1

Analytic Review of “A Qualitative Study of Feminist

Multicultural Trainees’ Social Justice Development”

Amber Boudreau

Master of Applied Psychology Program

INDS 503a: Research Methods

Jennifer Carroll

March 21, 2021

 2

Within the article, “A Qualitative Study of Feminist Multicultural Trainees’ Social

Justice Development,” published by Hoover and Morrow in 2016, the research is trainees’

experience in a practicum. It is significant because they participated in a feminist and

multicultural-oriented practicum, and the exposure led to possible social-justice development.

Most, if not all, of these students, already had a drive for social development, so this practicum

was a good fit. The study examines their individual experience and finds themes and core, shared

experiences within the group.

Core experiences found were as follows: “trainees’ experiences of fitting with the

training, trainees’ experiences of noticing the limitations of the training, and trainees’

experiences with people other than the training cohort and supervisory staff.”(Hoover &

Morrow, 2016) The information gathered in this study, or at least offered as results, is an ordinal

type and semistructured and unstructured data. It is ordinal because it is non-numerical, and there

are levels to the experiences(Pickell, 2021).

Each core experience also had sub-section experiences shared within the group. The first,

fit with the training, provoked three intentions within trainees’: “wanting to examine the personal

and political selves, wanting to assert oneself in collaboration, and engaging in political

analysis.” (Hoover & Morrow, 2016) The second involved recognition that the center had yet to

realize their values fully or that the values were incongruent with actions. Following was a

realization of limitations of their training, such as emotional safety and creating systemic change

in training.

The third core experience included experiences outside of the practicum and interactions

with people who were not part of it. Identified within this experience was individual growth:

“doing your own work, honouring your voice and others’ voices, and challenging power to create
 3

systemic change.” (Hoover & Morrow, 2016) Again, three sub-sections exist: “raising others’

consciousness, building empowering therapeutic relationships, and implementing social justice

interventions.” (Hoover & Morrow, 2016)

The following is the table of instruments quoted from the article. It shows which

instruments the researcher chose, how many people and for how long, and whom all were

involved. There are focus groups, interviews, various documentation and feedback—all typical

data collection forms for qualitative research.

Sequence Format People Involved Mean Minutes Total Hours

1 Unstructured 11 meetings with 46 8.40
focus groups 5 current
Participant trainees,
observation including
researcher
Researcher
2 Semistructured 13 previous 182 12.13
focus groups trainees in 4 73 4.88
Semistructured groupsa
interviews 4 previous
traineesb
3 Follow-up 11 previous 69 12.67
interviews trainees who had 77 5.10
Theoretical participated in
sampling Sequence 2
interviews 4 previous
trainees who had
not participated
in Sequence 2
1–3 Written and Researcher and
electronic supervisory staff
documents
4 Feedback groups 13 previous 90 4.50
Individual trainees in 3
feedback groups
5 previous
trainees
2–4 Analytic memos Researcher
Note. Sequence indicates the steps in the data collection over time; the data collection occurred
concurrently if the purpose for the collection was similar. Some data sources were integrated
across different time periods in data collection. aTwo of the 13 participants were off-site and
 4

elected to use Skype or speakerphone. bOne of the four participants was present for a short
portion of a focus group and participated in an individual interview to more fully share her
experience.
(Hoover & Morrow, 2016)

The data in this article was unclear and difficult to consume. It likely took much time to

collect the data, and the results are somewhat unclear. It is also unclear why the researcher chose

so many methods.

It might have been a less painstaking study to choose one or two research methods rather

than so many. The researcher does not state reasoning for choosing methods or techniques.

Additionally, perhaps the researcher being a part of it had more significant influence than she

was aware. At that point, skewed results may be possible as she was very invested, having been a

practicum participant at this centre herself. The data was, in a way, extensive. Coding the

qualitative data took much time, but the purpose of the study and the results are somewhat

unclear.
 5

References
Blog, F. (2019, October 10). What is Ordinal Data? Examples, Variables & Analysis. Online &

Offline Data Collection Tool | Formplus; Formplus. https://www.formpl.us/blog/ordinal-

data

Bonsteel, S. (2012). APA PsycNET. The Charleston Advisor, 1, 16–19.

https://doi.org/10.5260/chara.14.1.16

Hoover, S. M., & Morrow, S. L. (2016). A Qualitative Study of Feminist Multicultural Trainees’

Social Justice Development. Journal of Counseling & Development, 3, 306–318.

https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12087

Pickell, D. (2021, March 28). Qualitative vs Quantitative Data – What’s the Difference?

Learning Hub | G2. https://learn.g2.com/qualitative-vs-quantitative-data