TPC-Journal-V4-Issue4

The Professional Counselor \Volume 4, Issue 4 291 results from neither question 1 nor 2 would benefit from ranking (e.g., it is not beneficial to rank the relative importance of gender or racial discrimination). Consequently, the resulting quantitative survey consisted of 18 action items, which emerged from responses to question 3. These items represented action steps that the experts proposed as means of addressing the career development challenges that traditionally marginalized populations face in the context of the current economic crisis. Experts were asked to rate each item on a scale of 1 (long- term) to 5 (immediate). Long-term referred to items that should be addressed within 10 years and immediate referred to items that should be addressed within 1 year. These data were analyzed by calculating the mean and the interquartile range (IQR; i.e., variance) for each item, which were then used in the third and final round of data collection. Round three . The resulting analysis from round two was used to create a personalized survey for each of the expert respondents. Each expert received a form that gave the group mean and IQR for each action step item on the survey. This final step prompted the experts to reconsider their original answers in light of the average and variability of their expert peers’ responses. This stage of the Delphi method is intended to move experts towards consensus, while avoiding group pressures that might occur in a face-to-face format. The results of this round were once again analyzed to determine the mean and IQR. Results This study yielded two types of results. First, unranked qualitative categories and themes emerged based on expert opinions about the most pressing career development issues that traditionally marginalized populations face as a result of the current economic crisis. Second, ranked qualitative categories and themes were developed based on experts’ suggestions for action steps to alleviate those career development issues. Questions 1 & 2 – Career Development Challenges Based on the authors’ qualitative analysis of questions 1 and 2, the responses to both questions fell into one of five themes: Systemic—General, Systemic—Population-Specific, Systemic Impact on the Individual, Individual—General or Individual—Population-Specific. The one exception to this pattern is that no data from question 2 fell into the Individual—Population-Specific theme. These themes and associated categories are detailed in the Appendix. The Systemic—General theme was characterized by career development issues that are embedded in systemic structures and dynamics. The Systemic—Population-Specific theme included categories that were systemic in nature, but referred to a particular population or group. The Systemic Impact on the Individual theme represented categories that detailed the effects that systemic dynamics have on individuals. The Individual—General theme contained categories that described career development challenges that individuals from all marginalized populations face. The Individual—Population-Specific theme was characterized by career development challenges that particular groups or populations face. While we could give significant time and space to analyzing these themes, the purpose of this study is primarily to inform possible action steps. As such, these results are provided in summary form (see Appendix) as context for the action steps that the experts suggested. Specifically, the reader may use them to evaluate the viewpoints, mind frames and knowledge sets of the participants who recommended these actions. Question 3 – Action Steps The authors’ qualitative analysis of question 3 yielded four action step themes: Practice, Training, Theory & Research and Advocacy. There were a total of 18 categories across all of these themes, which we transformed into items to create a survey for experts. As detailed in the Methods section, this survey was sent out over two rounds of data collection to determine experts’ collective rating of these items and to attempt to create a consensus among these experts. In addition to the ranked items, experts also ranked the relative importance