Counseling Research

A Practitioner-Scholar Approach

Richard S. Balkin, David M. Kleist

• Publisher: American Counseling Association
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781119375425
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Professional Development

This introductory text for counselors-in-training and emerging researchers focuses on research methodology, design, measurement, and evaluation. Richard Balkin and David Kleist explain the primary research methods used in counseling while emphasizing the importance of ethics and multicultural issues, demonstrating a professional counselor identity within the framework of research, and outlining the specific approaches used to inform counseling practice.

The book contains four parts: The Essence of Research in the Counseling Profession, Quantitative Research Designs, Qualitative Research Designs, and Practice-Based Research. Key features include case examples that bridge the technicalities of research and the realities of practice; strategies for designing research; guidelines for counselors considering topics for a thesis, a dissertation, or the development of an initial study; examples of current counseling research articles; and suggested activities to enhance understanding of the material in each chapter and facilitate classroom discussion.

*Requests for digital versions from ACA can be found on www.wiley.com.

*To purchase print copies, please visit the ACA website here *Reproduction requests for material from books published by ACA should be directed to [email protected]

Part I
The Essence of Research in the Counseling Profession

If the emphasis on and role of research in the counseling profession was not a primary motivation for you to pursue a graduate degree in counseling, you are probably similar to most graduate students in the counseling profession. That being said, professional counseling—and as an extension counselor education—is not a static profession. Understanding how research is generated is important to maintaining competence and making contributions to an everchanging field. Research traditions within the counseling profession emanate primarily from education and psychology. Hence, examining research traditions within these fields is important to understanding research within a counseling framework. In this text we emphasize the practitioner-scholar model, a model that places emphasis on the utility of research in the practice of counseling.

Along with introducing the practitioner-scholar model, in this section we introduce the research process, from the conceptualization of a study to the dissemination of the findings. Because the majority of counseling research is dependent on volunteer participants, we highlight the role of ethics as identified in federal law and the ACA Code of Ethics (American Counseling Association, 2014). Finally, we introduce the traditional families of research: quantitative and qualitative research. An overview of these methods is given in this section, with more detailed explanation in subsequent chapters.

References

1. American Counseling Association. (2014). ACA code of ethics. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Chapter 1
The Counselor as a Practitioner-Scholar

Overview

This chapter introduces orientations toward research and provides conceptualizations to approaching research. The discussions regarding research orientation may seem academic and unimportant to the counseling professional. However, we believe that an understanding of orientation can set the stage for how a counselor appreciates research, becomes an intelligent consumer of research, and emerges as a producer of research. In this chapter you are exposed to two predominant ideologies of the role of research within the counseling profession (i.e., the scientist-practitioner model and the practitioner-scholar model) and two philosophies that govern one's approach to conducting research (i.e., positivist and constructivist).

Scientist-Practitioner Versus Practitioner-Scholar

The scientist-practitioner model and the practitioner-scholar model originated from psychology and impacted the philosophy of training. As these models have been adapted in higher education, the question of which model is appropriate for future practitioners, academics, and researchers has been widely debated. The essence of these debates, with respect to counseling, is focused on developing competent practitioners and scholars who can utilize new information and generate knowledge to move the counseling profession forward.

A committee representing various professionals in psychology, medicine, and education approved the scientist-practitioner model in 1949 in Boulder, Colorado; hence, the model is often referred to as the Boulder model. The emphasis in this model is that psychologists should adhere to the scientific method when engaging in applied practices. The scientist-practitioner model might therefore incorporate the following assumptions for counseling:

1. There is a solid link between research and practice.
2. The skills necessary to be a competent counselor are also necessary to be a competent researcher.
3. Institutions that endorse the scientist-practitioner model may have a stronger culture of research but emphasize competence in practice as well. (Stoltenberg et al., 2000)

An alternative model—the practitioner-scholar model—was approved in 1973 with the understanding that such a model might be more appropriate for future professionals (e.g., PsyD) who wish to focus primarily on clinical work. The emphasis on integrating research into practice was not lost; however, more focus was placed on clinical training as opposed to the generation and dissemination of research (Stoltenberg et al., 2000).

Counseling differs from psychology in many respects, particularly in regard to training and philosophical views of wellness, mental health, and well-being. “Counseling is a professional relationship that empowers diverse individuals, families, and groups to accomplish mental health, wellness, education, and career goals” (Kaplan, Tarvydas, & Gladding, 2014, p. 366). No other profession defines what it does primarily through a working relationship and encompassing the aforementioned global constructs.

Another distinguishing characteristic of counseling is that a license to practice independently is granted with the attainment of a master's degree in counseling; in psychology, one must attain a doctorate to practice independently in most states. Hence, a practitioner-scholar model may be more appropriate for professional counselors, as the emphasis in coursework and training is on applied practice. Not until one wishes to obtain a doctorate in counselor education, usually granted with a PhD, does the emphasis shift to research. The doctor of philosophy is a research degree, and therefore a strong balance between research and practice likely is obtained. As both models attempt to bridge research to practice, they serve as ideologies to which counseling students may align their interests consistent with how they are developing within the profession. Although counselors-in-training may initially align with the practitioner-scholar model early in their development, the pursuit of a doctorate may result in an inclination toward the scientist-practitioner model.

Integrating the Models: A Case Example

Prior to beginning work on my doctorate, I (Rick) was employed as a counselor at an acute care psychiatric hospital working with adolescents. To be admitted to the unit, adolescents had to meet criteria for being a danger to self or others. One of my clients was Ronny, a gay 14-year-old male with a history of substance use, suicidality, truancy, and oppositional behavior at school. He had been court ordered into the hospital after getting caught performing lewd acts with another boy in the bathroom at school. Unlike most adolescent clients who would begin earning privileges and working up the level system after 48 hours, Ronny remained under 15-minute observation by the nursing staff because of persistent threats to harm himself and his tendency to steal sugar packets from the cafeteria during meals and lick the packets when he thought no one was watching. Ronny did not make much progress during individual or group sessions. He consistently indicated that he would rather be in juvenile detention than in the hospital, as he thought he would be more likely to get together with other males in detention. He also indicated that if he left the hospital, he would continue to use drugs and may try to harm himself.

Ronny was resistant to establishing any type of working alliance with any of the staff at the hospital. The standard milieu of care consisting of individual and group counseling and 12-step support was not effective. Supportive therapeutic approaches and confrontation also did not appear to work. Frustrated with my lack of progress with this client, I sought consultation from my supervisor. After processing my conceptualization of Ronny my supervisor indicated, “Well, if nothing in the book is working, you might need to throw out the book and try something different.”

So I brought Ronny into my office for his next individual session and indicated that given his lack of progress I was recommending him to long-term treatment, which would likely be court ordered by the judge. Ronny expressed his displeasure with this plan, indicating that he would rather the judge send him to juvenile detention. I told Ronny that if that was what he preferred, he could make that happen: “The judge is going to give you the opportunity to speak after he reads my recommendation. If you cuss him out, he will probably send you to detention.” Ronny thought that was a great idea, so we role-played the scenario and rehearsed a number of highly inappropriate names he could call the judge in hopes that he would get sent to detention.

The next day Ronny went to court. On reviewing my letter the judge cleared the courtroom so that it was just Ronny, his parents, me, and the judge. The judge read out loud the letter that indicated Ronny's lack of progress, his behavior in the hospital, and my recommendation for long-term treatment. The judge then said, “Ronny, what do you have to say for yourself?” Ronny stood up, looked at the judge—and burst into tears. The judge responded, “Well, I guess I have no choice but to follow your counselor's recommendation and order you to long-term treatment.”

Ronny's reaction—crying in the courtroom after the letter was read—was the first genuine affect he had shown since he had been hospitalized. It was the first instance of any emotional distress displayed by Ronny. So what does this mean with respect to research?

Research informed my work as a counselor. My primary theoretical orientation was Glasser's reality therapy, but when I saw how resistant Ronny was to not making any changes in his behaviors, I tried other approaches as well, such as focusing on being supportive and empathic as well as being confrontational. Whereas most clients appeared to make progress within 48 hours, Ronny required the highest level of care and documentation after 3 weeks. I do not believe that continued reliance on traditional, evidence-based treatment, as required by the scientist-practitioner model, would have been beneficial for Ronny.

The practitioner-scholar model, in contrast, allowed me to trust my instincts and experience with the client in order to get some type of therapeutic effect. I am not suggesting that evidence-based protocols be routinely dismissed. In fact, such protocols may be effective with clients. Stoltenberg and Pace (2007) emphasized that the scientist-practitioner model is an integrative, reciprocal model. If that is the case, the main difference between these models may in fact be the underlying philosophy rather than the implementation. Counselors should be aware of both models and understand that they need to balance research and applied skills rather than emphasize one model over the other.

Positivist Versus Constructivist Approaches

Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of counseling research may appear to be primarily an academic exercise. Nevertheless, similar to the orientation of practitioner-scholar versus scientist-practitioner, an understanding of positivism and constructivism is about not simply how a counselor conducts research but also who the counselor is as a person. Are you a little skeptical about that last statement—that research and counseling are so inherently related and part of a counselor's identity?

When academics discuss the philosophical underpinnings of research, they are talking about epistemology—the manner in which knowledge is generated. Positivism, also known as empiricism, is the belief that knowledge is generated from what can be observed and measured. Hence, research from a position of positivism relies on empirical data—data that were collected and assigned value. Positivism is tied to deductive reasoning (Trochim, 2006). If data can be obse...