Reading Research

This chapter offers a grounding in the key research skill of reading research papers from a critical and affirmative stance. There is an emphasis on reading papers as a means of developing an appreciation of the diversity of research questions, methodologies and techniques that exist within the contemporary psychotherapy research literature. A further aim of the chapter is to explore strategies for finding interesting and relevant research papers.

The following learning activities offer starting points for developing critical reading skills:


PART 1. Reading Research Papers

Step 1. Read through this worksheet to support the development of skills in critically analysing a research paper and familiarise yourself with basic principles of critical analysis. 

Step 2. Read the following research paper, and make notes on its strengths and weaknesses, in accordance with the questions in the worksheet.

Step 3. After (not before!) you have completed the previous step, read John McLeod’s notes on the Stephenson & Hale (2020) paper. Compare your perception of the paper with the analyses of your colleagues.

Step 4. Read the list of further questions to consider when critically analysing a research paper. Add to this list any additional questions that seem relevant to you, or that emerged when you were working on Stephenson & Hale (2020).

Step 5. Here are two additional papers to analyse, generated by a Google Scholar ‘cited by’ and ‘related articles’ search on the Stephenson & Hale (2020) article:

Rayner, M., & Vitali, D. (2016). Short-term existential psychotherapy in primary care: A quantitative report. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 56(4), 357372. 

You are now in a position to go further, by including conclusions and insights arising from a comparison of this paper and Stephenson & Hale (2020).

Rayner, M., & Vitali, D. (2018). Existential experimentation: structure and principles for a short-term psychological therapy. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 58(2), 194213.

This more detailed understanding of a key aspect (i.e., the intervention) of these two studies makes it possible to consider other important questions, such as: 

  • How appropriate is the CORE outcome measure, as a tool for evaluating the effectiveness of existential therapy?
  • What other methods of data collection, or research designs, might be appropriate?
  • How would you describe existential therapy, if you were helping prospective clients to choose between this and CBT?
  • What kind of rationale for existential therapy would be credible for health service managers and policy-makers – and what kind of research might be convincing to such stakeholders?

Step 6. Repeat this process, on a research topic that is particularly relevant to your own interests, or a topic that has been agreed by the members of your learning group. To get started, all you need is one relatively recent study. You can then work forwards and backwards, using the reference list in the article, Google Scholar, and search tools available through your university or college library or your workplace.

PART 2. Reviewing the research literature

In any research project, it is necessary to contextualise the proposed study by providing a rationale that shows how it builds on previous knowledge. This requires carrying out some kind of review of previous research. The extent and level of detail of such a review can vary widely. 

A useful source of learning about the process of reviewing the research literature is to read published reviews. Doing Research in Counselling and Psychotherapy (4th edn.) does not highlight completing a published review as part of the core skills set of a novice or practitioner researcher, because such research ‘products’ are too demanding for that stage of development as a researcher. However, reading reviews, and becoming a connoisseur of reviews, make it possible to appreciate the skills and strategies involved in conducting a high-quality review, as a basis for deciding which of them might be feasible or relevant to one’s own project.

The following sources provide an overview of some of the main types of review that have been implemented:

Munn, Z., Peters, M. D., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 17. 

A scoping review is basically a careful trawl of the research literature, to map and classify existing evidence. By contrast, a systematic review seeks to provide a rigorous answer to a specific question. This paper provides a clear explanation of this distinction. 

Access to several downloadable scoping reviews of research is available at the following sites:

https://www.bacp.co.uk/events-and-resources/research/publications/ (British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy)

https://www.pacfa.org.au/Portal/Publications-and-Research/Pub.aspx (Psychotherapy and Counselling Federation of Australia)

McPherson, S., Wicks, C., & Tercelli, I. (2020). Patient experiences of psychological therapy for depression: a qualitative metasynthesis. BMC Psychiatry, 20(1), 118. 

This review is a good example of what is possible with qualitative metasynthesis (or meta-analysis).  When reading it, pay particular attention to how these reviewers have handled the challenging task of comparing and making sense of different themes that have been identified in different studies.


It can be hard to conduct a systematic review on very large numbers of studies, because of the density and complexity of information that is available. A key strategy in such contexts is to identify a subset of studies that have examined a specific aspect of the topic.

The majority of reviews restrict themselves to establishing what is known – the facts of the matter – in as credible, unbiased and comprehensive a manner a possible. However, many reviews also make suggestions for further research (e.g., filling in the gaps, or concentrating on using research techniques that are associated with the most valid or reliable findings). In addition, some reviews are used to build theoretical understanding. 

Readings:

de Haan, A. M., Boon, A. E., de Jong, J. T., & Vermeiren, R. R. (2018). A review of mental health treatment dropout by ethnic minority youth. Transcultural Psychiatry, 55(1), 330. 

This is a typical example of a review of quantitative studies. This particular review zooms in on that literature by applying two filters: age and ethnic minority status.

Miller, C. E., Townsend, M. L., Day, N. J., & Grenyer, B. F. (2020). Measuring the shadows: A systematic review of chronic emptiness in borderline personality disorder. PloS One, 15(7), e0233970. 

This is even more highly focused in examining research on a single characteristic (chronic emptiness) of the experience of individuals seeking help for a specific problem.

Fernee, C. R., Gabrielsen, L. E., Andersen, A. J., & Mesel, T. (2017). Unpacking the black box of wilderness therapy: A realist synthesis. Qualitative Health Research, 27(1), 114129. 

Realist synthesis is a review approach that aims to develop a theoretical model of an area of practice. As well as providing an example of using the review process to develop a theoretical model, this article illustrates how a good review can be used to consolidate knowledge and provide a platform for further research in an area where relatively few studies have been published.