Susan L. Morrow

Bio: Susan L. Morrow is an academic researcher from University of Utah. The author has contributed to research in topics: Qualitative research & Grounded theory. The author has an hindex of 18, co-authored 36 publications receiving 5776 citations. Previous affiliations of Susan L. Morrow include St. Mary's College of Maryland.

Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology.

Abstract: This article examines concepts of the trustworthiness, or credibility, of qualitative research. Following a “researcher-as-instrument,” or self-reflective, statement, the paradigmatic underpinnings of various criteria for judging the quality of qualitative research are explored, setting the stage for a discussion of more transcendent standards (those not associated with specific paradigms) for conducting quality research: social validity, subjectivity and reflexivity, adequacy of data, and adequacy of interpretation. Finally, current guidelines for writing and publishing qualitative research are reviewed, and strategies for conducting and writing qualitative research reports are suggested. Qualitative research, ensuing from a variety of disciplines, paradigms, and epistemologies, embraces multiple standards of quality, known variously as validity, credibility, rigor ,o rtrustworthiness. In addition to some standards that may be thought of as somewhat universal across disciplines and paradigms, the “goodness” (Morrow & Smith, 2000) of qualitative inquiry is assessed on the basis of the paradigmatic underpinnings of the research and the standards of the discipline. Thus, a grounded theory study or a consensual qualitative research investigation in counseling psychology that is rooted in a postpositivist or constructivist/interpretivist paradigm will look quite different from a critical ethnography in education; and the standards appropriate for evaluating these studies will vary accordingly. I begin this article by addressing the paradigmatic underpinnings of trustworthiness or rigor in qualitative research. Next, I discuss central topics related to trustworthiness or validity that span paradigms and may be thought of as relevant across most research designs. I then provide an overview of guidelines that have been suggested for evaluating qualitative research, particularly in psychology. Finally, I offer recommendations for enhancing the quality of qualitative research in counseling psychology and suggest strategies for writing and publishing. First, however, in keeping with the standard of reflexivity as a way for researchers to inform their audiences about their perspectives as well as to manage their subjectivities, I describe my own assumptions about qualitative research methodology and quality.

Qualitative research for counseling psychology.

Abstract: Beginning with calls for methodological diversity in counseling psychology, this article addresses the history and current state of qualitative research in counseling psychology. It identifies the historical and disciplinary origins as well as basic assumptions and underpinnings of qualitative research in general, as well as within counseling psychology. It identifies the foundational elements of qualitative research, including its purposes and goals, paradigmatic bases, and underlying characteristics. Finally, it locates qualitative research in counseling psychology in the research genre and explores the promise that this form of research holds for counseling and psychotherapy research as well as counseling psychology's multicultural and social justice agenda.

Recommendations for designing and reviewing qualitative research in psychology: Promoting methodological integrity.

Abstract: The current paper presents recommendations from the Task Force on Resources for the Publication of Qualitative Research of the Society for Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology, a section of Division 5 of the American Psychological Association. This initiative was a response to concerns by authors that reviews of qualitative research articles frequently utilize inflexible sets of procedures and provide contradictory feedback when evaluating acceptability. In response, the Task Force proposes the concept of methodological integrity and recommends its evaluation via its two composite processes: (a) fidelity to the subject matter, which is the process by which researchers develop and maintain allegiance to the phenomenon under study as it is conceived within their tradition of inquiry, and (b) utility in achieving research goals, which is the process by which researchers select procedures to generate insightful findings that usefully answer their research questions. Questions that guide the evaluation of these processes, example principles, and a flowchart are provided to help authors and reviewers in the process of both research design and review. The consideration of methodological integrity examines whether the implementation of fidelity and utility function coherently together. Researchers and reviewers also examine whether methods further the research goals, are consistent with researchers’ approaches to inquiry, and are tailored to the characteristics of the subject matter and investigators. This approach to evaluation encourages researchers and reviewers to shift from using standardized and decontextualized procedures as criteria for rigor toward assessing the underlying methodological bases for trustworthiness as they function within research projects.

Achieving trustworthiness in qualitative research: a pan-paradigmatic perspective.

Abstract: In this article, as two researchers from different traditions in qualitative research (consensual qualitative research and grounded theory), the authors present their shared views on the critical elements of trustworthiness in qualitative data. In addition to making specific recommendations about the integrity of data, the balance between participant meaning and researcher interpretation, and clear communication and application of the findings, they identify ways in which these issues are difficult to negotiate within and across different qualitative approaches. The authors present examples from various qualitative studies, emphasize the need for a shared language to reduce confusion between qualitative traditions and with researchers from a more strictly quantitative orientation, and recommend particular approaches to establishing trustworthiness in qualitative research.

Qualitative Research in Counseling Psychology Conceptual Foundations

Abstract: Beginning with calls for methodological diversity in counseling psychology, this article addresses the history and current state of qualitative research in counseling psychology. It identifies the historical and disciplinary origins as well as basic assumptions and underpinnings of qualitative research in general, as well as within counseling psychology. It identifies the foundational elements of qualitative research, including its purposes and goals, paradigmatic bases, and underlying characteristics. Finally, it locates qualitative research in counseling psychology in the research genre and explores the promise that this form of research holds for counseling and psychotherapy research as well as counseling psychology's multicultural and social justice agenda.

In a Different Voice. Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA (Harvard University Press) 1982.

Abstract: Introduction 1. Woman's Place in Man's Life Cycle 2. Images of Relationship 3. Concepts of Self and Morality 4. Crisis and Transition 5. Women's Rights and Women's Judgment 6. Visions of Maturity References Index of Study Participants General Index

Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology.

Abstract: This article examines concepts of the trustworthiness, or credibility, of qualitative research. Following a “researcher-as-instrument,” or self-reflective, statement, the paradigmatic underpinnings of various criteria for judging the quality of qualitative research are explored, setting the stage for a discussion of more transcendent standards (those not associated with specific paradigms) for conducting quality research: social validity, subjectivity and reflexivity, adequacy of data, and adequacy of interpretation. Finally, current guidelines for writing and publishing qualitative research are reviewed, and strategies for conducting and writing qualitative research reports are suggested. Qualitative research, ensuing from a variety of disciplines, paradigms, and epistemologies, embraces multiple standards of quality, known variously as validity, credibility, rigor ,o rtrustworthiness. In addition to some standards that may be thought of as somewhat universal across disciplines and paradigms, the “goodness” (Morrow & Smith, 2000) of qualitative inquiry is assessed on the basis of the paradigmatic underpinnings of the research and the standards of the discipline. Thus, a grounded theory study or a consensual qualitative research investigation in counseling psychology that is rooted in a postpositivist or constructivist/interpretivist paradigm will look quite different from a critical ethnography in education; and the standards appropriate for evaluating these studies will vary accordingly. I begin this article by addressing the paradigmatic underpinnings of trustworthiness or rigor in qualitative research. Next, I discuss central topics related to trustworthiness or validity that span paradigms and may be thought of as relevant across most research designs. I then provide an overview of guidelines that have been suggested for evaluating qualitative research, particularly in psychology. Finally, I offer recommendations for enhancing the quality of qualitative research in counseling psychology and suggest strategies for writing and publishing. First, however, in keeping with the standard of reflexivity as a way for researchers to inform their audiences about their perspectives as well as to manage their subjectivities, I describe my own assumptions about qualitative research methodology and quality.