Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:26:20.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Qualitative Methods in Rehabilitation Research and their Relevance to Rehabilitation Counselling Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2015

Ross Crisp
Ross Crisp*
Affiliation:
CRS, Australia
*
Ross Crisp, PO Box 1172, Croydon, VIC, 3136, Australia. Email: ross.crisp@crsrehab.gov.au
Get access

Abstract

This paper discusses the potential limitations, and barriers to acceptance, of qualitative research methodologies. Qualitative research has been dismissed for consisting of small unrepresentative samples that limit the generalisability of findings, for lacking reliability and validity, for providing analyses that mask the individual differences that it purports to highlight, and for being too subjective. It was argued that these criticisms have to be considered against a different set of criteria to those applied to quantitative research. Moreover, the rationale behind qualitative research can provide rehabilitation counsellors with a better understanding of living with disability. This paper seeks to encourage rehabilitation counsellors to (a) gain insight into the different perspectives of persons with disabilities; (b) develop their clinical or knowledge base; and (c) be self-reflexive and critically self-examine their interaction with clients.

Type
Articles
Information
The Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , 2000 , pp. 12 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aeschleman, S.R. (1991). Single-subject research designs: Some misconceptions. Rehabilitation Psychology, 36, 43–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanche, E.I. (1996). Alma: Coping with culture, poverty, and disability. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 50, 265–276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brannen, J. (1993). The effects of research on participants: Findings from a study of mothers and employment. Sociological Review, 41, 328–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charmaz, K. (1990). ‘Discovering’ chronic illness: Using grounded theory. Social Science & Medicine, 30, 1161–1172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Crisp, R. (1994). Social integration after traumatic brain impairment: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 25 (4), 16–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisp, R. (1995). Contribution of rehabilitation counsellors in the rehabilitation of persons with acquired brain injury. The Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling, 1, 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisp, R. (2000). A qualitative study of the perceptions of individuals with disabilities concerning health and rehabilitation professionals. Disability & Society, 15, 355–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folkman, S. (1997). Positive psychological states and coping with severe stress. Social Science & Medicine, 45, 1207–1221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frank, G. (1984). Life history model of adaptation to disability: The case of a ‘congenital amputee’. Social Science & Medicine, 19, 639–645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frank, G. (1997). Is there life after categories? Reflexivity in qualitative research. The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 17, 84–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagner, D.C., & Helm, D.T. (1994). Qualitative methods in rehabilitation research. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 37, 290–303.Google Scholar
James, J.E. (1994). Health care, psychology, and the scientist-practitioner model. Australian Psychologist, 29, 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamrozik, A., & Nocella, L. (1998). The sociology of social problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, I.D. (1986). “The scientist” as a role model for “The psychologist”. Australian Psychologist, 21, 219–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, I.D. (1990). Discursive style and psychological practice. Australian Psychologist, 25, 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, I.D. (1992). Statistics as rhetoric in psychology. Australian Psychologist, 27, 144–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, R.G., & Godfrey, H.P.D. (1996). Psychosocial aspects of neurological disorders: Implications for research in neuropsychology. Australian Psychologist, 31, 48–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krefting, L. (1989a). Disability ethnography: A methodological approach for occupational therapy research. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56 (2), 61–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krefting, L. (1989b). Reintegration into the community after head injury: The results of an ethnographic study. The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 9, 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45, 214–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, California: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, J.C., & Newcombe, F. (1984). Putative problems and pure progress in neuropsychological single-case studies. Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 6, 65–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mathieson, C.M., & Stam, H.J. (1995). Renegotiating identity: Cancer narratives. Sociology of Health & Illness, 17, 283–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGartland, M., & Polgar, S. (1994). Paradigm collapse in psychology: The necessity for a “two methods” approach. Australian Psychologist, 29, 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moser, C.A., & Kalton, G. (1971). Survey methods in social investigation. (2nd ed.). London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Nochi, M. (1997). Dealing with the ‘void’: Traumatic brain injury as a story. Disability & Society, 12, 533–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reason, P., & Rowan, J. (1981). Issues in validity in new paradigm research. In Reason, P. & Rowan, J. (Eds.) Human Inquiry: A sourcebook of new paradigm research, (pp. 239–250) Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Rowan, J. (1981). A dialectical paradigm for research. In Reason, P. & Rowan, J. (Eds.) Human Inquiry: A sourcebook of new paradigm research, (pp. 93–112) Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Rowan, J., & Reason, P. (1981). On making sense. In Reason, P. & Rowan, J. (Eds.) Human Inquiry: A sourcebook of new paradigm research, (pp. 113–137) Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Russell, J. (1999). Professional and socio-cultural aspects of the counselling relationship, (pp. 183–199) In Feltham, C. (Ed.) Understanding the counselling relationship. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schutz, A. (1971). Concept and theory formation in the social sciences. In Thompson, K. & Tunstall, J. (Eds.) Sociological perspectives (pp. 488–500). Harmondsworth: Penguin (Originally published in 1954).Google Scholar
Sims, D. (1981). From ethogeny to endogeny: How participants in research projects can end up doing research on their own awareness. In Reason, P. & Rowan, J. (Eds.) Human Inquiry: A sourcebook of new paradigm research, (pp. 373–383) Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Spencer, J.C. (1993). The usefulness of qualitative methods in rehabilitation: Issues of meaning, of context, and of change. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 74, 119–126.Google ScholarPubMed
Strauss, A.L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, California: Sage.Google Scholar
Torbert, W.R. (1981). A collaborative inquiry into voluntary metropolitan desegregation. In Reason, P. & Rowan, J. (Eds.) Human Inquiry: A sourcebook of new paradigm research, (pp. 333–347) Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Wendell, S. (1996). The rejected body: Feminist philosophical reflections on disability. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wright, B.A. (1983). Physical disability: A psychosocial approach. (2nd Ed.) New York: Harper & Row.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, M.A., & Warschausky, S. (1998). Empowerment theory for rehabilitation research: Conceptual and methodological issues. Rehabilitation Psychology, 43, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar