Many of the studies completed are done as case studies with institutionalized older adults. Research on the utility of narrative therapy is sparse. A reason for this lack of research is the common method and approach to behavioral science research. The qualitative aspects of narrative therapy are unable to be totaled into an objective measure, method, or outcome. The use of proven instruments to evaluate progress and change is in opposition to the method of Narrative therapy. The participant and “researchers” in narrative therapy must be regarded as coresearchers who together explore the meaning of experience as directed by the anti-hierarchal tenant of narrative therapy. Another reason for the lack of research is the limited available trained researchers in the qualitative research methodology. The editorial boards who review and ultimately control publication are much more familiar with quantitative research and thus more willing to publish traditional quantitative empirical research methods. (Etchison and Kleist, 2000) Narrative therapy is also based on methodologies that deemphasize generalizability such as ethnography and grounded theory. A primary focus is the tailoring to the unique dynamics of a client and thus treatment design follows the client’s unique experience. The method does not follow a prescribed protocol only loose guideline for beginnings, middles and ends. The very concepts of unique outcomes and re-descriptions in narrative therapy can also inform the research of narrative therapy. Doing research studies on narrative therapy is considered antitherapeutic. Postmodern roots of narrative therapy rely on inconsistent theory to fit the individual client’s needs and currently rigid modern research methods dominate academic work. Ethnography and discourse analysis lend especially well to the study of narrative therapy both of which are not easily adapted to modern research