6 research outputs found
Exploring counselors’ use of research in practice: a CQR study
Research is a fundamental part of the counseling field that both informs practice and enhances and unifies the profession (Kaplan & Gladding, 2011; Kaplan, Tardyvas, & Gladding, 2014; Steele & Rawls, 2015). Counselors are encouraged by the American Counseling Association’s Code of Ethics (2014), as well as other relevant codes of ethics (e.g., American School Counselors Association, 2016; American Mental Health Counselors Association [AMHCA], 2015), to use counseling practices founded in rigorous research methodologies and to monitor their effectiveness. Moreover, counselors face increased pressure to demonstrate their effectiveness and deliver measurable outcomes to support the services they provide to clients (Lenz, 2015; Lloyd-Hazlett, 2018). In fact, both mental health and school counselors are expected to demonstrate accountability via consumption of, application of, and engagement in research in their professional roles (e.g., AMHCA, 2015; Burlingame, Lambert, Reisinger, Neff, & Mosier, 1995; Cook et al., 2017; Sexton & Whiston, 1996; Whiston & Sexton, 1998). Accordingly, research is a critical part of counseling practice, both in terms of counselors’ professional duties in their jobs and their ethical obligations to clients and the profession. Importantly, these trends reflecting the necessity of research in counseling demonstrate the growing need for counselors to use research within their clinical practice with clients and students. However, several researchers in counseling and related fields have indicated that many clinicians continue not to use research in practice despite their professional and ethical responsibilities to do so (e.g., Bauman et al., 2002; Bezyak, Kubota, & Rosenthal, 2010; Maras, Splett, Reinke, Stormont, & Herman, 2014; Wester, Mobley & Faulkner, 2006; Wester, Wachter Morris, & Umstead, 2018; Young & Kaffenberger, 2011). Critically, this gap in research use among counselors illustrates the gap between counseling research and practice that many scholars in counseling have discussed for decades (e.g., Anderson & Heppner, 1985; Haring-Hidore & Vacc, 1988; Lee, Dewell, & Holmes, 2014; Martin & Martin, 1989; Murray, 2009; Rowell, 2006). Moreover, while several researchers have called attention to deficiencies in research training in counseling, particularly at the master’s level (e.g., Granello & Granello, 1998; Huber & Savage, 2009; Jorgensen & Duncan, 2015a, b; Umstead, 2018), it is unclear how research training influences counselors’ use of research in practice. The extant research pertaining to research use in practice among clinicians, including counselors, predominantly examines this construct in terms of evidence-based practices (e.g., Bauman et al., 2002; Bezyak et al., 2010; Maras et al., 2014; Wester et al., 2006; Wester et al., 2018). Although useful, this research may limit the current understanding of how counselors actually use research in their work with clients and students. Accordingly, more study of how counselors’ personal experiences of using research is warranted. Moreover, because master’s-level counselors comprise the majority of practicing counselors in mental health and school settings, research exploring research use among these specific practitioners is necessary. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of mental health and school counselors’ research use in counseling practice with clients and/or students, as well as their perceptions of how factors related to training and practice-related supports and barriers influenced their current use of research in practice. The following research questions were addressed through this study: (1) What are counselors’ experiences of using research in their clinical practice? (2) How do master’s-level counselors describe their research training experiences as influencing their current use of research in their practice? and (3) What do counselors identify as current supports and barriers to their use of research in practice? To answer these research questions, Consensual Qualitative Research methodology (CQR; Hill, 2012) was used to explore counselors’ experiences of using research in practice and obtain rich, in-depth descriptions of their experiences. Following eight individual interviews with master’s-level clinical mental health and school counselors, five domains emerged during data analysis to provide insight into the research questions. These domains included the following: (1) research use in counseling practice, (2) research training experiences, (3) factors influencing research use in counseling practice, (4) research as part of one’s counselor identity, and (5) other. Each domain consisted of between one and seven categories. Research findings, study limitations, and implications for counseling practice, counselor training, and future research are discussed
Imposter Phenomenon and Research Experiences Among Counselor Educators
Content analysis was employed to explore research experiences and imposter phenomenon (IP) among 25 counselor educators. Six overarching categories emerged including inconsistent areas of efficacy in the research process, supports in conducting research, barriers in conducting research, experiences of IP across roles, triggers of IP, and factors that quiet IP, with implications for counselor educators
New counselor educators’ scholarly productivity: Supportive and discouraging environments
Eighteen new counselor educators shared in-depth reports of their efforts to establish an early record of scholarly productivity, critical to their success in academe. Analyses of their experiences using consensual qualitative research methods revealed components of both highly positive and highly discouraging program environments and their impact on participants’ research goals
The interaction of imposter phenomenon and research self-efficacy on counselor educator scholarly productivity
Research self-efficacy, imposter phenomenon, and scholarly productivity were explored among a sample of 247 counselor educators. In most cases, feeling like an imposter hindered scholarly productivity; however, the interaction of a moderate to frequent amount of imposter feelings with high research self-efficacy increased scholarly productivity
Imposter phenomenon and research experiences among counselor educators
Content analysis was employed to explore research experiences and imposter phenomenon (IP) among 25 counselor educators. Six overarching categories emerged including inconsistent areas of efficacy in the research process, supports in conducting research, barriers in conducting research, experiences of IP across roles, triggers of IP, and factors that quiet IP, with implications for counselor educators
Developing a Signature Pedagogy in Master’s Research Training
Signature pedagogies have been identified as a conduit for unifying programs and socializing professionals to have similar values, skills, knowledge, and practices. Recently, Baltrinic and Wachter Morris (in press) put out a call to counselor educators to reflect on and consider signature pedagogies. Signature pedagogies in counselor education have been minimally explored and based on findings of empirical studies, there appears to be variability in some areas of preparation such as research training at the master’s level. In this article, we join in the dialogue about signature pedagogies in counselor education by discussing research training at the master’s level. We also provide a framework for initial steps toward developing a signature pedagogy in this domain and suggestions for empirical exploration