Content uploaded by Karen L Suyemoto
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Karen L Suyemoto on Aug 19, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
BOOK REVIEWS
Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for In-
vestigating Social Science Phenomena by Clara E. Hill (Ed-
itor). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association,
2012, 313 pp. ISBN 978-1-4338-1007-7 (hardcover). $49.95.
Reviewed by Karen L. Suyemoto, University of Massachusetts,
Boston
DOI: 10.1037/a0035020
Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for
Investigating Social Science Phenomena provides a strong and
practical introduction to the method of consensual qualitative
research (CQR) from the perspective of those who originated it
and have used it most, particularly from the expertise developed by
Clara E. Hill. The book begins with a chapter that introduces the
key components and a step-by-step overview of CQR, and a
second chapter focusing on the philosophical and historical back-
ground of CQR. The second section contains 9 chapters taking the
reader through the CQR research process: planning and preparing
for a CQR study; creating, training, and working with a research
team; managing biases and expectations; choosing participants for
a study; collecting data; analyzing data (3 chapters); and writing
the manuscript. The section concludes with a chapter on using
CQR for qualitative meta analysis of CQR studies. The third
section consists of 3 chapters that take up considerations of trust-
worthiness, culture, and ethics and a fourth chapter that is an
annotated bibliography of studies to date that have used “pure”
CQR—CQR unmixed with any other qualitative methods that fully
followed all the prescriptive steps. The book concludes with 2
chapters describing modifications of CQR for case study research
and for simpler qualitative data such as open-ended questions on
surveys with larger samples.
Although it is framed as an edited book, it might be more
accurately described as a book authored by Hill in collaboration
with several knowledgeable and talented coauthors for different
chapters; Hill is an author on every chapter within the book, there
is some close repetition of concepts and language across chapters,
and the choice of example studies within and across most chapters
seems strongly tied to Hill’s work. Hill’s essential authorship is
both a strength and a drawback: the book has a unified voice, a
relatively tight sequential approach to describing methodological
steps, and the ability to refer to other chapters to avoid excessive
repetition. These strengths enable the presentation of clear guide-
lines and recommendations for each step of the CQR research
process. However, the book lacks the benefits that are frequently
present in volumes in which each chapter is written from a unique
and independent standpoint and perspective, even if edited for tone
and connection. Such strengths include diverse authors’ choice of
focus on different details; the presentation of distinct interpreta-
tions; a wider range of examples; minor disagreements or criti-
cisms about the method that may elucidate strengths as well as
weaknesses, including diverse perspectives on, using the method
or positioning of the method in relation to other methods or
philosophies; and so forth.
Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for
Investigating Social Science Phenomena builds on and expands the
two previous major presentations of the methodology in journal
articles (Hill et al., 2005; Hill, Thompson, & Williams, 1997). As
such, it builds also on the strengths of those publications in that it
provides specific and detailed guidance about how to actually
enact the methodology, particularly the data analysis. It also con-
tains content to address some previous criticisms, including more
fully addressing the place of reflexivity, the positive use of coders’
unique perspectives or “biases,” and the influence of culture on
intersubjectivity and consensual coding processes. However, it
also seems to continue many drawbacks of this earlier work
identified by earlier commentaries and critiques (e.g., Hoshmand,
1997; Ponterotto, 2005; Stiles, 1997; Tinsley, 1997): A greater
emphasis on post-positivism in ontology and epistemology than is
explicitly acknowledged or engaged and a prescriptive and pro-
scriptive tone that suggests an orthodoxy that potentially under-
mines the strengths of utilizing qualitative methodology as a
general approach and the potential benefits of CQR procedures
integrated with other qualitative method procedures.
Perhaps the biggest drawback to this text is that it tries to do too
much. It seems uncertain whether it is aiming to be an introduction
to qualitative methods or a more advanced methods book specif-
ically focused on CQR for an audience with a solid foundation in
qualitative methodology. Many of the chapters have non-CQR
specific content that is not presented as common to qualitative
methods generally or to specific traditions within qualitative meth-
ods (e.g., grounded theory). This content is frequently presented
without the depth (and discussion of controversies) necessary for a
full understanding of qualitative philosophies and procedures and
is sometimes framed implicitly as specific to CQR. The tone and
language within these chapters could make it difficult for a novice
qualitative researcher to determine what is characteristic of qual-
itative methods generally versus what is specific to CQR. For
example, in the chapter “Getting Started” the section “Is a quali-
tative strategy the best approach for studying the topic?” moves
between sentences such as “Another instance in which qualitative
methods are especially appropriate is when little is known about an
area...”and“Yet another reason for using CQR is because it is
ideal for building theory” (p. 39). As a teacher of qualitative
methods, I would not use this text as a first introduction to
qualitative methods given its lack of depth in discussing founda-
tional philosophies and principles of qualitative methods and its
lack of clear differentiation between general qualitative methods
and CQR.
Correspondingly, the book is strongest in the chapters that have
the most focus specifically on CQR and the group consensual
process that is the core of CQR. Thus, the procedural chapters on
the research team and on the process of consensual coding are
particularly strong (chapters 4, 8, 9, and 10). These chapters
present practical and highly focused information about using CQR.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology © 2014 American Psychological Association
2014, Vol. 20, No. 3, 475–477 1099-9809/14/$12.00
475
The smaller sections within other procedural chapters that are
specific to CQR and the consensual process are also strengths
within the book, such as the section within chapter 5 “Biases and
Expectations” that is specific to team dynamics and the consensual
process, or the section within chapter 7 “Data Collection” that
focuses on having multiple interviewers as part of the team pro-
cess. The third section’s chapters on trustworthiness, ethics, and
culture are also relatively CQR specific. Chapter 14 on cultural
considerations is particularly strong. I wished that cultural issues
had also been integrated more thoroughly throughout the proce-
dural chapters and that some of the multicultural studies described
in chapter 14 might have been used within these chapters as more
detailed examples of the CQR research process.
The most exciting and new contributions of the book are in the
final section “Modifications and Extensions of Consensual Qual-
itative Research.” These chapters on using CQR with larger-
sample open-ended survey questions (CQR-M) and with case
studies (CQR-C) step away from the prescribed specifications of
interviews, samples sizes, and auditing. In these chapters, the
reader can see how Hill and her colleagues are developing CQR in
new directions, perhaps responding to previous criticisms of being
too proscriptive and prescriptive while maintaining methodologi-
cal rigor and utilizing the unique strengths of the consensual
process that is the core of the methodological approach. Within
this section, I wished for a chapter that explored the positive ways
that CQR was being mixed with other methods and qualitative
procedures, and other developments by other researchers, perhaps
overviewing the studies that were excluded from the annotated
bibliography of studies (chapter 16) because they did not follow
the prescriptive steps of CQR or Hill’s new revisions included in
chapters (CQR-M and CQR-C, which were included in the anno-
tated bibliography).
In sum, Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource
for Investigating Social Science Phenomena provides an excellent
detailed overview of CQR procedures. The book is an invaluable
resource for those already possessing a solid foundational under-
standing of qualitative methodology who seek to develop specific
skills in CQR. Although there may be material in the text that will
be review for a researcher with such a foundation, there is also
much that is unique and particular to developing expertise in CQR.
I would recommend it as a secondary book for an Introduction to
Qualitative Methods class, as a primary text in an advanced qual-
itative methods class focusing specifically on CQR, or as a re-
source for qualitative researchers developing CQR projects and
teams.
References
Hill, C. E., Knox, S., Thompson, B. J., Williams, E., Hess, S. A., &
Ladany, N. (2005). Consensual qualitative research: An update. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 52, 196–205. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2
.196
Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. (1997). A guide to conducting
consensual qualitative research. The Counseling Psychologist, 25, 517–
572. doi:10.1177/0011000097254001
Hoshmand, L. (1997). The normative context of research practice. The
Counseling Psychologist, 25, 599–605. doi:10.1177/
0011000097254004
Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A
primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 52, 126–136. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.126
Stiles, W. B. (1997). Consensual qualitative research: Some cautions. The
Counseling Psychologist, 25, 586–598. doi:10.1177/0011000097254003
Tinsley, H. A. (1997). Synergistic analysis of structured essays: A large
sample, discover-oriented, qualitative research approach. The Counsel-
ing Psychologist, 25, 573–585. doi:10.1177/0011000097254002
“The Oxford Handbook of Social Class in Counseling,” edited
by W. M. Liu (2013)
Reviewed by Jeffery Scott Mio, Psychology and Sociology
Department California State Polytechnic University,
Pomona, CA
DOI: 10.1037/a0036525
When I was younger, the notion of “social class” was pretty
academic and objective. It was a sociological concept dividing the
population into fifths, with the top fifth of income earners being
the “upper class,” the next fifth being the “upper-middle class,” the
middle third being the “middle class,” the next fifth being the
“lower-middle class,” and the bottom fifth being the “lower class.”
However, as Liu contends in the first chapter of The Oxford
Handbook of Social Class in Counseling, our notions of social
class are not so “objective” as we had once thought. For one, social
class does not only involve income but also values and avocations,
such as the appreciation of museums or symphony performances.
For another thing, the notion of “class” has become pejorative. It
is often used as a put-down, such as describing someone as being
lower class or without class, or denigrating someone for thinking
they are in a class different than they are. In fact, as I was reading
this book, I became aware that nearly every time we refer to
class—at least colloquially—it is a put-down of someone either in
a different social class or aspiring to be in a different social class.
Consider the following:
• He thinks he is in our class, but he is obviously in a lower
class.
• Look at her, thinking she is in a higher class than she is.
• Although his money gives him access to expensive things, he
still has no class.
• She is trying to make herself feel better by pretending to be in
a lower class.
Liu gives us a framework to help us understand the notion of
social class, as its objective definition has been replaced by a more
amorphous sense of class.
Lott (2002) long ago challenged our profession to pay attention
to issues of social class and poverty. However, with few excep-
tions (Lott & Bullock, 2007; Toporek, Gerstein, Fouad, Roysircar,
& Israel, 2006), few psychologists have accepted Lott’s challenge
in book form. This book does so in 33 wonderful chapters. How-
ever, as a general comment, the book focuses upon lower social
class populations as opposed to the gamut of social class issues, as
“handbook” in the title of the book might suggest. The one chapter
that addresses the gamut of social classes is the Spanierman,
Garriott, and Clark chapter on Whiteness and social class, but even
in that chapter, the case study was of a White woman with a
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
476
BOOK REVIEWS
