Linking International Psychology, Professional Competence, and Leadership: Counseling Psychologists as Learning Partners

Abstract

In this presidential address, I want to push beyond what we accomplished at the 2008 International Counseling Psychology Conference (ICPC) by linking together three big ideas: first, the movement to internationalize psychology; second, the movement to identify and codify standards of professional competence; and third, the dispositions of successful 21st-century leaders. The first two trends are occurring at the same time in psychology and, for that matter, in the larger world. The connection between these two forces in psychology may not be immediately obvious; yet, their interconnection has captured my attention. For the past several years, I have been involved actively in the efforts toward both greater internationalization of counseling psychology and the competency movement, yet these efforts have been living in separate parts of my being. The focus of my presidential address has been to integrate these worlds within myself and, from this place of greater integration, share my perspectives and concerns. If the internationalization and delineation of professional competence are not better integrated, I fear that U.S.-based psychology will become more isolated from psychology around the world, as psychology around the world becomes more connectedconcern that has been voiced by others writing about international issues in psychology (Arnett, 2008;Cole, 2006).

Examining the Internationalization of Counseling Psychology Scholarship: A Content Analysis of Two US Journals

“…The relatively small number of articles focusing on international concerns confirms prior observations (see Heppner 1997;Kwan and Gerstein 2008;Leong and Blustein 2000;Leong and Ponterotto 2003;Leung 2003;Savickas 2007;Gerstein and Agisdottir 2007), and tends to support conclusions offered by the international strategic plan for SCP in which US-based counseling psychology was described as hegemonic and practicing a type of educational imperialism (Forrest 2010).…”

“…The results of the current review suggest that, contrary to calls for greater international inclusion and collaboration (see Forrest 2010), the current direction remains reflective of this ethnocentric uni-directional, rather than bi-directional, approach, thereby supporting the claims of Marsella and Pedersen (2004).…”

“…With this movement originating within the US, and with efforts to extend the competency emphasis to the international arena (Forrest 2010;Aegisdóttir and Gerstein 2009), a clear danger lies in the potential imposition of competencies on cultures and nationalities whose value systems are different to that of the US. Therefore, developing an awareness of the notion that US-based counseling psychology represents but one approach, and not the approach, is directly dependent on US counseling psychologists being exposed to wider representations of international scholarship.…”

“…Presidential addresses of Douce (2004), Heppner (2006), Nutt (2007), and Forrest (2010) have all extolled the virtues of adopting a greater international perspective and integrating non-US-based perspectives into the field of counseling psychology. Given the rapid pace of globalization, counseling psychologists around the world are working with more and more diversified clientele and are addressing concerns that go beyond the parameters of counseling psychology as defined within the US (Gerstein and Agisdottir 2007).…”

Best Practices in Global Mental Health: An Exploratory Study of Recommendations for Psychologists

“…In order to more explicitly capture the role of context in mental health, Fernando (2012) suggested a slightly modified definition of GMH described as ''the mental health and mental ill health of people across the globe, experienced and expressed in culturally distinct ways" (p. 398). Overall, calls for greater attention to internationalizing the practice of psychology are in place (Forrest, 2009). Internationalization is described as the mechanism through which individuals recognize "themselves in a global context" and become aware of the "perspectives of their own specific history and culture" (Bullock, 2014, p. 6).…”