Alan W. Burkard

Qualitative research interviews

Abstract After presenting a brief overview of the complexity of the qualitative interviewing process used by psychotherapy researchers, the authors discuss some of the major ideas that psychotherapy researchers using such interviews must consider both before and during the interview process. They then offer thoughts regarding approaches to strengthen qualitative interviews themselves.

Effect of Therapist Color-Blindness on Empathy and Attributions in Cross-Cultural Counseling

Empathy and attributions of client responsibility for the cause of and solution to a problem were examined for 247 psychologists who were identified as having low, moderate, and high color-blind racial attitudes. Participants responded to 1 of 4 vignettes that controlled for client race (i.e., African American, European American) and client attributions regarding the cause (i.e., depression, discrimination) of a problem. Analyses revealed that the therapists’ level of color-blindness was directly related to their capacity for empathy and also to their attributions of responsibility for the solution to the problem with an African American client but not with a European American client. No relationship was found between therapist color-blindness and attributions of responsibility for cause of the problem. Implications of these results for counseling practice, training, and research are discussed.

Supervisor Cultural Responsiveness and Unresponsiveness in Cross-Cultural Supervision

Thirteen supervisees of color and 13 European American supervisees experiences of culturally responsive and unresponsive cross-cultural supervision were studied using consensual qualitative research. In culturally responsive supervision, all supervisees felt supported for exploring cultural issues, which positively affected the supervisee, the supervision relationship, and client outcomes. In culturally unresponsive supervision, cultural issues were ignored, actively discounted, or dismissed by supervisors, which negatively affected the supervisee, the relationship, and/or client outcomes. European American supervisees and supervisees of color experiences diverged significantly, with supervisees of color experiencing unresponsiveness more frequently and with more negative effects than European American supervisees. Implications for research and supervision practice are discussed.

African American and European American Therapists' Experiences of Addressing Race in Cross-Racial Psychotherapy Dyads

Using Consensual Qualitative Research, 12 licensed psychologists overall experiences addressing race in psychotherapy were investigated, as were their experiences addressing race in a specific cross-racial therapy dyad. Results indicated that only African American psychologists reported routinely addressing race with clients of color or when race was part of a clients presenting concern. European American psychologists indicated that they would address race if clients raised the topic, and some reported that they did not normally address race with racially different clients. When discussing a specific cross-racial dyad, African American therapists more often than European American therapists addressed race because they perceived client discomfort. Only European American therapists reported feeling uncomfortable addressing race, but therapists of both races perceived that such discussions had positive effects.

European American Therapist Self-Disclosure in Cross-Cultural Counseling.

Eleven European American psychotherapists use of self-disclosure in cross-cultural counseling was studied using consensual qualitative research. As reasons for self-disclosing, therapists reported the intent to enhance the counseling relationship, acknowledge the role of racism/oppression in clients lives, and acknowledge their own racist/oppressive attitudes. Results indicated that therapists typically shared their reactions to clients experiences of racism or oppression and that these self-disclosures typically had positive effects in therapy, often improving the counseling relationship by helping clients feel understood and enabling clients to advance to other important issues.

Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Supervisees' Experiences of LGB-Affirmative and Nonaffirmative Supervision.

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) supervisees were interviewed regarding their experiences of LGB-affirmative and nonaffirmative supervision. Supervisees were asked to describe one of each type of event (i.e., affirmative, nonaffirmative) from their past supervision. In LGB-affirmative supervision, all supervisees felt supported in their LGB-affirmative work with clients. Supervisees perceived that the affirming events also positively affected the supervision relationship, client outcomes, and themselves as supervisees. In LGB nonaffirming supervision, supervisees perceived supervisors to be biased or oppressive toward supervisees clients or themselves on the basis of LGB concerns or identity. From supervisees perspectives, the nonaffirming events negatively affected the supervision relationship, client outcomes, and supervisees. Implications for research and supervision are discussed.

Supervisors’ Reports of the Effects of Supervisor Self-Disclosure on Supervisees

Abstract Using consensual qualitative research, researchers interviewed 16 supervisors regarding their use of self-disclosure in supervision. Supervisors reported that their prior training in supervisor self-disclosure (SRSD) came via didactic sources and encouraged judicious use of SRSD. Supervisors used SRSD to enhance supervisee development and normalize their experiences; supervisors did not use SRSD when it derailed supervision or was developmentally inappropriate for supervisees. In describing specific examples of the intervention, SRSD occurred in good supervision relationships, was stimulated by supervisees struggling, was intended to teach or normalize, and focused on supervisors’ reactions to their own or their supervisees’ clients. SRSD yielded largely positive effects on supervisors, supervisees, the supervision relationship, and supervisors’ supervision of others.

Supervisors’ Experiences of Providing Difficult Feedback in Cross-Ethnic/Racial Supervision

Seventeen clinical supervisors were interviewed regarding their experience of providing difficult feedback in cross-ethnic/racial supervision, and their responses were analyzed using consensual qualitative research (CQR). European American supervisors described supervisees of color who had difficulty in their clinical work with culturally different clients. These supervisors then shared with supervisees their concern that supervisees’ interpersonal skills may negatively affect their clinical and/or supervision work. Supervisors of color described European American supervisees who exhibited insensitivity toward clients of color in session or during supervision. These supervisors shared their concern that supervisees’ lack of cultural sensitivity may negatively affect their clinical work. These contrasting feedback experiences had a profound effect on supervisory relationships and the processes within supervision.

Workplace Discrimination, Prejudice, and Diversity Measurement: A Review of Instrumentation

This is a review of five instruments designed to measure workplace discrimination, prejudice, and attitudes toward diversity. Each measure is critically reviewed based on item development, the current psychometric evidence, and the practical utility for career counseling and organizational development efforts. The Discussion section explores future research directions for validation studies, expansion of theory and measurement development, and recommendations for assessment of workplace diversity.

Positive and problematic dissertation experiences: The faculty perspective

We interviewed 14 clinical and counseling psychology faculty regarding their experiences chairing positive and problematic dissertations. Data were analyzed using consensual qualitative research (CQR). Participants reported that advisors’ roles involved guiding/facilitating dissertations and helping students shape research ideas; students’ roles included taking responsibility, working independently, and maintaining good relationships with the chair/committee. With positive dissertation experiences, chairs and students collaborated before the dissertation, worked together well during the dissertation, and students began the dissertation feeling competent and motivated; such dissertations positively affected participants. Problematic dissertation experiences evinced difficult relationships between chair and student, and students’ low research capability; such dissertations negatively affected participants.