Couple and therapist perspectives about the use and process of reflecting team practice were analyzed using ethnographic research. A domain analysis was performed on postession interviews from both couples and therapists, and on field notes from each therapist. Seven couples and five therapists were interviewed at least twice over a 4‐month period concerning their reactions to and perceptions of reflecting team practice. Six domains concerning reflecting team practice emerged from the analysis: (a)benefits of its use, (b) effects of gender, (c)recommended use, (d) contraindicated use, (e) the importance of creating spatial separateness between couple and team members, and (f) sequences of communication between the couple and team members that elicit change. The latter two domains described the process of reflecting team practice (i.e., steps in how it is used and how it is implemented). The role of ethnog rahy in reflecting team practice and in family therapy research is discussed.

An ethnographic content analysis was used to examine couple and therapist perspectives about the use and value of reflecting team practice. Postsession ethnographic interviews form both couples and therapists were examined for the frequency of themes in seven categories that emerged form a previous ethnographic study of reflecting teams (Sells, Smith, Coe, Yoshioka, & Robbins, 1994). The study demonstrated that quantitative numerical data and qualitiative narrative data can examine the same phenomenon from multiple perspecrives and allow for greater accuracy and stability in study findings. Ethnographic content analysis is briefly cosntrasted with conventional modes of quantitative cosntent analysis to illustrate its usefulness and rationale for discovering emergent patterns, themes, emphases, and process using both inductive and deductive methods of inquiry.

The purpose of this study was to explor client and therapist evaluations of direct practice in a university‐based training center using an ethnographic research methodology. Client and therapist perceptions about the strengths and limitations of ethnographic practice evaluation were also analyzed. A domain analysis was performed on postsession interviews with both clients and practitioners over a 4‐ month period. Six core categories of client and therapist perceptions of therapy effectiveness emerged from a domain analysis: (a) changes associated with counseling, (b) important practitioner qualities, (c) effective interventions or techniques, (d) ineffective interventions or techniques, (e) recommendations for future sessions, and (f) strengths and limitations of ethnographic practice evaluation. Implications of this study for clinical practice, training, and future research are discussed.

A historical antagonism between proponents of qualitative methods and quantitative methods has prevented recognition of the benefits to be gained by employing both methods (that is, a multi-method approach) during the same study or program of studies. Increasingly, family therapy researchers have begun to recognize the value of a multi-method approach in bridging the current gaps among theory, research, and practice. However, current writings have yet to move beyond the discussion stage. This article proposes a bidirectional continuum that includes both qualitative and quantitative methods. An ethnographic content analysis approach is presented to illustrate the procedural stages of this continuum. The article ends with a discussion of the challenges in carrying out a bidirectional, multi-method approach and the potential contributions that an integrative research methodology will give both researchers and clinicians.

No abstract