1996
DOI: 10.1080/09515079608258713
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The professionalization of counselling: A coherent ‘case against’?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

1998
1998
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…39–40), while, in the form it was deployed, also being highly vacuous. Professionalization is a very powerful, almost irresistible, general rhetoric (House, 1996). Professionalization functioned as a highly potent ‘free resource’ as DiMaggio defines it: ‘some institutional understandings .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…39–40), while, in the form it was deployed, also being highly vacuous. Professionalization is a very powerful, almost irresistible, general rhetoric (House, 1996). Professionalization functioned as a highly potent ‘free resource’ as DiMaggio defines it: ‘some institutional understandings .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is consistent with research that points to a conclusion that is deeply uncomfortable for those wedded to a therapeutic ''expertise'' model Counselling Psychology Quarterly 5 (Mair, 1997), viz. that lightly trained para-professionals appear to achieve outcomes at least as effective as trained therapy practitioners (for possible explanations see House, 1996House, , 2001a. Another aspect of the theory question is the way in which trainings are becoming increasingly ''academicized'' (House, 2001b(House, , 2005aParker, 2001), with training now cast firmly at post-graduate level.…”
Section: The Troubled Place Of Theory In Therapy Training and Practitmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…In Australia, like other parts of the world where counselling is professionalized, many groups have initiated credentialing efforts (Capuzzi & Gross, 2001). Having accreditation provided by several different organizations, as is currently the case in Australia, causes confusion and harms professional development (Bradley, 1995; Cottone, 1985; A. U. Gale & Austin, 2003; House, 1996; Luck, 1999; Tarvydas & Leahy, 1993).…”
Section: Credentialing Movementmentioning
confidence: 99%