Subjective Can Be Scary—But Worth It: Personal Reflections on How Qualitative Methods Can Advance Applied Behavior Analysis

Behavior analysts in research and clinical practice are interested in an ever-expanding array of topics. They are compelled to explore the social validity of the interventions they propose and the findings they generate. As the field moves in these important directions, qualitative methods are becoming increasingly relevant. Representing a departure from small-n design favored by behavior analysts, qualitative approaches provide analysts a unique set of tools to answer questions that prioritize voice, experience, and understandings in context. Despite recognition of the value of qualitative approaches in other disciplines, application of qualitative methods in behavior analysis remains limited. One likely explanation is that behavior analysts are not yet fluent in applying qualitative approaches within their clinical and research investigations. To address this issue, exploration of qualitative research approaches in behavior analytic literature is needed, alongside practical advice for analysts who are interested in using qualitative methods. This article briefly outlines qualitative literature which pertains to behavior analysts wanting to incorporate qualitative methods into their inquiries. Attention is primarily drawn to the need for coherence in designing and implementing a robust qualitative study that aligns with the behavior analyst’s aims and perspective on knowing. A set of guiding questions are provided to orient behavior analysts to considerations in qualitative research and outline how analysts can conceptualize a strong qualitative study. This article aims to support increased application of qualitative methods by behavior analysts, where these methods best address the function of the behavior analytic investigation.

The value that qualitative research brings to the occupational therapy body of evidence is widely accepted. Including evidence relating to individuals’ lived experiences through qualitative studies parallels occupational therapy's practice focus and theoretical underpinnings of the person in context. Engaging with consumers of occupational therapy services, for example, ensures that our practices, clinical and academic, remain current and reflective of the experience of people we work with. Qualitative research, where participants provided rich and in-depth description of their personal experience, is thus akin to client centred practice which is our modus operandi (World Federation of Occupational Therapists, 2016). Qualitative research can be considered a natural extension of occupational therapy practice experience and expertise. After all, occupational therapists who are guided by a person-centred approach, will inevitably explore and consider their client's unique values and experiences in order to understand the context and meanings underlying occupational participation. We are comfortable interacting with clients and, consequently, occupational therapists should have prerequisite skills necessary for meaningful data collection with research participants using qualitative approaches. There is, however, a difference as the primary purpose of interaction is different – one aims to assist the other to enquire. Different techniques are used in these interactions reflecting the different methodological traditions from which they emerge. Clinicians know that ‘one size does not fit all’ in therapy. We thus interpret findings of reliable, standardised and valid assessments in the context of unique occupational performance needs, goals, roles and environments of the client, in order to collaboratively develop and intervention plan with our client. So it is with qualitative research data and methodology. The information collected will only ‘make sense’ if the assessment/enquiry methods used are rigorous, take account of the unique context and experiences of people involved, and ‘make sense’ from a range of perspectives. How do we know if qualitative research methodologies are rigorous? Can something that is so unique even incorporate attributes comparable across study questions and contexts? Just as therapy uses guidelines and methodological research to enhance the consistency and quality of practice processes, what tools can qualitative researchers in occupational therapy use to develop and implement robust research questions and procedures? Do we apply the same level of precision used to generate qualitative evidence in practice to the data collection, analysis and interpretation that we do in qualitative research? Is there a risk that qualitative findings from research is less rigorous than what we would use in practice? Are we taking the appropriate measures to ensure qualitative research produce findings that will have the potential to advance occupational therapy practice, research, and education? When it comes to the ‘quality’ of qualitative research, evidence suggests that ‘sample size’ is both a matter of contention and a meaningful guide to issues that need consideration. In the first instance, while sample size has been identified as a factor in study design, and it can be difficult to determine with precision, the size of the sample should be guided by ‘data saturation’ rather than sampling of people per se (Creswell, 2013). At the same time, the concept of data saturation has been challenged as a means to determine the quality of qualitative studies (O'Reiley & Parker, 2013). Other authors have proposed sample size can be determined on the number of participants rather than ‘data’, depending on the qualitative methodologies. For example, phenomenological studies may use between five and 20 participants (Creswell, 2013; Green & Thorogood, 2014) while three to 15 participants is acceptable in studies using interpretative phenomenological analysis (Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2009). Still further, some qualitative researchers avoid suggestion of any particular approach, instead providing resources to researchers to help align their study design, procedures and sample size as best as possible with the question they are seeking to answer (for example, the Rosalind Franklin-Qualitative Research Appraisal Instrument and the Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research.) These resources have been developed precisely to help qualitative researchers design, conduct, and report comprehensive research that is credible, dependable and transferable to other contexts. The Australian Occupational Therapy Journal through its Editorial Board and Reviewers, stays abreast of discussions and developments in qualitative methodologies and approaches. Authors need to remember that, the journal will publish ‘papers that have a sound theoretical basis, methodological rigour with sufficient scope and scale to make important new contributions to the occupational therapy body of knowledge’ (Wiley & Sons, 2018). It will maintain its commitment to ‘disseminate scholarship and evidence to substantiate, influence and shape policy and occupational therapy practice locally and globally’ (Wiley & Sons). To achieve this commitment, authors of qualitative research studies must provide strong justification to support their methodological choices and clearly describe data collection, analysis and interpretation steps that will demonstrate trustworthiness of findings and design rigour.

As a research methodology, qualitative research method infuses an added advantage to the exploratory capability that researchers need to explore and investigate their research studies. Qualitative methodology allows researchers to advance and apply their interpersonal and subjectivity skills to their research exploratory processes. However, in a study with an interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) approach, the advantageous elements of the study quadruple because of the bonding relationship that the approach allows for the researchers to develop with their research participants. Furthermore, as a qualitative research approach, IPA gives researchers the best opportunity to understand the innermost deliberation of the ‘lived experiences’ of research participants. As an approach that is ‘participant-oriented’, interpretative phenomenological analysis approach allows the interviewees (research participants) to express themselves and their ‘lived experience’ stories the way they see fit without any distortion and/or prosecution. Therefore, utilizing the IPA approach in a qualitative research study reiterates the fact that its main objective and essence are to explore the ‘lived experiences’ of the research participants and allow them to narrate the research findings through their ‘lived experiences’. As such, this paper discusses the historical background of phenomenology as both a theory and a qualitative research approach, an approach that has transitioned into an interpretative analytical tradition. Furthermore, as a resource tool to novice qualitative researchers, this paper provides a step-by-step comprehensive guide to help prepare and equip researchers with ways to utilize and apply the IPA approach in their qualitative research studies. More importantly, this paper also provides an advanced in-depth analysis and usability application for the IPA approach in a qualitatively conducted research study. As such, this paper completely contrasted itself from many books and articles that are written with the premise of providing useful and in-depth information on the subject-matter (phenomenology, as a qualitative approach).

BackgroundAs part of the effort to gather research evidence for the development of Vietnam’s National Dementia Plan, a systematic review was conducted to map dementia research in Vietnam or among the Vietnamese diaspora. This paper aimed to report the qualitative research evidence on the life experiences of people with dementia in Vietnam and among the Vietnamese diaspora.MethodSystematic searches were conducted in June 2019 using Medline, Embase, Emcare, PsycINFO and Cochrane electronic databases, as well as grey literature. Keywords and Medical Subject Headings [MeSH terms] for dementia and associated terms were combined with keywords for Vietnam and its provinces. Qualitative research articles published in English or Vietnamese were included to examine evidence on the life experiences of Vietnamese people with dementia using thematic analysis.ResultOur searches resulted in 3,940 papers, from which 21 qualitative research studies were included for final analysis. The majority of research has not been undertaken in Vietnam but with the Vietnamese diaspora in Western countries and has taken a cultural perspective to analyses. Research in Western countries has focused on the need for culturally adapted and culturally sensitive models of care. Emerging themes about the life experiences of Vietnamese people with dementia identified from the studies included: many people do not have diagnostic terms for dementia but use the descriptive language of symptoms; stigma was a reported problem and on occasions can be observed in the descriptive language used for people with dementia; cultural and traditional values create both an opportunity and a barrier, supporting compassion, family care and relaxation, but creating barriers to accessing health services or long‐term residential care.ConclusionThis is the first systematic review reporting evidence on the life experiences of people with dementia in Vietnam and among the Vietnamese diaspora. Future research is needed on the voice of people with dementia themselves and their caregivers particularly in low and middle‐income countries with regards to living with dementia, pathways to care from diagnosis, treatment, care and support, additional social care and preparedness for end of life care for people with dementia.

Objectives: This paper aimed to review and synthesise the qualitative research evidence on the experiences and perceptions of dementia in Vietnam and among the Vietnamese diaspora. Methods: Systematic searches were conducted in June 2019 using Medline, Embase, Emcare, PsycINFO and Cochrane electronic databases, as well as grey literature. Keywords and Medical Subject Headings [MeSH terms] for dementia and associated terms were combined with keywords for Vietnam and its provinces. Qualitative research articles published in English or Vietnamese were included to examine evidence on the life experiences of Vietnamese people with dementia using thematic analysis. Results: Our searches resulted in 3,940 papers, from which 21 qualitative research studies were included for final analysis. The majority of research has not been undertaken in Vietnam but with the Vietnamese diaspora in Western countries and has taken a cultural perspective to analyses. Research in Western countries has focused on the need for culturally adapted and culturally sensitive models of care. Emerging themes about the life experiences of Vietnamese people with dementia identified from the studies included: many people do not have diagnostic terms for dementia but use the descriptive language of symptoms; stigma was a reported problem and on occasions can be observed in the descriptive language used for people with dementia; cultural and traditional values create both an opportunity and a barrier, supporting compassion, family care and relaxation, but creating barriers to accessing health services or long-term residential care. Conclusions: This is the first systematic review reporting qualitative evidence on the life experiences of people with dementia in Vietnam and among the Vietnamese diaspora. Future research is needed on the voice of people with dementia themselves and their caregivers particularly in Vietnam, and low and middle-income countries with regards to living with dementia, pathways to care from diagnosis, treatment, care and support, additional social care and preparedness for end of life care for people with dementia.

Measures Used with Populations with Food Insecurity: A Call for Increased Psychometric Validation

The purpose of this paper is to offer a comprehensive guide for novice researchers (mostly applicable to PhD students and those new to qualitative research), teachers, and reviewers of qualitative psychology research methods. This paper delineates the main quality criteria across qualitative methods: providing a holistic framework that covers fundamental principles as well as nuanced, context-specific guidelines relevant to a chosen qualitative approach. First, we demonstrate why this overview is needed, in part because of an increasing emphasis on finding sound ways of appraising qualitative studies, the lack of agreement on quality markers, and the variety of qualitative research methodologies available. Next, we present general criteria for quality across all qualitative methods, before setting out method specific criteria for four commonly used qualitative research approaches: Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RTA), Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA), Critical Discursive Psychology/Discursive Psychology (CDP/DP) and Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT). While the focus is on providing criteria specific to these methodological approaches, we also describe the broader philosophical foundations underpinning these approaches and other branches within these philosophies, recognising that methodological criteria can be contrasting and competing even within methodologies. The integration of general and approach-specific criteria cultivates a deeper understanding of both the philosophical underpinnings and practical intricacies of qualitative inquiry, empowering researchers to navigate the methodological landscape with critical acumen and intellectual humility. Finally, we compare the four methodologies in terms of key features and qualities they aim to achieve. The paper emphasizes that even though there are criteria that are common across the field, it is essential to maintain the specific stance of each individual methodological approach.

Positive behavior support (PBS) developed in the 1980s and 1990s as an approach to enhance quality of life and minimize challenging behavior (Carr et al., 2002). Founded in 1999, Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions publishes both conceptual and empirical articles on PBS using a variety of methodologies (e.g., Baker-Ericzen, Stahmer, & Burns, 2007; Harvey, Baker, Horner, & Blackford, 2003; Vaughn, White, Johnston, & Dunlap, 2005), though single-subject designs are very common. One feature of JPBI that distinguishes it from other behaviorally oriented journals, including Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, is that the vast majority of published studies are conducted in natural settings rather than in clinical settings. This is not to suggest that research in laboratories or clinical settings is not important or valued; rather, it reflects an emphasis within PBS on external validity and contextual fit of interventions. As noted by Johnston et al. (2006), PBS has been associated with a great deal of federal funding and has been written into policy at the federal level. For example, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 maintains provisions for behavioral interventions and supports for children with disabilities who display problem behavior. Some states have also adopted statutes prescribing PBS for persons with disabilities. Further, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) of the US Department of Education has dedicated considerable funding to support PBS intervention, training, and research. Importantly, these developments did not come about as a result of campaigning by researchers within PBS, but rather because consumers (e.g., educators and parents) informed policy makers that PBS was having an important and durable impact on the lives of children. The PBS Controversy In recent years, a debate has evolved about positive behavior support and its relation to applied behavior analysis. Origins of the debate may be traced to the position that PBS is a new science, evolved from, yet different than, applied behavior analysis (ABA) (Carr et al., 2002). Although advocates of this position acknowledge the central influence of ABA in the heritage of PBS (Dunlap, 2006), they argue that the combined elements of PBS comprise a fundamentally new science to reduce challenging behavior. In response, some behavior analysts have countered that PBS is not different from ABA (Carr & Sidener, 2002). Proponents of this view posit that the procedures of PBS are largely, if not entirely, drawn from ABA and that attempts to conceptualize PBS as a new science have potentially harmful ramifications for the field of ABA. Furthering this view, other behavior analysts have described PBS as a direct threat to ABA (Johnston et al., 2006; Mulick & Butler, 2005). Accordingly, they imply that the successful dissemination of PBS as a new science will result in consumers' rejection of ABA. Moreover, because many PBS practitioners lack formal training in ABA, they argue, PBS interventions may result in deleterious effects for consumers. Diverging views have sparked debate among behavior analysts about PBS and its relationship to ABA. Although little direct evidence has been offered to support the claim that PBS is harmful to ABA, it is not unreasonable for behavior analysts to have concerns given these issues. The purpose of this paper is to allay these concerns by providing one perspective on the relationship between PBS and ABA. Unique contributions of PBS to the field of ABA are offered in conjunction with suggestions of how practitioners of PBS and ABA may work together for mutual benefit. Are PBS and ABA Different? PBS is an application of behavior analysis, which focuses on the core components of PBS identified in the literature (Anderson & Freeman, 2000; Anderson & Kincaid, 2005; Carr et al., 2002; Horner et al. …

Guest editorial: What's common with qualitative nursing research these days?

Psychology has been a highly quantitative field since its conception as a science. However, a qualitative approach to psychological research has gained increasing importance in the last decades, and an enduring debate between quantitative and qualitative approaches has arisen. The recently developed Mixed Methods Research (MMR) addresses this debate by aiming to integrate quantitative and qualitative approaches. This article outlines and discusses quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research approaches with specific reference to their (1) philosophical foundations (i.e. basic sets of beliefs that ground inquiry), (2) methodological assumptions (i.e. principles and formal conditions which guide scientific investigation), and (3) research methods (i.e. concrete procedures for data collection, analysis and interpretation). We conclude that MMR may reasonably overcome the limitation of purely quantitative and purely qualitative approaches at each of these levels, providing a fruitful context for a more comprehensive psychological research.

Purpose: The paper aims to explore the role and significance of qualitative methods in the research process, particularly focusing on their ability to interpret and understand complex social phenomena. It highlights the complementarity between qualitative and quantitative approaches and their joint use in comprehensive research. Design/methodology/approach: This paper utilizes a theoretical approach to describe and analyze qualitative research methods, including observation, interviews, and group discussions. The discussion is grounded in a comparison with quantitative methods, emphasizing the interpretive and subjective aspects of qualitative research, which allows for a deeper understanding of phenomena. Findings: The paper finds that qualitative methods play a crucial role in providing insights into phenomena that cannot be quantified. It highlights the importance of qualitative research in building theories from observed experiences, the value of respondents’ personal experiences, and the essential interaction between researchers and participants. The findings also support the argument that qualitative and quantitative research are complementary, and using both approaches can enhance research outcomes. Research limitations/implications: The paper acknowledges that purely qualitative research may lack generalizability due to its focus on individual or small group data. It suggests future research should continue to integrate both qualitative and quantitative methods to enhance the validity of the results. Practical implications: While not directly aimed at providing commercial or economic recommendations, the findings emphasize the importance of incorporating qualitative methods in research processes to gain richer, more contextually grounded insights that can inform policy- making, social programs, and educational practices. Social implications: The research can influence public attitudes by promoting a more nuanced understanding of social phenomena. It underscores the value of qualitative research in capturing human experiences and behaviors, which could be used to inform social policy and educational reforms. Originality/value: This paper contributes to the field by offering a comprehensive exploration of qualitative research methods, highlighting their relevance in capturing the complexities of social phenomena. It is of value to researchers in social sciences, education, and policy development who seek to integrate qualitative approaches into their research methodologies. Keywords: qualitative research, observation, interviews, social phenomena, research methodology. Category of the paper: Research Paper, Conceptual Paper.

Programs based on applied behavior analysis (ABA) have become increasingly popular as interventions for childhood autism. A number of leading behavior analysts even have claimed that many children with autism can be cured through such programs and therefore strongly recommend ABA over alternative interventions. The extant research literature, however, does not support these claims. ABA programs for childhood autism are indeed promising, but exaggerated claims may undermine confidence in approach, and are misleading to families of autistic children and to other stakeholders. ********** Empiricism has always been one of key defining features of applied behavior analysis (ABA) (Cooper, Heron & Heward, 1987). Both theoretical and technological developments are closely tied to objective data (Zuriff, 1985). In keeping with high value placed on pragmatism, link between basic behavioral principles and technological developments that stem from these principles emphasized. Technological developments such as interventions for psychological disorders and behavioral problems are not relegated to an afterthought, but are central to entire enterprise. The recent movement toward empirically supported treatments (ESTs) in field of clinical psychology therefore represents nothing new to applied behavior analysts. Although debates are currently raging among clinical psychologists and other mental health professionals regarding relevance of outcome research to clinical practice, idea that interventions should be informed by data axiomatic to behavior analyst. Applied behavior analysts may join other empirically-minded professionals in quibbling over details (e.g., specific criteria that should be used to justify claims of empirical support for an intervention; cf. Herbert, 2000; Lohr, DeMaio, & McGlynn, in press), but idea that the data matter not in dispute. ABA AND CHILDHOOD AUTISM The conventional wisdom within field of ABA that one of most significant if not single most significant - empirically supported success story ABA-based early intervention for developmental disabilities, and childhood autism in particular. In fact, association of ABA with intervention programs for childhood autism has become so strong that Hayes (2001) recently warned that ABA is gradually becoming a subfield of developmental disabilities (p. 61). Indeed, Internet home page of Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies (www.behavior.org)prominently features ABA programs for autism. The premier ABA journal, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, frequently publishes articles on application of ABA for developmental disabilities. In a feature article on Autism, Newsweek magazine described ABA as the standard approach to intervention with autism (Cowley, July 31, 2000, p. 52). The ABC News program Nightline recently featured ABA for autism (March 9, 2001). The New York State Department of Health (1999) recently issued clinical practice guidelines for autism in which ABA recommended as a critical element of any intervention program for childhood autism. The astounding success of ABA early intervention programs for children with autism proclaimed not only in professional literature, but also in books and Internet sites targeted to parents and other stakeholders. These publications frequently announce that ABA programs can result in dramatic developmental gains for many autistic individuals. In fact, it claimed that many of these children can eventually function in normal education settings, and are indistinguishable from their normally developing peers. In other words, many can be cured of their disorder. Consider, for example, following passages gleaned from literature on ABA for autism: Several studies have now shown that one treatment approach--early, intensive instruction using methods of Applied Behavior Analysis--can result in dramatic improvements for children with autism: successful integration in regular schools for many, completely normal functioning for some (Green, 1996b, p. …

The basic philosophy of radical behaviorism provides foundations for behavioral intervention applications in applied behavior analysis (ABA) across a variety of populations and human behaviors. However, as ABA increases in popularity for people with autism, many people perceive that ABA resembles other non‐research‐supported interventions which market themselves almost exclusively for autism. This study evaluated the extent to which behavior analysts perceived scientifically supported treatments (e.g., ABA) and non‐scientifically supported treatments as population‐specific or as comprehensively applicable across populations. Behavior analysts (N = 876) completed an online survey which indicated that approximately 3/4 of behavior analysts reported ABA as comprehensively effective for all people. Treatments without scientific support also were ranked more often or as effective as ABA for specific populations (i.e., intellectual and developmental disabilities, autism, severe behavior problems, adults, and children). Results indicated a continuing need to emphasize the education and requirements of radical behaviorism as the scientific foundations of ABA.

The use of qualitative research in dairy science has increased considerably in recent years, providing the opportunity to inform research and practice. This review aims to enhance the accessibility of qualitative research among a range of audiences and specifically: (1) provide an overview of what qualitative research is and the value it can bring to scientific inquiries in the dairy context, (2) illustrate the emergence of qualitative dairy science research in the past 15 to 20 years, (3) outline the role of the researcher and key philosophical assumptions underlying qualitative research, (4) describe qualitative research approaches and methods used in dairy science research, and (5) highlight key aspects of qualitative inquiry used to ensure research trustworthiness. Qualitative approaches in dairy science enable researchers to understand myriad topics including stakeholder relationships, decision-making, and behaviors regarding dairy cattle management, animal welfare, and disease prevention and control measures. Approaches that were used often for qualitative data collection were individual interviews and focus groups, and variations of thematic analysis were common analytical frameworks. To assess public values, attitudes, and perceptions, mixed methods questionnaires that combined quantitative data with qualitative data from open-ended questions were used regularly. Although still used infrequently, action research and participatory approaches have the potential to bridge the research-implementation gap by facilitating group-based learning and on-farm changes. Some publications described the philosophical assumptions inherent to qualitative research, and many authors included reflexivity and positionality statements. Although a comprehensive description of strategies to meet trustworthiness criteria for qualitative research was uncommon, many publications mentioned certain aspects of trustworthiness, such as member checking, researcher triangulation, and the recording of reflexive notes. Qualitative research has been used to deepen our understanding of phenomena relevant to the dairy sector and has opened the door for a broad array of new opportunities. In addition to having merit on its own, qualitative research can guide, inform, and expand on quantitative research, and an understanding of the core pillars of qualitative research can foster interdisciplinary collaborations.

Researching qualitatively can act as a catalyst to critically evaluate assumptions of objectivity and reflexivity. This article provides reflections of researchers, trained (and practicing) in behavior analysis, who are navigating diverse qualitative research in quantitative spaces. Influenced by critical collaborative autoethnography, this article provides our individual reflections processed collectively during group conversations. Through these discussions we reflect on the tensions we have experienced as behavior analysts engaging in qualitative research. We explore and unpack what qualitative approaches have prompted us to question: what is science, where is truth located, who has knowledge, and how is it accessed? This article may look different to the research behavior analysts typically read; we hope this stimulates an imagination for all that qualitative research can offer, while simultaneously avoiding an uncritical idealization of these approaches. We aim to model discomfort within the article, as a powerful tool to think reflexively about how these tensions align with our own values as researchers, and those of the field at large.