View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Pragmatic Guide to Generic Qualitative Research in Counselor Education

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Pragmatic Guide to Generic Qualitative Research in Counselor Education
Language: English
Authors: Phillip L. Waalkes (ORCID 0000-0002-2956-5078), Daniel A. DeCino (ORCID 0000-0002-5514-3063), Tiffany Somerville, Monica Maria Phelps-Pineda (ORCID 0000-0001-8084-1122), Stephen V. Flynn, Joe LeBlanc (ORCID 0000-0001-7472-6857)
Source: Counselor Education and Supervision. 2024 63(4):392-404.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Descriptors: Counselor Training, Qualitative Research, Educational Quality, Difficulty Level, Intentional Learning
DOI: 10.1002/ceas.12316
ISSN: 0011-0035
1556-6978
Abstract: Few practical guidelines exist for conducting generic qualitative research (GQR) with rigor and intentional purpose. This article offers varied purposes of GQR (practicality and creating change, flexible blending of methods, and innovation) and pragmatic guidance for counselor educators and doctoral students conceptualizing, designing, and conducting rigorous GQR studies.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1451757
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE_mYBiUL1wAew1fwN9NGVnAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDLxSIz4zukLExDbsQQIBEICBmyGqpdjL0cf99C-IgOBJeMPLKBgwqV3FzdmMI_Ssx1gdFTxVRS5MUovi3r5F5SiWfnE33NEduIM3exOy2lSBB1Alv_toAiIxCbejH8P_-2rqPInWW2C9HpmlpZvzZvWxV_BonxuYtj4HDH5lH3uF-dkO5jbVkvtH1tEqSGvOh_n7sihuJDHdeAq8mQmIVmEMnayiiIzqie2IceP1
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0181411667;cev01dec.24;2024Dec06.02:54;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0181411667-1">A pragmatic guide to generic qualitative research in counselor education </title> <p>Few practical guidelines exist for conducting generic qualitative research (GQR) with rigor and intentional purpose. This article offers varied purposes of GQR (practicality and creating change, flexible blending of methods, and innovation) and pragmatic guidance for counselor educators and doctoral students conceptualizing, designing, and conducting rigorous GQR studies.</p> <p>Keywords: basic qualitative research; counselor education; descriptive qualitative; generic qualitative research; qualitative methods</p> <hd id="AN0181411667-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Generic qualitative research (GQR) is characterized by the refusal of researchers to claim full allegiance to an established qualitative methodology (e.g., narrative inquiry, grounded theory; Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref1">17</reflink>]). It is one of the most frequently used methodologies for qualitative dissertations in counselor education (Waalkes et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref2">34</reflink>]). According to Waalkes and colleagues' ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref3">35</reflink>]) content analysis of GQR dissertations (<emph>N</emph> = 70) published between 2017 and 2020, GQR dissertations often lacked strong methodological justifications guided by scholarly literature. GQR studies conducted by novice researchers can lack rigor when the researcher is not aware of relevant scholarly works on qualitative methodologies and has not carefully considered all elements of the research framework (Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref4">17</reflink>]). The Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref5">10</reflink>]; 6b.4a, 6b.4c) standards and several researchers (Hays et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref6">14</reflink>]; Waalkes et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref7">34</reflink>]) have emphasized the importance of depth in knowledge of qualitative methodology and increased rigor for qualitative research in counselor education.</p> <p>In similar fields like nursing, researchers have published conceptual articles on GQR focusing on its parameters, definitions, and requirements for rigor (e.g., Caelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref8">5</reflink>]; Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref9">17</reflink>]; Sandelowski, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref10">30</reflink>]). Despite these articles, authors (e.g., Caelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref11">5</reflink>]; Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref12">17</reflink>]) have called for greater clarity in procedures and requirements for conducting GQR with rigor and trustworthiness. Yet, few researchers have offered practical guidelines for conducting GQR, and few scholarly resources describe how GQR is a good fit for addressing important problems in current counseling research. Established qualitative methodologies are based on years of rigorous analysis and theoretical reflection that are currently not as present for GQR (Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref13">17</reflink>]). With this article, we aim to help address this gap by promoting rigor and intentionality in GQR through offering specific strategies for utilizing GQR and illuminating the purposes and promise of GQR to help researchers innovate and address current issues in counseling and counselor education (Auta et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref14">1</reflink>]; Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref15">17</reflink>]). If counseling researchers only use established approaches, they remain limited in the kinds of research questions they can ask and the potential for research innovation (Lenz, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref16">20</reflink>]; Giordano, et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref17">12</reflink>]). Therefore, the purpose of this article is to offer novice researchers and research mentors an overview of different perspectives on GQR, possibilities for its usage, and pragmatic guidance on important considerations and procedures in conceptualizing, designing, and conducting rigorous GQR studies in counseling research.</p> <hd id="AN0181411667-3">GENERIC QUALITATIVE RESEARCH</hd> <p>Various names exist for qualitative methodologies similar to GQR, including <emph>basic qualitative research</emph>, <emph>interpretative qualitative research</emph>, or <emph>a qualitative research study</emph> (Merriam & Tisdell, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref18">22</reflink>]), each with its own unique variation in focus and purpose. Researchers use GQR for a variety of reasons and purposes causing it to elude definition. Some researchers characterized GQR as a focus on researchers refusing to claim allegiance to one established qualitative methodology (e.g., interpretative phenomenological analysis; constructivist grounded theory; Caelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref19">5</reflink>]; Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref20">17</reflink>]). From this perspective, researchers using GQR deviate from the intent and guidelines of a single established methodology and instead blend congruent tools and techniques from multiple established methodologies in ways that benefit the study (Caelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref21">5</reflink>]; Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref22">17</reflink>]; Patton, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref23">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>Others define GQR based on what it is <emph>not</emph> (Kennedy, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref24">18</reflink>]; Percy et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref25">27</reflink>]). Percy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref26">27</reflink>]) indicated that GQR is suitable when investigating participants' reports of their opinions, attitudes, beliefs, or reflection of things in their outer world and where established qualitative methodologies are inappropriate because of the focus, content, or kind of data collected in the study. For example, according to Percy and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref27">27</reflink>]), if researchers focus on the inner organization and structure of participants' cognitive processing of experiences, then phenomenology is appropriate. In contrast, if researchers focus on the participants' opinions and reflections of actual outer‐world content, phenomenology would not be appropriate, but GQR would be appropriate (Percy et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref28">27</reflink>]). Some researchers (e.g., Bellamy et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref29">2</reflink>]) support their justification for choosing GQR with a table outlining reasons why common qualitative methodologies were not selected for their studies. Table 1, which we modeled after Bellamy and colleagues' ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref30">2</reflink>]) table, provides a template for researchers to create and justify their choice of GQR. It offers sentence stems that researchers can complete by adding reasons unique to their topics and the problem or gap in the literature for not choosing various established methodologies. Along similar lines, some define the basic purpose of GQR as seeking to understand how people describe and make sense of their lives by taking a qualitative stance and using qualitative procedures without adding an additional philosophical dimension like other qualitative methods (Merriam & Tisdell, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref31">22</reflink>]; Patton, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref32">26</reflink>]). Others define GQR based on its potential for pragmatism in skillfully using qualitative methods to answers questions about relevant topics in a real‐world setting, often in ways that help take action to address important problems and create change (Kennedy, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref33">18</reflink>]; Patton, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref34">26</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref35">32</reflink>]). Some researchers have cautioned that combining pragmatism with a lack of intentional design and a lack of understanding of qualitative methods can limit rigor (Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref36">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>1 TABLE Example reasons for not selecting common qualitative methodologies.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>Methodology</th><th>Example reasons for not selecting</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Consensual qualitative research</td><td>This study is not focused on understanding participants' experiences, attitudes, or beliefs (Hill & Knox, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2021</xref>) because...</td></tr><tr><td>Ethnography</td><td>This study is not focused on an investigating culture (Wolcott, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr37">2008</xref>) because...</td></tr><tr><td>Grounded theory</td><td>This study is not focused on developing a theory that illuminates the components of a process (Charmaz, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr7">2014</xref>) because...</td></tr><tr><td>Narrative inquiry</td><td>This study is not focused on understanding participant narratives, including characters, places, context, and changes over time (Clandinin & Connelly, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">2000</xref>) because...</td></tr><tr><td>Phenomenology</td><td>This study is not focused on understanding participants' inner meaning making of their lived experiences (Percy et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr27">2015</xref>) because...</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>: Researchers can fill in sentence stems (after the "because") based on reasons specific to their study driven by the gap in the literature and/or the problem statement. Identifying purposes and possibilities of using generic qualitative research that address the gap or problem can help researchers in completing these sentences.</p> <p>The variety of GQR definitions underlines its lack of consensus and standardization. In fact, Sandelowski ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref37">30</reflink>]) critiqued efforts to define research methodologies, including GQR, as implying fixed and static borders that do not capture the variations in actual practice of methodologies. Defining GQR can falsely signal boundaries where well‐defined methodologies are clearly differentiated from each other, whereas, in real‐world application, these boundaries are quite permeable (Sandelowski, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref38">30</reflink>]). Additionally, established methods are not static, but rather evolving and shifting as researchers engage with them over time (Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref39">17</reflink>]). Despite the limitations of classifying qualitative research, understanding the defining attributes, rules, and procedures of established methodologies is still critical for GQR researchers to intentionally design studies with coherence (i.e., congruence between research approach, research purpose, research questions, data collection, data analysis, and presentation of data) with clear purpose (Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref40">17</reflink>]; Kline, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref41">19</reflink>]). To understand these elements, considering the use of theory in GQR is a helpful starting point.</p> <hd id="AN0181411667-4">Theory, epistemology, and GQR</hd> <p>Theories, which are often specific to the researched content (e.g., attachment theory), fall under the broader umbrella of epistemology, the study of knowledge, knowledge acquisition, and the relationship between the knower and the one who is seeking to know (Ponterotto, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref42">28</reflink>]). Researchers have different perspectives on how epistemology (e.g., positivism, constructivism) can guide their studies (Ponterotto, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref43">28</reflink>]). For example, researchers operating under positivistic paradigms believe in seeking objective truth and that knowledge is created by following rigorous and standardized research protocols. Additionally, they believe that the researcher is objective and unbiased and does not influence the knowledge that participants provide. In contrast, researchers utilizing constructivist paradigms take a subjectivist stance believing that knowledge is socially constructed and that the dynamic between the researcher and participants is critical to knowledge creation in research (Ponterotto, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref44">28</reflink>]). To achieve coherence, qualitative researchers should have consistent epistemological perspectives guiding all components of their design (purpose, research questions, data collection methods, data analysis; Kline, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref45">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>Following theoretical and epistemological perspectives of established methods can provide researchers with a blueprint for promoting coherence in their studies. Unlike established methods (e.g., phenomenology's ties to long‐standing and well‐articulated theoretical assumptions; Moustakas, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref46">23</reflink>]), GQR researchers cannot articulate a set of theoretical assumptions consistent with their methodology (Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref47">17</reflink>]). This lack of prescription of theory and epistemology in GQR can lead to poorly articulated and designed research frameworks (Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref48">17</reflink>]). In the absence of prepackaged theories and epistemologies, GQR researchers are forced to make choices about the epistemological beliefs guiding the study and how and to what extent theory informs their work (Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref49">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>This lack of allegiance to one theory or epistemology in GQR may lead novice researchers to feel that they do not have a clear starting point in integrating epistemology and theory into their research (Kennedy, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref50">18</reflink>]). Yet, GQR researchers should identify epistemological beliefs guiding their study to promote coherence (Kline, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref51">19</reflink>]) and should consider the degree to which they want to integrate theory. Theory is always inherent in research methodology whether it is acknowledged or not (Sandelowski, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref52">30</reflink>]) and researchers always build upon traditions and ideas that came before them even if that lineage is unarticulated (Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref53">17</reflink>]). Additionally, integrating theory in research is unavoidable because researchers always bring their own biases, epistemological beliefs, motivations, and life experiences (Ponterotto, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref54">28</reflink>]; Ravitch & Riggan, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref55">29</reflink>]; Sandelowski, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref56">30</reflink>]). Theory in research can range on a spectrum from informal hunches the researcher has about how the topic should be studied (e.g., "it would be more effective for me to interview counselors rather than clients on this topic") to formalized and substantive theories that are generalizable because they have been heavily researched (e.g., Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory; Ravitch & Riggan, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref57">29</reflink>]). Researchers can vary in the degree to which they explicitly utilize formalized theories in the research process. This degree is impacted by the nature of the research questions, intended audience of the research, and beliefs of the researchers themselves (Ravitch & Riggan, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref58">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>When operating from practical research purposes, GQR researchers may choose to deemphasize theory in their studies (Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref59">32</reflink>]). Researchers choosing to deemphasize theory should clearly explain the rationale behind this decision citing their epistemological beliefs. For example, a GQR researcher collaborating with a counseling clinic director to identify barriers for racial and ethnic minority groups in accessing counseling services may argue that a practical approach, which considers but does not emphasize theory, helps collaborators engage with the research in ways that increase the study's usefulness.</p> <p>Like other qualitative methods, GQR researchers should align their design choices, including decisions about the degree theory is integrated, with their chosen epistemology in ways that promote coherence (i.e., where the epistemology is consistently clear across all parts of the study's design; Kline, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref60">19</reflink>]). To help achieve this, GQR researchers should explain the rationales behind elements of their designs in detail, noting specific reasons for their choices rooted in epistemology. Typically, this involves researchers describing how their epistemological assumptions align with their study design in their manuscripts. For example, researchers utilizing queer theory from a social constructivist paradigm for their GQR study with LGBTQ+ clients seeking LGBTQ+‐affirming services could explain how GQR promotes group collaboration and understanding in ways that illuminate participants' experiences within oppressive systems.</p> <hd id="AN0181411667-5">Purposes and possibilities of GQR</hd> <p>Given GQR's lack of a consensus definition and lack of clear justifications for utilizing GQR in counseling research (Waalkes et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref61">35</reflink>]), researchers should carefully consider why they are using GQR and how it fits with their epistemology and present their rationale in rich and thick detail (Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref62">17</reflink>]), as well as use a definition of GQR that aligns with their design. Researchers should identify the purpose or purposes guiding their decision to utilize GQR when designing their studies and describe how their purpose or purposes align with their epistemology in their resulting manuscripts. Researchers should consider how their definition of GQR helps inform how their studies might address a problem or a gap in the research literature. For example, researchers hoping to take action to address inequity in collaboration with a community partner might want to cite a definition of GQR focused on creating change (Kennedy, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref63">18</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref64">32</reflink>]). To promote coherence, researchers should choose purposes that align with their definitions of GQR, epistemology, their study topics, and problems or gaps in literature their studies help address (Kline, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref65">19</reflink>]). For example, a GQR researcher studying the integration of creativity in counseling may choose a purpose that emphasizes the potential for innovation as they integrate multiple creative data collection methods (e.g., poetry, photos, drawing) in ways that help address the lack of nuanced and multimodal perspectives on the topic in the research literature.</p> <p>In describing their definition of GQR, researchers should acknowledge the nuanced perspectives of GQR in the research literature and identify where their study stands within those perspectives. Researchers should consider citing multiple GQR sources that have informed their study design, including sources for each individual sampling, data collection, and data analysis technique (Sandelowski, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref66">30</reflink>]). Researchers should seek out and draw on a wide range of sources to define their research methods (Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref67">17</reflink>]). Chosen definitions with deep research support help build strong arguments for meaningful justification for utilizing GQR.</p> <p>The purpose or purposes should be relevant to the focus and topic of the research and not chosen primarily based on researcher convenience. For example, researchers should not use GQR because they are not well‐versed in qualitative methodology or because they view the method as less demanding (Kennedy, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref68">18</reflink>]). Doctoral students may choose GQR because of pressure from their institutions or dissertation chairpeople instead of based on the research focus, epistemology, or the potential contribution to the counseling profession (Giordano et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref69">12</reflink>]; Kline, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref70">19</reflink>]; Waalkes et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref71">35</reflink>]). Power dynamics and systemic factors may influence doctoral students' selection of GQR. For example, some institutions may encourage or require doctoral students to utilize GQR because it is taught in research coursework or it is perceived to help students complete their dissertations more quickly. Not wanting to damage their mentoring relationship or hinder their successful completion of their dissertation, doctoral students may feel reluctance or lack self‐efficacy to challenge their mentor's or institution's insistence on using GQR.</p> <p>In the sections below, we describe three reasons researchers might cite for utilizing GQR for counseling research: <emph>practicality and creating change</emph>, <emph>flexible blending of methods</emph>, and <emph>innovation</emph>. Although describing each in its own section can appear like each purpose is distinct, the purposes overlap, and counseling researchers can cite multiple purposes in their GQR studies. In fact, the innovative use of approaches that blend multiple qualitative methods in GQR can help maximize the richness and complexity of data (Chan et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref72">6</reflink>]). These overlaps highlight the potential for complexity and flexibility of GQR.</p> <hd id="AN0181411667-6">Practicality and creating change</hd> <p>Researchers can use GQR as a practical approach to conduct research with real‐world applications or to take action that contributes to creating change (Kennedy, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref73">18</reflink>]; Patton, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref74">26</reflink>]). Researchers should consider the fit of action‐oriented and social‐justice‐focused methodologies (e.g., community‐based participatory research [Wallerstein et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref75">36</reflink>]], sista circle methodology [Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref76">16</reflink>]], Indigenous methodologies [Chilisa, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref77">8</reflink>]], postcritical ethnography [Noblit et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref78">25</reflink>]]) for their change‐focused studies. However, researchers may determine that GQR is a better and more practical fit for their studies than these methodologies due to study focus, epistemology, researcher and participant identities, or data collection strategies (Kennedy, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref79">18</reflink>]; Kline, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref80">19</reflink>]; Percy et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref81">27</reflink>]). Practical GQR approaches can also help facilitate accessibility and lessen power differentials in collaborative counseling research. For example, Smith and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref82">32</reflink>]) argued that GQR can help address a lack of research focused on enhancing nursing practice and patient care in ways that theoretically driven research focusing on generating and testing theories cannot. Similarly, researchers (Murray, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref83">24</reflink>]; Sharma et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref84">31</reflink>]) have pointed out the purposes of counseling research and needs of communities it was meant to serve may be disconnected. Utilizing GQR in counseling research can provide a flexible framework to help address this gap and help facilitate more accessible collaboration with research partners outside of academia. Interdisciplinary research teams can improve the overall quality and impact of counseling research by integrating multiple perspectives and promoting greater accountability of design (Chan et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref85">6</reflink>]). For example, researchers can use GQR to reconstruct methodologies collaboratively with individuals in participant communities (Sharma et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref86">31</reflink>]). Additionally, GQR may appeal to nonacademic researchers with limited time and financial resources who desire to affect change and relate knowledge to action (Kennedy, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref87">18</reflink>]). Practitioners using GQR approaches to collaborate with stakeholders and address the needs of schools, counseling clinics, and community organizations may lead to more research utilization by practitioners and more social validity (Murray, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref88">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>Practical approaches in GQR require reflection on epistemology and theory. Theory can help guide how researchers seek answers to research questions and promote coherence in research design (Kline, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref89">19</reflink>]). Yet, an overemphasis on formalized theory can create distance and power differentials between researchers in academia and collaborators outside of academia who may be less familiar with such theories (Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref90">32</reflink>]). Reducing focus on formalized theory in pragmatic‐focused GQR can also help promote accessibility of counseling research for a wider audience, which could help contribute to reducing the research–practice gap (Murray, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref91">24</reflink>]). Even in deemphasizing formalized theory, GQR researchers should still explain this decision considering their epistemological beliefs (Kline, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref92">19</reflink>]; Ponterotto, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref93">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>Researchers must consider their audience in deciding the degree to which they utilize formalized theory (Ravitch & Riggan, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref94">29</reflink>]). Traditionally, academics have directed their research to other academics, and most established qualitative methodologies were developed with the assumption that academics would use them. More recently, academics have sought to utilize research to create change outside of academia by collaborating with researchers outside of academia and broadened their audiences (Patton, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref95">26</reflink>]). In these contexts, researchers must consider their audience's familiarity with formalized theory and choose to utilize and explain theory in a way that is more accessible to its nonacademic audience or collaborators. Often formalized theory texts are abstract, complex, and dense, which can contribute to inaccessibility of research to readers and collaborators.</p> <p>Although designing a research study absent of the influence of theory is not possible as theory is always present in research whether acknowledged or not (Sandelowski, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref96">30</reflink>]), a GQR approach can help reduce over‐immersion in formalized theory that can distract researchers from achieving their study aims and directly answering their research questions (Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref97">32</reflink>]). Also, practical GQR approaches can help researchers avoid analyzing data in ways where theoretical perspective becomes the researcher's dominant focus, overshadowing the words of participants and a focus on creating change (Auta et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref98">1</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref99">32</reflink>]). Theories are abstract and typically removed from participant data and, when theory is not considered reflexively, theoretical assumptions may lead researchers to present findings that are not accurate to the experiences of participants (Auta et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref100">1</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref101">32</reflink>]). Researchers focusing on formalized theory without using reflexivity can undermine the ways qualitative research can contribute to evidence‐based practices and client outcomes (Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref102">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>Before selecting a practical GQR approach, researchers should examine their use of theory with reflexivity (Kennedy, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref103">18</reflink>]) and consider the alignment of their use of theory with their epistemological beliefs. In other words, they should consider how and why they are using theory in ways that promote coherence through consistency in epistemology across all components of the research design (Kline, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref104">19</reflink>]). For example, a researcher operating using a critical theory paradigm may argue that they are deemphasizing formalized theory to frame findings in ways that are less accessible to nonacademic audiences and distant from the purpose of creating change (Auta et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref105">1</reflink>]; Hays & Singh, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref106">13</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref107">32</reflink>]). Additionally, when utilizing a social constructivist or critical paradigm, researchers must consider their own personal connection to their research and develop an evolving sense of their intuitions, motivations, assumptions, and biases to understand their use of theory with depth and how theory might impact their interactions with nonacademic collaborators and participants (Ponterotto, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref108">28</reflink>]). For example, Bellamy and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref109">2</reflink>]) utilized GQR to understand barriers for resettled refugees in accessing medicines and pharmacies in everyday terms using everyday language. This pragmatic GQR approach helped increase accessibility of their findings and advocated for pragmatic changes in practice. In this way, the accessibility and flexibility of GQR can allow space for practitioners to consume research and reinvent it to suit the needs of their clients (Murray, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref110">24</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181411667-7">Flexible blending of methods</hd> <p>Counseling research can provide more depth, complexity, and richness when utilizing multimethod approaches (Chan et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref111">6</reflink>]; Lenz, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref112">20</reflink>]). Methodological flexibility can help infuse inclusivity into research practice in contrast to sticking closely to only one of the established qualitative methods developed in Western traditions. Blending methods can help promote more comprehensive results in ways that highlight the complexities of intersectionality and offer deeper recommendations for practice (Chan et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref113">6</reflink>]). The use of multimethod approaches can illuminate strengths‐based models that emphasize complex intersectional perspectives of marginalized people, which integrate contextual and systemic factors. Multimethod approaches can help illuminate complexity and nuance in marginalized participants' opinions and experiences in ways that challenge deficit‐focused dominant culture narratives (Chan et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref114">6</reflink>]). GQR is a good fit for mixed‐methods studies (i.e., studies blending quantitative and qualitative methods) in comparison to many established qualitative methodologies (e.g., grounded theory, consensual qualitative research) because of its descriptive breadth and potential to blend well with quantitative methods (Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref115">17</reflink>]; Percy et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref116">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>The flexibility in blending methods without being tied to following the structures of an established method in GQR can help researchers design studies that overcome the limitations of utilizing exclusively one methodology (Percy et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref117">27</reflink>]). Uncritical utilization of one established methodology by itself can hinder researchers from thinking through their epistemological and methodological assumptions and choices as they may simply follow guidelines of established methods without critically analyzing them and can limit the theoretical positioning they use to guide their studies (Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref118">17</reflink>]). Following procedures of established methodologies may fit well for many qualitative studies, but in cases where the researcher's focus or theory does not align with an established method, a multimethod GQR approach may be appropriate (Percy et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref119">27</reflink>]). When mixing methods, GQR researchers need to align components of different methods together in a cohesive and epistemologically consistent way, which requires in‐depth knowledge of multiple qualitative research methods (Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref120">17</reflink>]; Kennedy, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref121">18</reflink>]; Kline, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref122">19</reflink>]). GQR researchers should not choose methods in a haphazard and unintentional way but should have a clear plan for how components of various methods blend cohesively guided by epistemology (Ponterotto, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref123">28</reflink>]). Therefore, the process of researchers blending methodologies encourages careful and deliberate thinking and intentional study design. To facilitate this process, researchers may choose to create a table listing a different established qualitative method on each row and brainstorming arguments why each method is and is not a good fit for their study to help identify which methods might be blended and what parts of those methods should be blended. Researchers should consider their epistemological beliefs in constructing each argument (Ponterotto, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref124">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>An example of a study effectively utilizing the methodological flexibility of GQR is Brake and Kelly's ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref125">3</reflink>]) study on school social workers' experiences in a yearlong professional learning community. The researchers offer a compelling argument for why the flexibility of GQR is a good fit for the topic and aim of their study. They argue that "the analytic flexibility of GQR allows them to respond to the unpredictable and fast‐moving changes typical in school settings" (Brake & Kelly, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref126">3</reflink>], p. 670), and a more prescriptive methodology (e.g., grounded theory, phenomenology) might have hindered their ability to adapt their methods to fit with the environment. Similarly, Brake and Kelly's use of GQR helped their longitudinal study evolve over the course of the data collection in response to the evolution in their understanding of the topic and experiences of participants over time. Their goal of providing in‐depth descriptions of participants' opinions on external topics rather than making broad analytic inferences (like in grounded theory) or developing an elaborated theory of participants' inner processing (like in phenomenology) led Brake and Kelly to choose GQR for their study (Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref127">17</reflink>]; Percy et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref128">27</reflink>]). The authors also integrated elements of a practical purpose in focusing on collecting data focused on real‐world descriptions and factors that impacted the daily work of participants.</p> <hd id="AN0181411667-8">Innovation</hd> <p>Counseling researchers (e.g., Chan et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref129">6</reflink>]; Giordano, et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref130">12</reflink>]; Lenz, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref131">20</reflink>]; Murray, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref132">24</reflink>]; Sharma et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref133">31</reflink>]) have called for innovative research to promote intersectionality and the utility of research for practitioners. Due to a lack of methodological pluralism, counseling scholarship tends to be characterized by limited types of approaches that answer limited types of questions (Lenz, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref134">20</reflink>]). Novel and important research questions often arise outside of established methodologies (Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref135">17</reflink>]). GQR allows for researcher creativity and steps toward building innovative methodologies that address the insufficiencies of established methodologies and raise important new methodological questions and new theoretical approaches (Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref136">17</reflink>]). The potential for innovation in GQR can help counseling researchers focus less on compliance with established qualitative methods and more on clinical utility in ways that help address the research–practice gap (Murray, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref137">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>GQR can serve as an innovative framework for researchers to collaborate in connecting research purposes with the needs of marginalized communities. Established methods can lead to blurring responsibilities of the researcher, imposing Western forms of neutrality on the community being researched, and overlooking participant and community protocols (Sharma et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref138">31</reflink>]). Rather than pursuing research that is fast and convenient, researchers should conduct research that promotes advocacy and social justice and meaningfully informs clinical practice, teaching, or supervision (Giordano et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref139">12</reflink>]). Similarly, qualitative multimethod designs, like GQR, can help magnify the complexity of nuanced individual narratives while eliciting a systemic agenda toward action and social justice (Chan et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref140">6</reflink>]). In contrast, utilizing established qualitative methods limit the approaches and perspectives of researchers to do innovative research that meets the needs of specific communities (Auta et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref141">1</reflink>]). GQR's flexibility, practicality, and accessibility uniquely position it for participant–researcher collaboration.</p> <hd id="AN0181411667-9">PROMOTING RIGOR IN GQR</hd> <p>Widespread consensus on standardized criteria for rigor in GQR does not exist. The lack of literature and guidance on GQR may lead some researchers to view it as requiring less thought and intentional design (Caelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref142">5</reflink>]; Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref143">17</reflink>]). However, to design rigorous studies, GQR researchers often must manipulate and blend methodologies and justify choices in the relative absence of existing arguments—they must read and think broadly (Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref144">17</reflink>]). Often in collaboration with co‐researchers or dissertation chairpeople, GQR requires researchers to define the parameters of their studies with reflexivity, including their choices about trustworthiness strategies, and clearly illuminate their rationales behind these decisions in their dissemination of findings (Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref145">17</reflink>]). GQR researchers cannot fall back upon utilizing a set of commonly accepted criteria for rigor used in established qualitative methods (e.g., achieving saturation and simultaneous data collection and analysis in grounded theory).</p> <hd id="AN0181411667-10">Trustworthiness</hd> <p>Trustworthiness, or the degree to which qualitative researchers persuade their audiences that their inquiry is valuable, applicable, and worth paying attention to (Lincoln & Guba, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref146">21</reflink>]), is a central way that qualitative researchers promote rigor in their studies. In general, GQR researchers should review broad criteria to identify trustworthiness strategies (e.g., triangulation, member checking) coherent with their research designs (Bellamy et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref147">2</reflink>]; Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref148">17</reflink>]) and describe in detail the strategies used (Giordano et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref149">12</reflink>]). For example, a GQR researcher might utilize Lincoln and Guba's ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref150">21</reflink>]) criteria of credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability and articulate how the researcher has employed specific trustworthiness strategies to address each criterion. Researchers should choose trustworthiness strategies that align with their purpose or purposes in utilizing GQR (e.g., practicality and creating change, flexible blending of methods, innovation). For example, when focused on the purpose of creating change by illuminating counternarratives to racist portrayals of Black women, a Black researcher examining a Black community may define trustworthiness more in terms of the validity of the research for members of the community rather than how legitimate the findings are for outsiders (Evans‐Winters, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref151">11</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181411667-11">Avoiding method‐slurring</hd> <p>Although GQR can allow for creativity and novelty of research, these unique qualities of GQR can sometimes lead to <emph>method‐slurring</emph> (Caelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref152">5</reflink>]). Method‐slurring occurs when a researcher combines different strategies and techniques from qualitative methods that are not compatible or when they do not clearly articulate a use of epistemologically and theoretically coherent methods. Method‐slurring may indicate a lack of rigor, clarity, and congruence in research study design (Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref153">17</reflink>]). Combining methods with different philosophical frameworks without proper thoughtfulness and analysis may lead to decreased trustworthiness, methodological fidelity, and overall coherence (Kennedy, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref154">18</reflink>]; Kline, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref155">19</reflink>]). For example, considering integrating two qualitative methodologies with opposing ontological viewpoints (e.g., transcendental phenomenology and interpretative phenomenological analysis) may present challenges for establishing coherence in the design of research questions and the involvement of the researcher throughout the research process (Caelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref156">5</reflink>]). Additionally, method‐slurring can occur when data collection or data analysis procedures from multiple methods conflict and are not combined thoughtfully. Improper combination of data collection and analysis procedures can negatively impact the validity of findings (Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref157">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>GQR researchers may be especially vulnerable to method‐slurring because of GQR's flexibility and integration of methods. Detailed frameworks for popular qualitative methodologies (e.g., consensual qualitative research) help novice researchers avoid method‐slurring. In contrast, less‐experienced researchers (e.g., doctoral students) using GQR are more susceptible to method‐slurring due to its lack of specific guidelines. Given the complexities of GQR and qualitative research overall, no specific guidance exists on how to combine methods successfully without method‐slurring.</p> <p>Researchers thus far have provided some recommendations on how to avoid method‐slurring (e.g., Caelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref158">5</reflink>]; Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref159">17</reflink>]). Using this literature, we have defined three strategies to establish methodological rigor when integrating methods and avoid method‐slurring:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Researchers should analyze methods they are considering through the lenses of philosophies of science (e.g., axiology, ontology, and epistemology; Ponterotto, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref160">28</reflink>]). Not all methods can be effectively combined, and researchers should exercise caution when considering whether to integrate methods with complementary or opposing philosophical frameworks. When considering whether methods can be appropriately combined, the researcher should begin with attempting to deeply understand the underlying philosophical frameworks of each method of interest. Tables and charts can aid researchers in this process of comparing the foundational philosophical components of each method to assess the appropriateness of methodological integration (e.g., Hays & Singh, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref161">13</reflink>], pp. 39–40).</item> <p></p> <item> Researchers should be mindful of utilizing methods with congruence to ensure each methodology is used distinctly and integratively (Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref162">17</reflink>]). As it is possible for a researcher to use two philosophically compatible methods incongruently, researchers must ensure appropriate integration to not misuse methods or mislead readers. For example, uncritically cherry‐picking data collection, data analysis, or other strategies from a broader methodology under the guise of integration may undermine the philosophical intentions of the methodological framework.</item> <p></p> <item> Researchers should coherently articulate their justifications for combining methodologies and procedures, grounded in relevant literature (Hays et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref163">14</reflink>]; Kline, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref164">19</reflink>]; Percy et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref165">27</reflink>]). Clear and consistent articulation of methodological use is necessary to establish evidence of credibility, trustworthiness, and rigor of the research (Kline, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref166">19</reflink>]). Researchers should clearly state their chosen methodologies, document all steps of the data collection and analysis procedures, and justify each methodological choice throughout the entire research process.</item> </ulist> <p>While creativity and novel use of methodologies are encouraged in counseling research (Chan et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref167">6</reflink>]; Giordano, et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref168">12</reflink>]; Lenz, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref169">20</reflink>]; Murray, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref170">24</reflink>]; Sharma et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref171">31</reflink>]), particularly in GQR (Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref172">17</reflink>]), unconventional methods that stray from the classic qualitative paradigm can inevitably lead to criticism. For instance, some critics may perceive novelty as a lack of knowledge or deep understanding of qualitative methods when their strategies for methodological integration are unclearly articulated (Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref173">17</reflink>]). It is possible to combine methods with effective congruence and fail to adequately justify methodological decision‐making. For example, if a researcher appropriately utilizes simultaneous data collection and analysis within a consensual qualitative research framework without effectively explaining their reasons for combining methods, the reader may perceive the research methodology to be incongruent or believe the researcher does not understand their chosen methodologies. Additionally, thorough articulation is critical to support the need for innovative qualitative approaches like GQR.</p> <hd id="AN0181411667-12">Justifying GQR</hd> <p>Researchers must read and think broadly to manipulate and blend methodologies to consistently justify their choice of GQR (Bellamy et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref174">2</reflink>]; Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref175">17</reflink>]). Yet, the GQR justifications of some counseling researchers lack depth. In a recent content analysis of 70 GQR counseling dissertations published from 2017 to 2020 (Waalkes et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref176">35</reflink>]), authors usually offered broad and vague methodological justifications. Most of these justifications (e.g., understanding experiences and perceptions, meaning making) could apply to qualitative research generally as they did not offer reasons for why GQR was a better fit than other qualitative methods. Researchers should use more specific reasons for utilizing GQR. The following strategies can help them develop such reasons:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Researchers should include an awareness of current GQR literature (e.g., Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref177">17</reflink>]; Percy et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref178">27</reflink>]) and its potential purposes (e.g., practicality and creating change, flexible blending of methods, innovation) in their justifications (Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref179">17</reflink>]; Percy et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref180">27</reflink>]). For example, a researcher using GQR to flexibly blend methods might justify this choice by saying, "GQR allows researchers to conduct rigorous studies without being constrained by adhering to the rules of more established, but less appropriate, methodologies."</item> <p></p> <item> Researchers can promote coherence through reflexivity and clearly thinking through and justifying their research choices in light of epistemology (Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref181">17</reflink>]; Kline, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref182">19</reflink>]; Ponterotto, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref183">28</reflink>]). This process requires researchers to understand and compare GQR with other qualitative methods to construct their justifications (Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref184">17</reflink>]). When writing manuscripts, researchers may consider providing rationale as to why GQR is a better fit for their studies than establish methods (e.g., "GQR was a better fit for this study than phenomenology because we sought to offer transferable and practical solutions for immediate implementation by counselors rather than link our findings with theory developed decades ago"; Percy et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref185">27</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> When introducing and discussing GQR in manuscripts, researchers should cite GQR and other applicable methodological sources to help strengthen their justifications. Sixty percent of authors in a recent content analysis of GQR dissertations did not offer a citation when introducing GQR (Waalkes et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref186">35</reflink>]).</item> </ulist> <p>Researchers might choose GQR for reasons that they perceive to be beneficial to their careers (e.g., believing that they can complete their study more quickly or that using GQR allows them to avoid understanding other qualitative methods). Some view GQR as a less challenging method compared to other methodologies, which might lead to a lack of intentional study design and rigor. Researchers should not use GQR simply because they are not well versed in methodology or because they view the method as less demanding (Kennedy, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref187">18</reflink>]). Researchers should not justify their methodologies based on personal goals but should identify scholarly or practical goals for their study to help them form a purpose of their research that addresses a gap in the current literature or helps solve an important problem (Hays & Singh, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref188">13</reflink>]). Researchers should choose a methodology based on their identified scholarly or practical purpose. Specific justifications linked with purpose promote coherence (Caelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref189">5</reflink>]; Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref190">17</reflink>]; Kline, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref191">19</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181411667-13">DATA ANALYSIS</hd> <p>Analysis of data in GQR often involves identifying common patterns that define the data (Merriam & Tisdell, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref192">22</reflink>]; Percy et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref193">27</reflink>]). In flexibly blending methodologies, a GQR researcher may choose one or more of a variety of data analysis methods that fit with their study. However, thematic analysis (TA; Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref194">4</reflink>]; Terry & Hayfield, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref195">33</reflink>]) seems to be the most common data analysis method in GQR. TA was used by nearly half of counseling researchers in a recent content analysis of GQR dissertations (Waalkes et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref196">35</reflink>]). TA offers a straight‐forward, flexible, and rigorous process that allows researchers to construct themes (i.e., multi‐faceted, conceptual, and mean‐based patterns across participants) to report their interpretation of a qualitative data set (Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref197">4</reflink>]; Terry & Hayfield, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref198">33</reflink>]). With its procedural focus and structured steps, TA guides researchers in rigorous and iterative engagement with data (Terry & Hayfield, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref199">33</reflink>]). Additionally, TA allows for flexibility in a way that is helpful for the varied purposes of GQR (Percy et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref200">27</reflink>]) and researchers can use it with or without a guiding theory (Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref201">4</reflink>]). Percy and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref202">27</reflink>]) identified three types of TA that researchers can use with GQR: (a) theoretical analysis where researchers use a deductive approach to apply categories predetermined from a theoretical perspective to the data; (b) inductive analysis, which is content driven and does not fit data into preexisting categories; and (c) TA with constant comparison, which can be theoretical or inductive and uses simultaneous data collection and data analysis. TA may not be appropriate for GQR research if researchers want to identify idiographic elements of their data instead of themes shared across participants or if themes might not allow for the most impactful way of creating change in practical approaches. A detailed description of TA is outside the scope of this article and we recommend the works of Braun and Clarke ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref203">4</reflink>]), Percy and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref204">27</reflink>]), and Terry and Hayfield ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref205">33</reflink>]) as helpful guides.</p> <p>In the absence of standard data analysis procedures associated with GQR, researchers should choose a data analysis method that promotes cohesion with all parts of their research design and explain why their data analysis method is beneficial for their study (Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref206">17</reflink>]; Kline, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref207">19</reflink>]). Based on GQR's flexibility, most qualitative data analysis methods could fit well with GQR studies. However, analysis methods that have clearly articulated epistemological positions and specific, step‐by‐step data analysis procedures, including TA, constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref208">7</reflink>]), and consensual qualitative research (Hill & Knox, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref209">15</reflink>]), may provide novice researchers with more scaffolded guidance. Regardless of the researcher's chosen method, they should describe analysis procedures in a rich, thick, and step‐by‐step way (Kahlke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref210">17</reflink>]). If GQR researchers use a data analysis method that they have developed outside of the research literature, then they should clearly explain why they developed their own method, how it aligns with the purpose of their study, and how their data analysis procedure promotes rigor.</p> <hd id="AN0181411667-14">DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH</hd> <p>The current lack of research on GQR in counselor education leaves opportunities for future research. First, given that a variety of perspectives on GQR exist, a qualitative study examining perceptions of GQR among counselor educators and doctoral students could illuminate its current usage, potential misconceptions, and new directions for its practice. Such a study may also point to perceptions of rigor and legitimacy of GQR among members of the field in ways that could help researchers frame justifications and purposes of their GQR studies when seeking publication. Along similar lines, a Delphi study could help identify the definitions, purposes, and potential of GQR in counseling research. Second, researchers could further explore links between GQR and practical, action‐based methodologies or decolonized research methods. A conceptual article examining such links and offering concrete guidance could help offer a framework for researchers to expand the kinds of methods and questions used in counseling research (Lenz, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref211">20</reflink>]). Similarly, researchers could explore the research self‐efficacy, cultural responsiveness, and social justice perspectives of researchers who have utilized GQR. Third, as doctoral students use GQR frequently in their dissertations (Waalkes et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref212">34</reflink>]), researchers could examine doctoral‐level teaching and mentorship surrounding GQR in counselor education. Along similar lines, researchers could examine doctoral students' experiences of learning about emergent research practice including innovative, collaborative, and action‐oriented research methodologies (CACREP, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref213">10</reflink>]; 6b.4d). This could help identify gaps in research preparation that might serve as barriers for the field to utilize more varied methodologies (Lenz, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref214">20</reflink>]) and address the research–practice gap (Murray, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref215">24</reflink>]).</p> <ref id="AN0181411667-15"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref14" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Auta, A., Strickland‐Hodge, B., & Maz, J. (2017). There is still a case for a generic qualitative approach in some pharmacy practice research. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 13 (1), 266 – 268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2016.06.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref29" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bellamy, K., Ostini, R., Martini, N., & Kairuz, T. (2016). Seeking to understand: Using generic qualitative research to explore access to medicines and pharmacy services among resettled refugees. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, 38, 671 – 675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096‐016‐0261‐1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref125" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Brake, A., & Kelly, M. (2019). Camaraderie, collaboration, and capacity building: A qualitative examination of school social workers in a year long professional learning community. Qualitative Report, 24, 667 – 692. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160‐3715/2019.3779</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref194" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77 – 101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref8" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). 'Clear as mud': Toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2 (2), 1 – 13. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690300200201</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref72" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Chan, C. D., Henesy, R. K., & Erby, A. N. (2019). Toward praxis, promise, and futures of intersectionality in multimethod counseling research. Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation, 10 (1), 12 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1080/21501378.2018.1562845</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref208" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref77" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Chilisa, B. (2019). Indigenous research methodologies (2nd ed.). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. Josey‐Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP). (2024). 2024 CACREP Standards. https://<ulink href="http://www.cacrep.org/wp‐content/uploads/2023/06/2024‐Standards‐Combined‐Version‐6.27.23.pdf">www.cacrep.org/wp‐content/uploads/2023/06/2024‐Standards‐Combined‐Version‐6.27.23.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans‐Winters, V. E. (2019). Black feminism in qualitative inquiry: A mosaic for writing our daughter's body. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Giordano, A. L., Schmit, M. K., & Schmit, E. L. (2021). Best practice guidelines for publishing rigorous research in counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 99 (2), 123 – 133. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12360</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hays, D. G., & Singh, A. A. (2023). Qualitative inquiry in clinical and educational settings (2nd ed.). Cognella.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hays, D. G., Wood, C., Dahl, H., & Kirk‐Jenkins, A. (2016). Methodological rigor in Journal of Counseling & Development qualitative research articles: A 15‐year review. Journal of Counseling & Development, 94, 172 – 183. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12074</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hill, C. E., & Knox, S. (2021). Essentials of consensual qualitative research. American Psychological Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, L. S. (2015). Using sista circles to examine the professional experience of contemporary Black women teachers in schools: A collective story about school culture and support [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Georgia.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kahlke, R. M. (2014). Generic qualitative approaches: Pitfalls and benefits of methodological mixology. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 13 (1), 37 – 52. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691401300119</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kennedy, D. (2016). Is it any clearer? Generic qualitative inquiry and the VSAIEEDC model of data analysis. The Qualitative Report, 21 (8), 1369 – 1379. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160‐3715/2016.2444</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kline, W. B. (2008). Developing and submitting credible qualitative manuscripts. Counselor Education & Supervision, 47, 210 – 217. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.15566978.2008.tb00052.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lenz, A. S. (2018). Reconsidering the values assigned to counseling research paradigms and outcomes. Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation, 9 (1), 1 – 4. https://doi.org/10.1080/21501378.2017.1423202</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murray, C. E. (2009). Diffusion of innovation theory: A bridge for the research‐practice gap in counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 87 (1), 108 – 116. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556‐6678.2009.tb00556.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Noblit, G. W., Flores, S. Y., & Murillo, E. G., Jr. (2004). Postcritical ethnography: Reinscribing critique. Hampton Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Percy, W., Kostere, K., & Kostere, S. (2015). Generic qualitative research in psychology. The Qualitative Report, 20 (2), 76 – 85. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160‐3715/2015.2097</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52 (2), 126 – 136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0167.52.2.126</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2017). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research (2nd ed.). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sandelowski, M. (2010). What's in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Research in Nursing & Health, 33 (1), 77 – 84. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20362</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sharma, J. C., McDonald, C. P., Bledsoe, K. G., Grad, R. I., Jenkins, K. D., Moran, D., O'Hara, C., & Pester, D. (2021). Intersectionality in research: Call for inclusive, decolonized, and culturally sensitive research designs in counselor education. Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation, 12 (2), 63 – 72. https://doi.org/10.1080/21501378.2021.1922075</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, J., Bekker, H., & Cheater, F. (2011). Theoretical versus pragmatic design challenges in qualitative research. Nurse Researcher, 18 (2), 39 – 51. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2011.01.18.2.39.c8283</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Terry, G., & Hayfield, N. (2021). Essentials of thematic analysis. American Psychological Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waalkes, P., DeCino, D., & Flynn, S. V. (2021). A content analysis of qualitative dissertations in counselor education. Counselor Education and Supervision, 60 (3), 209 – 223. https://doi.org/10.1002/ceas.12212</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waalkes, P. L., DeCino, D. A., LeBlanc, J., Phelps‐Pineda, M. M., Somerville, T., & Flynn, S. V. (2023). Generic qualitative dissertations in counselor education: A content analysis. Counselor Education & Supervision, 62 (1), 52 – 63. https://doi.org/10.1002/ceas.12261</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wallerstein, N., Duran, B., Oetzel, J., & Minkler, M. (2017). Community‐based participatory research for health: Advancing social and health equity (3rd ed.). Jossey‐Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolcott, H. F. (2008). Ethnography: A way of seeing (2nd ed.). AltaMira Press.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Phillip L. Waalkes; Daniel A. DeCino; Tiffany Somerville; Monica Maria Phelps‐Pineda; Stephen V. Flynn and Joe LeBlanc</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref195"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref209"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1451757
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Pragmatic Guide to Generic Qualitative Research in Counselor Education
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Phillip+L%2E+Waalkes%22">Phillip L. Waalkes</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2956-5078">0000-0002-2956-5078</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Daniel+A%2E+DeCino%22">Daniel A. DeCino</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5514-3063">0000-0002-5514-3063</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tiffany+Somerville%22">Tiffany Somerville</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Monica+Maria+Phelps-Pineda%22">Monica Maria Phelps-Pineda</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8084-1122">0000-0001-8084-1122</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stephen+V%2E+Flynn%22">Stephen V. Flynn</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Joe+LeBlanc%22">Joe LeBlanc</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7472-6857">0000-0001-7472-6857</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Counselor+Education+and+Supervision%22"><i>Counselor Education and Supervision</i></searchLink>. 2024 63(4):392-404.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Counselor+Training%22">Counselor Training</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Qualitative+Research%22">Qualitative Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Quality%22">Educational Quality</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Difficulty+Level%22">Difficulty Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intentional+Learning%22">Intentional Learning</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/ceas.12316
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0011-0035<br />1556-6978
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Few practical guidelines exist for conducting generic qualitative research (GQR) with rigor and intentional purpose. This article offers varied purposes of GQR (practicality and creating change, flexible blending of methods, and innovation) and pragmatic guidance for counselor educators and doctoral students conceptualizing, designing, and conducting rigorous GQR studies.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1451757
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1451757
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/ceas.12316
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 392
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Counselor Training
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Qualitative Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Quality
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Difficulty Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intentional Learning
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Pragmatic Guide to Generic Qualitative Research in Counselor Education
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Phillip L. Waalkes
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Daniel A. DeCino
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tiffany Somerville
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Monica Maria Phelps-Pineda
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stephen V. Flynn
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Joe LeBlanc
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0011-0035
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1556-6978
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 63
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Counselor Education and Supervision
              Type: main
ResultId 1