Romantic Relationships: IT\'s Up and Down, All

¶ … Romantic Relationships: It's Up and Down, All Around" by Dailey, Rossetto, Pfiester, and Surra (2009). Overall, the study was considered to be of good quality, with appropriate application of qualitative theory and methods. Criticism of the conceptual framework included a reductionist approach to theoretical models, and a lack of any discussion of an audit trail.

Purpose / Significance of the Study

The researchers have clearly stated the purpose of the study, how it relates to the literature, and what phenomenon will be explored. The research questions fundamentally express the puzzle that the researchers wish to explore and provide a preliminary look at what they hope to glean from the study.

The corpus of research on dating relationships is substantial; however, the variant of couple relationships characterised by the occurrence of breakups and renewals, and the concomitant dynamics and bases of relational stability, has not received much empirical attention. The study extends the interdependence theory (Thibaut & Kelley 1959) and social exchange (Breier & Kelley 1979) by providing opportunity to explore the reasons for changes in couple stability and commitment. The researchers chose not to explicitly refer to the social exchange theory as a component of their conceptual framework, however, they do appropriately refer to the social exchange theory, inasmuch as it has its roots in sociological research and elements of the theory are seen in the literature. In addition, the study applied components of the theoretical framework to an exploration of the renewal phenomenon.

Ryan, Coughlan & Cronin (2007: 738), suggest that qualitative researchers consider truth to be "a subjective reality that is experienced differently by each individual" and that it cannot "be isolated into multiple variables that can be studied independently." The use of a qualitative approach in this study is justified by the desire to explore on-off relationships from the subjective viewpoint rather than from an objective, preconceived research structure. Couple relationships are individually interpreted by both people in the relationship, and as the researches explain, the "stories" relayed by individuals in couple relationships may differ substantively. The individual data collected from couple pairs may not be at all unified and, as such, has the potential to provide a richer context than data derived from a consolidation of the individual accounts. The quality of qualitative data is commonly measured against the methodological outcomes characterized by "thick, rich" data (Glaser). Orbuch (1997: 460) argues that accounts are useful for explaining "the nature and dynamics of a present relationship and pre-existing normative beliefs and rules about what makes a relationship and how to behave appropriately in that relationship." The use of accounts provides an opportunity to deeply explore the sense-making of partners with regard to relational reconciliation, which is an important aspect of on-off relationships.

B. Literature Review

The review of the literature covers research across a number of disciplines and focuses on the constructs most relevant to the research questions, including interdependence theory, social exchange theory, relational transitions in on-again / off-again relationships, and relational dissolution. The research discussed in the literature review is both comprehensive and balanced, and is appropriately used to identify conceptual models, theoretical frameworks, and relevant themes as background to the focus of the current research. The literature review in this study addresses the dominant emerging themes of relational research, and particularly those themes that address participants' perceptions about status changes in relationships. The literature review in this study is presented before the data collection, to support and to inform the conceptual framework. Ryan, Coughlan, and Cronin (2007: 738) point out that the "function of a literature review in research studies is to provide an objective account...that should reflect prominent emerging themes and inform the conceptual framework of the study." A substantive omission, from this writers' perspective is the work of the Gottman Institute, where the focus is on the predictable long-term outcomes of observed transactions between married couples. The Gottman Institute carries out longitudinal studies on engaged or married couples to identify behaviors that are predictive of dissolution. Even though the current research focus is on unmarried and childless couples, Gottman's research is relevant (Gottman, 1993). This omission might signal concern about reflexivity issues triggered by focusing on a primary theoretical framework prior to data collection. As stated above, it is typical for researchers to use the literature review to link the research topic, questions, and methodology to a particular approach; the researchers have appropriately done so.

C. Research Question, Philosophical Approach, and Statement of the Phenomenon of Interest

The study does contain research questions, appropriately presenting them as themes to guide the research. The phenomenon to be studied and the unit of analysis -- the perceptions of individuals in on-off relationships that result in breakups and renewals (the turning points, as it were) -- are clearly identified and explained against the theoretical framework. With the emphasis on interviews and participants' accounts, the underlying research philosophy appears to be interpretive. A pivotal aspect of the current research is the desirability of verstehen (Martin, 2000) -- gaining insight into the subject's internal experience by the meaning that is attributed to it by the subject. This philosophical approach is not interpretive. The researchers chose to supplement objective assessment with the subjective interpretations of the individuals in the couple relationships. It is worth noting that this philosophical orientation is a good fit to the researchers' human psychology / mental health origins.

D. Theoretical Framework

The study is framed in the interdependence theory (Thibaut & Kelley 1959) which is relevant to exploration of on-off relationships. Prior research has found that relationship stability can be predicted by aspects of the independence theory. Specifically, interdependence theory offers a framework for examining the dynamics of couple relationships in which the inherent rewards and costs of staying together or breaking up are weighed over time. The main themes and concepts of the theoretical framework are clearly explained and links to the current study are well established. Ryan, Coughlan, and Cronin suggest that "the researcher should also justify the use of a qualitative approach" (2007: 739), and this has been accomplished by the researchers by inference from the literature review. The fit between the research questions and the theoretical framework does appear to be strong.

E. Methodology: Research Design

The research design incorporates approaches most commonly associated with an interpretive world view; however, the researchers' treatment of any discussion regarding world view or research philosophy is weak. The philosophy and the world view underlying this research are implied, but neither an ontological nor an epistemological discussion is truly presented. The framework for ontological research is a branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of "being." An epistemological approach to research focuses on the nature and scope of "knowledge." An interpretive world view can be likened to a paradigm, which provides a conceptual framework for seeing and making sense of the social world, and Patton (2002: 37) has referred to paradigm as a "world view." The researchers seem to consider their philosophical outlook to be "self-evident and known" (Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2008, p. 11). If the reader presumes that the conceptual framework is interpretive, then the methodology selected for the study is congruent. Further information is needed about the use of any approaches to auditing the data collection, data reduction processes, and data analysis. Although the researchers provide a basic outline of the steps taken during these processes, they do not sufficiently address issues of documentation and procedural rigor (Lincoln and Guba: 1985). A more detailed discussion of these issues is presented in the section of this paper titled Rigor.

F. Sample

A purposeful sampling strategy was used to identify and select the 462 individuals for the longitudinal study. Participants were randomly recruited from a list of published phone numbers. Participants selected for the study met the following qualifications: Never married, age 19 to 35 years, currently in a romantic relationship, and with both partners willing to participate in the study across nine months. The research with these couples followed a three phase format that focused on the likelihood of marriage and the associated ups and downs of the relationship that reflected that likelihood. An initial interview was conducted in Phase I, in which "participants constructed graphs and provided accounts detailing changes in their chances for getting married" (Daily, Rossetto, Pfiester, and Surra 2010). Seven monthly interviews were conducted in Phase 2, and one final interview was conducted in Phase 3. On the basis of interviews conducted in the longitudinal study, 43 participants who experienced on-off relationships were selected. This subset was identified through critical case sampling based on constructs about the on-off relationships that became a focal point in the longitudinal study.

A multi-step process was used in a funnel-like fashion to identify those individuals who could clearly be described as having experienced one or more breakups and one or more renewals. The sample size in this qualitative study is irrelevant as findings will not be generalised (Fossey et. al., 2002). The sampling method is appropriate to the study as it was critical to identify participants who clearly met the criteria of having on-off relationships. The sample appears to be representative of a population from the Southwest. Educational levels varied widely across the sample. Participants reported income that was on the low side, but this is mostly a factor of age and/or attending college.

G. Ethical Considerations

The participants in the study were aware of the purpose of the study. In fact, in light of the questioning that was part of the data collection process, participants would have a very clear idea of the purpose and scope of the study. The researchers do talk anecdotally about participants not completing some stages of the study, so the reader can presume that participants could stop participating at will. The researchers also explain that participants gave consent and also made commitments to participate in the study for more than nine months. The researchers are silent on issues of ethics, per se, so the reader does not know how participant identities were protected, nor does the reader know if any psychological support was needed or provided. Universities require that Human Subjects applications be submitted and reviewed to address any potential issues of ethics.

H. Data Collection

The data collection strategies are described in detail. The researchers have outlined the rationale for the data collection method and they have offered sufficient information for the reader to understand the processes they used. The details of the interviewing process across the research phases are described well enough for replication. The researchers asked participants to chart the changes in commitment that occurred during Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the research. In addition to the charting exercises, study participants were asked to explain the reasons for the fluctuations in commitment. The participant accounts and interviews were employed to tap into the varied meanings of the participants' lived experiences. In concert with the interpretive world view undergirding the study, the researchers emphasised the subjective accounts provided by participants, and gained saturation by asking the participants if there was anything else that to which the fluctuations in commitment could be attributed.

I. Data Analysis

An inductive process was employed, with several of the researchers using a constant comparative approach (Glaser, 1965) across the stages of data analysis. The constant comparative approach is in keeping with the researchers ontological philosophy that the meaning individual participants gave to their relationship experiences was important and, further, that these individual meanings could be attributed to common themes, which would also provide meaning. The constant comparative process "is designed to allow, with discipline, for some of the vagueness and flexibility which aid the creative generation of theory" (Glaser, 1965, p. 438). The constant comparative process used by the researchers supported the organisation, retrieval, coding, and thematic analysis of data. The researchers did not use independent coders to verify data interpretation, nor did they mention the use of memo-writing, which is generally considered to be basic to the constant comparative approach and fosters the recollection of the researcher's thinking behind the codes assigned to content. Instead, the four researchers worked in an iterative fashion to come to agreement about emerging themes, and to corroborate the results of the constant comparative process. What is missing from the data analysis discussion is transparency about outliers, data that was resistant to coding, and how robustly the researchers resisted personal reflexivity in their coding, data reduction, and interpretation. Reflexivity -- which refers to the influence of the researcher on the interpretation of meaning and the construction of knowledge -- can be personal or epistemological (Watt, 2007). Epistemological reflexivity was acknowledged through the researchers' efforts to not permit the components of interdependence theory or social exchange theory to constrain emerging themes.

J. Rigor

In qualitative research, reliability and validity are not treated as separate constructs. Rather, the language of qualitative research encompasses both concepts at once through the use of terms such as "credibility, transferability, and trustworthiness" (Golafshani, 2003, p. 600). Lincoln and Guba (1985) refer to the use of "inquiry audit" to examine the consistency of both the process and the products of research. There is no evidence of attempts to conduct an audit inquiry in the current study. Procedural rigor and documentation rigor were not well explained by the researchers.

The researchers refer to researcher triangulation as a means they employed to increase the validity and reliability (trustworthiness) of their research. Patton (2001, p. 247) defines triangulation as "using several kinds of methods or data, including both quantitative and qualitative approaches." Barbour would argue that triangulation in qualitative research may be used for confirmation and to modify theory. Indeed, Johnson (1997, p. 284) suggests that qualitative researchers may "use investigator triangulation and consider the ideas and explanations generated by additional researchers studying the research participants. Finally, Creswell, and Miller (2000, p.126) define triangulation as "a validity procedure where researchers search for convergence among multiple and different sources of information to form themes or categories in a study"

A multi-stage process was employed to analyse the data, and the researchers did describe those stages well. Three of the researchers did independently conduct the initial analysis of the data, examining the first third of the transcripts from the sample to enable discovery, labelling, and description of emerging themes. In the second stage, the same three researchers came together to discuss the themes they had independently developed in order to integrate and reduce the themes into inclusive categorical themes. In the third stage of the data analysis, the entire team of researchers -- which the reader may construe to be the original three researchers, plus one more, for a total of four researchers -- examined the consolidated data. Discussion of the data by the three researchers was continued until they reached agreement about which themes had emerged from the individual participants' accounts.

The processes inherent in the constant comparative approach determine that there will be linkages between the qualitative data and the qualitative analysis, and that these processes will generate an audit trail (Glaser 1965). It is at the transition points that credibility of qualitative research comes into question (Glaser 1965). The researchers in this study could have provided more description of the methods used at these transitions. For instance, an illustration of codified procedure was not provided for readers, while Glaser (1965) explains that credibility is enhanced and the transition from data to theory is more readily grasped when a codified procedure is used.

The use of individual accounts is pivotal to the current research, yet the literature holds little "evidence about how the more subtle and complete types of accounts that probably predominate in most people's lives are related to behavioural expectations or actual lines of behavior" (Orbach, 1997, p. 471). The researchers also suggest that future research might focus less on the absolute terms of relationship transitions, such as breakups and renewals, but instead assess the trajectory of relationships. However, in their discussion of findings, the researchers do not fully address the issues associated with exploring "whether the relationship between accounts and social psychological phenomena holds up longitudinally and across different domains of social life" (Orbach, 1997, p. 471).

K. Findings and Discussion

The findings are presented in a manner wholly consistent with the methodological approach and the philosophical underpinnings of the research. Moreover, the findings are presented in the context of the literature, pointing to the contribution of the current study to the corpus of research on issues of stability and commitment in heterosexual relationships.

Explanations about the reasons for breakups have received a considerable amount of empirical attention within the interdependence and social exchange theoretical frameworks. The current research supports the proposition from prior research that breakups are more likely when individuals in couple pairs perceive that alternatives to their current situation are preferable. The current research suggests that dissatisfaction with time spent together and a desire to pursue alternatives are associated with the body of research on relationship dissolution.