facets of the phenomenon
of interest and combine these results into a complete
understanding. Examples of different facets that
may be of interest include the meaning and trends
of an experience, the process and outcomes of an
intervention, the variables and contexts for a situ-
ation, the different levels within a system, and the
multiple dimensions within a theoretical framework.
When using a convergent design, researchers col-
lect and analyze both a qualitative database and a
quantitative database. These databases are collected
concurrently, meaning that the researcher gathers
both forms of data in the same phase of the research
study, and independently, meaning that one database
does not depend on the analysis and results of the
other database. During data analysis, the researchers
first analyze the quantitative data quantitatively and
the qualitative data qualitatively, and then use inte-
gration strategies to merge the two sets of data and
results by comparing and contrasting results or syn-
thesizing them into a holistic picture. A high-quality
convergent design is explicit about the ways that the
data sets were merged, using analytic strategies such
as explicitly relating results from different methods
within a table or figure or transforming one type of
result into another type of data to facilitate further
analyses. The researchers also interpret the com-
bined results, focusing on the ways that the combi-
nation provides unique insights into the study topic.
Katerndahl, Burge, Ferrer, Becho, and Wood’s
(2012) study of the dynamics of intimate partner vio-
lence (IPV) illustrates the logic of a convergent mixed
methods design. They justified the use of a mixed
methods approach by arguing that the complexity of
day-to-day dynamics in IPV calls for “combining the
precision of quantitative methods with the richness
of qualitative methods” (p. 141). Over about two
months, the researchers gathered quantitative data
on several variables (e.g., level of distress, hassles,
argument frequency) using daily surveys, and gath-
ered qualitative data about perceptions, stories, and
safety using weekly check-in calls and a final in-depth
interview. The researchers analyzed the quantitative
longitudinal data to identify dynamic patterns and
predictors and analyzed the qualitative data to
produce rich descriptions of each case. They merged
the results by presenting and interpreting three
325
 Plano Clark, Wang, and Toraman

TABLE 18.2

Comparing Three Core Mixed Methods Research Designs

Dimensions for
comparison Convergent Explanatory sequential Exploratory sequential
Illustrations of How does the comparison What explains the predictive role of What are the trends related to
possible research of measures of hope hope for couples with the most hope for Latinx mothers using
questions for with descriptions of hope successful marriages? a culturally sensitive hope
studies about provide insight into LGBT measure?
hope in families families?
Rationale for mixing To combine different but To use qualitative methods to To use qualitative findings to inform
quantitative and complementary methods to explain the mechanisms behind the development of materials
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

qualitative produce complete and valid quantitative results examined quantitatively

methods conclusions
Timing of the Concurrent: Quan + Qual
methods
Key integration ■ Merge by comparing, con-
strategies trasting, and relating the
quantitative results and
qualitative findings
■ Interpret the merged results
Types of conclusions Knowledge about a phenom-
enon that is multifaceted,
corroborated, and contex-
tualized
Example studies Katerndahl, Burge, Ferrer,
from couple and Becho, and Wood (2012);
family psychology Simpkins, Vest, and Price
(2011)
Sequential: Quan → Qual
■ Connect by using quantitative
results to inform the qualitative
research questions, sampling
strategies, and data collection and
analysis procedures
■ Interpret the connected results
Knowledge about the mechanisms
behind most successful cases,
relationships among constructs,
or outcomes that is nuanced and
explanatory
Knox, Guerra, Williams, and Toro
(2011); West, Buettner, Stewart,
Foster, and Usher (2012)
Sequential: Qual → Quan
■ Connect by using qualitative
results to develop the
quantitative research questions,
materials, instruments, and
procedures
■ Interpret the connected results
Knowledge from programs or
instruments that are culturally
sensitive and responsive
Sangalang, Chen, Kulis, and Yabiku
(2015); Ugalde, Krishnasamy,
and Schofield (2012, 2013)

Note. LGBT = lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender; Qual = qualitative; Quan = quantitative.

different models of dynamic patterns of violence that
incorporated the different facets captured by the dif-
ferent data forms. In the final discussion, the authors
highlighted the value of their integrated approach
by concluding that: “While the quantitative analyses
promote a better understanding of the longitudinal
interplay of factors and identification of patterns, the
qualitative analyses clarify the underlying influences
on dynamics and provide context” (p. 151).
Explanatory Sequential Mixed
Methods Design
Although our literature search found that conver-
gent designs are common when family psycholo-
gists use mixed methods, implementing the two
methods concurrently is not the only option. Some
researchers choose to use an explanatory sequential
mixed methods design, which involves first obtain-
ing quantitative results and then using qualitative
methods to follow up on and explain those results.
The underlying logic of the explanatory sequential
design is that researchers can build on quantitative
results using the strengths associated with qualita-
tive methods to develop more targeted and nuanced
explanations of specific phenomenon. Examples of
different explanations that may be of interest to
family psychologists include describing the mecha-
nisms behind most successful cases and explain-
ing the relationships among certain constructs or
the outcomes of an intervention. When using an

326
 Applying Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research in Family Psychology
explanatory sequential design, researchers first col-
lect and analyze a quantitative database and then use
the quantitative results to shape the implementa-
tion of a qualitative phase. Therefore, the two data-
bases are collected sequentially, meaning that the
researcher implements the two methods in two dis-
tinct phases and that the second, qualitative phase
is dependent on the results from the quantitative
database. When using this design, integration occurs
in two ways: researchers use the quantitative results
to inform decisions about sampling, data, and analy-
sis for the qualitative phase, and they interpret the
two sets of connected results at the end of the study.
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
A high-quality explanatory sequential design has a
strong connection between the two phases, as can
be evidenced by researchers purposefully selecting
a subset of participants from the quantitative phase
who can provide the best explanation and shaping the
data collection protocols to focus on the quantitative
results needing further explanation. In their conclu-
sions, researchers interpret the connected results,
focusing on ways that the qualitative results provide
unique explanations for the quantitative results.
As an example, West, Buettner, Stewart, Foster,
and Usher’s (2012) mixed methods study applied
the logic of an explanatory sequential design. The
authors sought to explain the nature of resilience
in families with a member experiencing chronic
pain by arguing that there is a need to “measure
and explore” (p. 3533) family resilience in order to
explain nuances in the scores obtained from stan-
dardized measures. The researchers first collected
and analyzed quantitative data from 67 family mem-
bers drawn from 31 different families. They then
conducted a second, qualitative phase focused on
explaining the quantitative results about resilience by
selecting a subset of 10 families that had participated
in the quantitative phase and conducting in-depth
interviews with each participating family member,
using questions informed by the quantitative results.
The inductive analysis of the qualitative data focused
on identifying how the families experienced resil-
ience. In the final discussion, the authors interpreted
the connected results to help explain the role of resil-
ience in families and the differences between the per-
ceptions of the family member in the caregiving role
and the member experiencing the chronic pain.
Exploratory Sequential Mixed
Methods Design
The third core mixed methods design is the exploratory
sequential mixed methods design, in which research-
ers first obtain qualitative results and use them to
inform the development of research-based materials,
which are then implemented in a final quantitative
phase of the study. Examples of research-based
materials that can be developed based on qualitative
results include quantitative instruments and inter-
vention programming. The underlying logic of the
exploratory sequential design is that quantitative
outcomes and results will be more appropriate if
they are based on culturally sensitive and contextu-
ally appropriate instruments and interventions, and
that qualitative methods are well suited for inform-
ing such development. Although it is challenging
to find clear examples of this mixed methods
design within the family psychology literature, it
is an important option for mixing methods. When
using an exploratory sequential design, research-
ers first collect and analyze a qualitative database
and then use the qualitative results to develop
materials that are grounded in the experiences and
contexts of individuals and families. This develop-
ment step represents significant work on the part of
the researcher and often includes pilot testing the
materials during the development process. Once
the target instrument or intervention is developed,
it is implemented and quantitatively tested with a
new sample. Because the logic of this design usually
calls for separate samples during the two phases,
it is common for researchers to report the results
of the two phases in separate publications, thereby
making the use of this design difficult to locate with
simple literature searches (Creswell & Plano Clark,
2018). Even when reported in two publications, the
authors should make it clear that the two databases
are collected sequentially and that the quantitative
phase is dependent on the qualitative results. As in
an explanatory sequential design, the integration in
an exploratory sequential design should connect the
two phases and allow researchers to interpret the
connected results at the end of the study. A high-
quality exploratory sequential design has a strong
connection between the two phases that is explicitly
described, for example, by indicating how specific
327
 Plano Clark, Wang, and Toraman
qualitative results were connected to specific survey
items or intervention components. In their conclu-
sions, researchers interpret the ways in which the
results are culturally sensitive and responsive for the
population studied.
Ugalde, Krishnasamy, and Schofield’s (2012,
2013) exploratory sequential mixed methods study to
develop an instrument that measures self-efficacy for
caregivers of people with advanced cancer illustrates
the logic of this design. The authors note that mea-
sures of self-efficacy need to be relevant to the popula-
tion of interest and tailored to the domain of interest,
but that little work has examined self-efficacy issues in
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
the context of this caregiver group and therefore, they
needed to develop and test a new instrument. Ugalde
et al. (2012) began their work by qualitatively explor-
ing dimensions of self-identity in 17 in-depth inter-
views with family caregivers of people with advanced
cancer. Ugalde et al. (2013) then reported the stages
they went through to systematically develop a relevant
self-efficacy instrument based on the qualitative data
and results and to implement and quantitatively test
this instrument with 94 caregivers. Consistent with
a high-quality exploratory sequential design, the
researchers conducted a qualitative phase followed by
a quantitative phase and explicitly connected the two
phases through the instrument development process.
In the final discussion, the authors interpreted the
connected results by considering the key properties of
the new instrument, including its relevance, appropri-
ateness, reliability, and validity.
IMPLICATIONS FOR FAMILY
PSYCHOLOGISTS
Qualitative and mixed methods research approaches
provide family psychologists with important
responses to the field’s call to resist methodocentrism
and allow them to make use of a wide range of meth-
odological tools to address the complexity of family
systems. The potential for the use of diverse methods
to advance the field is exciting, but also presents chal-
lenges. In this section we highlight four major chal-
lenges associated with applying qualitative and mixed
methods research in the field of family psychology,
and we share our recommendations for scholars and
practitioners to overcome these challenges.
328
Appreciating Different
Philosophical Perspectives
Scholars and practitioners in family psychology
bring a wide range of assumptions to their conduct,
review, and use of research, and it is a challenge to
appreciate how and why these assumptions matter.
Researchers’ different philosophical assumptions
about the nature of social reality (i.e., ontological
assumptions), how we gain knowledge about that
reality (i.e., epistemological assumptions), and
the role of researchers’ values in the knowledge
creation process (i.e., axiological assumptions) are
most pertinent to the discussion of qualitative and
mixed methods research (Crotty, 1998; Mertens,
2012; Neuman, 2011; Ponterotto, 2005). To fully
understand different research approaches, family
psychologists need to recognize and appreciate these
philosophical differences and their implications for
the conduct of research.
Within the field of psychology, including family
psychology, most research is conducted in ways con-
sistent with a postpositivist perspective that assumes
there is one knowable reality and that knowledge of
this reality can be obtained by carefully defining and
objectively measuring constructs (Alise & Teddlie,
2010). This perspective forms the foundation for
most quantitative research. When family psycholo-
gists apply qualitative methods from a postpositivist
perspective, they tend to emphasize objective pro-
cedures such as standardized interview questions,
inter-rater coding checks, and strategies to guard
against the influence of researchers’ biases. For
example, Totman, Pistrang, Smith, Hennessey, and
Martin’s (2015) qualitative study of relatives’ expe-
rience of caring at home for a family member with
terminal cancer used several procedures consistent
with a postpositivist perspective, including the use
of both inductive and deductive coding procedures,
a team-based data analysis approach in which the
researchers bracketed their own beliefs, and a focus
on common and prevalent themes. Such objective
uses of qualitative methods may be effective in many
studies, but they do not harness the full range of
in-depth insights that can be obtained from qualita-
tive and mixed methods approaches.
Another option is for researchers to work from
a constructivist perspective that assumes that each
 Applying Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research in Family Psychology
individual constructs his or her own reality, and
therefore knowledge about multiple realities can
only be obtained through close interaction with
multiple individuals. When family psychologists
apply qualitative methods from a constructivist
perspective, they tend to emphasize subjective
approaches, using procedures such as prolonged
engagement in the participants’ contexts, emergent
data collection forms, interpretive analysis proce-
dures, and strategies to help the researcher reflect
on his or her own subjectivities and the role they
play in the overall interpretation. An example of
using a constructivist qualitative approach is found
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
in Jarrett, Sensoy Bahar, and Taylor’s (2011) study
of African American caregivers’ child management
practices in a low-income inner-city neighborhood.
The authors focused on the participants’ daily lived
experiences and used emergent and recursive data
collection and analysis methods to describe and
interpret the meaning of these experiences. When
using constructivist assumptions within mixed
methods studies, researchers may take a dialectical
perspective to navigate tensions between the use of
constructivist and postpositivist assumptions within
one study (Greene & Hall, 2010).
A third option occurs when researchers work
from a critical/transformative perspective, which
assumes that reality is constructed within socio­
political structures, that some structures are more
moral and just than others, and that knowledge
about reality is best obtained in collaboration with
individuals oppressed by these structures. This
perspective is often used alongside critical theories
such as critical race theory, feminist theory, and
postmodern perspectives (for further discussion,
see Chapters 6 and 8, this volume). When family
psychologists apply qualitative and mixed methods
from a critical/transformative perspective, they tend
to emphasize participatory procedures, such as
having participants help determine research ques-
tions, working with participants to collect and ana-
lyze data, and taking action steps to improve people’s
lives as part of the research. For example, Sangalang,
Chen, Kulis, and Yabiku (2015) used a community-
based participatory research approach in which they
actively collaborated with Southeast Asian adoles-
cents to conceptualize, design, conduct, and dissem-
inate their exploratory sequential mixed methods
study of experiences of racial discrimination.
These three broad categories—postpositivism,
constructivism, and critical/transformative—provide
family psychologists with a useful framework for
understanding the different perspectives that shape
researchers’ use of qualitative and mixed methods
research. This is by no means an exhaustive list, as
many other perspectives (such as pragmatism and
critical realism) are actively used by researchers and
practitioners alike. The key recommendation is that
family psychologists recognize the different founda-
tional perspectives available and encouraged within
the field to support the broadest diversity of methods
possible. This means that family psychology
scholars should also consider their own guiding
assumptions and explicitly position themselves
within their qualitative and mixed methods research
reports.
Developing Requisite Knowledge,
Skills, and Dispositions
As this introduction to different research designs has
suggested, diverse approaches require researchers
to learn about the different foundations, assump-
tions, designs, and procedures associated with each
approach. In addition, much like all practitioners
working in the field of family psychology, research-
ers using qualitative and mixed methods approaches
need to cultivate different sets of skills and disposi-
tions for engaging with participants and various data
forms. For example, researchers planning to use
qualitative methods need to be skilled in developing
trust and rapport with participants, being reflexive
throughout the research process, being a good
listener, and using strategies to ensure the credibility
and trustworthiness of the findings. They also ben-
efit from being flexible, open-minded, and comfort-
able with some level of uncertainty. Additionally,
researchers planning to use mixed methods benefit
from having skills for quantitative, qualitative, and
integration procedures and being comfortable using
different sets of assumptions, experiencing tension,
and finding divergence.
These different requirements present a challenge
to scholars and practitioners interested in qualita­tive
and mixed methods research, particularly
329
 Plano Clark, Wang, and Toraman
those whose training was quantitatively oriented.
To address this challenge, we have referenced key
methodological writings within qualitative and
mixed methods literature throughout this chapter.
We have intentionally selected sources that provide
practical guidance and in-depth discussions that
are appropriate for emerging scholars and expert
researchers alike. Scholars should turn to general
resources to learn overarching strategies associated
with a methodology and specific resources to learn
about the procedures associated with a specific
research design. For those who want to get started
quickly, there are also excellent online resources
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
available that offer guidance for qualitative research
(e.g., http://www.qualres.org/; Cohen & Crabtree,
2008) and mixed methods research (e.g., https://
obssr.od.nih.gov/training/mixed-methods-research/;
Creswell, Klassen, Plano Clark, & Smith, for the Office
of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, 2011).
Applying Appropriate Quality Criteria
A third challenge that emerged in our examina-
tion of the use of qualitative and mixed methods
within family psychology is the issue of whether
family psychologists have adequate knowledge
about what standards to apply to assess the qual-
ity of research studies that use diverse methods.
Quality considerations reflect the quality of the pro-
cedures used to address a stated purpose, but also
the types of conclusions that can be drawn from a
particular research study. As such, researchers need
to understand quality considerations to design and
implement quality research designs in their studies,
reviewers need to understand quality considerations
to provide useful and appropriate assessment of
others’ work, and practitioners need to under-
stand quality considerations to weigh the utility of
research results to inform their practices.
Just as quantitative, qualitative, and mixed meth-
ods research approaches each represent stand-alone
methodologies, each also encompasses its own set of
quality standards. Traditional quantitative research
typically emphasizes quality considerations such
as internal validity, which is the extent to which
researchers can draw inferences about cause-and-
effect relationships among variables, and external
validity, which is the extent to which researchers can
330
draw inferences to a population (Creswell, 2015).
These considerations suggest standards that favor
large samples, standardized measurement, high level
of researcher control, and justified statistical calcula-
tions. Although these standards are highly appro-
priate for most quantitative research, they are also
highly inappropriate for most qualitative research.
We recommend that family psychologists be attentive
for signs of quantitative bias in the use and evalua-
tion of qualitative and mixed methods approaches.
Interpretive qualitative research typically empha-
sizes quality considerations such as trustworthiness,
which is the extent to which readers can trust the
credibility and accuracy of the study’s findings, and
transferability, which is the extent to which readers
can consider the applicability of the findings to
other contexts (Creswell, 2013). These considera­
tions suggest standards that favor rich data (usually
with small samples), emergent data collection
procedures, high level of rapport and interaction
between the researcher and participant, and sub-
jective interpretations of the data. Mixed methods
research typically emphasizes both quantitative
and qualitative quality considerations along with
considerations specific to the integrative nature of
the design (Plano Clark & Ivankova, 2016). Mixed
methods quality considerations emphasize both the
rigor of the interpretations drawn from the quantita-
tive and qualitative methods and the extent to which
these interpretations produce integrative inferences
that go beyond the separate and distinct quantitative
and qualitative conclusions. Therefore, we empha-
size the need to differentially apply quality standards
that are appropriate to the approach being used,
given that the standards of rigor differ for quantita-
tive, qualitative, and mixed methods research.
Publishing Qualitative and Mixed
Methods Studies
A final challenge that we want to highlight relates to
how researchers write up and report their qualita-
tive and mixed methods studies. One aspect of this
challenge is recognizing that each methodology has
its own specialized terminology (such as names of
research designs or key procedures), and that this
terminology should not only be used, but used
accurately. We found examples of studies that used
 Applying Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research in Family Psychology
rigorous qualitative and mixed methods approaches
but did not include terminology and key ideas from
the literature that might have enhanced the sophis-
tication of their approach and their report. Likewise,
we found examples of studies that used terminology
(such as “grounded theory”) without a clear indica-
tion that they understood the meaning as accepted
within the methodological literature. We encourage
family psychologists to learn from and incorporate
the methodological concepts discussed within the
literature into their research reports in order to build
on and draw from existing strengths in the field.
Beyond terminology, researchers need to convey
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
the details and procedures related to their use of
qualitative and mixed methods approaches. We
understand the page constraints in publishing sci-
entific writing, but highlight the value of provid-
ing information about the researchers’ recruitment
process to explain the context of the sample and
understand how trust was built and maintained in
research project. We also encourage researchers to
be explicit and intentional about their methodologi-
cal decisions, including even the rhetoric of a study,
such as whether to write in third-person perspective
or first-person narrative.
One useful way to address the challenge of dis-
seminating nontraditional research studies is to
identify and use models. The field of family psy-
chology has numerous high-quality exemplars of
applying qualitative and mixed methods research,
including the examples highlighted in this chapter.
Researchers should consult these examples as
models of how to design, implement, and dissemi-
nate such work. In addition, researchers should
recognize that there are areas of potential growth
in the application of nontraditional methods, such
as the use of research designs that are currently
underutilized (e.g., narrative qualitative research,
exploratory sequential mixed methods research,
participatory/transformative qualitative and mixed
methods research).
CONCLUSIONS
This chapter serves as a resource for scholars and
practitioners working in family psychology to
improve their understanding of the foundational
aspects of qualitative and mixed methods research
and resist methodocentrism in the field. Taking
different methodological and philosophical pers­
pectives into account will help family psychologists
capture and understand the diversity of family sys-
tems. Family psychologists will benefit from recog-
nizing that research design shapes not only how data
are collected and analyzed, but how philosophical
assumptions guide these decisions, how researchers’
biases and assumptions are considered, and how the
findings can translate into new insights and types of
conclusions about family systems in the real world.
Understanding, critiquing, and conducting qualita-
tive and mixed methods research also requires a
unique knowledge base and range of skill sets. As
such, this chapter can serve as an overview and
starting point for those new or unfamiliar with these
two approaches. Although qualitative and mixed
methods approaches are discussed together in one
chapter, we want to emphasize that each warrants
their own in-depth examination. Readers should
also keep in mind that the available qualitative and
mixed method designs are not limited to the ones
given in this chapter and that many resources exist
for further and more specific reading and inquiry.
What both of these approaches share in common,
however, is the opportunity to ask questions that
allow for rich understandings of complex phenom-
ena and dynamics that occur within and among
individuals and families, events, and processes that
occur over periods of time. How fitting that seems to
be for the field of family psychology!
References
Alise, M. A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). A continuation of the
paradigm wars? Prevalence rates of methodological
approaches across the social/behavioral sciences.
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4, 103–126.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1558689809360805
Atkinson, P., & Hammersley, M. (2007). Ethnography:
Principles in practice (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
Taylor and Francis.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clandinin, D. J. (2007). Handbook of narrative inquiry:
Mapping a methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452226552
Clandinin, D. J. (2013). Engaging in narrative inquiry.
Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
331
 Plano Clark, Wang, and Toraman
Cohen, D., & Crabtree, B. (2008). Qualitative research guide-
lines project. Retrieved from http://www.qualres.org/
Collier, A., Phillips, J. L., & Iedema, R. (2015). The
meaning of home at the end of life: A video-reflexive
ethnography study. Palliative Medicine, 29, 695–702.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0269216315575677
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative
research: Techniques and procedures for developing
grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative,
quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational research: Planning,
conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
research (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Creswell, J. W., Klassen, A. C., Plano Clark, V. L.,
& Smith, K. C., for the Office of Behavioral and
Social Sciences Research. (2011). Best practices
for mixed methods research in the health sciences.
Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health.
Retrieved from http://obssr.od.nih.gov/training/
mixed-methods-research
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing
and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing
and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research:
Meaning and perspective in the research process.
London, England: Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The SAGE
handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fetterman, D. M. (2010). Ethnography: Step-by-step.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gambrel, L. E., & Butler VI, J. L. (2013). Mixed methods
research in marriage and family therapy: A content
analysis. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,
39, 163–181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-
0606.2011.00260.x
Ganong, L., Coleman, M., Jamison, T., & Feistman, R.
(2015). Divorced mothers’ coparental boundary
maintenance after parents repartner. Journal of
Family Psychology, 29, 221–231. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/fam0000064
Gilgun, J. F. (2005). Qualitative research and family psy-
chology. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 40–50.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.1.40
Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry.
San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Greene, J. C., & Hall, J. N. (2010). Dialectics and prag-
matism: Being of consequence. In A. Tashakkori &
332
C. Teddlie (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods
in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.,
pp. 119–144). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193.n5
Hesse-Biber, S., & Johnson, R. B. (Eds.). (2015).
The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed
methods research inquiry. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/
oxfordhb/9780199933624.001.0001
Jarrett, R. L., Sensoy Bahar, O., & Taylor, M. A. (2011).
“Holler, run, be loud”: Strategies for promoting child
physical activity in a low-income, African American
neighborhood. Journal of Family Psychology, 25,
825–836. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026195
Katerndahl, D. A., Burge, S. K., Ferrer, R. L., Becho, J., &
Wood, R. C. (2012). Understanding intimate partner
violence dynamics using mixed methods. Families,
Systems, & Health, 30, 141–153. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0028603
Kim, J.-H. (2016). Understanding narrative inquiry.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Knox, L., Guerra, N. G., Williams, K. R., & Toro, R.
(2011). Preventing children’s aggression in
immigrant Latino families: A mixed methods
evaluation of the Families and Schools Together
program. American Journal of Community Psy­
chology, 48, 65–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10464-010-9411-0
Lalvani, P. (2011). Constructing the (m)other: Dominant
and contested narratives on mothering a child with
Down syndrome. Narrative Inquiry, 21, 276–293.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/ni.21.2.06lal
Larsen, J. L., Clauss-Ehlers, C. S., & Cosden, M. A.
(2015). An exploration of army wives’ responses to
spousal deployment: Stressors and protective factors.
Couple & Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 4,
212–228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cfp0000049
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An
interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Mertens, D. M. (2012). Transformative mixed methods:
Addressing inequalities. American Behavioral Scientist,
56, 802–813. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0002764211433797
Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social research methods:
Qualitative and quantitative approaches (7th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Nixon, E., Greene, S., & Hogan, D. (2012). “Like an
uncle but more, but less than a father”—Irish chil-
dren’s relationships with nonresident fathers. Journal
of Family Psychology, 26, 381–390. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0028336
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation
methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 Applying Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research in Family Psychology
Pighini, M. J., Goelman, H., Buchanan, M., Schonert-
Reichl, K., & Brynelsen, D. (2014). Learning from
parents’ stories about what works in early inter­
vention. International Journal of Psychology, 49,
263–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12024
Plano Clark, V. L., & Ivankova, N. V. (2016). Mixed
methods research: A guide to the field. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counsel-
ing psychology: A primer on research paradigms
and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 52, 126–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-0167.52.2.126
Saltzman, W. R., Pynoos, R. S., Lester, P., Layne, C. M., &
Beardslee, W. R. (2013). Enhancing family resilience
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
through family narrative co-construction. Clinical
Child and Family Psychology Review, 16, 294–310.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10567-013-0142-2
Sangalang, C. C., Chen, A. C., Kulis, S. S., & Yabiku, S. T.
(2015). Development and validation of a racial
discrimination measure for Cambodian American
adolescents. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 6,
56–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036706
Simpkins, S. D., Vest, A. E., & Price, C. D. (2011).
Intergenerational continuity and discontinuity in
Mexican-origin youths’ participation in organized
activities: Insights from mixed-methods. Journal of
Family Psychology, 25, 814–824. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0025853
Snyder, D. K., & Kazak, A. E. (2005). Methodology in fam-
ily science: Introduction to the special issue. Journal
of Family Psychology, 19, 3–5. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0893-3200.19.1.3
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2010). SAGE hand-
book of mixed methods in social & behavioral research
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/
10.4135/9781506335193
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of
mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and
qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral
sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Totman, J., Pistrang, N., Smith, S., Hennessey, S., &
Martin, J. (2015). “You only have one chance to get
it right”: A qualitative study of relatives’ experiences
of caring at home for a family member with
terminal cancer. Palliative Medicine, 29, 496–507.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0269216314566840
Ugalde, A., Krishnasamy, M., & Schofield, P. (2012). Role
recognition and changes to self-identity in family
caregivers of people with advanced cancer: A qualita-
tive study. Supportive Care in Cancer, 20, 1175–1181.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-011-1194-9
Ugalde, A., Krishnasamy, M., & Schofield, P. (2013). Dev­
elopment of an instrument to measure self-efficacy
in caregivers of people with advanced cancer. Psycho-
Oncology, 22, 1428–1434. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/pon.3160
Wang, S. C., Plano Clark, V. L., & Scheel, M. J. (2016).
The enculturation experience of three Chinese
American adolescents: A multiple case study.
The Counseling Psychologist, 44, 661–694.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011000016633875
Weisner, T. S. (1996). Why ethnography should be the
most important method in the study of human
development. In R. Jessor, A. Colby, & R. A. Shweder
(Eds.), Ethnography and human development: Context
and meaning in social inquiry (pp. 305–324). Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Weisner, T. S. (2014). Why qualitative and ethnographic
methods are essential for understanding family
life. In S. M. McHale, P. Amato, & A. Booth (Eds.),
Emerging methods in family research (pp. 163–178).
Cham, Switzerland: Springer International
Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-01562-0_10
Weisner, T. S., & Fiese, B. H. (2011). Introduction to
special section of the Journal of Family Psychology,
advances in mixed methods in family psychology:
Integrative and applied solutions for family science.
Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 795–798.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026203
West, C., Buettner, P., Stewart, L., Foster, K., & Usher, K.
(2012). Resilience in families with a member with
chronic pain: A mixed methods study. Journal of
Clinical Nursing, 21, 3532–3545. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04271.x
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods
(5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
333