Guidelines for Writing a Qualitative Manuscript for the Journal of Counseling & Development

The practice of qualitative inquiry covers a variety of research methods and approaches that operate from an interpretive paradigm, developing portrayals of a socially constructed, complex, and dynamic reality (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992). Symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1969), feminist inquiry (Olesen, 1994), grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), action research, case studies, and ethnographies are examples of the plethora of approaches constituting qualitative inquiry (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). Became of the widespread application of various approaches, it becomes increasingly necessary to develop a set of guidelines for the reporting of qualitative research, as well as a set of standards for the assessment of such research. Given that qualitative inquiry does not operate within the same positivist paradigm of quantitative research (which at its core espouses the belief that the world is made up of observable, measurable facts leading to quantification; Glesne, 1999), the standards applied to quantitative research--internal and external validity, statistical conclusion validity, and construct validity (Gliner, 1994)--cannot be applied ad hoc to qualitative research. However, the overarching criteria of rigor and credibility found in quantitative research still apply to qualitative research. Quantitative research begins with an idea articulated as a hypothesis, which then, through measurement, generates data, which in turn allows conclusions to be deduced. Qualitative research, in contrast, uses inductive reasoning, beginning with an intention to explore a particular area, followed by collecting data, and then generating ideas and hypotheses from the patterns that emerge from the data (Bogdan & Taylor, 1975). By its very nature, this form of research tends to be nonstandardized, context sensitive, and dependent on the subjective experience and perceptions of both the researcher and the researched (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). ASSESSING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH Armini and Hultgren (2002) offered the construct of goodness to assess qualitative research. Rather than examining the empirical positivist criteria of numbers and structures, this concept involves examining the epistemological foundations, the clarity of the rationale for the methods used, the description of the data collection and analysis, and the credibility of the conclusions in offering new understanding. Using data from peer review commentaries on qualitative research, E. W. Taylor, Beck, and Ainsworth (2001) found six dominant themes that reviewers scrutinized. These themes seem to have much in common with the concept of goodness. They include the purpose of the study, the background in literature and theory, the thoroughness of the methodology, the presentation of findings, as well as the implications and clinical significance or application of the research (E. W. Taylor et al., 2001). In a similar study, Zaruba, Toma, and Stark (1996) found seven codes or aspects emerging from the data that are much the same as the criteria discussed by E. W. Taylor et al., as well as a related code they called "audience." Another contribution concerning assessing the merits of qualitative research was made by Lincoln and Guba (1985), who used the construct of trustworthiness and established four criteria for judging the construct: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Concerning credibility, Patton (1990) listed four types of triangulation as a way of strengthening the credibility of a study: triangulation of data, investigator, methods, and theory. A final issue related to the problems of assessing qualitative research is that researchers tend to report their results narratively, in case-specific terms, rather than in generalizable categories (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). This results in a nonstandardized format of reporting that can confuse reviewers who may be expecting a more familiar structure to the manuscript. …