Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wlco20

Download by: [University of New Mexico] Date: 01 October 2015, At: 11:10

Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling

ISSN: 1553-8605 (Print) 1553-8338 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wlco20

Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling PublicationPatterns: Author and Article Characteristics from2006 to 2012

Kristopher Michael Goodrich, Heather Sands & Angela Catena

To cite this article: Kristopher Michael Goodrich, Heather Sands & Angela Catena(2015) Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling Publication Patterns: Author and ArticleCharacteristics from 2006 to 2012, Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 9:3, 180-198, DOI:10.1080/15538605.2015.1068145

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2015.1068145

Accepted online: 07 Aug 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 29

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 9:180–198, 2015Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1553-8605 print / 1553-8338 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15538605.2015.1068145

Journal of LGBT Issues in CounselingPublication Patterns: Author and Article

Characteristics from 2006 to 2012

KRISTOPHER MICHAEL GOODRICH, HEATHER SANDS,and ANGELA CATENA

Department of Individual, Family, and Community Education, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA

This study is a content analysis of the first six volumes of the Journalof LGBT Issues in Counseling (JLGBTIC), the first two terms of thejournal’s founding editor. All (JLGBTIC) articles published between2006 and 2012 were reviewed and coded for author characteris-tics, topical content, research design, methodology, and populationexplored. Findings and a discussion of the results are provided todiscuss trends, as well as potential further areas of exploration.

KEYWORDS content analysis, LGBT counseling, publication pat-terns and trends

The Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling (JLGBTIC) is the official journalfor the Association for LGBT Issues in Counseling (ALGBTIC). It is a divisionof the American Counseling Association (ACA). JLGBTIC focuses on lesbian,gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) issues in counseling, while also at-tentive to matters of interest for intersex, asexual, queer, and questioningpersons. JLGBTIC focuses on a variety of issues related, but not limited, tocareer, addictions, spirituality, adult development, testing and assessment, inaddition to issues concerning schools, mental health, and family counseling(Farley, 2013). JLGBTIC is currently published quarterly by Taylor & Francisand has recently completed its seventh volume (2013; Farley, 2013). SinceJLGBTIC’s inception in 2006, Dr. Ned Farley has been the editor-in-chief.The following article analyzes the publication patterns in JLGBTIC from 2006through 2012, or the first two full terms of JLGBTIC’s current editor.

Address correspondence to Kristopher M. Goodrich, Program Coordinator and AssistantProfessor, Counselor Education, The University of New Mexico, MSC05-3040, 1 University ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131. E-mail: kgoodric@unm.edu

180

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 11:

10 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

Content Analysis of JLGBTIC 181

Throughout our time in this project with JLGBTIC , we became ac-quainted with its diversity on multiple levels of published scholarship. Wewere privy to a number of empirical analyses (quantitative, qualitative, andmixed methods research), theoretical and conceptual considerations andideological suppositions, and clinical implications. Based on such a diversenature embedded within the scholarship, it appears that JLGBTIC speaks to adiverse populace within the counseling profession. Moreover, it is a journalthat encourages a plethora of scholars to contribute to it such as experiencedcounselors, counselor educators, and graduate students to consider research-ing, writing, and publishing within this area—as members of the lesbian, gay,bisexual, transgender, questioning, queer, and intersex (LGBTQQI) commu-nities are present in all aspects of society (Farely, n.d.).

Additionally, special issues in JLGBTIC address specific topics that con-nect concepts, research, and techniques with counselors and the LGBT com-munities at large. From 2006 to 2012 (Volumes 1 through 6), four specialissues were published related to counseling LGBT couples and families(Whitman & Hendricks, 2007), counseling competencies with transgenderclients (Singh & Burnes, 2010), spirituality issues in the LGBT community(Kocet & Curry, 2011), and addictions in the LGBT community that relateto treatments, prevention, and influences (Chaney & Brubaker, 2012). In theseventh volume, two special issues were published regarding borders andimmigration (Nakamura & Pope, 2013) and safe school environments forqueer and transgender students (Singh & Harper, 2013).

Similar to other publication reviews of journals, this study is conductedusing a content analysis that occurred in two parts: (1) we systematically kepttrack of patterns and trends throughout JLGBTIC followed by (2) descriptiveand chi-squared methods. By focusing on areas of content as well as authorand article characteristics (Byrd, Crockett, & Erford, 2012), the authors of thisstudy sought to explore trends and characteristics within the JLGBTIC for twomain purposes: (1) to broaden our understanding of JLGBTIC by focusingon publication patterns and themes and (2) to identify areas overlookedor neglected that may need further attention in subsequent volumes ofJLGBTIC .

We have observed areas for growth posited from content analyses on re-lated journals that justify the uniqueness of this study. For instance, Clark andSerovich (1997) reiterated that LGBT issues in scholarship have received littleattention beyond the journals that specialize in them. Audiences engaged inwriting and/or reviewing these journals identify within the scope of LGBTcommunities or have a strong knowledge base, interest, and/or investment inthese issues—marginalizing this information to specialized publications andtheir respective audiences (Clark & Serovich, 1997). The limited scholarshipand attention to LGBT issues at large, lends itself to a much broader issueconsistent with a theme of marginalization.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 11:

10 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

182 K. M. Goodrich et al.

Finally, we have observed that this article is the first content analysison publication patterns and trends of JLGBTIC . It is also one of few uses ofcontent analytic methodologies in the last decade to explore LGBT issues.This speaks to a large gap in LGBT literature and the uniqueness of thisstudy regarding the current trends and patterns that are broadly discussedand missed in other journals, fields, and topics.

LITERATURE REVIEW

It is appropriate and important for a journal to examine itself (Erford, Miller,Duncan, & Erford, 2010) presumably every decade. In a focal area such asLGBT issues in counseling, where trends and societal needs are constantlyshifting, it is crucial to obtain a full understanding of where the societalmargins reside. Content analyses are used to describe author characteristicsand article content in a similar fashion to qualitative reviews, as data areanalyzed to identify changes and differences over time. This process helpsto inform readers of important trends in author and article characteristics, aswell as how well the journal recognizes and responds to important societalissues (Byrd, Crockett, & Erford, 2012; Erford, Crockett, Giguere, & Darrow,2011).

Few authors have conducted content analyses within LGBT journalsto illustrate trends and patterns occurring throughout a journal’s evolution.Among journals affiliated with this topic, only the Journal of Homosexuality(Joyce & Schrader, 1999) and Journal of Bisexuality (Elia & Eliason, 2012)have published content analyses. Within the last decade, however, Erfordand colleagues have published content analyses among a number of journalsassociated with the American Counseling Association (ACA).

Erford et al. (2010) argued toward a global perspective in content anal-yses that entail qualitative as well as quantitative reviews. Using either aqualitative or quantitative analysis may restrict the study and reviews of thejournal; however both, in this respect, provide a broad scope of informa-tion pertaining to the journal and/or content area(s). The qualitative processdiscerns the progression of a journal’s content and author contributions in-volving a systematic perusal of all contributions over a period of time, notingtrends in topics and content, author characteristics (e.g., lead, coauthors, andaffiliations with universities or nonuniversities) followed by statistical analy-ses of the relatedness to each theme and trend.

Previous content analyses focusing on LGBT issues across a series ofjournals and fields have illustrated that LGBT issues exist on the margins inscholarship. Content analyses that focus on LGBT issues in scholarship canilluminate societal issues that may minimize the margins for which LGBT peo-ple have historically, socially, politically, and economically resided. Although

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 11:

10 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

Content Analysis of JLGBTIC 183

LGBT issues have become more successfully integrated into counseling jour-nals, areas for improvement continues to exist topically and methodologically(Phillips et al., 2003). Similarly, well-intentioned counselors are not immuneto the ongoing stigmatization among LGBT individuals within the counselingcontext and society at large (Singh & Shelton, 2011). Given this positioning,the rationale for content analysis can provide pertinent information, particu-larly among LGBT issues.

Content analyses focusing on LGBT issues have examined a variety ofareas such as Web-based information (Wright & McKinley, 2011), widelyused education textbooks (Macgillivray & Jennings, 2008; Young & Middle-ton, 2002), music and art journals (Freer, 2013), LGBT older adults of color(Van Sluytman & Torres, 2014), and social work (Johnston & Steward, 2013;Scherrer & Woodford, 2013; Van Voorhis & Wagner, 2002). Other areas uti-lizing this methodology on LGBT issues are among the National Institutes ofHealth on the health of LGBT populations (Coulter, Kenst, Bowen, & Scout,2014).

Specific to counseling and related psychotherapies, there are few pub-lished content analyses on LGBT issues. The existing few have focused onthe use of qualitative studies (Singh & Shelton, 2011), marriage and familytherapy journals (Clark & Serovich, 1997), LGBT people of color (Huanget al., 2009), and general LGBT themes across major counseling journals(Phillips, Ingram, Smith, & Mindes, 2003). Additionally, the bulk of LGBT-related content analyses specific to counseling occurred during the 1990s,marking a generational gap in represented LGBT political and civil issues.Content analyses have uncovered how topics are represented or misrepre-sented among LGBT-related issues in counseling. For instance, Huang et al.(2009) conducted a content analysis focusing on counseling issues for LGBTpeople of color. The authors noted that though literature on LGBT issuesis growing, their findings highlight underused methods, under-representedsubpopulations, and understudied topics in scholarship. Similarly, Singh andShelton (2011) noted a strong disconnect between the importance of qualita-tive methodologies to depict LGBT issues in the counseling field and a lackof proper use of such methodologies to accurately represent LGBT issues incounseling. Results of this disconnect can be harmful to the counseling fieldwith regards to treatment and perception of LGBT individuals and issues.

According to Phillips, Ingram, Smith, and Mindes (2003) and Clark andSerovich (1997), content analyses on major counseling and marriage andfamily therapy (MFT) journals, all authors found few themes and patternstying LGBT issues to these respective fields. Although these content analy-ses were conducted over 10- (Phillips, Ingram, Smith, & Mindes, 2003) and20-year (Clark & Serovich, 1997) segments, both research results overlapduring the 1990s time period—potentially dating current trends and patternson LGBT issues and counseling as well as MFT journals. These studies rep-resented important findings within the counseling field and specific to LGBT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 11:

10 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

184 K. M. Goodrich et al.

issues; however being relevant for the 1990s, it is difficult to determine theways in which findings from these studies can still be applicable or usefulto future scholarship on LGBT issues in counseling.

During the 1990s, when more content analyses and analyses of the lit-erature were published, Clark and Serovich (1997) noted a weak contentanalysis representation in LGBT literature. They posited three explanationsfor this: (1) LGBT information and scholarship are exclusive to specific jour-nals relevant to LGBT issues in counseling;, (2) heterosexist (and cisgender)bias leads to a stigmatizing fear of conducting LGBT-related research, and (3)false media representations of LGBT lives, stories, and issues that may leadto assuming knowledge of same-gender couples/families based on hetero-sexual couples/families. Once again, though the results of this study may bedated (i.e., lack of attention to transgender issues or LGBT marriage politicsin the 21st century), these explanations illustrate a historical trend of weakcontent analysis representation in most LGBT scholarship.

The Career Development Quarterly published a special section focusedon LGBT career development (Pope, 1995b). The authors of works includedin this special section compiled the professional literature to make points ona need for more scholarly support for LGBT individuals and career devel-opment. Through reviews of the professional literature, Pope (1995a, 1995c)and Chung (1995) point to a weak representation of LGBT scholarship thatsupports career development for LGBT people. For instance, Pope (1995c)noted that between 1940 and 1993, 31 articles were published pertaining togay and lesbian career development; 19 (61.3%) of which were publishedbetween 1990 and 1993. Pope (1995a) also reviewed 15 articles on LGBTdevelopment and career interventions. This method exposed a lack of em-piricism, while also compiling current intervention trends and their impactson the field. Similarly, Chung (1995) explored career development schol-arship on lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals regarding personaland environmental influences on career decision-making. Chung critiqueda general weakness in empiricism and theory to support LGB career deci-sion making, thus exposing assumptions and conclusions drawn by variousscholars on LGB issues in career development. Further research in this specialsection included Fassinger (1995) and Prince (1995) who critiqued the liter-ature for homogenizing gay and lesbian career development into a unitaryframework. As such, both authors focused their analyses on deconstructingthe scholarship on career development and vocational psychologies that areattentive to gay and lesbian issues and needs.

Similar to the counseling and MFT journals, content analyses in majorsocial work journals are also weak regarding LGBT issues. As a follow-up study to Van Voorhis and Wagner’s (2002) content analysis of LGBTarticles from 1988 to 1997, Johnston and Steward (2013) reiterated contentanalysis methods to examine LGBT articles within the same four major socialwork journals from 1998 to 2009. All authors between the first (Van Voorhis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 11:

10 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

Content Analysis of JLGBTIC 185

& Wagner, 2002) and the follow-up (Johnston & Steward, 2013) articles,discussed difficulty relying on the four major social work journals for gayand lesbian content within the past 20 years. This was due to the absenceof scholarship on gay and lesbian content in the last 20 years within socialwork literature.

Although content analyses across other psychotherapeutic journals areequally thin, follow-up studies from the 1990s (e.g., Clark & Serovich, 1997;Phillips, Ingram, Smith, & Mindes, 2003), such as in Johnston and Steward’s(2013) work, may illustrate important historical trends and patterns in LGBTscholarship. Specifically, these historical trends may reveal information aboutcertain psychotherapies and/or on broad scale sociopolitical issues relatedto LGBT communities. However, beyond historical trends, follow-up studiesusing a content analysis methodology on a journal may unravel areas ofambiguity around LGBT issues within the trends of certain theories andpragmatics of various professions.

The literature emphasizes the value of content analysis, providing im-portant information regarding the product of research and scholarship. Be-ing as important and necessary as content analytic methodologies are forjournals and scholarship, we hope this manuscript encourages scholars tofurther explore LGBT issues in counseling and other related psychothera-peutic journals. Additionally, furthering content analysis methodologies onLGBT studies across journals and fields may transform the sociopolitics ofLGBT communities into areas of the academy that are less marginal.

METHOD

The focus of this study was to explore the content of the JLGBTIC during2006 to 2012, the first two full terms of the founding editor. Within this con-tent analysis, we explored JLGBTIC through a systematic qualitative patternand trend analyses; followed by, descriptive and chi-squared methods. Thismethodology provided context to identify topical trends and areas in needof further exploration and development within JLGBTIC. As such, the scopeof this methodology is to promote the development of JLGBTIC as it is theleading journal, which serves a broad population through the Association forLesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues in Counseling (ALGBTIC).

All articles published within the first six volumes of JLGBTIC (2006–2012)were examined for content, including characteristics and trends. The authorscompleted six reviews of JLGBTIC literature to fully complete this contentanalysis. After the initial review, the first and second authors of this studyinvited an auditor (third author) to compare, contrast, and agree on themesand patterns in a consensus.

The lead and second author met initially and created five content tablesbased upon the Byrd, Crockett, and Erford (2012) design for analyzing article

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 11:

10 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

186 K. M. Goodrich et al.

TABLE 1 Employment Setting of Lead and All Authors by Volume

Volume #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6

Lead authorsUniversity 22 15 11 14 14 16Nonacademic 1 1 0 1 1 1Total authors: 65 41 22 42 47 38University 64 36 22 36 45 36Nonacademic 1 5 0 6 2 2

Note: Academic: Anyone affiliated with an academic program.Nonacademics: Any authors without a listed academic affiliation. These authors may have a listed af-filiation with a university, but not with an academic program (e.g., counseling center, student supportservices).In volumes with special issues, we saw an increase in nonacademic authors.

content of the Journal for Specialists in Group Work (JSGW ). Tick boxes werecreated for content areas that were present within each article, thus creatinga comprehensible outline of content areas. The tables were adjusted basedupon the content differences from the Byrd et al. (2012) format. Prior to invit-ing an auditor to review the articles for content, four additional amendmentswere made to the tables. The tables provided in this study illustrate the fol-lowing: Author Characteristics (Table 1), Topical Content (Table 2), ResearchDesign (Table 3), Methodology (Table 4), and Population Explored (Table 5).During the fourth and final analysis the authors began with the table titled Re-search Design as a way to calculate and categorize the articles in a consistentmanner by determining how many quantitative, qualitative, and conceptualarticles existed within each volume. The authors maintained this consistencythrough other tables such as Author Characteristics, Methodology, and Pop-ulation Explored—where all articles summed to the same number of articlesthe authors initially classified in Research Design. Finally, the authors re-viewed the Topical Content and reached a consensus on each topic.

A major reasoning for multiple reviews was locating a procedure amongall authors to collect and analyze the findings; the use of an auditor providedan independent voice for the primary two authors and ensured themes andclassifications would be recognizable for outside readers. After reviewingeach volume of JLGBTIC , all three authors reconvened to compare analyses.Discrepancies were adjudicated through discussions exploring the ways inwhich the content was conceptualized; tables were then edited as neededto add, delete, or collapse constructs. The authors created a working listof definitions to aid in clarifying ambiguity and maintaining consistencythroughout the comparison and analysis process. Once analyses were re-viewed and adjusted, the second and third author met to re-review con-tent to ensure the content, based on the revisions of the tables, was fullyconceptualized.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 11:

10 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

Content Analysis of JLGBTIC 187

TABLE 2 Topical Content

Volume Topic 1 2 3 4 5 6

Training 1 1 0 5 1 1Wellness 2 1 0 0 0 0Disclosure 2 2 1 2 0 1Families/relationships 6 4 2 2 0 1Heterosexism 7 0 0 1 0 4Gender identity/Gender expression 1 1 0 1 0 0Grief 1 0 0 0 0 0School counseling 3 0 2 1 1 0Ethics 1 0 0 0 1 0Acculturation 1 0 0 0 0 0Interpersonal violence 3 1 0 1 2 0Identity/identity development 5 4 2 1 7 2Suicide 1 1 0 0 0 0Social justice 1 0 0 1 0 0Advocacy 1 0 0 4 0 1Technique 0 3 0 6 2 2Risky behavior 0 2 1 0 1 5Internet 0 0 1 0 0 0Passing 0 0 1 0 0 0Counseling process 0 0 1 2 1 0Theory 0 0 0 1 0 0Symptoms/diagnosis 0 0 0 0 0 2Multiculturalism 6 3 3 1 9 4

Race/ethnicity 4 3 2 0 0 0Religion/spirituality 1 0 1 1 10 2Age 1 0 0 0 0 1

Geographical region 0 0 0 1 0 0Rural 0 0 0 1 0 0

Addictions 1 0 1 0 0 2Substance (drugs/alcohol) 1 0 1 0 0 0

Data Analyses

All JLGBTIC articles published between 2006 and 2012 were reviewed andcoded for author characteristics (Table 1), topical content (Table 2), re-search design (Table 3), methodology (Table 4), and population explored(Table 5). Byrd, Crockett, and Erford (2012) addressed two primary trendsin their content analysis of JSGW : (1) author characteristics and (2) article

TABLE 3 Research Design

Volume Design 1 2 3 4 5 6

Quantitative 8 4 4 2 2 4Qualitative 6 4 3 2 3 4Mixed methods 3 1 0 0 1 2Conceptual 6 7 4 11 9 7Total 23 16 11 15 15 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 11:

10 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

188 K. M. Goodrich et al.

TABLE 4 Primary Research Design (Quantitative and Qualitative Methodology)

Volume Quantitative Design 1 2 3 4 5 6

Descriptive 2 0 1 0 1 1Regression analysis 2 1 1 0 0 3Correlation 2 0 0 0 0 0ANCOVA 0 0 0 0 0 1ANOVA 3 1 0 1 10 0Mediation analysis 0 0 0 0 0 1Factor/path analysis 0 0 0 0 1 0Binary logistical 1 1 2 0 0 0Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) 0 0 0 1 0 0t Test 0 1 0 0 0 0Discriminant function analysis 1 0 0 0 0 0Volume Qualitative Design 1 2 3 4 5 6Phenomenology 0 1 0 0 0 1Grounded theory 2 2 2 1 0 1Content analysis 0 0 0 0 0 3Ethnography 1 0 0 0 0 0General qualitative 5 0 1 1 1 1Narratology 0 0 0 0 1 0Case study/multi case study 0 0 0 0 1 0Consensual Qualitative Research (CQR) 1 1 1 0 1 0

Note: Primary methods for studies. Some studies utilized multiple methods, but we attended to the primarymethod. Some numbers add up to more than studies if there appeared to be more than one primarymethod of data analysis.

characteristics. Other studies (e.g.,; Erford, Crockett, et al., 2011; Erford, Er-ford, & Broglie, 2012; Erford et al., 2011a, 2011b; Erford, Erford, Hoffman, &Erford, 2013) followed similar formats, and as such we utilized their analysesas a frame for our own.

Author characteristics (Table 1) included employment settings of lead,and all authors were classified as academic and nonacademic (Byrd, Crockett,& Erford, 2012). As opposed to reporting split percentages for articles thatwere authored by academic and nonacademic authors, full authorship figureswere reported for each article in the volume. This way, we could calculatethe number of authors found within each volume as well as report on thetypes of collaborations we found in reviewing the volume. Other authorcharacteristics such as author gender, department, or place of employment(see Byrd, Crockett, & Erford, 2012) were not attended to for the purpose ofthis study; this decision was made as the authors of this study were cautiousto classify author gender identity based upon a given name listed in an article;we thought that process would be artificial and potentially cisgender-biased.

Similar to Byrd, Crockett, and Erford (2012), article characteristics werereviewed and coded topical content (Table 2), research design (Table 3),methodology (Table 4), and population explored (Table 5). Tables 2 through5 included a variety of themes, negotiated by the authors and themes em-bedded in the articles. Topical content (Table 2) was examined for a number

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 11:

10 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

Content Analysis of JLGBTIC 189

TABLE 5 Populations Explored

Volume Populations 1 2 3 4 5 6

Gay 8 5 4 3 4 6Transgender 1 0 0 2 2 5Lesbian 11 3 3 2 3 5Heterosexual 2 2 1 1 1 0Bisexual 7 4 4 2 5 5Counselors 1 0 1 2 1 0Educators 1 0 0 0 2 0Questioning 0 2 1 0 0 0Students 0 1 0 0 2 3Parents 0 1 2 2 0 0Queer 0 0 2 2 0 1

Note. The numbers add up to more than the number of articles. When studies focused on multiplepopulations, they received credit for each of the populations under study. As such, a scholar whoexplored lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons would be credited for each of the above groups. Whenparticipants labeled their sexual orientation as unsure, we labeled it as “questioning” for the purposes ofthis study.

of predetermined themes such as advocacy, counseling theory, identity de-velopment, and so on. Initial themes were chosen in exploring other contentanalyses for journals in counseling (e.g., Byrd, Crockett, & Erford, 2012; Er-ford et al, 2011a, 2011b; Erford et al., 2012; Erford et al., 2013). As certaintopical contents emerged within our review, we revised our coding struc-ture to add emergent themes into our data collection not found in otherACA-related journals (e.g., interpersonal violence, heterosexism).

Following our analysis of topical content, we examined research designpatterns broadly to classify if the design was best classified as qualitative,quantitative, mixed methods, or conceptual research (Table 3). This assistedus in seeing the typical types of methodology that are being used by authorsin JLGBTIC . Following this preliminary research review, we more elabo-rately classified articles according to specific types of qualitative and quan-titative methodologies found within the manuscript—creating two tables foreach broad methodology category. In examining qualitative methodology,we classified each article into the best-represented paradigm or traditionutilized (e.g., grounded theory, phenomenology, ethnography, consensualqualitative research [CQR]). Quantitative methodologies were similarly ex-plored and classified based upon the different statistical techniques utilizedby the researcher. It should be noted that the primary method of statisticalanalysis was utilized for the purposes of this table, and not all methods uti-lized by researchers (e.g., researchers utilizing structural equation modeling[SEM] often also reported simple bivariate correlations for their research, al-though their study was classified by their primary design, SEM). It shouldbe noted, however, that the number of quantitative designs is greater thanthe number of quantitative articles, as some quantitative articles reported the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 11:

10 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

190 K. M. Goodrich et al.

results of multiple hypotheses, or multiple studies, within a given article;in these cases, classifying articles with multiple primary analysis methodsappeared to be most accurate.

Finally, we classified populations explored within the study (Table 5)such as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, andasexual (LGBTQQIA). Characteristics included participant-listed gender iden-tity, sexual orientation, as well as age and education. Community affiliationwas also noted and included facets of counseling such as students/trainees,practicing counselors, counselor educators, and/or general community mem-bers. We conducted this type of review to see which types of participantswere represented in the data within JLGBTIC , and the types of groups thatmight be under-researched at this time.

RESULTS

Since the founding of the JLGBTIC in 2006 through 2012, 128 articles werepublished within six volumes. Of the articles listed, 34 were editorials (n =21), introductions to special issues (n = 4), or media reviews (n = 9) thatwere excluded from the present analysis. As such, 94 articles were codedfor the purposes of this study, to understand trends of publication patternsfor the JLGBTIC. Within this time period, four special issues were publishedby JLGBTIC . Topics of these special issues include Counseling LGBT Cou-ples and Families (Vol. 1, Issue 4; Farley, 2007), Counseling Competencywith Transgender Clients (Vol. 4, Issue 3/4; Farley, 2010), Finding the SpiritWithin: Spirituality Issues in the LGBT Community (Vol. 5, Issue 3/4; Farley,2011), and Addiction in LGBTQ Communities: Influences, Treatments, andPrevention (Vol. 6, Issue 4; Farley, 2012). Summary data that include authorand article characteristics are included within five tables that follow. Eachare collapsed into volume intervals to demonstrate to readers any trend thatmight emerge from the data.

Author Characteristics

In the first six volumes of the JLGBTIC, a mean of 2.65 (SD = 1.44) authorscontributed to each article. The mean number of authors per article rangedfrom a high in volume 5 of 3.21 (SD = 1.37) to a low of 2.0 (SD = .63) involume 3. As such, it appears that it is common for authors to collaboratewhen publishing in the JLGBTIC .

Author employment affiliation was another variable explored within ouranalyses, paying particular attention to university and nonuniversity affilia-tion. This information lends itself to the diversification of scholarship with re-gards to community-based, nonacademic authors and authors affiliated with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 11:

10 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

Content Analysis of JLGBTIC 191

the academy—all of whom contribute scholarship to JLGBTIC. We exploredlead author employment affiliation status to see the impact of employmentaffiliation on who publishes in JLGBTIC. Overwhelmingly, lead authors wereaffiliated with the academy (n = 92, 94.8% of lead authors), with only fivelead authors (5.2% of lead authors) affiliated with nonacademic settings. Ofthe 255 authors of articles within JLGBTIC during the time period, a similartrend was noted with total author representation affiliated with universi-ties (n = 239, 93.7%) compared to authors at non-university-affiliated sites(n = 16, 6.3%). The results of this analysis can be found in Table 1.

Article Characteristics

Topical content was another area we explored between Volume 1 (2006)and Volume 6 (2012); this information is presented in Table 2. At a glance,it appears that content within JLGBTIC appeared fairly stable in the areas offamily/relationship, identity/identity development, training, disclosure (com-ing out), and counseling process. Other content, such as spirituality andaddictions appeared more variable, potentially due to the specific areas offocus for special issues within JLGBTIC . Although the topic of counselingtechnique (skills or abilities one can implement with LGBT clients) did notappear within the first volume of JLGBTIC, it has appeared in almost everyvolume since, with the greatest focus in Volume 4. Social justice and advo-cacy are two topics that received far less attention than the current authorswould have imagined, being fairly absent during a number of volumes. Alsoof note is that the areas of professional ethics, as well as concerns relatedto acculturation have not been specifically noted in JLGBTIC since Volume1 (with the exception of one article on ethics in Volume 5). Suicide was atopic of study in Volumes 1 and 2, with one article specifically focused onthis topic in each volume but has not been a primary focus within an articlesince Volume 2 (although has appeared as a subtopic in articles appearingsince). It should also be acknowledged that preset categories of academiccounseling, clinical supervision, and the multicultural counseling areas ofability status and socioeconomic status, were not found to be specificallyidentified by this study’s authors as main content topics within the currentreview; as such those headers were deleted from the final table. This issuewill be discussed more fully in the discussion section.

As LGBT scholarship has been challenged as not being focused enoughon the specific issues and needs of persons of color (e.g., Huang et al., 2009),the authors reviewed the representation of race and ethnicity as a specifictopic within the content of articles. In our review, we found most articleswere more focused on general LGBT issues and did not have specific focusaround issues within specific multicultural communities. The communitiesthat had the greatest representation within JLGBTIC included the African

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 11:

10 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

192 K. M. Goodrich et al.

American and Asian American communities, with less focus on Latino/a andNative/American Indian communities. Race/ethnicity, however, was one ofthe greater areas of focus within the broad “multiculturalism” theme, withnine of 26 articles (34.6%) focused on this area. Spirituality, as a multiculturaltopic, received more attention (15 of 26 articles, 57.7%), though this appearedto be primarily related to the special issue on this topic, which consisted of10 articles. Age was represented by only two articles in this timeframe (7.7%),and the issues of ability and socioeconomic status were not addressed.

In terms of scholarly design, the number of research articles withinJLGBTIC has appeared fairly stable over time. As demonstrated by Table3, the split between quantitative (n = 24, 24.7%) and qualitative research(n = 22, 22.7%) has remained fairly even in JLGBTIC over time. Using achi-squared analysis, no significant differences were found between num-bers of published quantitative or qualitative articles over the first six years,χ2 (1, N = 46) = .087, p = .7681). Conceptual articles ranked highest infrequency, with 44 of these types of articles in the first six volumes (45.4%).The difference between empirical research and conceptual articles has alsoappeared to remain fairly stable over time, with the exception in Volumes4 and 5, in which conceptual articles greatly outnumbered the number ofempirical articles. If one were to assume an equal number of conceptualand empirical articles (quantitative or qualitative), there appeared to be astrong preference for conceptual articles, χ2 (2, N = 90) = 9.773, p = .0075.However, if one were to assume that conceptual articles would be foundto double the frequency of empirical articles, based on a potentially easierprocess to complete an article of this type, no significant difference wasfound, χ2 (2, N = 90) = .133, p = .9355. One other noteworthy issue is theabsence of mixed methods articles found within JLGBTIC , with only sevenarticles (7.2%) being identified in the first six volumes and with the majorityof these articles being represented within the first volume.

Table 4 presents the specific research designs that the study authorsutilized to design and implement their studies. In exploring the specific re-search methodologies employed by authors, it appeared that most quantita-tive research utilized basic statistical procedures, such as descriptive statistics(n = 5, 12.8%) and ANOVA designs (n = 15, 38.5%), compared to more ad-vanced statistics (e.g., structural equation modeling, factor analysis, discrim-inant function analysis, each with n = 1, 2.6%, respectfully). The frequencyof more basic statistics techniques (e.g., descriptive statistics) appeared to besomewhat related to its use within mixed methods studies.

Qualitatively, the use of a “general qualitative research,” which was notbased on a specific qualitative tradition or method of data analysis, wasmost prevalent within JLGBTIC (n = 9; 31% of qualitative or mixed methodsarticles). This is disappointing, as reviewing these articles demonstrated thatmany authors lacked an intentional frame or model of data collection andanalysis, which affected the type of data collected and presented to the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 11:

10 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

Content Analysis of JLGBTIC 193

readers. The specific qualitative tradition with the most articles was groundedtheory (n = 8, 27.6%), with other traditions also receiving some attention byauthors (e.g., CQR, n = 4, 13.8%; content analysis, n = 3, 10.3%, etc.).

Finally, Table 5 represents populations of persons (LGBTQQIA) ex-plored within each article (conceptual and empirical research) published inJLGBTIC . This exploration aimed to highlight which groups may be under-represented and/or over-represented. We found that the most researchedgroup was the “gay” population, with 30 articles addressing this community.The lesbian and bisexual communities were the next most cited communi-ties, with 27 articles for each population. This phenomenon was typicallybased on authors exploring LGB persons (in general) within their empiricalresearch, so each group received acknowledgment in our content analysis.The transgender population followed with a significantly lower number ofarticles, 10 in total. This result appears striking when compared to othergroups, as seven articles addressed heterosexual persons (e.g., heterosexualparents of LGB persons, experiences of allies, etc.). Five articles addressedthe queer community, and three addressed issues of questioning identity. Itshould be noted that no article specifically addressed the needs of the inter-sex population in the first six volumes of JLGBTIC , speaking for the need toraise awareness to this very important, although silent, population.

In exploring a chi-squared test for differences across presence of LGBTpersons within research in JLGBTIC , a significant difference was foundin the frequency of articles for each of the specific subpopulations, χ2

(3, N = 94) = 10.596, p = .0141. As such, there were a significantly smallernumber of articles addressing the transgender population compared to othersubpopulations within JLGBTIC . This finding potentially speaks to the needfor more articles to raise the visibility of this population.

In terms of professional identities of persons explored, the majority ofparticipants appeared to be community-based samples. For those studiesthat discussed more intentional or specific populations, the most cited groupstudied was students, with six articles. Counselors and parents followed,both received five articles; educators were the least researched group, withthree articles addressing them specifically.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study demonstrate that the first six volumes of the Journalof LGBT Issues in Counseling are essential in highlighting a range of sociopo-litical and interpersonal/familial issues and concerns beneath a larger LGBTcounseling umbrella. A variety of articles can be found within JLGBTIC ,almost equal numbers of quantitative and qualitative research, perhaps serv-ing to level the playing field for modern and postmodern scholars. Althoughserving as the flagship journal for the Association for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 11:

10 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

194 K. M. Goodrich et al.

and Transgender Issues in Counseling, and as a critical voice in the field forLGBT scholarship, the findings of this content analysis did suggest that thereare still members of the larger LGBT population that are not as well repre-sented in JLGBTIC as others, a need that should be addressed. The sectionthat follows hopes to serve as potential recommendations based upon theresearch findings.

It would be important for ALGBTIC, through JLGBTIC , to continue rein-forcing the importance of competent service for LGBT people. As such, wenoticed transgender and intersex persons were under-represented comparedto other populations served (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual). Beyond, JLGBTIC ,other scholars (see Jennings, 2014; Luke, Goodrich, & Scarborough, 2011) lo-cated a pattern among counselor educators reported not typically discussingtransgender and intersex populations within their classrooms compared toother identity groups—conclusions that imply a need for a closer exami-nation into this area. Broadly, this finding may speak to a need for addi-tional voice and attention to other populations not mentioned within theLGBTQQIA communities, who are potentially underserved by counselorsand counselor educators, many of whom may not have learned about thepolitics of gender, gender identity, and sexuality in their counseling train-ing. Within this context, we refer counselors and counselor educators tothe ALGBTIC Transgender Committee (2010), which offers a specific set ofcounseling competencies specific to members of LGBT communities and areendorsed by the ACA.

Quantitative and qualitative research within JLGBTIC received equal at-tention. It appears that JLGBTIC does not privilege one tradition over theother but expects high-quality research from the scholars who submit andpublish. A finding, however, was the most frequently published qualitativeresearch was “general qualitative” that did not address or necessarily usespecific data collection or analysis techniques from an established qualita-tive research tradition. Equally with quantitative research, basic statisticalprocedures, such as descriptive statistics and ANOVA were employed asopposed to statistical procedures that portray an in-depth, creative analyticapproach of data (see Erford, Crockett, et al., 2011; Erford et al., 2012; Erfordet al., 2010; Erford, Miller, Schein, McDonald, Ludwig., & Leishear, 2011).This stands as a potential challenge to the caliber of qualitative and quanti-tative research published within JLGBTIC . It may be useful to request futurescholars to provide a more detailed elaboration of their methodological ap-plication regarding methods, data collection, and data analysis utilized intheir studies, as this is essential to articulating trustworthiness and credibilitywithin LGBT issues in counseling.

Topics across the volumes varied, demonstrating the different issues andconcerns faced by LGBT persons across the life spans. Family issues, dis-closure, the impact of heterosexism, and identity/identity development weresome of the most frequently written about topics. Issues concerned with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 11:

10 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

Content Analysis of JLGBTIC 195

suicide, social justice/advocacy, geographical region, acculturation, as wellas the specific issues and concerns of persons of color or other marginalizedcommunities within the broader LGBT family were less frequently men-tioned. This is a similar finding to other content analyses on this topic withother journals (e.g., Huang et al., 2009), and perhaps demonstrates an issueacross the field. As such, authors are called upon to explore the needs andconcerns of marginalized communities within our LGBT families to ensurethat JLGBTIC is able to represent all the voices and experiences within theLGBT communities.

More broadly, there was an inconsistent use of the terms heterosexismand homophobia throughout JLGBTIC . Although authors implied notions ofheterosexism, homophobia was often used in its place. A lack of consistencyand agreed-upon use of rhetoric within the counseling field has historicallybeen problematic in light of aggressive and microaggressive language thathas been (and still is) used to depict LGBT individuals. Generally speaking,rhetoric, hermeneutics, and semantics may be an area for further explorationin the counseling field by which JLGBTIC can facilitate.

Limitations/Challenges

This study is not without its own limitations. Although the categories andmethodology used in the study matched other studies within the counselingfield with similar journals (e.g., Journal for Specialists in Group Work; Journalof Humanistic Counseling, Education, and Development; Journal of Counsel-ing & Development; and Journal of Employment Counseling), the coding andanalytic strategies would have looked different if different authors conductedthis study. The first two authors of this study attempted to control for thisby bringing in an auditor to review, challenge, and provide suggestions forhow to better classify the articles within our schema. As such, our codingschemas may be limited based upon our own biases and experiences.

CONCLUSION

For JLBGTIC , this study represents the first content analysis since its inceptionin 2006. A major aim of this study was to inform JLGBTIC on patterns andtrends of published articles between 2006 and 2012. In doing so, the authorsprovided a mixed-methods content analysis utilizing subjective categorizingdistinctions and statistical measurements that illustrated ongoing patterns andtrends within JLGBTIC .

The Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling is the only journal under theumbrella of the American Counseling Association that intentionally addressesthe needs of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community within

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 11:

10 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

196 K. M. Goodrich et al.

the counseling profession. As such, it serves its job very well providing avoice and a medium to discuss the pertinent issues and concerns of the LGBTcommunities. Beyond the scope of individuals who are currently educatedand interested in LGBT issues and/or identify within the LGBT span, we hopeJLGBTIC can continue to expand upon its current audience of counselors.JLGBTIC holds a crucial place within the ACA and should, therefore, continueto boost its breadth and depth.

REFERENCES

ALGBTIC Transgender Committee. (2010). American Counseling Association com-petencies for counseling with transgender clients. Journal of LGBT Issues inCounseling, 4(3/4), 135–159. doi:10.1080/15538605.2010.524839

Byrd, R., Crockett, S. A., & Erford, B. T. (2012). Journal for Specialists in GroupWork (JSGW) publication pattern review: A meta-study of author and articlecharacteristics from 1981–2010. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 37(1),56–70.

Clark, W. M., & Serovich, J. M. (1997). Twenty years and still in the dark? Contentanalysis of articles pertaining to gay, lesbian, and bisexual issues in marriageand family therapy journals. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 23(3),239–253.

Chung, Y. B. (1995). Career decision making of lesbian, gay, and bisexual in-dividuals. Career Development Quarterly, 44(2), 178–190. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.1995.tb00684.x

Chaney, M. P., & Brubaker, M. (2012). Addictions in LGBT communities: Influences,treatment, and prevention [special issue]. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling,6(4), 233–352.

Coulter, R. W. S., Kenst, K. S., Bowen, D. J., & Scout. (2014). Research fundedby the National Institutes of Health on the health of lesbian, gay, bisexual,transgender populations. American Journal of Public Health, 104(2), 105–112.doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301501

Elia, J. P., & Eliason, M. (2012). A decade of the Journal of Bisexuality: Somenotes on content and future directions. Journal of Bisexuality, 12(1), 4–12.doi:10.1080/15299716.2012.645690

Erford, B. T., Crockett, S. A., Giguere, M., & Darrow, J. (2011a). A metastudy ofJournal of Employment Counseling publication patterns from 1994 through2009. Journal of Employment Counseling, 48(2), 81–92. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1920.2011.tb00117.x

Erford, B. T., Erford, B. M., & Broglie, C. (2012). Journal of Humanistic Counseling,Education, and Development publication patterns from 1994 to 2009. Journalof Humanistic Counseling, 51(1), 21–32. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1939.2012.00003.x

Erford, B. T., Erford, B. M., Hoffman, C., & Erford, M. R. (2013). Counseling andvalues publication patterns from 1990 to 2009. Counseling and Values, 58,23–25. doi:10.1002/j.2161-007X.2013.00022.x

Erford, B. T., Miller, E. M., Duncan, K., & Erford, B. M. (2010). Submission patterns:Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development author and article

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 11:

10 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

Content Analysis of JLGBTIC 197

characteristics from 1990 to 2009. Measurement and Evaluation in Counselingand Development, 42(4), 296–307. doi:10.1177/0748175609354619

Erford, B. T., Miller, E. M., Schein, H., McDonald, A., Ludwig, L., & Leishear, K.(2011b). Journal of Counseling & Development publication patterns: Author andarticle characteristics from 1994 to 2009. Journal of Counseling & Development,89(1), 73–80. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2011.tb00062.x

Farley, N. (2007) From the Editor. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 1(4), 1–2.Farley, N. (2010) From the Editor. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 4(3–4),

125–125, doi: 10.1080/15538605.2010.525172Farley, N. (2011) From the Editor. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 5(3–4),

159–159, doi: 10.1080/15538605.2011.629167Farley, N. (2012) From the Editor. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 6(4),

233–233, doi: 10.1080/15538605.2012.727748Farley, N. (2013). From the editor. Retrieved from www.algbtic.org/the-journal.htmlFarley, N. (n.d.). From the editor. Retrieved from www.algbtic.org/the-journal.htmlFassinger, R. E. (1995). From invisibility to integration: Lesbian identity in the work-

place. Career Development Quarterly, 44(2), 148–167.Freer, P. K. (2013, Spring). Challenging the canon: LGBT content in arts educa-

tion journals. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 196(1),45–63.

Huang, Y., Brewster, M. E., Moradi, B., Goodman, M. B., Wiseman, M. C., & Martin,A. (2009). Content analysis of literature about LGB people of color: 1998–2007.Counseling Psychologist, 38(3), 363–396. doi:10.1177/0011000009335255

Jennings, T. (2014). Sexual orientation curriculum in U.S. school counseloreducation programs. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 8(1), 43–73.doi:10.1080/15538605.2014.853639

Johnston, L. B., & Steward, C. (2013). Still among the missing? A content analysisof LGBT articles in social work journals, 1998–2009. Journal of Gay & LesbianSocial Services, 25(2), 232–243. doi:10.1080/10538720.2013.782741

Joyce, S., & Schrader, A. M. (1999). Twenty years of the Journal of Homosexual-ity: A bibliometric examination of the first 24 volumes, 1974–1993. Journal ofHomosexuality, 37(1), 3–24. doi:10.1300/J082v37n01_02

Kocet, M. M., & Curry, J. (2011). Finding the spirit within: Spirituality issues in theLGBT community [special issue]. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 5(3/4),159–326.

Luke, M., Goodrich, K. M., & Scarborough, J. L. (2011). Integration of the K-12 LGBTQI student population in school counselor education curricula: Thecurrent state of affairs. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 5(2), 80–101.doi:10.1080/15538605.2011.574530

Macgillivray, I. K., & Jennings, T. (2008). A content analysis exploring lesbian, gay,bisexual, and transgender topics in foundations of education textbooks. Journalof Teacher Education, 59(2), 170–188. doi:10.1177/0022487107313160

Nakamura, N., & Pope, M. (2013). Borders and margins: Giving voice to lesbian,gay, bisexual, and transgender immigrant experiences [special issue]. Journal ofLGBT Issues in Counseling, 7(2), 121–197.

Phillips, J. C., Ingram, K. M., Smith, N. G., & Mindes, E. J. (2003). Method-ological and content review of lesbian-, gay-, and bisexual-related articles

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 11:

10 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015

198 K. M. Goodrich et al.

in counseling journals: 1990–1999. Counseling Psychologist, 31(1), 25–62.doi:10.1177/0011000002239398

Pope, M. (1995a). Career interventions for gay and lesbian clients: A synopsis ofpractice knowledge and research needs. Career Development Quarterly, 44(2),191–203. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.1995.tb00685.x

Pope, M. (1995b). Gay/lesbian career development [special section]. Career Devel-opment Quarterly, 44(2), 146–203.

Pope, M. (1995c). Gay and lesbian career development: Introduction to the specialsection. Career Development Quarterly, 44(2), 146–147. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.1995.tb00681.x

Prince, J. P. (1995). Influences on the career development of gay men. CareerDevelopment Quarterly, 44(2), 166–177. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.1995.tb00683.x

Singh, A. A., & Burnes, T. R. (2010). Counseling competency with transgender clients[special issue]. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 4(3/4), 125–264.

Singh, A. A., & Harper, A. (2013). Safe schools for queer and trans students [specialissue]. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 7(4), 297–ebi.

Sherrer, K., & Woodford, M. (2013). Incorporating content on gay, lesbian, bisexual,transgender, and queer issues in leading social work journals. Social WorkResearch, 37(4), 423–431. doi:10.1093/swr/svt031

Singh, A. A. & Shelton, K. (2011). A content analysis of LGBTQ qualitative researchin counseling: A ten-year review. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89(2),217–226. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2011.tb00080.x

Van Sluytman, L. G., & Torres, D. (2014). Hidden or uninvited? A content analysis ofelder LGBT of color literature in gerontology. Journal of Gerontological SocialWork, 57(2/4), 130–160. doi:10.1080/01634372.2013.877551

Van Voorhis, R., & Wagner, M. (2002). Among the missing: Content on lesbian andgay people in social work journals. Social Work, 47, 345–354.

Whitman, J. S., & Hendricks, B. (2007). Counseling LGBT couples and families[special issue]. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 1(4), 1–134.

Wright, P. J., & McKinley, C. J. (2011). Mental health resources for LGBT collegians:A content analysis of college counseling center Web sites. Journal of Homosex-uality, 58(1), 138–147. doi:10.1080/00918369.2011.533632

Young, A. J., & Middleton, M. J. (2002). The gay ghetto in the geography of educationtextbooks. Getting ready for Benjamin: Preparing teachers for sexual diversityin the classroom, 91–102.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 11:

10 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

015