Intersectionality has been increasingly prevalent in the rehabilitation literature. It has been warned, however, that there can be a flattening of intersectionality should social scientists exclude the various systemic paradigms which contribute to, and sustain, marginalization. In seeking a remedy to this issue, the article establishes an intersectional ecological framework for use in rehabilitation psychology. Using Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory, the article posits a framework both visually and conceptually, that can be used to discuss the intersection of identities in each system. Design: The current article is a review of literature about intersectionality, disability, and discrimination, for the purpose of establishing a gap in theory that makes the current paper necessary. Results: The establishment of an intersectional ecological framework for use in rehabilitation psychology and its related fields. The newly developed framework is then exemplified using discrimination. Implications: The intersectional ecological framework provides myriad opportunities for researchers, practitioners, and educators. The ability to theoretically discuss intersectionality through the lens of ecological systems theory will allow for thorough work in this area. Specifically, this framework will allow researchers to consider multiple systemic levels in exploration of identity-related issues for individuals with disabilities and provides a way for practitioners to see the complicated intersections individuals are experiencing at any given time. Ultimately, this framework has the potential to improve much of the understanding and treatment of people with disabilities. Impact and ImplicationsThe current aticle discusses the ecological model to underscore the importance of disrupting institutionalized hegemonic discourses. An intersectional ecological model is presented, which creates a mechanism to better understand, discuss, and research the interactions of multiple marginalized identities. With an eye on improving social justice activism in rehabilitation, the newly proposed framework can help future research and training on social justice so that individuals in the field may better understand the systemic paradigms that perpetuate marginalization and discrimination.

Most professions are represented by one unified association, but not rehabilitation counseling. From its earliest years of professionalization, rehabilitation counseling has been represented by multiple associations. Initially, representing the discipline through multiple associations was deemed necessary to capture nuanced differences within the field. However, the existence of multiple associations has come under increasing scrutiny in the face of declining membership and a changing professional and political landscape. The lively debates of the 1970s and 1980s have more recently devolved into what seems to be an apathy induced stalemate on this issue of consolidation. The primary aim of this article is to revitalize a conversation about the future of rehabilitation counseling associations by assessing professionals’ perspectives on consolidation. Data from 2,608 rehabilitation counseling professionals indicated that the majority of participants either favored consolidating into a single association or were unsure of their choice. Fewer than 7% of respondents opposed consolidation. We conclude the article with a brief discussion of actions that are supported by the research.

No abstract

The rehabilitation counseling profession, as an essential career, has been facing unforeseen and unprecedented complications as a result of the coronavirus-19 pandemic. As practitioners were required to begin completing their work virtually or using telehealth modalities, it became apparent that may be gaps in preparation for such a shift. It is as yet unknown what implication these changes have on employment rates of people with disabilities, in addition to other markers for independence (e.g., independent living, etc.). Implications of the sudden shift to virtual practice are especially of interest following the changes to the comprehensive system of personnel development legislated by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act reauthorization of 2014. Decreased educational requirements may lead vocational rehabilitation (VR) employees to navigate a national crisis without the essential knowledge domains required for qualified provider status. The current study asked VR personnel to indicate their comfort and preparedness in various areas, in light of the pandemic and virtual service provision ( n = 88). Items were assessed at three levels: Counselor, Agency, and Client. Taken together, the results indicate that the sample feels able to maintain evidence-based services, and that supervisors have been regularly available during this uncertain time. Implications for rehabilitation researchers, supervisors, and educators are discussed.

Shaping and cultivating positive attitudes toward people with disabilities is an important task for all programs that prepare future rehabilitation practitioners. So too, is identifying potentially problematic attitudes or biases about ability status. With the growth of undergraduate rehabilitation programs, it is imperative for educators to understand the factors that may influence students’ biases about people with differing ability status. Many training programs address explicit biases (e.g., those measured via self report), but overlook the influence and existence of implicit biases among students. Furthermore, many trainings focus on stimulating awareness of potential bias, rather than diving into causes and impacts. In order to develop effective curricula for mitigating bias and training infused with social justice, it is critical to understand this phenomena. Using a quantiative design, the current study examines explicit and implicit biases of students in undergraduate rehabilitation programs at three institutions across the United States. Results support that explicit and implicit biases are two separate constructs and should be treated as such (i.e., educational activities about bias are not sufficient). In addition, the results were indicative of the importance of addressing biases as multidimensional, and the potential utility of contact experiences as a factor for mitigating bias.