A Culturally Responsive Intervention for Addressing Problematic Behaviors in Counseling Students

Abstract

Counseling faculty serve as gatekeepers to protect the public from trainees who demonstrate significant deficiencies in professional functioning. Two issues that have not been thoroughly examined are how different cultural values may intersect with the assessment of appropriate professional competencies and whether the multicultural environment of programs is considered when assessing potentially problematic students. The authors suggest a group systems intervention and provide implications and recommendations for counselor educators.

A Decision‐Making Model for Addressing Problematic Behaviors in Counseling Students

“…Often, multiple faculty members are involved in the process of recognizing, defining, and addressing problematic behaviors in counseling students (Foster & McAdams, ; Goodrich & Shin, ). Although Hill et al's () model includes consultation and client involvement, it focuses primarily on the counselor as the ultimate decision maker; ethical decision making occurs within the context of the counselor–client dyadic relationship.…”

“…Connors and Caple () identified three levels present in the literature on group systems: intrapersonal (within the individual), interpersonal (between individuals), and group‐as‐a‐whole . Building on this premise, Goodrich and Shin () encouraged counselor educators to examine gatekeeping situations at these levels, as well as the supragroup level. The supragroup refers to dominant societal norms and cultural values, as well as systemic racism or oppression, and is particularly relevant to larger social justice implications (Goodrich & Shin, ).…”

“…Building on this premise, Goodrich and Shin () encouraged counselor educators to examine gatekeeping situations at these levels, as well as the supragroup level. The supragroup refers to dominant societal norms and cultural values, as well as systemic racism or oppression, and is particularly relevant to larger social justice implications (Goodrich & Shin, ). As with Hill et al's () feminist model, at each of Goodrich and Shin's proposed four levels, decision makers examine cultural influences for the faculty and the student.…”

“…The collaborative and multiperspectival decision‐making model for addressing problematic behaviors in counseling students presented in this section uses the structure of Hill et al's () feminist model for ethical decision making and infuses Goodrich and Shin's () culturally responsive intervention for problematic behaviors, as well as principles from Cottone's () social constructivist ethical decision‐making model. These three models all involve a collaborative decision‐making process, all account for and recognize cultural and social influences, and all consider decision making to occur within the context of a social system.…”

“…It may be argued that any interaction between a faculty member and a student is a potentially cross-cultural interaction (Goodrich & Shin, 2013). Regardless of larger cultural factors, there is an inherent power difference between teacher and student in an educational setting (Jamieson & Thomas, 1974).…”