CRITIQUE OF HENRIKSEN ET AL.

(2015) 1

Critique of Henriksen et al. (2015)

Sampling

While not explicitly stated, a snowball-like sampling method was used for finding

participants in this study (Henriksen et al., 2015). This sampling method consisted of using

emailed requests for participants to various faculty members across the country, at which point

those faculty members shared the study with their graduate students. Due to the nature of

technology and the ease with which it can allow this form of participation to occur, I feel that

this was the correct form of sampling to use in this study, and that little could be done to improve

upon its process.

Data Collection

Data in this study by Henriksen and colleagues (2015) was collected through the use of

online surveys. These surveys used open-ended questions designed to specifically encourage

similar interpretations of what was being asked by all participants. Participants were then able to

describe their thoughts and responses to these questions in relation to their perceptions of

religious and spiritual issues in counseling. In this study, two of the questions used in the surveys

were included in the methods section. The rest were included in the appendix. Overall, it felt like

the research team did an adequate job of creating questions that got to the heart of the matter

without being loaded or leading questions. This is commendable, particularly because of the

difficult topic area of religion when it comes to the potential for the unintentional creation of a

loaded question.

Qualitative Research Validity

This study included an extensive section on its trustworthiness and the steps that the

authors took to ensure its validity (Henriksen et al., 2015). Perhaps one of the most important
CRITIQUE OF HENRIKSEN ET AL. (2015) 2

things the researchers did to ensure the validity of their study was the reporting of discrepant

findings. This style of data reporting and analysis allows for a level of transparency between

author and reader, as the authors’ intentional inclusion of data that may undermine their findings

shows their commitment to honesty and integrity in the research process. Another important step

taken by the research team was the mitigation of researcher biases during the study. To account

for this, peer debriefing and multiple researcher perspectives were used. This decreased the

likelihood that a researcher’s internal biases would negatively impact the study, since members

of the research team were able to validate and understand the meaning of what participants said

in the survey, making the overall findings of the research paper more accurate. As far as

improvement goes, I feel that the research team could have potentially included more low-

inference descriptors in the research report with the results section as a means to help the reader

better understand the data and findings of the research that was conducted. Other than that, the

trustworthiness of the study was sound.

CRITIQUE OF HENRIKSEN ET AL. (2015) 3

References

Henriksen, R. C., Jr., Polonyi, M. A., Bornsheuer-Boswell, J. N., Greger, R. G., & Watts, R. E.

(2015). Counseling students' perceptions of religious/spiritual counseling training: a

qualitative study. Journal of Counseling and Development, 93(1),

59+. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A398523674/AONE?u=ksu&sid=bookmark-

AONE&xid=d7b99592