mentoring and mania in qualitative research

M E N T O R I N G A N D M A N I A I N Q U A L I T A T I V E R E S E A R C H

Susan Saltzburg, Ph.D., Ohio State University,and Pamela A. Richmond, M.S.W., Ph.D., Millers ville University

While growing numbers of social work scholars have embraced and endorsed qualitative research as a viablemethodology for rigorous investigative scholarship, providing doctoral students with a program of coursework thatequals the curricula of quantitative research is still lacking for many schools of social work. The authors found away to bridge this educational gap by forming a mentoring alliance founded on the constmctivist concept of mutualcollaboration through dialogic discussion. As such, the student voice evokes reßective recollections of the facultymentor s own experience in learning qualitative methods. This, combined with the mentor s evolving knowledge baseof qualitative inquiry, becomes the vehicle for instructive mentoring to take shape. This narrative highlights thestruggles and the triumphs of grappling with the clarification and understanding of qualitative methodology.

IntroductionThis narrative is about a mentor, Susan,

assisting a mentee, Pam, a doctoral candidateto enhance her knowledge of qualitativemethodology. For well over a year, we havebeen meeting to discuss the various phasesofthe dissertation process - the researchquestion, proposal. Institutional Review Boardproposal, thesis chapters, and nature ofqualitative inquiry. Our work together hasbeen based on what Zachary (2000) refersto as the "learner-centered mentoringparadigm" (p. 3). In part, Zachary explains,"...the leamer- in this case the "mentee" -plays a more active role in the leaming than inthe former mentor-driven paradigm... Thementor's role has been replaced from the'sage on the stage' to the 'guide on the side'"(p. 3).

Shelby (2001) speaks to the power ofthe mentoring relationship for advancing thedegree of rigor in qualitative initiatives. Incomparing the relationship between mentorand student to that which ensues betweenpractitioner and client, Shelby draws upon thepsyehodynamic processes of "resistance,""transference," and "counter-transference" ascritical elements that embody the dynamicsof both relationships. In contrast, the authorsof this paper propose a mentorship alliancefounded on the constructivist concept ofmutual collaboration (Anderson & Goolishian,1988; Charmaz, 2000) through dialogic

discussion. As such, the student voice evokesreflective recollections ofthe faculty mentor'sown experience in learning qualitativemethods, and this combined with the mentor'sevolving knowledge base of qualitative inquiry,becomes the vehicle for instructive mentoringto take shape.

As a result of adhering to a collaborativeteaching-leaming process through our worktogether, we have continuously engaged incandid discussions about the strengths,challenges, and frustrations of conductingqualitative research. More specifically, wehave spent an extensive amount of timediscussing qualitative methodology. Initially,the leaming objectives for Pam (studentmentee) were about isolating and dissectingmethodological procedures. In the course ofresponding to the student's agenda, theprocess for both Pam and Susan (facultymentor) evolved into a mutually interactiveleaming experience that was much deeper andmore elucidative than the mechanics ofqualitative procedures. In telling our story wehave first situated the experience contextuallyand then opted to use a reflective formatthrough dialogue to share the thoughts andfeelings brought forth as to how mentoringfurthered the understanding of qualitativeresearch methodology.

56 REFLECTiONS • SPRiNG 2007

Mentoring and Mania in Qualitative Research

Forging a Place for QualitativeResearch in Social Work Doctoral

EducationCorresponding to the current paradigm

shift in social work practice to more "client-as-expert" and collaborative practice models(Berg & De Jong, 1996; Hoffman, 1990;Laird, 1994; White & Epston, 1990), 1(Susan) found myself tuming to methods ofinquiry that paralleled these approaches byopening up more humanistic pathways forknowledge building. The recent proliferationof qualitative methodologies has providedsuch avenues for investigative inquiry.

Within the constructivist perspective thatDenzin and Lincoln (2000) view as a guidingforce in current qualitative inquiry lie theinherent assumptions that we can nevercompletely capture the experiences of others(Rosen, 1996), and that there are not singular,absolute truths, but rather our knowledge isrelative to "multiple social realities" (Charmaz,2000; Schwandt, 1994). In keeping with theseassumptions, I have adopted the moreinteipretive approaches of qualitative inquiryand data analysis (Crabtree & Miller, 1992;Tesch, 1990) that call upon the scholar to usea different set of methodological skills thanthose applied to positivistic research. For methis shift represented the symbolic dismantlingof the objectivistic parameters that defineempirical study and reporting. In place of themore impersonal third-person language, pre-identified theory, measurement instruments,and statistical analysis, these qualitativeapproaches situate me within a new schemaof methodological principles. The tenets ofthese qualitative traditions include tuming tothe researchers, themselves, "as theinstruments" for collecting data (Roldan &Shelby, 2004); establishing a co-researchingpartnership with participants of the study;using observations in the natural setting ofpeople's lives, narrative means, and/or visualartifacts as the raw data for analysis; and

applying interpretive understanding for theanalysis of data.

While growing numbers of social workscholars have embraced and endorsedqualitative research as a viable methodologyfor rigorous investigative scholarship,providing doctoral students with a programof coursework that equals the curricula ofquantitative study is still lacking in manyschools of social work. For example, in theCollege of Social Work where we areworking together, there is just one qualitativecourse offered to doctoral students. Similarly,in the doctoral program from which Susangraduated four years ago, qualitative researchstudy could be attained only by going outsideof the department or by arrangement ofindependent studies. As an educationalcommunity we have crossed over thethreshold of sanctioning the value andlegitimacy of emergent qualitative traditions,yet emphasis on preparing our doctoralstudents for undertaking the complexities ofqualitative inquiry is still lagging behind. Oneway to bridge this educational gap whilestriving to strengthen social work curricula inthis area is in the formation of a mentoringrelationship.

The Journey toward a QualitativeDissertation

Pam: From the onset of the doctoralprogram, I was confident of two facts. First,I wanted to investigate the interface ofprofessional boundaries and adolescents inout-of-home placements, and second, Iwanted the research question to bequalitatively based. I never wavered fromeither of these early decisions throughout myyears in the doctoral program. In fact, I wasconsistently reminded by my advisor andother faculty members that while somedoctoral students needed to be coached to"narrow" their research ideas, I needed towork on "getting out of the box" andexpanding my ideas.

REFLECTIONS - SPRING 2007 57

Mentoring and Mania In Qualitative Research

When I passed my candidacy exam, Ithought that I was now on my way toindependent research and the freedom tocreatively put together my dissertationmanuscript - the way I envisioned them. Ifinally felt deserving ofthe opportunity todelve back into my proverbial comfortablebox. After all, my advisor and committeemembers were supportive of my interest inexploring the topic of professionalrelationships, and equally important, mycommittee membet^ genuinely believed in thesignificance and power of qualitativeresearch. Naively though, what I did notrealize was that my comfortable box waswider and deeper than I originally thought,due to the complexities of qualitative researchmethodology.

Not unlike the toils of my fellow student-cohort, I, too, struggled with formulating myresearch question. I had numerousconversations with committee members andkept tweaking the question until it was exactlyhow I wanted it to read. While thedevelopment ofthe broad-based researchquestion proved to be aptly challenging,thought provoking, and frustrating at times, Ihad anticipated an even more grueling processin grappling with the precise wording, thanwhat occurred. However, what actuallyproved to be the most problematic aspect ofthose early steps in developing the researchdesign was figuring out what specificqualitative methodology I should use.

Susan: While I am an assistant professorin the graduate school of a college of socialwork, and looked upon by students andcolleagues as a"knower of qualitative inquiry"(based on my own dissertation research,current scholarship, and intellectual immersioninto the philosophical assumptions ofqualitative inquiry), it has only been four yearssince I, too, was joumeying the unknownpathways of leaming qualitative methodology.Many of Pam's ongoing questions, sclf-

doubts, and fiiistrations relative to undertakinga qualitative study were ones that I, too, hadencountered as a doctoral student. In recallingthe beginnings ofthat process, I think I wasthe most unprepared for the following set ofchallenges: 1 ) reckoning with the complexand seemingly lofly set of philosophical thinkingthat frames and directs methodologicaldecision making in qualitative inquiry; 2)deciphering the generalized terminology thatabounded in the literature—often overlappingthe various qualitative traditions and cloudingtheir critical distinctions; and 3) trying to honein and conceptualize the vague descriptionsofthe actual processes for analyzing data andwriting up results.

In first contemplating my own qualitativedissertation, "Exploring the Phenomenon ofAdolescent Sons and Daughters Coming-Outto Parents as Gay and Lesbian," I tumed tothe qualitative scholars for guidance anddirection. They unanimously concurred thatthere were several, coterminous factors toconsider in determining which tradition in the"family" of qualitative possibilities would bestfit the topic, research question, and objectivesofthe study. As I delved into the literature, Irealized that in order to know which approachmight be the "right fit" based on the literaturecriteria, I needed to deepen my familiarity withqualitative methodology beyond mdimcntaryknowledge. This entailed immersion into thecomplex, philosophical thinking and musingsthat constitute the fabric of qualitative inquiry.While enthralled with the very exciting andchallenging scholarly discourse, I frequentlyfound myself questioning if I substantivclyunderstood the highly intellectualizedconcepts. I felt unsure as to how to sort outand categorize these "heady" thoughts so thatthey might hold relevance for what I wasproposing to do in my study.

Sorting through the array of paradigmaticdefinitions that fi^me qualitative inquiry suchas post-positivism^ post-structuralism,relativism, constructivism, social

58 REFLECTIONS - SPRING 2007


constructionism, andpost-modernism andhow they interfaced with the selection of aqualitative tradition initially left me feelingoverwhelmed and perhaps a bit self-doubtingat the time. Added to these, philosophicalterms such as epistemology, henneneutics, andhetiristic paradigms began to take center stagein the decision making process. I questionedwhether I had what it takes to absorb all ofthis heavily philosophic and intellectualizedmaterial. While I actively consulted with thefaculty member who was supervising myqualitative independent studies, much of whatI ultimately incorporated into my own thinkingand research design came from the many hoursporing over the literature, writing out andreflecting on my thoughts relative to thereadings, and composing questions for deeperexploration. The amount oftime and mentalenergy that this consumed was immense.Initially, it felt like diving into what looked tobe a manageable body of water to navigate,only to encounter an endless web of seeminglyunfathomable realms. It was not until later thatI understood that finding my way out of thismaize of channels was dependent uponunderstanding their interconnectedness.

As none of my doctoral cohort shared inmy interest of qual itative study (or feared thatit would not get them a faculty position postgraduation), I was pretty much on my own.When we came together as a group to talkabout how the dissertation process wasprogressing for each ofus, I found that wewere talking through "different"methodological languages and worldviews.The most difficult part of this was not havingthe opportunity to let others know howoverwhelmed and self-doubting I was feeling.I was longing for an empathie listener whocould understand and relate to what I wastalking about, someone to sit with myvulnerability, and a tutor to coach me in theareas that were unclear and confusing. At thetime I did not have a name for the type ofleaming relationship I was envisioning.

Pam: Fortunately for me, my researchtopic area has not been widely studied, whichaffords me the opportunity to explore thesubject area from many different perspectivesand approaches. However, this proved to beboth a blessing and a curse when it came timeto begin writing my proposal because itappeared that several qualitative approacheswould worii with my research question. Fromearly on in my academic course work, I wastaught that the research question guides themethodology. In my experience, it seemedthat this could not have been further from thetruth. For instance, based on the literature Icould have opted to conduct an ethnographicstudy, grounded theory study, case study, orphenomenological study. With respect to theresearch question I had developed, each ofthe methodologies indicated above wouldhave provided valuable information toenhance the knowledge base within the socialwork field.

To help me with this critical decisionmaking, Susan suggested that I read an arrayof different qualitative studies to see how thespecific methodologies corresponded with theauthor's research questions. I dutifullyfollowed her advice and began to read.However, the more Ï read the moreoverwhelmed I felt. What became quicklyapparent was there was no in-depth andprecise roadmap that I found on how toconduct qualitative research for use withspecific methodologies (the helpftil literaturecame after my methodology was selected).

By the time I scheduled my next meetingwith Susan, 1 felt beleaguered anddisappointed, and my confidence as aresearcher was tenuous at best. My previousheightened state of excitement aboutundertaking a qualitative study felt underassault by the lack of detail and vagueness Iperceived in the literature. Frustrated by therepeated literary citations indicating thatqualitative researchers have choices to make(Merriam, 1998; Stake, 1995), I remarked

REFLECTIONS • SPRING 2007 59

Mentoring and Mar)ia in Oualitative Research

to Susan that qualitative researchers "makingchoices" without a clear understanding ofthe"how to" portions ofthe methodology wasridiculous! In an anxious state I remembersaying that conducting qualitative research asa new researcher was analogous to driving at16 years old without any driving experience.For example, "It is like saying that as soon asteens tum 16 they are ready to drive a car,based on the fact that they have been apassenger in a car and have observed themechanics of driving!"

It is important for me to qualify myanxiousness and "interesting" analogy. Roldanand Shelby (2004) say it best when they state,"Graduate students conducting qualitativeresearch are unusually surprised by theinadequacy of their coursework aspreparation" (p. 217). In my doctoralprogram, students are required to take onlyone qualitative research course. Although theprofessor who taught the qualitative coursewas knowledgeable and thorough, there wasonly so much that she could cover in tenweeks (we follow a quarter-system notsemester).

Susan: The inquietudes that Pam hasexperienced over the course of designing andimplementing her dissertation study continuedto draw me back into the annals of my owndissertation process, and in doing so,prompted me to think about the implicationsand possibilities ofthe leaming relationshipwe had established. Recalling my ownexperiences from the past while reflectingfrom the perspective ofthe present helpedme to demonstrate empathy, anticipate roadblocks and frustrations, and be patient andunderstanding in holding Pam's feelings, whilealso instructing and coaching her with whatneeded to be accomplished. This processheightened my own self-awareness ofthe role1 played in the life-of-Pam's dissertation. Itwas at this juncture that Pam and I (co-chairofher dissertation committee and advisor for

her qualitative methodology) began ourqualitative research "mentorship" together.Assuming a self-reflective and "other-reflective" stance provided a rich resourcefrom which to draw on the important elementsof what came to be called our "mentoringalliance." The essential nature of this learningpartnership paralleled the epistemologicalstance of constructivist qualitative inquiry andsocial work practice by establishing acollaborative, co-authoring relationship.

As I listened to Pam express herfrustrations over the generalized referencesin the literature and non-specific descriptionsof methodologies, I remembered thediscouraging feelings that arose when I, too,had thought to myself, "Aha! I get it"—justto realize that "what I got" was just one pieceof a puzzle teaser. As I proceeded withreadings beyond the philosophical treatisesand delved into the literature onmethodological operations, I perceived thevariations that 1 was finding in the literatureunclear and non-explicit. I have since cometo reclassify that perception but only after moreexperience and deeper understanding; but Iam getting ahead of myself- this enlightenmentwill come later in the reflections.

What I encountered as a student was thatthe phenomenon of descriptive labels beingused to ground a particular branch ofqualitative methodology in its own traditionof inquiry and analysis were often also broadlyapplied in the description of other approachesas well. For example, the term"phenomenological research" was not justused to represent the philosophical andmethodological tradition of phenomenologicalinvestigation (Bullington & Karlsson, 1984;Giorgi, 1975; Moutakas, 1994; Saltzburg,2004), but also appeared as a genericdescriptor of a variety of qualitativeapproaches, despite not utilizing a structuredformat of phenomenological data analysis. Asecond example lies in the term "groundedtheory," coined by Glaser and Strauss ( 1967).



While the origins of this term constitute a setof theory-building methods developed in thegrounded theory tradition (Charmaz, 1995;Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin,1990), the label itself has been employed in amore generalized way denoting knowledge-building that is "grounded in" the raw data ofobservation and respondent voices. However,this application ofthe term often fails to employthe data collection and data analysis processesderived fi^om grounded theory methodology.

Deciphering the definitive meanings ofthevariations in terminology and situating themwithin an investigative context can be confusingand fiustrating to the student-leamer. Theseambiguities leave the novice researcherstruggling to discem the discrete features thattypify one approach fi-om another. The lackof clarity produces a sense of eonfiision andnot-knowing which places students in aposition of vulnerability. For students, it isabout wanting to understand and categorizethe important terminology in its relevance tothe chosen research method. Getting a graspon a definitive, unwavering plan of actionseems to provide and sustain a sense ofconfidence, competence, and motivation.

Pam: To make matters worse 1 was alsoprematurely worrying about my dissertationdefense, concemed that I had to be well-versed in all aspects of qualitative research todefend the methodology I would eventuallychoose. Pointedly, Roldan and Shelby (2004)remind us that "ultimately, strangers will readand evaluate the dissertation, and at somepoint the student will have to stand alone todefend his or her ideas" (p. 226). Susan wasable to abate my fears by suggesting that firstI choose a methodology and epistemologicalstance that I felt would best suit my question.Then, read all that I could on the selectedmethod and strengthen my proficiency in thatparticular area versus trying to understand allmethodologies in depth. With a plan in placeI felt that I had a direction and would go with

my first idea, which was to do an intrinsic casestudy. However, reading all that I could oncase study methodology posed a newchallenge for me to grapple with: differentterminology is used in referring to case studymethodology. Which one was the correct oneto follow? Again, this new obstacle confirmedfor me that a "how to" book is warranted.

Susan: As I listened to Pam recount howdifficult and overwhelming it is to be expectedto proceed with methodology decisionmaking if the student has no idea what thespecifics ofthe various methods' processesare, the relevance of a mentorship alliancebegan to crystallize. I, too, recalled the worryI confronted after my immersion into theintellectualization of paradigmatic andtheoretical decision making left me wonderinghow to actually do the mechanics ofthe dataanalysis.

When I found books that addressed thistopic, they were often difficult to digest andfollow. The wordy steps and procedures attimes seemed cluttered and burdened downwith rhetoric. I wanted to "be there" and seewhat the researcher was actually doing; Iwanted to witness how it translated into anactual study. I remember thinking, "After all,this aspect ofthe dissertation is not aboutphilosophical thinking, it is centered on doing."In my fervent attempt to integrate the methods'literature with the actual process, 1 began tofocus on the literature describing qualitativestudies that had actually been carried out 1found this genre of writings to be immenselyinformative and insightfijl; they seemed likethe next best thing to being there en vivo.These reconstructed studies gave me a first-hand opportunity to examine how researchquestions, philosophical investigativeassumptions, theoretical perspectives, andmethodology all came together- each tightlyincorporated into the other in a live study.These recollections and the significance theyawakened in me now, as an instructor,

REFLECTiONS - SPRiNG 2007 61


provided the substantive material formentoring.

Because the very nature of qualitativemethodology is inextricably tied into thetheoretical framework that underlies eachunique tradition of qualitative inquiry, there isnot one prescriptive package (formethodological procedures, research writeup, or dissertation framework) that fits allqualitative approaches. For the majority ofeducators and student scholars wbo have beenindoctrinated into traditional, modernistempiricism, the shift into qualitativeinvestigation requires leaming new ways tothink about and approach research. Itnecessitates awakening the student'sexploration into the intellectual connectbetween the research question, epistemology,and philosophical paradigm as related toqualitative methodological choices; the lattergradually instills an understanding that the"how-to's" of the process only hold relevancein consonance with the other factors. Thementoring environment provides the spaceand means to accomplish this.

Pam: The last obstacle I was asked tocontemplate was how I intended to use theoryin my study and my dissertation manuscript.After submitting a rough draft of my first threechapters, two committee members raised thequestion, "Where's your theory?" Honestly,I had not given the use of theory much thought.I just assumed based on my interpretation ofthe readings that I would use theory in a purelyinductive way to assist in explaining the findingsfrom the interviews I was conducting. Fromthe onset of the discussion with committeemembers about theory, I was adamant that Idid not want the introduction of theory todetract from the valuable infomiation I wasgleaning from participants. Rather, I wantedthe voices of the participants to be the highlightof the study with my writing serving as theconduit for their viewpoints.

Once again 1 felt that I was in a quandary:two committee members wanted a theoreticalplan at the forefi ont (based on the traditionalmodel of dissertation format); I did not wantto detract from the voices of the participants;and once again the literature was varied inhow theory should be used. For example, inreferring to case studies, Creswell (1998)referenced several examples ofhow theorycould be used, including at the beginning ofthe study, at the end, or not at all. Again, Susanand I had lengthy discussions on how the roleof theory miglit be incoiporated into tlie studyand contribute to the richness of themanuscript. We arrived at a consensus inwhich theory would be presented in a chapterof its own as a means of framing the study.This approach seemed to make sense becauseMerriam (1998) describes a theoreticalframework as the "structure" and"scaffolding" that assists to outline the study(p. 45). I would use the theory section tohighlight adolescent development, theories ofattachment, and challenges related to teens inout-of-home placements. What at first seemedan insurmountable obstacle became a "do-able" and meaningful task.

Susan: Perceived deviation from theexactitude of a methodological protocol mayleave the novice researcher feeling like he orshe is compromising the integrity of themethodology and the philosophy that underliesit. This was the case for Pam and her quest tostay true to what she believed to be thetheoretical underpinnings of a case study.While agreeing with Pam in theory, I also wasaware of the requirements and constraints ofpreparing and submitting a dissertation.Feeling as if she would never transcend whatseemed to be an ongoing array of obstaclesobstructing her path, confused as to why thedissertation needed this section prior to theresults ofher study, and overwhelmed at theprospect ofhaving to go back to the drawingboard to compose this piece (when she was

62 REFLECTIQNS - SPRING 2007


more than ready to moveforward), Pam expressedfrustration, "a sense of notbeing listened to," and perhapsdisappointment as well. It wastime to assist Pam in "climbingback out ofthe box,"

I viewed helping Pam to understand thedecision ofthe committee (regarding inclusionof a theoretical section prior to data analysis)and gently prompting her in a forwarddirection as essential to maintaining herenthusiasm and investment in her mostimportant, current life project. In order to dothis, Pam and 1 met extensively to sort throughher questions, debate arguments that theliterature discussed relative to theory,brainstorm about the legitimate role of theoryas an element in the framework for the study,and guide her with recommendations of whattheory might best complement her objectivesand theoretical perspective. The collaborativedialogue that ensued and emergent realizationon my part that this was a monumental eventat this point in time for a doctoral candidatewho was working under the Stressors ofgetting through the academic and scholarlyrigors of a dissertation, completing thedissertation work in a timely fashion, andexploring potential faculty positions forthenext academic year helped to guide me in mymentoring role.

It is interesting that as Pam refiects backupon the content of our mentoringconversations, she sees them as primarilyfocused on the "how-to's" ofthe methodology- the information she believes to be mostimportant in order to do her work. I, on theother hand, view our discussions as adialogical vehicle for situating Pam'sdissertation work and corresponding criticalthinking within the larger context of aphilosophical, theoretical, and methodologicaldiscussion. These three aspects of thequalitative tradition cannot be separatedwithout creating a "disconnect" from the

objectives and integrity of the study. Iconsidered this to be an essential element inour work together, and I do not believe that itcould be as readily accomplished without thesense of safety (to let one's learningvulnerability be transparent) that a mentoringalliance affords the student.

Reaching a Comfort Level withQualitative Methodology

Pam : From my reading I know that oneattribute ofT eing a good qualitative researcheris to be flexible (Maraño, 2001 ; Merriam,1998; Rossman & Rallis, 2003; Shank,2002), because conducting qualitativeresearch is not a linear process. I keptrepeating to Susan (and to myself) that I wouldbe able to go with the ebbs and flows oftheresearch once I had a solid understanding ofthe direction I was headed. All that I wantedwas a loose framework of "how to" so that Icould then challenge which areas I wanted totweak and which ones I did not. I was positivethat the more knowledge I had about themethodology, the more relaxed I wouldbecome, which ultimately would result in mybeing a flexible researcher.

I am now nearing the end of my study.Without question, I am much morecomfortable with the ambiguities of qualitativeresearch. In part, I believe that my progressedastuteness in qualitative methodologytranspired because I allowed myself to beexposed. Rather than trying to mask my fears,lack of confidence, and confusion aboutqualitative methodology, I shared thesefeelings with Susan. The honestcommunication allowed me to embrace adeeper level of leaming and understanding ofqualitative research.

Susan: As leamers in academia, we allwant to feel that we have achieved a degreeof mastery over the subject matter (in thiscase, the subject matter is designing andimplementing a qualitative research study).

REFLECTIONS - SPRING 2007 63


Initially, the way we perceive gaining this senseof competence and confidence is throughadherence to a well laid-out format (the "how-to manual"). The absence of an explicitblueprint at the beginning of the dissertationjoumey reinforces the students' tenuousuncertainty about their competence asresearchers and the accomplished outcomeand tmstworthiness of the study. Through theevolving mentoring experience with Pam, Icame to recognize how important it is tounderstand these insecurities from theperspective of the student. It allows thementor to get in touch with her own feelingsof vulnerability, which, in tum, helps her toempathically relate to the student. Once thestudent senses that the mentor understands,the opportunity to encourage the student toexplore the uncertainties, the "not-knowing"and the vague territories become an affirmingand positive process.

An important part of mentoring student-leamers of qualitative research is to counterthe conventional perspectives with a moresubjective and humanistic view of whatresearch can encompass. This may mean notalways having strictly enforced rules to follow,being asked to make unique decisions thatare determined by the nature of the particularstudy in consonance with ideologicalperspectives, and striving to leam about andunderstand what quantitative data may notable to capture - the multiple realities ofhuman existence. It is part of "climbing out ofthe box."

Concluding ThoughtsWe have found that a collaborative

mentoring relationship assists with thegrappling of tbe complexities associated withunderstanding qualitative methodology andmoves the student onto the next level ofconceptualizing, conducting, analyzing, andwriting up qualitative research. Based on ourcollective experiences, here is a synopsis ofwhat we have Ieamed.

Pam: To students conducting qualitativeresearch, I have three suggestions. First andforemost, I believe that it is important torecognize that you will acquire a deeperknowledge as you are actually doingqualitative research and, as a result, decisionswill become easier to make. Second, I havefound that it is critically important to put asidepride and fears of "not-knowing" so that youcan talk about difficulties or confusion ingrasping a concept. Ask for clarification andfurther discussion from others who haveconducted qualitative research. Third, keepreading! To educators who are working withnovice qualitative researchers, I stronglyencourage you to embrace student'sexcitement and insecurity as a pedagogicalopportunity. Rather than telling students "howto" (I cannot believe that I am at the pointnow to advocate this approach), guidestudents to have an intimate understanding ofthe process. Using a mentoring approach isone way in which to aid beginning researchersto intemalize the concepts of qualitativeresearch, which I have found frustrating,beneficial, and ultimately rewarding.

Susan: The mentorship we describe inthis paper represents the co-evolution of aleaming alliance between doctoral studentsinterested in pursuing qualitative dissertationsand faculty advisors well versed in andcommitted to qualitative study. The basis forthis mentoring alliance is as follows: 1 ) to helpthe student attain a philosophical understandingof the shift from quantitative thinking to aqualitative paradigm; 2) to provide the studentwith the leaming format and tutelage neededto develop, conduct, analyze, and write-upqualitative dissertations in keeping with thetenets of qualitative inquiry; and 3) to supportthe student through the academic, intellectual,and emotional rigors of completing adissertation by providing a safe and empathiespace.


Mentoring and Mania in Oualitative Research

At the same time, because such analliance is a collaborative and mutuallyinteractive reflective experience, the sense ofprofessional and personal gratification thatmentoring provides for the faculty mentorcontributes to an enhanced sense of empathyfor student leamers, intellectual growth,instructional wisdopi, and heightened self-awareness.

References• Anderson, H., & Goolishian, H. (1988).Human systems as linguistic systems: Evolvingideas about the implication for theory andpractice. Family Process, 21, 371-393.

• Berg, I.K., & De Jong, P (1996). Solution-building conversations: Co-constructing asense of competence with clients. Familiesin Society: The Journal of ContemporaryHuman Services, June, 376-391.

• Bullington, J., & Karlsson, G. (1984).Introduction to phenomenologicalpsychological research. ScandinavianJournal of Psychology, 25, 51-63.

• Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded Theory. InN.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.),Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp.509-535). Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

• Charmaz, K. (1995). Grounded Theory. InH. Smith and V. Langenhove (Eds.),Rethinking Methods in Psychology (pp.335-352). Thousand Oaks: SAGEPublications.

• Crabtree, B., & Miller, W. ( 1992). Primarycare research: A multi-method typology andqualitative road map. In B. Crabtree & W.Miller (Eds.), Doing Qualitative Research(pp. 3-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

• Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitativeand Research Design: Choosing AmongFive Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

• Denzin, N.K.,& Lincoln, Y.S. (2000). Thediscipline and practice of qualitative research.In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.),Handbook of Qualitative Research, (pp. 11 -29). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

• Giorgi, A. (1975). An application ofphenomenological method in psychology. InA. Giorgi, C. Fisher & E. Murray (Eds.),Duquesne Studies in PhenomenologicalPi>'c/io/ogF(pp. 82-103),Vol.2. Pittsburgh:Duquesne University Press.

• Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). TheDiscovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago.

• Aldine Hoffman, L. ( 1990). Constructingrealities: An art of lenses. Family Process,2P(1): 1-12.

' Laird, J. (1994). "Thick description"revisited: Family therapist as anthropologist-constmctivist. In E. Sherman & W. Reid(Eds.), Qualitative Research in Social Work(pp. 32-41 ). New York: Columbia UniversityPress.

• Mariano, C. (2001). Case study: Themethod. In P. Munhall (Ed.), NursingResearch: A Qualitative Perspective (3"*ed.) (pp. 359-383). Sunbury, MA: Jones andBartlett Publishers.

• Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative Researchand Case Study Applications in Education.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

• Moustakas, C. ( 1994). PhenomenologicalResearch Methods. Thousand Oaks: SagePublications.

REFLECTIONS • SPRING 2007 65

Mentoring and Mania in Ouaiitative Research

• Roldan, I., & Shelby, R. (2004). The roleofthe mentoring relationship in qualitativeresearch. In D. K. Padgett (Ed.), TheQualitative Research Experience (pp. 215-228). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/ThomsonLeaming.

• Rosen, H. (1996). Meaning-makingnarratives: Foundations for constructivist andsocial constructionist psychotherapies. InH. Rosen, & T. Kuehlwein (Eds.),Constructing Realities: Meaning-MakingPerspectives for Psychotherapies (pp. 3-51 ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

• Rossman, G, & Rallis, S. (2003). Learningin the Field: An Introduction to QualitativeResearch (2" ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.

• Saltzburg, S. (2004). Leaming that anadolescent child is gay or lesbian: The parent

. Social Work, 49, 109-118.

• Schwandt, T.A. (1994). Constructivist,interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. InN.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.),Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp.118-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. ( 1990). Basics ofQualitative Research: Grounded TheoryProcedures and Techniques. Newbury Park,CA: Sage Publications.

• Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative Research:Analysis Types and Software Tools. NewYork: Falmer Press.

• White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). NarrativeMeans to Therapeutic Ends. New York:W.W. Norton.

• Zachary, L. (2000). The Mentor's Guide,San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

• Shank, G (2002). Qualitative Research:A Personal Skills Approach. Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Pearson Education.

• Shelby, R.D. (2001 ). Using the mentoringrelationship to facilitate rigor in qualitativeresearch. Smith College Studies in SocialWork, 70, 315-327.

• Stake, R. (1995). The Art of Case StudyResearch. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.


Copyright of Reflections: Narratives of Professional Helping is the property of ClevelandState University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to alistserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,download, or email articles for individual use.

mentoring and mania in qualitative research

Documents