QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PSYCHOLOGY

2019, VOL. 16, NO. 3, 417–440

https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2019.1605273

Rediscovering the roots and wonder of qualitative

psychology in Spain: A cartographic exercise
Marco Gemignania, Sara Ferrarib, and Isabel Beníteza
a
Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Spain; bUniversità degli Studi di Padova, Italy

ABSTRACT Keywords
After providing a short introduction to qualitative research in Spain; qualitative research;
experiences of researchers;
psychology in Spain, we report and interpret the results of an psychology; strengths;
online survey in which 47 qualitative psychologists answered limitations; challenges
questions about their location, research topic, research group,
and the strengths, limitations, and challenges of being
a qualitative researcher in Spain. The participants enthusiasti-
cally endorsed the use of qualitative methodologies, which
were especially praised for being able to bring researchers
closer to the roots of psychology by acknowledging funda-
mental human processes such as interpretation, depth in
data collection and analysis, research rapport, care, epistemo-
logical and cultural diversity, and commitment to social justice.
They also pointed out some practical challenges related to
methodological standardizations and feeling undervalued
within Spanish psychology, which tends to be positivist,
empiricist, and realist. Last, the participants provided specific
suggestions to increase the knowledge, visibility, and apprecia-
tion of qualitative methodologies in psychology in Spain.

1. Introduction to the field of qualitative research in Spanish

psychology
In Spain, despite the dominance of positivist and experimental methodolo-
gies in psychological research (Montes-Berges, Aranda & Castillo-Mayen,
2011), qualitative psychologists have been able to find an authoritative –
although still strongly minoritarian – voice in the academia and professional
practice. In light of the current international developments that witness the
steady growth of qualitative research in psychology (Gergen, Josselson, &
Freeman, 2015), we deem important to gain a better understanding of
contemporary practices and experiences related to qualitative psychology in
Spain. To this goal, we conducted a survey that aimed to identify key players
in this field, learn about their main research interests, and gain an initial
understanding of their experiences and perspectives about doing qualitative
research in psychology in Spain.

CONTACT Marco Gemignani mgemignani@uloyola.es Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Miguel Manaute

Humanes, 41704 Dos Hermanas, Sevilla, España.
© 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
418 M. GEMIGNANI ET AL.

The result is a cartographic exercise (Pascale, 2011) based on the opi-

nions and testimonies of 47 active researchers in psychology in Spain who
self-identified as qualitative. Here, “cartography” refers to the process of
mutual co-construction that occurs relationally between researcher and
researched or between observer and observation (Gemignani, 2011). This
relational position is not simply a representation of the status quo, as it
contributes to a certain theoretical predicament and is performative. As
such, it “territorializes” a possible field, aiming to produce it and to con-
struct future possibilities. Although our representation is a work in progress
as any map can be rewritten and any geography deterritorialized (Masny
2013), the information and observations in this article depict a historical
representation of present that fits complex, practice-based, and situated
approaches to research in psychology (Gergen et al., 2015). We also hope
that this article may contribute to create a Spanish network of qualitative
researchers in psychology.

1.1 Some historical grounds

It could be argued that the tradition of qualitative research in psychology in
Spain dates back to the works of Ramon y Cajal. In addition to pioneering
the field of the neurosciences in the 1920s and 1930s, the Nobel laureate
also wrote about research methodology. In a book on guidelines for labora-
tory research, he argued, for instance, on the importance of questioning
taken-for-granted truths and, against acritical realism and empiricism, on
the fundamental role that theory plays in guiding observations and
analyses1. Through these words, Ramon y Cajal seemed to anticipate the
recent literature on reflexivity and double hermeneutics as defining features
of qualitative research (Finlay, 2017).
Another crucial contribution to the development of a “qualitative sensi-
bility” (Braun & Clarke, 2013) concerns the phenomenological and Gestalt
psychology of Ortega y Gasset (1883–1955), a very influential Spanish phi-
losopher and professor of psychology. In 1923, he founded the “Revista de
Occidente,” a cultural and scientific journal that promoted the translation of
the most important philosophical and scientific advances of that period,
including Edmund Husserl and Georg Simmel. His work focused on devel-
oping alternatives to positivist epistemologies by underlying the inevitability
of ontological relations between methods and objects of study and between
researchers and subject matter (Miquel, 1992).

“It is not sufficient to examine; it is also necessary to observe and reflect: we should infuse the things we observe
1

with the intensity of our emotions and with a deep sense of affinity. We should make them our own where the
heart is concerned, as well as in an intellectual sense. Only then will they surrender their secrets to us, for
enthusiasm heightens and refines our perception.” (Ramon y Cajal, 1899/1999, p. 112).
 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PSYCHOLOGY 419

Proceeding from Dilthey, Ortega y Gasset also emphasized that the goal of
the social sciences needs to shift from explaining external and objective
realities to rigorously understanding phenomena as constructed and experi-
enced by groups and individuals (Lafuente, 1995). Interestingly, his pragma-
tist focus was in line with many contemporary approaches to qualitative
research, including grounded theory and post-humanism.
As a social practice, science inevitably reflects the historical time and
cultural characteristics of the society in which it is developed and adopted.
Starting from these premises, Peinado (2002) argues that the presence of
qualitative methodologies in Spain can be partially read in light of
Franco’s dictatorship. According to Peinado, qualitative research emerged
under the influence of anti-Franquism and the student social movements
of the late 1960s and the 1970s, both of which fostered radical innovations
in the theories of knowledge and science of that time. Under Franco’s
regime, influential circles of power prescribed the imposition of radical
Catholic ideologies on scientific knowledge and innovations, mainly to
further isolate Spain from social and scientific progress and from outside
influences (Ansede, 2015). Whereas in other countries qualitative research
developed in reaction to scientism (Maxwell, 2004), in Spain “qualitative
research arose as consequence of the desire to grasp reality without losing
the ongoing questioning that characterizes inquiry and thought” (Peinado,
2002, p. 383). Qualitative research emerged, in other words, as a critical
movement which viewed social inquiry as able to grasp complexity and as
finalized to foster change and social justice. In particular, qualitative
methodologies became valued for their ability to incorporate theories
that questioned the status quo and explored the links between power
and knowledge, such as French poststructuralism, critical theory, and
psychoanalysis.
Tójar Hurtado (2006) argues that another explanation of the relative
absence of qualitative researchers in academic positions and in roles of
political power among national regulators and gate-keepers may be found
in the 20-year delay in the translations of most qualitative works to
Spanish, especially in psychology. In the meantime, other disciplines,
such as marketing, sociology, and education, were more exposed to
qualitative research and more open to their creative adoption within the
dominant paradigms of knowledge-making (Fernández, 2013). For
instance, in sociology, Jesús Ibáñez’s methodological works on discussion
and focus groups laid the grounds for the first recognized qualitative
research movement in Spain (Ibáñez, 1979). Ibañez underscored the
importance of inter-subjectivity and reflexivity not only in regard to the
methods of the social sciences but also to define their objects of concern
and inquiry (Ortí, 1997).
420 M. GEMIGNANI ET AL.

Since its beginning, much qualitative research in Spain has focused on the
exploration of social and context-based dimensions of knowledge (Valles &
Baer, 2005). By embracing the right to challenge existing traditions and
authorities, politics and society moved at the core not only of research topics
but also of critical reflections on the processes of knowledge-building. In
community psychology and psychotherapy, the intersections of phenomen-
ology, hermeneutics, and constructivism (Feixas & Villegas, 1990), and, later,
of feminism and post-structuralism (Montenegro, Pujol, & Posocco 2017),
allowed for some of the most innovative, contemporary developments and
applications of qualitative methodologies in Spain. In general, these works
have been wary of inquiries that merely collect, analyze, and report data,
without considering the situated and ideological nature of any form of
knowledge and the social and discursive contexts in which the data and
inquiries are constructed.

1.2 Psychology regulations in Spain

The university training of students in psychology started within philosophy,
and it was not until 1968 that the first self-standing degrees were developed in
Madrid and Barcelona. The national regulation of the psychology curriculum
came with the White Book of Psychology, which was created in 2005 by the
National Agency for Quality Assessment and Accreditation of Spain (ANECA)
in collaboration with a network of Spanish higher education institutions. The
White Book suggests the sequence of contents and processes for the curricula in
psychology (Reales et al. 2017). It lists the competencies, skills, and knowledge
areas that students in psychology are expected to develop or gain throughout
their undergraduate and graduate studies. Part of the aim of this effort has been
to bring the undergraduate and graduate trainings in Spain closer to the other
educational programs in Europe.
In its final recommendations on the common contents that should be
mandatory in undergraduate curricula in psychology, the White Book of
Psychology specifies that the module on “Research methods, designs, and
strategies in psychology” should include both quantitative and qualitative
methods (ANECA, 2005, p. 157). The current dominance of quantitative
research in university teachings and practices in psychology in Spain can
therefore be explained as a discursive and political practice to reproduce
historical academic traditions and a general culture of epistemological uni-
formity, rather than a mandate to align with national regulations of univer-
sity curricula, which do not specify that research in psychology should
embrace a quantitative imperative.
 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PSYCHOLOGY 421

2 Method
For the goal of identifying the main groups of qualitative investigators in
psychology in Spain, we used different sampling strategies, which we will
describe hereafter. The purpose of this initial identification was to invite
researchers to answer a short online survey, which was structured along the
lines of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats, known as the
SWOT matrix (Helms & Nixon, 2010). In addition, it included questions
about the participants’ geographical location, main research topics, and self-
identification as qualitative researchers.

2.1 Phase 1: Sampling

The participants were qualitative researchers in psychology who worked at
universities or research centers in Spain. Without any formal designation of
qualitative researchers as such, for instance, through membership to profes-
sional associations, we chose to combine four different strategies of sampling
in order to identify potential participants: database searches, conference
programs, book repositories, and three rounds of snowball sampling. In
total, we contacted 125 researchers physically located in Spain, of which 47
completed the survey. We realize that, despite our efforts, we might have
missed some key players and information about the field. In addition, some
people decided not take part in our study.

2.1.1 Delimiting the field.

Given the potential murky boundaries for some of our key terms, we decided
that it was best to start from delimiting the scope of our search.
Time: To be sure that our mapping would be as up-to-date as possible,
we limited our search to qualitative researchers whose publication
appeared within the last five years, between 2013 and 2018. As the life
of research groups often depends on funding duration and institutional
support, we wanted to reduce the risk of including groups that did not
exist any longer.
Field: A challenge arose in limiting our search to psychology, as a number
of research groups in sister disciplines investigated topics or subjects related
to psychology. We therefore decided to adopt the affiliation to psychology
departments as a sampling criterion. Similarly, research conducted by psy-
chologists in other fields (e.g., education) was not included.
Non-academic researchers: Especially by looking at conference pro-
grams, we identified qualitative researchers who worked in professional
psychology. Despite the relative marginality of these instances, we deemed
it important to reach out to them as they represented a grass-root move-
ment for the use of qualitative methodologies in professional psychology.
422 M. GEMIGNANI ET AL.

Mixed-methods and self-identification as qualitative-quantitative researcher:

Through searching databases and conference programs, we came across
numerous examples of mixed-methods designs, especially in health psychol-
ogy. Given the scholarly discussions on whether mixed-methods research
devotes enough attention to the “epistemological awareness and ontological
concerns” that characterize qualitative inquiry (Lincoln & Denzin, 2011) and
the tendency in mixed designs to subordinate the qualitative to the quantitative
(Flick, 2017), we eventually opted to include a question about the participants’
self-identification along a qualitative-quantitative continuum. Participants
were asked to self-identify on a 5-point scale: “only qualitative”, “mainly
qualitative”, “mixed-methods”, “mainly quantitative,” and “only quantitative.”
In the case in which the participants chose the last option, they were not asked
to complete the survey. However, no one chose it.

2.1.2 Database search (first sampling strategy).

To identify potential participants, we ran a Boolean search in the Web of
Science database for articles, chapters, and books whose authors were
affiliated to a university or research center in Spain and that had “qualitative”
as a keyword of the title, method, or description. In order to extend the
search to qualitative studies that did not self-labelled as “qualitative,”, we
added the following keywords to the search using the Boolean “OR”: auto-
ethnograph*, critical, conversational*, discursive, discourse, ethnograph*,
ethnomethodolog*, feminis*, grounded, hermeneutic*, interpretativ*, narra-
tive, phenomenolog*, poststructur*, qualitativ*, and thematic. Our database
search gave us 162 hits, of which we singled out the ones whose authors were
in psychology.

2.1.3 Congresses and conferences (2013–2018) (second sampling strategy).

Secondly, we looked at the 2013–2018 conference programs of the main
national congress in psychology in Spain and the most important interna-
tional congresses in qualitative research and in methodology. From the
programs and books of abstract of the following congresses, we selected the
authors of the publications that met our research criteria:

● International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry (ICQI)

● European Congress of Qualitative Inquiry (ECQI)
● Congreso Nacional de Psicología (CNP)
● European Congress of Psychology (ECP)
● European Association of Methodology (EAM)

More specifically, we looked for “psychology” and “Spain” in the abstracts

and affiliations of the qualitative congresses; for “qualitative” in the Spanish
 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PSYCHOLOGY 423

congress of psychology; for “qualitative” and “Spain” in the ECP books; and,
lastly, for all of the three terms in the EAM books.

2.1.4 Authors of qualitative research textbooks and manuals affiliated to

Spanish institutions (last 10 years) (third sampling strategy).
We collected the names of authors who were located in Spain and published
books about qualitative research within the last 10 years. This sampling was
done through Worldcat and the database of the Spanish ISBN Agency, which
was available in the website of the Spanish Ministry of Culture and Sport.

2.1.5 Convenience sampling and snowball (fourth sampling strategy).

In addition to the three sampling strategies that we described above, we
contacted 18 qualitative researchers in psychology whom we knew person-
ally. We also asked them to suggest the names of other potential contributors.
This “snowball” strategy was repeated in three recruiting rounds. We decided
to stop it when the suggestions of new participants slowed down signifi-
cantly, and we received mostly names of researchers whom we had already
contacted.

2.2 Phase 2: The online survey

The researchers we identified through our samplings were invited to parti-
cipate in an online survey (see Appendix 1) aimed at mapping the use of
qualitative research in psychology in Spain. The ethical board of the
Universidad Loyola Andalucía evaluated and approved the research project.
Participants were informed about the goals of the study and the confiden-
tial treatment of information. They were then asked to consent to
participate.
A total of 22 questions composed the survey: a) 12 questions concerned
socio-demographic variables and the participants’ academic history; and b)
10 open-ended questions were about participants´ views and experiences
with qualitative research in Spain as well as collaborations with other
research groups. In this second part of the survey, participants were asked
about perceived strengths, weaknesses or limitations, and challenges for
qualitative research methodologies in psychology.
A dataset was created to include the participants’ responses to each
individual question. We combined the external categories of the SWOT
matrix (“threats” and “opportunities”) into the general category of “chal-
lenge,”, since its corresponding Spanish term (“retos”) is not explicitly
situated along a positive-negative continuum, therefore giving freedom to
the respondents to talk in either one or both directions. We then per-
formed a thematic analysis of the participants’ responses (Braun & Clarke,
2006).
424 M. GEMIGNANI ET AL.

Table 1. Description of elements included in the map.

Representation Element Description
Geographical Current geographical location of The location of the points in the map represents the
location a researcher or a research group city/area where researchers developed their research
Size of the Number of participants The size of the dots was proportional to the number
dots belonging to each group of participants using the same name to describe their
research group. If the name of the group was
unspecified, the location of the university to which
researchers belonged to was used.
Color of the Researchers’ self-definition Different colors represent how researchers described
dots themselves as either “only-qualitative-researcher”
(blue), “mainly-qualitative-researcher” (green),
“mixed-methods-researcher” (yellow), mainly-
quantitative (no participant), or only-quantitative (in
this case, the participants were not allowed to
continue). Those who did not answer this question
were classified as “unspecified” (red). Note: In the
printed version of the paper, this descriptor appears
in a grey scale.
Numbers in Topic of research The main topic of research was coded by placing
dots numbers into the dots. The meaning of each number
is explained in the legend on research topics.

2.3 Phase 3: Mapping

The participants’ responses to the survey were used to generate a map
depicting the geographical location, main topics, size, and self-definition of
researchers along a qualitative-quantitative continuum. Dots in the map
represents those characteristics as described in Table 1.

3 Description and interpretation of the mapping

The map in Figure 1 represents in dots the information about the elements in
Table 1. It shows the geographic location of the research groups, the number
of researchers belonging to each group, and the participants’ self-
identification as “only-qualitative,” “mainly-qualitative,” or “mixed-methods
”. The participants who did not answer this question were still included in
the map under the code “unspecified.” If, within the same university, more
than one group was present, each of them was represented through different
dots.
Details about the main topic are described in Table 2 and represented by numbers
into the dots.

As the map in Figure 1 shows, qualitative researchers are divided in

numerous groups, most of them located in Cataluña and Andalucía.
According to the responses collected, 27 independent qualitative groups or
researchers are currently active in psychology in Spain. Only two respondents
 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PSYCHOLOGY 425

Figure 1. Map of characteristics of qualitative researches in Spain who participated to the

study.

informed about collaborations with other research groups, but these connec-
tions were not represented because no researchers of these mentioned groups
participated in the study.
Concerning the number of participants, most of the dots represent indi-
vidual researchers (63% of the cases). A total of 25.9% of the respondents
were affiliated to groups in which two people participated to the survey. In
one case, three participants belonged to the same group. In two other
instances (7.4% of the cases), five participants were affiliated to groups
located in Seville and Barcelona.
The most common research topics for qualitative psychologists were
“gender” and “diversity,” which were investigated by 22.2% of the groups.
Research on methods in psychology and the social sciences and on migration
represented 11,.1% of the groups each. The rest of the topics were the unique
focus of a specific research group.
Most of the researchers described themselves as “mainly qualitative”
(25.9%) or “mixed-methods” (25.9%). Only 14.8% of the respondents identi-
fied as “only qualitative”, and in 33.3% of the cases researchers did not
provide information about their positioning. There was no apparent connec-
tion among group size, methodological preference, and main topic of
inquiry. For instance, the biggest groups were working on topics as diverse
as migration and assisted reproductions.
426 M. GEMIGNANI ET AL.

Table 2. Main topics associated to numbers in the map.

Number Main topics
1 Unemployment
2 Research methods in psychology and the social sciences
3 Social sciences
4 Human trafficking
5 Migration and ethnic minorities
6 Self-construction and autobiographical memories
7 Gender and diversity
8 Criminology and humanities
9 Social movements
10 Assisted reproduction
11 Psychology of the city
12 Mourning, grief, bereavement
13 Education
14 Psychotherapy
15 Sexual health
16 Nursing
17 Childhood, adolescence and social networks
18 Youth studies and social violence

Table 3 shows the institutional affiliations of the researchers responding

the survey and the number of participants from each of them.

4 Thematic analysis of the data

4.1 Strengths
4.1.1 Depth.
The most common benefit of using qualitative methodologies in psychol-
ogy was the ability to go “in-depth.”. We grouped the answers to the
open-ended question about the strengths and relevance of qualitative
methodologies for psychology in three main inter-related domains.
Hereafter, what appears between quotation marks and in italics is the
participants’ words:

● Data collection: “Depth of data” concerned the ability to collect nuanced

and complex information about issues or processes. In a typical phe-
nomenological fashion, the participants underscored the importance of
going beyond the simple descriptions of events and experiences to
understand the meanings that are attributed to phenomena. The parti-
cipants highlighted that qualitative methodologies facilitate the develop-
ment and narration of personal and social constructions, and the
adoption of emic perspectives on the research topic. In their words,
“knowing the reality from the perspective of the participants and their
communities” (Female, Seville, fewer than 10 years of field practice)
helps to develop “thicker narratives” and to keep asking clarifying and
 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PSYCHOLOGY 427

Table 3. Participating institutions and centers of the survey respondents.

Universidad de Cádiz (2)
Universidad de Malaga (1)
Universidad Loyola Andalucía (2)
Universidad de Oviedo (2)
Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha (3)
Universitat Oberta de Cataluña (1)
Universidad de Barcelona (3)
Campus Docent Sant Joan de Déu (1)
Universidad Rey Juan Carlos (1)
Universidad Complutense de Madrid (1)
Universidad Pública de Navarra (1)
Universidad de Granada (1)
Cruz Roja (1)
Universidad de Sevilla (7)
Universidad de la Laguna (1)
Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona (10)
Universidad Ramon Llul (1)
Fundació Puigvert (1)
Universitat Rovira i virgili (1)
Confederación Autismo España (1)
Universidad de Murcia (2)
Universidad de Jaén (1)
Others (2)

critical questions in order to gain “more human and intimate under-

standings of subjectivities” (Female, Madrid, fewer than 10 years of field
practice). A male participant from Seville with more than 30 years of
field practice emphasized that qualitative methodologies foster complex-
ity which is crucial “to design effective social interventions.” He also
remarked that “the other’s perspective and voice” are a “foundational
concern for the discipline of psychology.”
● Data analysis and context: In addition to the process of data collection,
depth is also relevant to the interpretation and analysis of data. More
specifically, the participants connected this form of depth to being open to
“alternative,” “unexpected,” and “nuanced” interpretations, such as those
that may be developed through deconstruction and the analysis of objects
from a plurality of perspectives. The participants pointed out that “mean-
ings and lived experiences” can only be understood in “the subjects’ context
of life,” – a context that in itself needs to be interpreted. This allows for
“nuanced readings” of the data and to relate them to the “symbolic and
relational dimensions of individuals” in dialogue with their “cultural com-
munities.” As a female participant from Barcelona with 21-30 years of field
experience stated, “The opportunity of considering natural settings, histor-
ical contexts and interactions among participants of a research is something
unavoidable in the production of meanings.”
● Reflexivity, the active participant, and reporting: Depth was also related to
“reflexivity,”, which arguably is a definitional feature of qualitative meth-
odologies (Gemignani, 2017; Levitt et al. 2016). According to the partici-
pants, reflecting on the researchers’ presuppositions about the researched
allowed for a “more critical” and “humble” relation with the other. More
specifically, qualitative methodologies invite critical reflections on the role
that researchers and their projects may have for the construction of
subjects and data. From this perspective, which is in tune with construc-
tionist (Gergen, 2014), narrative (Freeman, 2014), and post-qualitative
428 M. GEMIGNANI ET AL.

theories (Koro-Ljungberg, 2016) of inquiry, the use of methodologies

extends beyond the simple data collection, analysis, and reporting to
consider the role of researchers as witness and social activists and the
gathering of data as an active process of co-construction.

4.1.2 Context.
In the responses of participants who adopted more critical and post-
structural frames of knowledge, context stood as a rampart against the
“epistemic violence related to the universalization of results” (Male,
Barcelona, with 21-30 years of field practice). As emphasized by another
male participant from the same city and with the same years of experience,
“historical, cultural and relational contexts are instrumental to understand
meanings and high-quality qualitative research should always underscore the
links among the personal, the social, and the political to avoid reifications
and essentializations.” One participant pointed out that considering seman-
tics in relation to context allows designing “better quantitative studies that
would not merely follow blind protocols and would go beyond measuring
cognitions.”

4.1.3 Diversity.
Linked to both depth and context is the ability of qualitative methodologies to
acknowledge diversity in culture, context, and personal meanings. The perso-
nal, social, and “cultural meanings, interpretations, subjectivities, and idiosyn-
crasies” (Female, Seville, with 11-20 years of field practice) acquire a primary
importance in qualitative research. In line with current post-humanist and neo-
materialist theories of knowledge, the epistemic logic shifts from a humanist
and universalist search for common aspects that tend to reproduce themselves
(an epistemology of sameness) to embrace an epistemology of difference in the
generation of the subject matter (Barad, 2007).

4.1.4 Research rapport.

The respondents pointed out that, in general, qualitative methodologies tend
to view participants as more than informants or sources of data. Rather, the
participants to our study underscored the importance of establishing
a trusting rapport with the subjects. This rapport is mutual, in such ways
that both researchers and participants are active agents of the inquiry. As
stated by a female participant from Barcelona, with 11-20 years of field
practice, “qualitative methodologies enable to relate horizontally to research
participants.”
 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PSYCHOLOGY 429

4.1.5 Interdisciplinarity and pluralism for knowledge and applications.

Given that cultural, community, and health psychologies are the fields that
most adopt qualitative methodologies, it is not surprising that, according to
some participants, interdisciplinary is a major strength of qualitative psy-
chology. In the words of a female participant from Madrid, with 11-20 years
of field practice, interdisciplinarity allows for “the use of multiple methodol-
ogies and for more complex and nuanced interpretations.” Following up on
a similar observation, a male participant from Barcelona with more than 30
years of field experience pointed out that epistemological pluralism facil-
itates the “effective applications of research to social issues.”

4.1.6 Reports.
Three participants noticed that qualitative research articles tend to be more
centered on the nuances of human experience and on the ecological and
evocative validity of research. Because of this focus, they tend to be more
pleasant to read and freer in their structure. A female participant from
Madrid with 0-11years of field practice pointed out how qualitative inquiry
allows for an “engaged way to create and convey knowledge that is uncommon
in psychology.”

4.2 Weaknesses and limitations of qualitative research in psychology

4.2.1 Being undervalued and unknown.
Among our participants, the most common concern was that, in Spain, the
gatekeepers of scientific recognition – namely, journal boards and national
and international agencies of research funding – tend to neither value nor
know qualitative methodologies in psychology. Some respondents pointed
out that this is a self-feeding or autopoietic issue, whose two faces (percep-
tion of scientific value and knowledge of epistemological diversity) feed each
other. If positivism and experimentalism are the only known forms of
science, other epistemologies are likely to be discounted and relegated to
an “inferior status in the process of scientific knowledge” production, as
pointed out by a male respondent from Seville who has been in the field
for 11-20 years. This will then make research that does not follow the
dominant paradigm less likely to be published, taught, and therefore
known, and less likely to be financially supported through competitive grants
and therefore valued.
As many participants underscored, this circular process becomes a self-
fulfilling prophecy about the “perceived scientific weakness” of qualitative
research. The result is, in the words of a female respondent from Barcelona
with more than 30 years of field experience, that “less resources are made
available” to conduct qualitative inquiries.
430 M. GEMIGNANI ET AL.

4.2.2 Dominance of positivism in journal and grant agencies.

The participants talked about the “absolute dominance of positivist research
standards in Spanish psychology” and the “poor legitimacy given to qualitative
research in the discipline,”, as said by a female respondent from Barcelona
who has been practicing for 11–20 years. This partially explains the relative
shortage of publication avenues in psychology that are open to qualitative
studies, – a concern that was pointed out by a number of participants. One
participant for instance vividly complained that journal reviewers have been
more concerned about her qualitative investigations’ low N than their con-
clusions and usefulness.

4.2.3 Shortage of in-depth trainings.

Indicated as both a complaint and a possible solution was the need to offer
more “formal” and “thorough trainings” in the theoretical grounds of
qualitative methodologies as well as on specific issues, such as research
validity, generalizability, and ethics. The participants pointed out that,
often, qualitative methodologies often are difficult to master due to the
“variety of their interpretations” and are complex to apply due to a lack of
“systematic guidelines,” “standardizations” of the steps to follow, and clear
instructions on how to “evaluate research quality and rigor.” More inci-
sively, many participants agreed that “a major limitation is that, in some
contexts, researchers evaluate qualitative inquiries through the same para-
meters of quantitative research,” as a female respondent from Barcelona
with 11-20 years of field experience said. However, as standards of good-
ness are “necessarily linked to specific paradigms,”, to overcome this chal-
lenge qualitative psychologists should go beyond the mere replication of
positivist paradigms of science.

4.2.4 Time-consuming and need to transcend dichotomies.

Four participants pointed out that qualitative studies are time-consuming.
A single participant from Seville, with more than 30 years of research
experience, indicated that, in depicting themselves in antithesis to quantita-
tive methodologies, qualitative researchers often corner themselves by “reject-
ing other methodologies that they accuse of being too positivist.” According to
this participant, this relative “isolation and self-othering feeds the problematic
qualitative-quantitative dichotomy” and the “paradigm war,” instead of
understanding the respective strengths and research contexts of the two
approaches.

4.3 Challenges
About one-third of the participants underlined the need for qualitative
psychologists to actively face and counter the prejudices and stereotypes
 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PSYCHOLOGY 431

that often “realist” and “positivist” gatekeepers hold about qualitative inquiry.
According to the participants, this path toward change needs to go through
working on the “credibility,” “visibility,” and “reputation” of “rigorous” qua-
litative research and through showing the benefits of epistemological diver-
sity and the “flexibility,” “creativity,” “fun,” and “human rapport” that
qualitative research allows for. Some participants underlined that these
qualities may be useful to counter the current dominance of biopsychological
frameworks.
A special note concerned the role of subjectivity (Gough & Madill, 2012).
While usually seen as an issue in quantitative circles, qualitative researchers
should be able “to embrace subjectivity for its ability to make meanings and
habitus emerge within specific cultural contexts,” as said by a female respon-
dent from Barcelona with fewer than 10 years of field experience. Another
participant pointed out that, whereas qualitative methods were met with
“hostility at national congresses in psychology till a few years ago,” now they
are received with “indifference” and the perception that they are less relevant
for science. This often results in lesser opportunities to publish studies on
high-ranked journals.
Two participants suggested that a major boost to the acceptance of qua-
litative methodologies would come from receiving financial support for
qualitative research projects. Still, the participants considered that qualitative
projects are less likely to be financed, partially because the reviewers are not
familiar with qualitative designs. Some participants thus suggested that
qualitative researchers should join review boards of journals and of funding
and accrediting agencies, such as ANECA.
Such a “political” presence may also influence the degree in which uni-
versity courses on qualitative methodologies become institutionalized in
formal trainings in Spain. As a number of participants pointed out, an
increased institutionalization of “trainings in qualitative and mixed-methods
” research would be instrumental to “spread knowledge and boost the accep-
tance and use of these methodologies,” as said by a male respondent from
Granada with 11-20 years of field experience.
The current “power of English-language journals in the international
rankings” represents an additional challenge for non-native English speakers,”,
as pointed out by a female respondent from Barcelona with 11-20 years of
field experience. Last, three participants emphasized the need to innovate
qualitative methodologies and to integrate current developments in philoso-
phy of science into the teaching and practice of qualitative research in
psychology. For this, it would be necessary to create “new, reputable, and
indexed journals.”
432 M. GEMIGNANI ET AL.

4.4 Main methodologies used by the participants to the survey

In the survey, we also asked the participants to describe the qualitative
methodologies that they most use in their research projects. The answers
reproduced an array of methods for data collection and analysis.
Data collection: Focus groups and individual and group interviews were
the most popular strategies for data collection. Participatory action research
and observations were also another common answer. In addition, photo-
voice, repertory grids, and internet chat-rooms also appeared in the answers,
even if their frequency was much lower. The drift technique (“técnica de la
deriva”) stood out as a uniquely innovative methodology for urban ethno-
graphy based on new technologies, such as smartphone applications, and the
researchers’ active participation in the inquiry.
Data analysis: Narrative, discourse, and life-history analyses were by far
the most common methodologies, followed by ethnography, auto-
ethnographies, and grounded theory. Surprisingly, only a very small number
of respondents reported using methodologies that tend to be popular in
psychology, such as content or thematic analysis, phenomenological analysis,
and case studies.

5 Limitations and heuristics

One of the main limitations of the study concerns the extent in which our
mapping represents qualitative psychology in Spain. In spite of the efforts
made to reach qualitative researches in Spain, sometimes we did not get
responses to the survey: approximately 60% of the people who we reached
out to did not participate to the study. At times, when getting responses, not
all the items were thoroughly described.
In addition, another limitation can be found in the fact that, as the
purpose of the study was to map the field of psychology, we ignored other
relevant areas in education, sociology, marketing, anthropology, communica-
tion, and nursing. In the Spanish system, psychologists could work in
departments other than psychology.

6 Discussion & Conclusions: Strengths, limitations, and challenges

Based on the contributions of the qualitative psychologists in Spain who took
part to our survey, this cartographic exercise provides information on the
various research groups that are currently active in the region and discipline.
It also depicts the participants’ perceptions of the strengths, limitations, and
opportunities that characterize their experiences of doing qualitative research
in psychology in Spain.
 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PSYCHOLOGY 433

Qualitative psychology in Spain appears as a relatively young and small

movement, which nonetheless stands out for its innovation in the fields of
gender, diversity and migration studies, and applied community psychology.
Both its size and novelty contribute to the lack of standing that the partici-
pants reported about qualitative methodologies within Spanish psychology,
which, especially in the public university curricula, tends to be prominently
positivist, empiricist, and realist (Montes-Berges, Aranda & Castillo-Mayen,
2011).
Although qualitative researchers at times feel ostracized and othered in main-
stream psychology, the future holds much hope for the development of
a burgeoning qualitative movement within the discipline. The relatively recent
regulations of psychology curricula (ANECA, 2005) acknowledge that students
should acquire competencies in both qualitative and quantitative research. This
gives hope that, Spanish psychology departments will fully integrate qualitative
methodologies into their graduate and undergraduate curricula, as has been
done in the United Kingdom (Willig, 2008) and the United States (Rubin, Bell &
McClelland, 2018). Many participants reflected on the need to be proactive in
making this change happen in psychology in Spain, for instance, by acting on
gate-keeping practices in science joining journals’ editorial boards, and creating
opportunities for learning and dialoguing on epistemological diversity and
ontological complexity.
We indeed hope that this mapping effort will be a useful tool through
which researchers may contact other people in the same field, establish new
collaborations, and improve the visibility of qualitative research in Spain.
Our mapping provides evidence of the growing and enthusiastic nature of
qualitative inquiry in psychology. The participants to the study showed
a sharp sensibility toward constructionist and critical epistemologies, which
highlight the role of interpretation and positioning not only to define the
object of research but also to critically deconstruct the privileged role of the
researcher (Tuhiwai Smith, 1999), the separation between one and the
other, and the fine line between epistemology and ontology. These reflec-
tions show the influence of feminist, critical, and culture-studies theories in
many contemporary and innovative pockets of qualitative research in
Spain.
Qualitative psychologists seem eager to transcend the cognitive, reduc-
tionist, and individualist perspectives that are dominant in Spanish main-
stream psychology. The participants observe that subjectivity is always
present as both personal and socio-political discourses that shape reality
and knowledge-making (Foucault, 1980). This requires a redefinition and
transcendence of the prominence that objectivity holds in science, – a process
that feminist philosophies of science pioneered long ago (Haraway, 1988).
On the basis of the above considerations, it is not surprising that gender
and diversity are among the key areas of research for qualitative
434 M. GEMIGNANI ET AL.

psychologists in Spain. These topics are, by definition, politically and socially

constructed. The role of the inquirer cannot therefore be to merely describe
events or phenomena. Rather, researchers need to focus on understanding
the discursive dynamics through which realities emerge as such (Barad,
2007). From here derives also the interdisciplinary focus that is intrinsic in
the work of many qualitative psychologists in Spain.
Despite this enthusiasm, choosing to be a qualitative researcher in psychology
means to leave the beaten-path and to possibly move at the outskirts of power
and recognition within the discipline. As pointed out by some participants, the
(im)possibility of embracing qualitative methodologies seems to develop
through two intertwined patterns: First, the need to survive in the neoliberal
economy of productivity and competition that characterizes contemporary
academia favors quantitative and mixed-methods designs at the cost of deeper
and more caring relationship with subjects and more complex and fuzzy defini-
tions of phenomena, issues, and events, which qualitative research may instead
allow for and seek out (Cheek, 2017). This may partially explain why most
participants identified as partially qualitative and mixed-methods, rather than
fully qualitative. A second source of struggle came from the participants’ percep-
tion that qualitative research does not enjoy the same institutional appreciation
and status as its quantitative counterpart.
Qualitative researchers need to promote a pluralist view of scientific
knowledge and of research paradigms. Qualitative psychology can contribute
to bring psychological research closer to the general public, reduce the
research-practice gap, and better understand complex phenomena that con-
cern the Spanish society, such as the economic and gender divides, issues of
ethnic minorities, immigration and emigration, and cultural diversity in
health and education.
Qualitative methodologies are a journey into relational, complex, and
unfolding definitions of truth and science. For many researchers in psychol-
ogy, this journey is what called us to this field of knowledge and practice in
the first place: — at least to a psychology that longs for critical thinking about
“sciences,”, engagement and curiosity toward relating to the other, and
respect for diversity of knowledges and realities.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. José Alberto Salinas Pérez for his help with the visual
representations in this manuscript. We also wish to thank our research participants for taking
the time to critically reflect on their work and for answering questions that in many cases
required sharing uneasy opinions and experiences.
 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PSYCHOLOGY 435

Notes on contributors
Marco Gemignani is associate professor of psychology at the Universidad Loyola Andalucía,
Seville, Spain, where he specializes in qualitative methodologies and clinical community
psychology. Through forms of critical participatory and community-based research, Dr.
Gemignani’s inquiries concern social processes and practices that allow for the becoming of
specific possibilities, subjectivities, and ontologies for migrants and minorities. He mainly
works from cultural studies, constructionist, and critical perspectives.

Sara Ferrari is a postgraduate student at the University of Padua. In 2018, she started a
research training at Universidad Loyola Andalucía. She holds a sharp interest in clinical and
community psychology and she is particularly interested in clinical applications of phenom-
enology and constructivism. Her current work concerns reflexive practices of qualitative
research, such as autoethnography, and their intersection with clinical care.
Isabel Benítez is associate professor at the Universidad Loyola Andalucía (Seville, Spain). She
specializes in psychometrics and pretest methods for evaluating survey questionnaires. Her
research concerns cognitive interviewing, behavior coding, survey questionnaire design, test
design, validity, cross-cultural/lingual assessment, and DIF. More recently, mixed methods
research has been one of her main interests, and her current projects are focused on applying
this framework for resolving research questions in different fields.

References
Agencia Nacional de Evaluación de la Calidad y Acreditación (ANECA) 2005, Libro Blanco
del Título del Grado en Psicología, Viewed April 1, 2018; Retrieved from http://www.aneca.
es/var/media/150356/libroblanco_psicologia_def.pdf
Ansede M 2015, ‘La ciencia que desmanteló Franco’, El País, Ciencia, Viewed June 26, 2018;
Retrieved from https://elpais.com/elpais/2015/07/24/ciencia/1437736052_945031.html
Barad, K 2007, Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter
and meaning, Duke University Press, Durham, NC.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V 2006, ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in
Psychology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Braun, V & Clarke, V 2013, Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Cheek, J 2017, ‘The marketization of research: Implications for qualitative inquiry’, in The
SAGE handbook of qualitative research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Feixas, G & Villegas, M 1990, Constructivismo y psicoterapia, PPU, Barcelona: PPU.
Fernández, CH 2013, ‘Orígenes de la investigación aplicada en España: el método biográfico
como fuente de información para el análisis histórico y social de su desarrollo’, Historia
y Comunicación Social, vol. 18, pp. 285–298.
Finlay, L 2017, ‘Championing “reflexivities”’, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 120–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1037/qup0000075
Flick, U. 2017, ‘Mantras and myths: The disenchantment of Mixed-Methods Research and
Revisiting Triangulation as a Perspective’, Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 46–57. doi:
10.1177/1077800416655827.
Foucault, M 1980, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977,
Pantheon, New York, NY: Pantheon.
Freeman, M 2014, ‘Qualitative Inquiry and the Self-realization of Psychological Science’,
Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 119–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413510270.
436 M. GEMIGNANI ET AL.

Gemignani, M 2011, ‘Between researcher and researched: An introduction to countertrans-

ference in qualitative inquiry’, Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 701–708. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1077800411415501.
Gemignani, M 2017, ‘Toward a critical reflexivity in qualitative inquiry: Relational and post-
humanist reflections on realism, researcher’s centrality, and representationalism in reflexivity’,
Qualitative Psychology, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000070.
Gergen, KJ 2014, ‘From mirroring to world-making: Research as future forming’, Journal for the
Theory of Social Behaviour, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 287–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12075.
Gergen, KJ, Josselson, R & Freeman, M 2015, ‘The promises of qualitative inquiry’, American
Psychologist, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 1–9.
Gough, B & Madill, A 2012, ‘Subjectivity in psychological science: From problem to prospect’,
Psychological Methods, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 374–384. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029313.
Haraway, D, 1988, ‘Situated Knowledges: The science question in Feminism and the privilege
of partial perspective’, Feminist Studies, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/
3178066.
Helms, MM & Nixon, J 2010, ‘Exploring SWOT analysis – where are we now?’, Journal of Strategy
and Management, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 215–251. https://doi.org/10.1108/17554251011064837
Ibáñez, J 1979, Más allá de la Sociología. El Grupo de Discusión: teoría y crítica, Madrid: Siglo
XXI, Madrid.
Koro-Ljungberg, M 2016, Reconceptualizing Qualitative Research: Methodologies without
methodology, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lafuente, E 1995, ‘Ortega y Gasset y el problema de la psicología’, Revista de Historia de La
Psicología, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 241–248.
Levitt, HM, Motulsky, SL, Wertz, FJ, Morrow, SL & Ponterotto, JG 2016, ‘Recommendations
for designing and reviewing Qualitative Research in Psychology’, Qualitative Psychology,
vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 2–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/qup0000082
Lincoln, Y.S. & Denzin, N.K., 2011, ‘Epilogue: Toward a “refunctioned ethnography”’, in The
SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4th. edition, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications. Inc., (pp. 715–718).
Masny, D. (ed.), 2013, Cartographies of becoming in education: a Deleuze-Guattari perspective.
Rotterdam, Sense Publishers.
Maxwell, JA 2004, ‘Reemergent scientism, postmodernism, and dialogue across differences’,
Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 35–41.
Miquel, M 1992, ‘Filosofía de la ciencia en Ortega y Gasset. Ciencias naturales y humanas:
Hhacia una demarcación’, Anales Del Seminario de Metafísica, vol. extra, homenaje
a Sergio Rábade, pp. 127–151.
Montenegro, M, Pujol, J, & Posocco, S. 2017, ‘Bordering, Exclusions and Necropolitics’,
Qualitative Research Journal, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 142–54. doi:10.1108/QRJ-08-2017-089.
Montes-Berges, B, Aranda, M & Castillo-Mayen, MR 2011, ‘Psychology in Spain: Its historical
and cultural roots, instruction, research and future prospects’, Psychology Teaching Review,
vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 3–19.
Ortí, A 1997, ‘Una visión histórica generalista de la sociología agraria en España: las tres
modernizaciones del desarrollo capitalista’, Agricultura y sociedad en la España
contemporánea, Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas (CIS), pp. 71–108.
Pascale, CM 2011, Cartographies of Knowledge: Exploring Qualitative Epistemologies, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Peinado, A 2002, ‘La investigación cualitativa en España: de la vida política al maltrato del
sentido’, Revista Española de Salud Pública, vol. 76, no. 5, pp. 381–393.
Reales, SS, Abril, JP, Inchausti, F, García, XF, Losada, CJ & Armendáriz, JAA 2017, ‘Del libro
blanco del título de grado en psicología al negocio de la desesperación: Aanálisis
 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PSYCHOLOGY 437

cuantitativo de los estudios de psicología en España durante la década 2005-2015’, Papeles

Del Psicólogo, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 185–194.
Rubin, JD, Bell, S & McClelland, SI 2018, ‘Graduate education in qualitative methods in
U.S. psychology: current trends and recommendations for the future’, Qualitative Research in
Psychology, Routledge, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2017.1392668.
Tójar Hurtado, JC 2006, Investigación cualitativa: comprender y actuar, La Muralla, Madrid
Tuhiwai Smith, L 1999, Decolonizing methodologies: research and indigenous peoples, London, Zed
Books.
Valles, MS & Baer, A 2005, ‘Investigación social cualitativa en España: Ppresente, pasado
y futuro. Un retrato’, Forum: Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social
Research, vol. 6, pp. 3–5.
Willig, C 2008, Introducing qualitative research in psychology: adventures in theory and
method, Buckingham, McGraw Hill/Open University Press.

Appendix 12. Survey about “Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology in

Spain”
The aim of the study is to identify the researchers who adopt qualitative methodologies in
psychology in Spain. We are interested in learning to learn about qualitative research that develops
in psychology as well as its links to other disciplines. This study will provide an initial mapping of
qualitative research in Spain, and your contribution to it is very important as it will help us to
understand the spread and use of qualitative methodologies the country. The results and observa-
tions will be published in a special issue of the “Qualitative Research in Psychology” journal.

Thanks to your participation to this survey, it may be possible to get to know research groups
and promote collaborations in the national panorama. Answering the questions will take
between 5 and 10 minutes. Thank you very much for your help!

Informed consent: your consent to take part in the study is needed to proceed with the survey
questions. Your contribution will be to answer questions about the kind of research you
perform and your ideas about qualitative inquiry. Although the researchers’ names won’t be
published, themes, research methodologies and universities or research centers may be
named. This might make possible to identify the researcher or the research group that are
taking part to this inquiry. In case you prefer not to facilitate this information, please do not
answer the question about your belonging institution. Thank you again for your time and
collaboration.

○ I accept (1)
○ I don’t accept (2)

Q3 Demographic data
○ First name (1) ________________________________________________
○ Last name (2) ________________________________________________

Q4 Gender
○ Female (1)
○ Male (2)

2
Please note that the survey was translated from the Spanish language.
438 M. GEMIGNANI ET AL.

○ Other (3)

Q5 Where do you work?

○ University (1)
○ Research center (2)
○ Health clinic (3)
○ Private consultation (4)
○ Other (5) ________________________________________________

Q5aa What is your role or position at the institution where you work?
○ PhD (1)
○ Post-doc (2)
○ Researcher (3)
○ Assistant professor (4)
○ Associate professor (5)
○ Full professor (6)
○ Other (7) ________________________________________________

Q5ab What department do you belong to?

________________________________________________________________

Q5ba The health clinic where you work is ….

○ public (1)
○ private (2)
○ semi-private/chartered/partially supported with public funds (3)

Q5bb Which occupation do you cover in the health clinic?

□ Researcher (1)
□ Predoctoral psychologist (2)
□ Post-doc psychologist (3)
□ Head of service (4)
□ Clinical health psychologist (5)
□ Specialized psychologist in clinical psychology (6)
□ Other (7) ________________________________________________

Q6 What is the name of the center where you work?

________________________________________________________________

Q7 If you belong to a research group, what is the group name?

________________________________________________________________

Q8 Were your academic studies or trainings in psychology?

○ Yes (1)
○ No (2)

Q9 How many years have you been working in this field? (even if you changed institution)
○ 0-10 (1)
○ 11-20 (2)
○ 21-30 (3)
○ More than 30 (4)
 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PSYCHOLOGY 439

Q10 ¿What psychology area is your research better represented by?

○ Basic psychology (1)
○ Psychobiology (2)
○ Neuropsychology, biopsychology or physiological psychology (3)
○ Psychometric (4)
○ Developmental psychology (5)
○ Educational psychology (6)
○ Social and community psychology (7)
○ Psychology of work and organizations (8)
○ Clinical psychology (9)
○ Health psychology (10)
○ Philosophy (11)
○ Communication (12)
○ Education (13)
○ Humanities (14)
○ Sociology (15)
○ Other area (16)

Q11 Which are the main themes, foci, or topics of your research?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q12 How would you describe yourself as a researcher?

(1) Only qualitative

(2) Mainly qualitative
(3) Mixed (Qualitative and quantitative research have got the same importance in my
works)
(4) Mainly quantitative
(5) Only quantitative

Q13 What kind of qualitative methodologies do you mostly use?

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q14 In your opinion, what are the challenges of doing qualitative research in psychology in
Spain (the word “challenge” refers to both threats and opportunities?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q15 In your opinion, what are the main limitations of qualitative research in psychology?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q16 In your opinion, what are the main strengths of qualitative research in psychology?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
440 M. GEMIGNANI ET AL.

Q17 Do you collaborate with other groups of qualitative research in Spain? If yes, which
groups?
○ Yes (1) ________________________________________________
○ No (2)

Q18 Do you know other qualitative researchers in psychology in Spain who may be interested
in taking part to our study? Could you facilitate us their names and, if possible, contact
information?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q19 If we had some doubts about your answers, can we contact you for clarifications?
________________________________________________________________

Q20 Thank you for your time and collaboration. If you have some question about our
research, please contact XXX
Copyright of Qualitative Research in Psychology is the property of Routledge 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.