Copyright © eContent Management Pty Ltd. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches (2013) 7(3): 295–305. ‘Teaching’ depth: Refl ections on the challenges and rewards of integrating depth psychology into research methodology + OKSANA YAKUSHKO PHD*,1 AND ELIZABETH NELSON PHD ,1 *Chair and Research Coordinator, Clinical Psychology Program, Pacifi ca Graduate Institute, Santa Barbara, CA, United States of America; +Dissertation Policy Director, Research Coordinator, Psychotherapy and Somatics Specializations, Depth Psychology Program, Pacifi ca Graduate Institute, Santa Barbara, CA, United States of America Abstract: This article discusses how students enrolled in graduate level methodology courses can integrate key depth psy- chological values into the research process. As Coppin and Nelson (2005, p. 101) suggest, inquiry centered on the psyche asks researchers ‘to be fully involved with the opus on every level,’ both personal and archetypal, which ‘makes the work especially meaningful and especially arduous.’ This is equally true when teaching depth research and conducting depth research. To illus- trate, we describe the personal challenges and rewards of being instructors and discuss three models, composite case examples, of integrating depth that have emerged in the classroom. In the fi rst model, students begin by actively, rigorously separating their intellectual research pursuits from their depth experiences, either due to prior research education in non-depth oriented settings or due to a lack of understanding of how depth psychology applies to the research process. In the second model, the student chooses a topic based on intellectual appeal or the availability of resources for the study. Though a traditional starting point for most human science research, the student is curious about, and eager to, examine the depth psychological dimensions of their research. In the third model, students readily fi t Romanyshyn’s (2007) idea of ‘wounded researchers’ who are claimed by the topic through their own psychological complexes and seek to pursue its calling through active engagement with the unconscious. Keywords: teaching, research methods, depth psychology TEACHING IN DEPTH before any formal research process as such com- ne of the distinguishing features of teach- mences. If ‘attention is the cardinal psychological Oing graduate students in depth psychology virtue’ (Hillman, 1994, p. 119) then what draws is our approach to the choice of research topic. our attention and how it does so – in research as in Identifying the topic is the fi rst and most crucial life – are profoundly psychological questions. decision students face in the research experience. The questions of what and how, at the heart of Moreover, when research is imagined as arising out research formulation, typically are addressed at the of, and in relationship to, dynamic unconscious level of ego. For example, Teddlie and Tashakkori processes – the sine qua non of depth psychology – (2009, p. 113) briefl y discuss the personal reasons how the topic emerges is of foremost importance. to choose a topic, emphasizing career advancement. In well-regarded texts devoted to research design Creswell’s (2009, p. 23) text on qualitative, quanti- and methodology, however, fi nding the topic – or, tative, and mixed-methods research says something to foreshadow our approach to teaching research, similar. ‘Before considering what literature to use in letting the topic fi nd the student – is given scant a project,’ he states, ‘fi rst identify a topic to study attention. For instance in Creswell’s (2013, p. 18) and refl ect on whether it is practical and useful.’ thoughtful, important discussion of philosophical Marshall and Rossman (2011) also emphasize prac- assumptions informing a research project, he says ticality and utility. The fi rst two (of three) consid- philosophy ‘shapes how we formulate our prob- erations when choosing a topic are ‘do-ability,’ that lem and research questions’ but beyond this treats is, feasibility, and ‘should-do ability,’ the potential choosing the topic as a settled matter (pp. 16–19). signifi cance of the study. We agree with the criteria We contend philosophy is revealed when gradu- of practicality and usefulness. The aim to enlarge ate students are musing upon what to study, long the scope of knowledge within a discipline is a par- ticularly important and laudable goal. We respect 1 Correspondence to: oyakushko@pacifi ca.edu; enelson@ the many fi ne graduate programs that give practi- pacifi ca.edu cality and usefulness a personal slant, encouraging Volume 7, Issue 3, December 2013 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTIPLE RESEARCH APPROACHES 295 Oksana Yakushko and Elizabeth Nelson © eContent Management Pty Ltd students to choose a topic that will enhance their McClintock’s comment above suggests, ‘the topics curriculum vitae and further their professional about which we write are emotion-laden’ (Creswell, career. Occasionally they will urge students to court 2013, p. 51). When teaching depth, curiosity and a highly-esteemed, well-published faculty member meaningfulness remain paramount. One’s relation- whose subject area expertise promises to receive ship to the research topic is intimate, sustaining, and future attention and funding. Joining that faculty’s generative. We and our graduate students fi t com- coterie of researchers may accelerate the student’s fortably within the family of qualitative and mixed- own publishing career. There is nothing wrong with methods researchers who ascribe to the idea that these approaches to choosing a topic. From our per- knowledge is socially constructed, arising between spective, there is something missing. researchers and participants (Creswell, 2009; Marshall and Rossman (2011, pp. 4–6) discuss Lincoln & Guba, 2000; Marshall & Rossman, a third consideration in choosing a research topic: 2011). Creswell (2013) sums it up nicely: ‘want-to-do-ability,’ which is the potential of the topic to remain a sustained and sustaining inter- [The researcher’s] culture, gender, history, and experi- est for the researcher. The researcher ‘cares deeply ences shape all aspects of the qualitative project, from their choice of a question to address, to how they col- about the topic’ though such attachment does not lect data, to how they make an interpretation of the render the study ‘naively subjective’ (p. 5). The ele- situation, and to what they expect to obtain from con- ment of desire, or caring, begins to approximate ducting the research. (p. 55) our depth approach. Thus we appreciate the state- ment by King, Keohane, and Verba (1994, p. 15), However, we take the idea of socially- who argue the ‘personal or idiosyncratic origin’ of constructed knowledge several steps deeper, the research topic ‘constitutes the “real” reason [to imagining the relationship between researcher, conduct the study] … and appropriately so.’ To be topic, texts, and participants as situated with a fair to Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009), mentioned rich, inter-subjective fi eld which, due to the par- earlier, their work on research methodology hints ticipation of unconscious processes, is only partly at the theme of personal meaning. One of the known or knowable. more compelling reasons to engage in a particular study, they say, is the discovery of an interesting BODY, MIND, AND SOUL IN RESEARCH phenomenon (p. 113). They argue that the crite- Whether conducting a fi rst research project or rion of interest, or personal meaningfulness, is most the fi ftieth, researchers acknowledge the impor- powerful at the beginning of one’s academic career tance of their personal history, orientation to which commences with the doctoral dissertation. research, ethics, and political stance (Creswell, Then, ‘ideas may more easily germinate from per- 2013, p. 51). The awareness of the self which one sonal curiosity about meaningful phenomena in the brings to the research topic, or researcher refl exiv- researcher’s life or the lives of others’ (p. 113). Later, ity, is a hallmark of qualitative studies (Creswell, the authors imply, the infl uence of curiosity will 2009; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Marshall & wane. We sincerely hope this is not true. Rather, we Rossman, 2011; Moustakas, 1990; Rossman & want the confession of Nobel-prize-winning cytolo- Rallis, 2003) and is necessary throughout the gist Barbara McClintock to be the mark of the true research process because ‘in qualitative stud- researcher. ‘I was just so interested in what I was ies, the researcher is the instrument’ (Marshall & doing I could hardly wait to get up in the morning Rossman, 2011, p. 112). When teaching depth and get at it,’ she said. ‘One of my friends, a geneti- psychological inquiry, this instrument includes cist, said I was a child, because only children can’t mind, body, and soul, and thus renders refl exiv- wait to get up in the morning to get at what they ity a far more demanding task. Researchers are want to do.’ (quoted in Keller, 1983, p. 70). ‘fully involved with the opus on every level,’ both Regardless of the length of one’s career, and pos- personal and archetypal, which ‘makes the work sibly irrelevant to whether one is working in the especially meaningful and especially arduous’ natural sciences or the human science tradition as (Coppin & Nelson, 2005, p. 101). 296 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTIPLE RESEARCH APPROACHES Volume 7, Issue 3, December 2013 © eContent Management Pty Ltd Teaching depth Research, in our view, is not merely an ego [Research] obligates the individual to be centered