A Content Analysis of Qualitative Research in Select ACA Journals (2005

Abstract

This content analysis presented an overview of themes of qualitative articles published in counseling journals (i.e., Journal of Counseling & Development, Counselor Education & Supervision, and Professional School Counseling) between 2005 and 2010. This study specifically presented various traditions and strategies for engaging in qualitative data analyses and interpretations in the counseling field. The most frequently employed research traditions were phenomenology and grounded theory. Commonly used strategies to ensure trustworthiness were investor triangulation and/or a peer debriefing process, the use of external auditors, and researcher journals. Regarding the credibility of data, member checking, and audit trail were frequently utilized techniques.

Keywords

content analysis qualitative research qualitative courses

Qualitative methods are appropriate for research in the counseling field because well-conducted qualitative inquiry and the counseling process both require appreciation of the complex dynamics in individuals’ experiences. In fact, the importance of using qualitative methodology in counseling research continues to increase (Hunt, 2011). Berríos and Lucca (2006) pointed out that “counseling is perhaps especially fertile ground for qualitative research, because the centrality of interpersonal relations defines its domains” (p. 175). Thus, using qualitative methods is appealing in counseling research (Hays & Singh, 2012; McLeod, 2001; Ponterotto, 2002; Rubel & Villalba, 2009), and publications of qualitative research articles have been slowly increasing. Erford et al. (2011) examined 987 articles published between 1994 and 2009 in the Journal of Counseling & Development (JCD) and found that only three qualitative studies were published between 1994 and 1997 (i.e., 2% of the total number of articles). Over time, the number of qualitative studies published increased (i.e., 15.2% (n = 10) between 1998 and 2001, 20% (n = 17) between 2002 and 2005, and 28.1% (n = 27) between 2006 and 2009); however, findings suggest a small number of qualitative research publications compared to over 60% of quantitative articles published during this period.

Content analysis is a useful research technique to describe and quantify the phenomenon of individuals, groups, and programs in a field. It is a research method that allows replicable and valid inferences from data to contexts, providing knowledge, a broad description of data, new insights, and a practical guide for action (Krippendorff, 2004). It is a widely used research method in various fields, offering researchers a number of benefits such as content sensitivity (Krippendorff, 2004) and flexibility in research design (Harwood & Garry, 2003).

Content analysis of professional counseling journals is a well-established form of research that augments knowledge and understanding of the field (Smith, Ng, Brinson, & Mityagin, 2008). Previous content analyses explored various patterns and trends in types of publications across different topics of focus (e.g., special groups, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer [LGBTQ], or research methodology) and across different counseling journals, such as JCD, Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, Counselor Education & Supervision (CES), and/or The Career Development Quarterly (Arredondo, Rosen, Rice, Perez, & Tovar-Gamero, 2005; Erford et al., 2011; Loveland, Buboltz, Schwartz, & Gibson, 2006; Pope-Davis, Ligiero, Liang, & Codrington, 2001; Singh & Shelton, 2011; Smith et al., 2008). Other analyses (e.g., Bennett, Rowe, & Hill, 1991; Pope-Davis et al., 2001; Smith et al., 2008) presented similar content areas that included the following categories: contributors, their affiliation, job status, research and data analysis methods, topics of interest, and research participants.

Despite advantages and importance of qualitative research in counseling, literature related to the patterns and trends of qualitative designs in counseling journals is relatively scant. Among content analyses, topics regarding qualitative research have only recently focused on content analysis studies. For example, Berríos and Lucca (2006) explored 98 qualitative research articles published over 6 years (1997–2002) in JCD. They studied the content areas of published qualitative articles such as research designs used in the articles and categories of research (i.e., treatment, models development, and pure empirical research). Major findings of the study indicated that little attention has been paid to qualitative research methods in the counseling profession, which is consistent with results in previous counseling literature (Faulkner, Klock, & Gale, 2002; Nugent, 2000). Singh and Shelton (2011) analyzed 12 qualitative articles published in four professional counseling journals (i.e., JCD, Journal of Counseling Psychology, Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, and The Counseling Psychologist) between 1998 and 2008 that specifically examined LGBTQ issues. They found that qualitative investigation to be scarce in counseling journals whose foci were multicultural training and diverse populations. Singh and Shelton argued that the lack of qualitative research, as well as information on qualitative traditions and data analysis methods, challenges the extent that counseling research thoroughly understands underrepresented individuals. Using content analyses, these two studies revealed important components and patterns of qualitative studies over the past decade. In addition, they provided valuable insights for future counseling research. These studies, however, had specific foci on certain topics of interest and limited content areas of qualitative research published. Because the importance of qualitative studies in counseling continues to be evident, and calls for strong and rigorous qualitative research increase (Hunt, 2011), further content analyses are needed to investigate additional aspects of qualitative research.

In general, in past content analyses, commonly analyzed content areas were authorship and affiliation, topics, research design, data collection methods, and participant demographics. However, there has been little attention paid to certain themes unique to qualitative research such as various theoretical frameworks and associated strategies in data analyses and interpretation. Hays and Wood (2011) identified six major qualitative research traditions consistently found to be emerging in the field of counseling. They suggested ways to infuse qualitative traditions in counseling research by specifically presenting the purpose and main characteristics of prominent approaches and demonstrating accepted associated fieldwork activities. Analytic approaches within each tradition and strengths as well as challenges of the tradition would also be welcome. Because qualitative research processes are inextricably linked to traditions, the lack of understanding of research traditions may bring less credibility to published research. In order to attend to this concern, understanding trends of qualitative traditions and their associated strategies in published articles is necessary.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was twofold: (a) to present an overview of themes of qualitative articles published in three counseling journals (i.e., JCD, CES, and Professional School Counseling [PSC]) and (b) to provide a set of recommendations for education, training, and publication related to qualitative research. Scholars in qualitative research in the counseling profession have identified major elements for rigorous and robust qualitative designs (Berríos & Lucca, 2006; Singh & Shelton, 2011; Yeh & Inman, 2007). In addition to commonly explored content areas, we selected other unique themes to provide a systematic framework for this content analysis of qualitative research as follows: (a) authorship and affiliation, (b) qualitative research traditions reported, (c) strategies selected to ensure trustworthiness and credibility, (d) focus and topics of interest, (e) data collection methods, and (f) target populations under study. A systematic view of the content of qualitative manuscripts published, especially covering the areas missing in previous content analyses, will provide more comprehensive knowledge. Additionally, this study may shed light on the future direction of qualitative research in counseling, as well as on qualitative researcher training.

Method

Materials

The present study examined all qualitative research articles published in three professional counseling journals (i.e., JCD, CES, and PSC) between 2005 and 2010. This time frame was a critical one for qualitative research publications in counseling journals with a slow increase in their number (see Erford et al., 2011; Falco, Bauman, Sumnicht, & Engelstad, 2011) and for increased interest in qualitative method approaches in the counseling field (e.g., Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs [CACREP], 2009; Kline, 2008). These journals were selected based on their broad circulation and diversity of scope in the counseling field (Berríos & Lucca, 2006). In this study, broad circulation was defined in relation to the status of those journals as flagship journals in their association or division. Diversity of scope was defined by a journal’s specific mission of encompassing qualitative studies and multicultural emphasis (Singh & Shelton, 2011). JCD is the American Counseling Association’s flagship journal and publishes articles of broad interest for counselors and mental health professionals (http://www.counseling.org). CES is recognized as a leading journal in the field of counselor education and covers a broad range of professional issues (Smith et al., 2008). Also, CES has provided a framework for counseling professionals to understand the broad array of various qualitative traditions and advance their sophistication about conducting qualitative studies (Kline, 2008). PSC is the flagship journal of American School Counseling Association and clearly addresses its mission of encouraging publishing both quantitative and qualitative manuscripts.

We identified qualitative research articles as those that authors described as qualitative and included data collection and analysis processes. For instance, this study did not include articles that analyzed certain authors’ books to support authors’ opinions. Exemplary cases without describing data collection processes, content analysis of journals, and interview transcriptions of scholars without describing analysis processes were also excluded from this study.

Research Team

Our research team consisted of two doctoral students enrolled in a CACREP-accredited counselor education program at a large Midwestern university. We were involved in a number of qualitative research projects and have written manuscripts using qualitative research methods. Prior to beginning this study, we were trained regarding content analysis strategies, including data collection and coding by a faculty member who teaches doctoral-level qualitative inquiry courses. Throughout this study, we met once a week for at least three hours to build consensus. We kept reflective journals and recorded individual impressions and emerging thoughts about the data’s meaning throughout the coding and analysis processes. We regularly consulted with peer debriefers to clarify ideas for themes and data. Our consultation process was helpful in creating a richer discussion.

Procedures

Prior to a content analysis, we discussed steps and procedures of analysis in accordance with Schreier (2012). As the first step of our analysis, we collected all articles published in the JCD, CES, and PSC from 2005 to 2010. In total, 335 articles from the JCD, 122 articles from the CES, and 360 articles from the PSC were identified. Then, we selected articles for content analysis based on the suggestions presented in the literature (i.e., Buboltz, Miller, & Williams, 1999; Hunt, 2011). The first stage of selecting articles involved identifying each article as a research or a conceptual article. We defined a research article as one in which data were collected and analyzed. Then, we selected only research studies for the content analysis. The second stage of article selection involved categorizing articles as quantitative, qualitative, or mixed. Quantitative studies relied on statistics for data analysis, while qualitative studies explicitly employed qualitative traditions; data collection, data analysis, and the interpretation process. Articles that utilized both qualitative and quantitative approaches were considered mixed. For this content analysis study, we selected only qualitative articles that included data collection or analysis process. Through these processes, we obtained a total of 81 qualitative research articles.

For the next step, we developed an initial codebook based on the literature (cf. Hunt, 2011; Schreier, 2012) that illustrated guidelines and essential components to be included when performing content analysis. We agreed to include the title and abstract, literature review, role of the researcher, establishing trustworthiness, interview questions, participants, data analysis, and findings as content area to be analyzed (Hunt, 2011). When we established the initial codebook, preliminary categories, and subcategories, its definition, examples, and exceptions were also created. In this study, categories refer to the main content areas of qualitative research articles analyzed. Categories included in our codebook were as follows: (a) authorship and authors’ affiliation, (b) qualitative research tradition, (c) strategies selected to ensure trustworthiness, (d) topics of interest, (e) data collection methods, and (f) target populations.

Subcategories indicate subthemes under the main categories. Creating subcategory procedures were similar to the open and axial coding process in grounded theory approach. We developed subcategories by grouping similar interests and naming those subcategories. Then we made an agreement that each subcategory would differ from each other. Specifically, for the category of (d) topics of interest, we established subcategories based on two guiding questions: What were researchers truly interested in? and Who is the subject group? The codebook was continually adjusted to accommodate emerging themes before and after a pilot study.

Prior to the actual analysis, we performed a pilot analysis using 20 randomly selected articles. After the pilot study, we adjusted categories and subcategories. In this process, we tried to meet criteria of unidimensionality and mutual exclusivity (Schreier, 2012). Unidimensionality indicates that each category refers to only one aspect of the data, and mutual exclusivity denotes that the idea which each category represents should be separated and not overlaps each other. For example, regarding the (c) category, strategies selected to ensure trustworthiness, we found that even the same concepts are often described in different ways depending on research traditions, and that the same terms can have different definitions. Therefore, for analytical clarity, we used Yeh and Inman’s (2007) theoretical frame that included an extensive literature review of trustworthiness across different qualitative research traditions in the counseling field. As the next step, we restricted the scope of trustworthiness strategies and made an agreement of the denotation of each subcategory.

The final step involved analyzing each article to place the content into the codebook we developed. During this process, we used the summative content analysis approach with which we identified and quantified certain words or content in each qualitative research manuscript (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Data were coded by the research team in order to increase trustworthiness during data analyses. Initially, each of us independently coded the data; the first author analyzed 37 articles and the second author analyzed 44 articles. However, for the categories of (c) and (d), we completed coding together. After completion of initial coding, we exchanged our codebook with articles and cross-checked it with the coding already done by the team member. Schreier (2012) described that this double coding process is an important means to reduce researchers’ bias in the analysis process. We contacted each other throughout the data recoding processes to tackle any problems related to data coding and analysis. For example, some articles we analyzed employed the grounded theory as their framework, but they used the consensual qualitative research (CQR) in data analysis. In this case, we categorized the tradition as grounded theory, as we believe that authors of the articles utilized the CQR as an analysis tool to create a conceptual model or theory. In all cases, the final decision of categorizing was made by consensus through discussion. We continually referred to existing content analysis literature, in order to increase the validity of the analysis.

Results

Between 2005 and 2010, a total of 81 (9.7%) of the 837 were identified as qualitative research articles published in JCD, CES, and PSC. Among the three journals, CES published the highest percentage of qualitative studies with JCD publishing the second highest percentage, while PSC delivered the lowest percentage of qualitative studies (see Table 1). Table 1 shows that the percentage of qualitative research articles gradually increased in JCD within the period of 2005–2010. In contrast, the percentage of qualitative research articles in CES and PSC fluctuated from year to year. The proportion of qualitative studies in this analysis was much smaller than that of 16.5% (98 of the 593 articles) in the analysis of Berríos and Lucca (2006), which could be the result of inclusion criteria previously discussed.

Table 1.

Number of Qualitative Articles by Journals and Years.

Journals		2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	Total
JCD	N	4	4	5	5	7	10	35
	%	7	7	9	8	11	16	10
	Total	59	56	54	59	63	64	355
CES	N	4	3	1	1	5	3	17
	%	16	13	5	5	26	18	14
	Total	25	23	19	19	19	17	122
PSC	N	6	3	6	5	3	6	29
	%	9	4	10	8	5	15	8
	Total	67	72	61	60	59	41	360

Note: CES = Counselor Education & Supervision; JCD = Journal of Counseling & Development; PSC = Professional School Counseling.

Authorship and Affiliation

Eighty-one articles analyzed in this study were written by 222 authors in total. Of these articles, 18.5% (n = 15) were written by a single author. The remainder of the articles (81.5%) was written by multiple authors: two authors (34.6%, n = 28), three authors (17.3%, n = 14), four authors (21.0%, n = 17), five authors (4.9%, n = 4), six authors (1.2%, n = 1), seven authors (1.2%, n = 1), and eight authors (1.2%, n = 1). On average, 2.7 authors engaged in qualitative research articles analyzed in this study. The percentage of articles written by one author was less than 20%. Among 81 articles, regardless of the authorship orders, three authors published three articles. Thirteen authors published two articles. Other authors contributed no more than one article. Institutional affiliations with the greatest number of the authors were as follows: Columbia University Teachers College (n = 4); Georgia State University (n = 4); University of Florida (n = 3); and Villanova University (n = 3).

Qualitative Research Tradition

Because there is no consensus on classifying traditions of qualitative inquiry (Patton, 2002), categorizing qualitative research traditions in this analysis relied on descriptions of traditions that the authors provided in each article. Most frequently used traditions were phenomenology (37%, n = 30) and grounded theory (18.5%, n = 15). Seven articles (8.6%) reported the use of CQR while six articles (7.4%) used an ethnographic approach. Among the other articles, various qualitative traditions were employed once or twice as follows: two case studies (i.e., Buki, Kogan, Keen, & Uman, 2005; Daniels et al., 2007), one qualitative content analysis (i.e., Rogers, Bromley, McNally, & Lester, 2007), one qualitative program evaluation (i.e., Schure, Christopher, & Christopher, 2008), one specific theory-oriented approach (i.e., Walsh, Barrett, & DePaul, 2007), one basic interpretive study (i.e., Sommer, Ward, & Scofield, 2010), one narrative approach (i.e., Constantine, Smith, Redington, & Owens, 2008), and one feminist inquiry (i.e., Erwin, 2006). One article used a combination of several traditions of constructivist, narrative, and feminist approaches (i.e., Hays, Dean, & Chang, 2007). The other 14 articles (17%) did not provide clear descriptions of their research traditions or simply described them as qualitative or exploratory (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Percentage of qualitative traditions used.

Strategies Selected to Ensure Trustworthiness

Qualitative researchers employ indicators to ensure trustworthiness in their studies. Trustworthiness refers to the “authenticity and consistency of interpretation grounded in data” (Yeh & Inman, 2007, p. 386), and is strongly tied to research paradigms and traditions (Morrow, 2005). Therefore, researchers utilize a variety of skills to seek trustworthiness, while terms with similar meanings can differ depending on research traditions. Yeh and Inman (2007) noted that shared worldviews among qualitative researchers result in an overlap of skills and criteria of trustworthiness. They categorized the goals of these skills as three domains: (a) researchers themselves as human instruments, (b) credibility and adequacy of data, and (c) interpretation of data. These domains are not mutually exclusive, however; criteria and skills regarding trustworthiness can simultaneously belong to two or three domains. We employed this categorization to organize the efforts of the articles’ authors who attempted to provide a transparent research process for credibility in their studies.

In terms of (a) researchers’ self-reflexivity and subjectivity as human instruments, authors in this analysis often described their background information or self-location as it impacts their relationship with the case, or simply described that they reflected on or were aware of their own traps such as biases and losses (48%, n = 39). Some authors reported that they wrote reflective or researcher journals (14.8%, n = 12) and/or emphasized triangulation in general. In articles written by multiple authors (81.5%, n = 66), authors acknowledged assumptions as a team who used investigator triangulation and/or a peer debriefing process. Some authors reported the use of external auditors (27.2%, n = 22).

To ensure (b) the credibility and adequacy of data, multiple strategies were used. Member checking (39.5%, n = 32) and an audit trail (17.3%, n = 14) were frequently utilized to increase the credibility of the research process. Some researchers employed data triangulation (21.0%, n = 17) by collecting data from multiple sources, while others conducted cross-analysis (19.6%, n = 16) to identify discrepant evidence.

In regard to (c) data interpretation, direct quotations from participants’ words related to induced themes appeared in all 81 articles. In all seven articles that used the CQR, frequency of findings across individual cases was displayed to ensure trustworthiness throughout the data interpretation process. Prolonged engagement (13.6%, n = 11), as well as a constant comparison between field notes and interview transcripts (12.3%, n = 10), was also employed to secure the adequacy of interpretation in addition to bracketing. However, 16 articles (19.8%) analyzed in this study did not describe any strategies to ensure trustworthiness.

Topics of Interest

Topics of interest identified are as follows: (a) multicultural issues, (b) people who deal with traumatic experience, (c) counseling practitioners’ experience, (d) experience and development of counselor–educators-in-training/supervisors-in-training, (e) faculty members in counselor education, (f) experience of counselors-in-training, (g) leadership, advocacy, and social justice, (h) experience of staff, administrators, or parents, and (i) working environment. Specifically, the topic (a) was defined as phenomena experienced by ethnic and/or minority individuals. The topic (b) referred to clients’ traumatic experiences and their coping strategies. The topic (c) was defined as counselors’ experience in practices. Topics (d), (e), (f), and (h) were categorized by certain groups of people and their work/training experience. The topic (g) was identified as leadership, advocacy, and social justice efforts among counseling professionals. Finally, the topic (i) was defined as the surroundings of the workplace and the physical geographical location.

Of the topics of interest, the most often discussed topics were related to (a) multicultural issues (29.6%, n = 24) including exploratory studies about ethnic identity development, acculturation, ethnic self-labeling, and general experience of certain populations (e.g., at-risk Korean youth, lesbian and gay couples with dual careers, Latino children attending rural elementary schools, and academically successful African American male students). Specific phenomena of certain populations such as late life relocation among older adults and micro aggression against Black counseling professionals were also categorized as multicultural issues. Research about service providers for multicultural populations was also included in this category. Populations discussed in multicultural articles were Latino and Mexican (n = 5), LGBT (n = 4), African American (n = 5), people with disabilities (n = 2), Korean and Chinese (n = 3), American Indian (n = 1), Jewish (n = 1), and so on (n = 3).

The topic about (b) people who deal with specific conditions (12.4%, n = 10) included issues related to war, abuse, HIV/AIDS, suicide ideation, death of parents, and diagnosis of children and at-risk adolescents. The topic of (c) counseling practitioners’ experience (16.0%, n = 13) included counselors’ experiences of certain clients such as adolescents with sexual behavioral problems and students traumatized by a school hostage experience. There was also research concerning school counselors’ actual practices such as record keeping and program evaluations. Counselors’ practices in foreign countries were also included in this subcategory. Other topics of interest centered on (d) experience and development of counselor educators-in-training/supervisors-in-training (8.6%, n = 7) and (e) faculty members in the counselor education field (3.7%, n = 3).

The topic (f) experience of counselors-in-training topic (16.0%, n = 13) included master’s-level counseling students’ diverse learning experiences with new educational approaches, such as awareness training about privilege and oppression, self-care online counseling, or community practice internship. This topic also included counseling trainees’ internal interaction between sessions in practicum and metaphors used in supervision. Counselor educators’ and practitioners’ strategies and efforts related to (g) leadership, advocacy, and social justice (7.4%, n = 6) were identified as an emerging topic. Few studies focused on (h) experience of staff, administrators, or parents (3.7%, n = 3) and (i) working environments (2.5%, n = 2).

Data Collection Methods

Interviewing (64.2%, n = 52) was the most frequently used method for data collection, followed by focus groups (12.3%, n = 10). Some researchers collected written documents (9.9%, n = 8), such as daily journals (e.g., Goodman & West-Olatunji, 2009), reflection papers (e.g., Howard, Inman, & Altman, 2006; Schure et al., 2008), or e-mail correspondence (e.g., Hoskins & Goldberg, 2005). Two articles analyzed data collected from website postings (i.e., Erwin, 2006; Milsom & Bryant, 2006), while six articles (7.4%, n = 6) analyzed online responses/dialogue from participants. In terms of the number of data collection methods employed, 54 of the 81 articles (67%) collected data from either interviews or focus groups, 20 articles (25%) used more than two methods, and seven articles (9%) utilized one method that was neither interview nor focus group.

Target Populations

The target populations of the articles were categorized into eight groups: counseling practitioners including school counselors (21.0%, n = 17), counseling master’s students (16%, n = 13), K-12 students (13.6%, n = 11), faculty members (8.6%, n = 7), counseling doctoral students (7.4%, n = 6), clients in intervention or counseling (4.9%, n = 4), undergraduate students (2.5%, n = 2), and others (25.9%, n = 21). Populations categorized as others encompass adult ethnic groups, LGBT populations, and adults who have certain experiences, such as war or abuse. The findings of this content analysis indicate that graduate students and faculty members in counseling programs and counseling practitioners comprised the greatest number of study participants in the articles examined.

Summary

This content analysis found that the percentage of qualitative research articles published in JCD had slightly increased within the period of 2005–2010, while the percentage in CES and PSC fluctuated from year to year. The finding of a slight increase of qualitative articles in JCD is consistent with the previous study (see Erford et al., 2011), although the amount is small. In terms of authorship, collaborative writing was the preferred style for qualitative research manuscripts; 81.5% of the total articles were written by multiple authors. This phenomenon can be explained by the fact that triangulation of researchers is one of commonly used methods to establish trustworthiness in qualitative traditions (Hays & Wood, 2011; Patton, 2002).

Regarding qualitative research traditions, the majority of articles published in three journals followed particular traditions. The most popular traditions were phenomenology and grounded theory, followed by CQR and ethnography. This finding is consistent with previous literature (Hays & Wood, 2011) that identified these four frameworks as emerging in the counseling profession. Along with trustworthiness, the description of researchers as human instruments was found in less than half of all articles examined in this analysis. In other words, many authors did not provide a narrative of their backgrounds and/or researchers’ potential biases and assumptions. When considering that one of the most critical aspects of qualitative research involves recognizing researchers’ assumptions and their personal and professional influence on the research process (LeCompte & Preissle, 2003), the lack of information on a researcher’s role as human instrument in many articles was an interesting finding.

The results of the topics of interest indicated that experiences in diverse groups were the most frequently explored themes in qualitative articles. This finding is very inspiring when considering that multicultural counseling can benefit from qualitative research. In fact, qualitative research can emphatically represent understudied populations in the counseling literature and help diverse populations involve in research for advocating themselves (Lyons & Bike, 2010). Concerning data collection methods, authors of the articles analyzed used a variety of sources for data (e.g., daily journals/reflection paper of participants, suicidal notes of clients, websites of specific interest); however, most commonly used data collection methods were interviews and focus groups.

Limitations

As in all research studies, the current study has certain limitations. First, we limited our content analysis investigation to three journals guided by Berríos and Lucca (2006); significant contributions published in other professional counseling journals are missing from this study. Therefore, findings of this study may be different from those in any content analysis including other counseling journals selected under different definitions of the two selection criteria. Future research should consider conducting a larger scale investigation of qualitative research articles in diverse counseling journals. Second, the content areas were initially generated by previous researchers and were restructured by the current researchers; thus, it is possible that another group of authors could have developed major themes in a different manner, in turn, resulting in different findings. Third, we classified the articles as defined in the previous section. Other researchers may have categorized the articles differently, thereby leading to somewhat different results. Finally, a comprehensive evaluation or screening of the quality of the articles was not performed. Although it was not intended to determine each article’s overall quality, the research design and data analyses in this study might have been strengthened by doing so. For example, some articles analyzed did not provide descriptions of strategies to gain trustworthiness. Therefore, identifying and categorizing approaches of trustworthiness that were not explicitly illustrated in the articles were primarily based on our conceptualization and then consultation with the qualitative research literature and peer debriefers.

Recommendations for Future Directions

Qualitative researchers engaged in a rigorous qualitative investigation with a diverse group of people endeavor to consider themselves as a human instrument during the research process (Morrow, Rakhsha, & Castañeda, 2001). In this content analysis study, it was evident that many qualitative researchers in the articles recognized themselves as an instrument and endeavored to ensure trustworthiness using a variety of strategies. However, some studies in the manuscripts did not provide reflexivity of the researchers and information on strategies to minimize threats to trustworthiness. Furthermore, almost 20% of the articles analyzed did not provide information about strategies to ensure trustworthiness. To encourage methodologically rigorous qualitative investigations, counseling researchers should use consistent reporting guidelines. JCD has developed certain guidelines for authors submitting qualitative research to the journal, which require full attention to researcher biases, methodological rigor, and trustworthiness strategies (Choudhuri, Glauser, & Peregoy, 2004; Singh & Shelton, 2011). Researchers who submit qualitative manuscripts should attend to best practice guidelines and establish standards in reporting their study (Kline, 2003).

Data from this study also revealed that underrepresentation of qualitative research in counseling journals is inconsistent, although a slight increase of qualitative articles published in JCD was detected (see Table 1). The scarcity of published articles using qualitative methodology may stem from the following reasons: (a) complexities in identifying a qualitative tradition to answer research questions and the systematic methods in qualitative analysis (Hunt, 2011); (b) a heavy emphasis on the positivist tradition that counts on quantitative methods in the field of counseling (Lundervold & Belwood, 2000; McLeod, 2001); and/or (c) a lack of qualitative courses offered at the master’s and doctoral levels (Ponterotto, 2005). On the basis of this study’s findings, we provide several recommendations to address these challenges.

First, counseling researchers need to investigate qualitative approaches and methods recurrent in the counseling profession (Hays & Wood, 2011; Hunt, 2011). For instance, Hays and Wood (2011) presented six qualitative research frameworks consistently identified as emerging in the field of counseling. They proposed ways to infuse qualitative research traditions when designing counseling research. Similarly, other counseling professionals have invested a great deal of effort in exploring emerging methodological trends providing new insights into counseling research. For example, Hill et al. (2005) and Hill, Thompson, and Williams (1997) introduced the CQR method to counseling research by implementing it as an emerging methodology through the analysis of 27 articles using CQR (Hill et al., 2005). These efforts together encourage and guide counseling researchers to conduct qualitative studies with a clearer understanding of varying qualitative approaches.

Second, because multicultural issues in counseling have been strongly encouraged as the demography of the United States becomes more racially and culturally diverse and are increasingly important for counselors and counselor educators (Sue, Arredondo, & McDavis, 1992), responding to the paradigm shift of scientific inquiry becomes vital to the counseling profession. Research results from positivist perspectives may frequently be irrelevant to underrepresented and marginalized populations (Patton, 2002); thus, qualitative inquiry that attends to the context in which minority groups experience phenomena should be encouraged in counseling research. Lived experiences of many underserved populations were best explored by using qualitative approaches (e.g., Malott, Paone, Humphreys, & Martinez, 2010; Tucker, Dixon, & Griddine, 2010; Varjas et al., 2007). These studies together support the value of conducting qualitative research in the counseling field by uncovering the unique experiences of marginalized populations, which accordingly help counselors better comprehend the challenges clients face.

Third, CACREP’s (2009) standards that include both quantitative and qualitative research in counseling students training are considered a welcome addition to qualitative research. However, counselor education programs need to make an additional effort to appreciate the role of qualitative research training and to structurally incorporate ways to facilitate qualitative research among students. According to Reisetter et al. (2004), many students in counselor education programs do not relate to academic research and thus do not develop a research identity. Reisetter et al. suggests qualitative approaches in research training could foster strong positive attitudes toward qualitative research, because counselors perceive traditional views to conflict with their value systems (Woolsey, 1986). As the counseling profession emphasizes self-awareness as a critical aspect of a counselor’s competence, qualitative research that focuses on examining a researcher’s assumptions and biases may be a natural fit for counseling students. Qualitative inquiry can have a critical impact on the counseling profession. This requires researchers to have adequate education and experience mentorship in qualitative approaches they plan to use (Kline, 2008).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Arredondo

Rosen

D. C.

Rice

Perez

Tovar-Gamero

Z. G.

(2005). Multicultural counseling: A 10-year content analysis of the Journal of Counseling & Development. Journal of Counseling & Development, 83, 155–161. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2005.tb00592.x

Bennett

S. K.

Rowe

Hill

T. L.

(1991). A content analysis of the JMCD revisited: How are we doing five years later? Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 19, 98–104. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1912.1991.tb00546.x

Berríos

Lucca

(2006). Qualitative methodology in counseling research: Recent contributions and challenges for a new century. Journal of Counseling & Development, 84, 174–186. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2006.tb00393.x

Buboltz

W. C.

Miller

Williams

D. J.

(1999). Content analysis of research in the Journal of Counseling Psychology (1973–1998). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 496–503. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.46.4.496

Buki

L. P.

Kogan

Keen

Uman

(2005). In the midst of a hurricane: A case study of a couple living with AIDS. Journal of Counseling & Development, 83(4), 470–479. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2005.tb00368.x

Choudhuri

Glauser

Peregoy

(2004). Guidelines for writing qualitative manuscripts for the Journal of Counseling & Development. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82, 443–446. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2004.tb00332.x

Constantine

M. G.

Smith

Redington

R. M.

Owens

(2008). Racial microaggressions against Black counseling and counseling psychology faculty: A central challenge in the multicultural counseling movement. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86, 348–355. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2008.tb00519.x

Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2009). 2009 standards. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cacrep.org/template/index.cfm

Daniels

J. A.

Bradley

M. C.

Cramer

D. P.

Winkler

Kinebrew

Crockett

(2007). In the aftermath of a school hostage event: A case study of one school counselor’s response. Professional School Counseling, 10, 482–489.

10.

Erford

B. T.

Miller

E. M.

Schein

McDonald

Ludwig

Leishear

(2011). Journal of Counseling & Development publication patterns: Author and article characteristics from 1994 to 2009. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89, 73–89. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2011.tb00062.x

11.

Erwin

(2006). A qualitative analysis of the lesbian connection’s discussion forum. Journal of Counseling & Development, 84, 95–107. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2006.tb00383.x

12.

Falco

L. D.

Bauman

Sumnicht

Engelstad

(2011). Content analysis of the Professional School Counseling journal: The first ten years. Professional School Counseling, 14, 271–277.

13.

Faulkner

R. A.

Klock

Gale

J. E.

(2002). Qualitative research in family therapy: Publication trends from 1980 to 1999. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 28, 69–74. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2002.tb01174.x

14.

Goodman

R. D.

West-Olatunji

C. A.

(2009). Applying critical consciousness: Culturally competent disaster response outcomes. Journal of Counseling & Development, 87, 458–465. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2009.tb00130.x

15.

Harwood

T. G.

Garry

(2003). An overview of content analysis. The Marketing Review, 3, 479–498. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1362/146934703771910080

16.

Hays

Wood

(2011). Infusing qualitative traditions in counseling research design. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89, 288–295. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2011.tb00091.x

17.

Hays

D. G.

Dean

J. K.

Chang

C. Y.

(2007). Addressing privilege and oppression in counselor training and practice: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Counseling & Development, 85, 317–324. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2007.tb00480.x

18.

Hays

D. G.

Singh

(2012). Qualitative inquiry in clinical and educational settings. British Journal of Psychology, 103, 289–290. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.2012.02103.x

19.

Hill

C. E.

Knox

Thompson

B. J.

Williams

E. N.

Hess

S. A.

Ladany

(2005). Consensual qualitative research: An update. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 196–205. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.196

20.

Hill

C. E.

Thompson

B. J.

Williams

E. N.

(1997). A guide for conducting consensual qualitative research. The Counseling Psychologist, 25, 517–572. doi:10.1177/0011000097254001

21.

Hoskins

C. M.

Goldberg

A. D.

(2005). Doctoral student persistence in counselor education programs: Student-program match. Counselor Education and Supervision, 43(3), 175–188.

22.

Howard

E. E.

Inman

A. G.

Altman

A. N.

(2006). Critical incidents among novice counselor trainees. Counselor Education & Supervision, 46, 88–102. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2006.tb00015.x

23.

Hsieh

H.-F.

Shannon

S. E.

(2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687

24.

Hunt

(2011). Publishing qualitative research in counseling journals. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89, 296–300. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2011.tb00092.x

25.

Kline

W. B.

(2003). The evolving research tradition in Counselor Education and Supervision. Counselor Education and Supervision, 43, 82–85. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2003.tb01832.x

26.

Kline

W. B.

(2008). Developing and submitting credible qualitative manuscripts. Counselor Education & Supervision, 47, 210–217. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2008.tb00052.x

27.

Krippendorff

(2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

28.

LeCompte

M. D.

Preissle

(2003). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Academic Press.

29.

Loveland

J. M.

Buboltz

W. C.

Schwartz

Gibson

(2006). Content Analysis of CDQ from 1994–2003: Implications and trends for practitioners and researchers from a decade of research. The Career Development Quarterly, 54, 256–264. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2006.tb00156.x

30.

Lundervold

D. A.

Belwood

M. F.

(2000). The best kept secret in counseling: Single-case (N = 1) experimental designs. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 92–103. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb02565.x

31.

Lyons

H. Z.

Bike

D. H.

(2010). Designing and interpreting qualitative research in multicultural counseling. In Suzuki

L. A.

Casas

J. M.

Alexander

C. M.

Ponterotto

J. G.

(Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (3rd ed., pp. 413–425). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

32.

Malott

K. M.

Paone

T. R.

Humphreys

Martinez

(2010). Use of group counseling to address ethnic identity development: Application with adolescents of Mexican descent. Professional School Counseling, 13, 257–267.

33.

McLeod

(2001). Qualitative research in counseling and psychotherapy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

34.

Milsom

Bryant

(2006). School counseling departmental web sites: What message do we send? Professional School Counseling, 10, 210–216.

35.

Morrow

S. L.

(2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 250–260. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250

36.

Morrow

S. L.

Rakhsha

Castañeda

C. L.

(2001). Qualitative research methods for multicultural counseling. In Ponterotto

J. G.

Suzuki

L. A.

Alexander

C. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of multi-cultural counseling (pp. 575–603). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

37.

Nugent

F. A.

(2000). Introduction to the profession of counseling (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall.

38.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

39.

Ponterotto

J. G.

(2002). Qualitative research methods: The fifth force in psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 30, 394–406. doi:10.1177/0011000002303002

40.

Ponterotto

J. G.

(2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 126–136. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.126

41.

Pope-Davis

D. B.

Ligiero

D. P.

Liang

Codrington

(2001). Fifteen years of the Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development a content analysis. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 29, 226–238. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1912.2001.tb00466.x

42.

Reisetter

Korcuska

J. S.

Yexley

Bonds

Nikels

McHenry

(2004). Counselor educators and qualitative research: Affirming a research identity. Counselor Education & Supervision, 44, 2–16. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2004.tb01856.x

43.

Rogers

J. R.

Bromley

J. L.

McNally

C. J.

Lester

(2007). Content analysis of suicide notes as a test of the motivational component of the existential-constructivist model of suicide. Journal of Counseling & Development, 85, 182–188. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2007.tb00461.x

44.

Rubel

Villalba

J. A.

(2009). How to publish qualitative research in JSGW: A couple more voices in the conversation. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 34, 295–306. doi:10.1080/01933920903251964

45.

Schreier

(2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage

46.

Schure

M. B.

Christopher

(2008). Mind-body medicine and the art of self-care: Teaching mindfulness to counseling students through yoga, meditation, and qigong. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86, 47–56. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2008.tb00625.x

47.

Singh

A. A.

Shelton

(2011). A content analysis of LGBTQ qualitative research in counseling: A ten-year review. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89, 217–226. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2011.tb00080.x

48.

Smith

S. D.

Brinson

Mityagin

(2008). Multiculturalism, diversity, and social advocacy: A 17-year content analysis of Counselor Education and Supervision. Counselor Education & Supervision, 47, 249–263. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2008.tb00055.x

49.

Sommer

C. A.

Ward

J. E.

Scofield

(2010). Metaphoric stories in supervision of internship: A qualitative study. Journal of Counseling & Development, 88, 500–507. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2010.tb00052.x

50.

Sue

D. W.

Arredondo

McDavis

R. J.

(1992). Multicultural counseling competencies and standards: A call to the profession. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70, 477–486. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1992.tb01642.x

51.

Tucker

Dixon

Griddine

(2010). Academically successful African American male urban high school students’ experiences of mattering to others at school. Professional School Counseling, 14, 135–145.

52.

Varjas

Graybill

Mahan

Meyers

Dew

Marshall

… Birckbichler

(2007). Urban service providers’ perspectives on school responses to gay, lesbian, and questioning students: An exploratory study. Professional School Counseling, 11, 113–119.

53.

Walsh

M. E.

Barrett

J. G.

DePaul

(2007). Day-to-day activities of school counselors: Alignment with new directions in the field and the ASCA National Model. Professional School Counseling, 10, 370–378.

54.

Woolsey

L. K.

(1986). Research and practice in counseling: A conflict of values. Counselor Education and Supervision, 26, 84–94.

55.

Yeh

Inman

A. G.

(2007). Qualitative data analysis and interpretation in counseling psychology: Strategies for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 35, 369–403. doi:10.1177/0011000006292596

A Content Analysis of Qualitative Research in Select ACA Journals (2005–2010)

Abstract

Keywords

Purpose of the Study

Method

Materials

Research Team

Procedures

Results

Authorship and Affiliation

Qualitative Research Tradition

Strategies Selected to Ensure Trustworthiness

Topics of Interest

Data Collection Methods

Target Populations

Summary

Limitations

Recommendations for Future Directions

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

References