Author
Lyn Richards

Pub Date: 11/2009
Pages: 256

Click here for more information.
Lyn Richards
Title: Psychotherapists' Handling of Sexual Attraction to Clients: A Grounded Theory

Authors: Anthony Arcuri1,2 and Doris McIlwain1

1Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
2National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

Setting up the project
In embarking upon the study of a controversial topic, we met numerous challenges; some anticipated, others unexpected: from the occasional raised eyebrow from colleagues to the slow and frustrating grind of gaining ethics approval. We reminded each other that notwithstanding controversy we were in the business of setting up a sound and rigorous research project. Our first task was to ensure that our choice of methodology - grounded theory - suited our philosophical leanings and could address gaps we saw in the literature and answer our consequent research questions. Next, our attention focussed inward: we clarified our implicit conceptual frameworks in relation to our topic, thus gaining some preliminary concepts and initiating the reflexive process of remaining sensitive to our biases. Our final preparatory task of assembling a group of potential participants was softened by the fact that we were psychologists ourselves with access to multiple recruitment networks. This task was complicated, however, by the knowledge that our very status may have precluded some potential participants from coming forward to discuss such a contentious issue. [More...]

The data
Anthony conducted 11 one-on-one interviews with psychologists who practice psychotherapy. We gave only a loose structure to our initial interviewing guide, based upon our preliminary concepts gained via self-reflection (see above). Due to ethical requirements, we asked our participants to respond hypothetically, drawing on actual experiences if they so wished, as long as they were aware of our legal obligations should they disclose their involvement in prohibited acts. Our interviewing guide evolved as concepts emerged, developed, and begged further questions in the light of new participants' experiences and reflections. As well as providing us with a guide about what to ask, this process offered us clues about who among our participant pool might best be placed to fill these gaps (theoretical sampling), until there were no substantial gaps left to fill (theoretical saturation). Of course, our data collection was not only about recording what our participants said; it also entailed a thoughtful record of the interpersonal context of our interviews. [More...]

Working with data
To handle our data we cyclically implemented a number of clearly defined coding procedures, as per the Grounded Theory method, without computer software. We discovered concepts via 'open coding', the detailed analysis of the participants' words and phrases for meanings and the ways in which these meanings vary. Once concepts gained some clarity, we began to explore how they related to each other, a process known as 'axial coding'. To assist us with this challenging procedure, we employed Strauss and Corbin's (1998) controversial 'paradigm' (adapted for our mix of 'actual' and 'hypothetical' experiences), which provided us with an established method of gathering and ordering our concepts. In doing so, we began articulating our grounded theory in the form of a series of 'provisional hypotheses', which we altered or validated through continuing data collection and analysis. For each coding procedure, we created or added to 'memos', informally written notes outlining our detailed reflections on the corresponding coding decisions. [More...]

Analysis processes
Arriving at theory was no easy task. To get there, we cycled through the sometimes dizzying process of zooming in to and panning back from our data a number of times. As well as scrutinising our data closely, we had to broaden our lens to identify the ways in which relationships among our concepts changed and evolved over time, thereby 'coding for process'. To assist us in identifying process within our theory, we constructed diagrams and created memos explaining their flow. Once we had sufficiently interrogated our data for concepts, their relationships and the processes by which they interacted, we were ready to attempt to articulate our theory as a cohesive whole, a process known as 'selective coding'. To achieve this, we reviewed and sorted our accumulated memos, integrated our diagrams where appropriate, and wrote an informal 'storyline' or narrative of the process under investigation. We showed our rough 'storyline' to five of our participants for comment on how well it fitted their experiences, and integrated their feedback into subsequent drafts. [More...]

Reporting the project
Essentially, reporting the results of our study in writing was the final step of data analysis, as this was where the logic of our theory was most clearly exposed. In the places where we found our concepts and broader theory to be poorly developed, inconsistent or illogical, we reviewed our raw data, memos and diagrams, and adjusted the theory accordingly, where possible. Where this was not possible, particularly in relation to our participants' 'actual' experiences, we deemed these hypotheses provisional and highlighted them as areas for future inquiry. In order to test the 'credibility' of our theoretical scheme, we compared our theory against the raw data to ensure that it could explain all cases. Again, where it could not, we adjusted our theory accordingly. To provide the reader with clear evidence for the 'credibility' of our theory, we used direct quotations from the participants' narratives to bring freshness and life to our writing. Finally, in preparing to present our results verbally to conferences and meetings, we were forced to accomplish the intimidating task of condensing a substantial body of detailed theorising into readily digestible morsels. [More...]

List of References