View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

'Ward v. Wilbanks': Counselor Educators Respond

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: 'Ward v. Wilbanks': Counselor Educators Respond
Language: English
Authors: Burkholder, David, Hall, Stephanie F., Burkholder, Jessica
Source: Counselor Education and Supervision. Dec 2014 53(4):267-283.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2014
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Counselor Educators, Teacher Attitudes, Court Litigation, Qualitative Research, Teacher Surveys, Competence, Professional Associations, Ethics, Counseling Services, Student Development, Leadership, Investigations, Content Analysis
DOI: 10.1002/j.1556-6978.2014.00062.x
ISSN: 0011-0035
Abstract: This article investigated 71 counselor educators' perspectives and pedagogical practices related to "Ward v. Wilbanks" (2009) and the American Counseling Association (ACA) response to the case. The authors used qualitative content analysis to identify 6 themes from survey data: (a) views on gatekeeping and student training; (b) perceptions of Julea Ward and Eastern Michigan University; (c) values, skills, and competency; (d) reactions to ACA policy on referral; (e) initiation of ethical responsibility to client; and (f) "Ward v. Wilbanks": impact on the profession.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2014
Accession Number: EJ1046588
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFe0x2A8Sns9m4YwpJHjA8GAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDFGttN8-PYEbMThe7AIBEICBmshDUJrdJBU9_52fYnzO8sW0LpL0kuqBtWxTbHnidweabm22YqRaGXShEfRVHn_U7mW6vX_p5S7ewlxRCp_gMgs4jMByUKjphm0rEmCR2eofnCdmoNhfXM34y8SxG4NbBHmFxi55Hh4r4pH1mI7kvHUa302IfuTxvD0ZAb2pBwSreJihxoOZiJgytGytWv6chWU11b5fgqsJkFI=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0099709841;cev01dec.14;2018Jun28.13:59;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0099709841-1">Ward v. Wilbanks: Counselor Educators Respond. </title> <p>This article investigated 71 counselor educators' perspectives and pedagogical practices related to Ward v. Wilbanks (2009) and the American Counseling Association (ACA) response to the case. The authors used qualitative content analysis to identify 6 themes from survey data: (a) views on gatekeeping and student training; (b) perceptions of Julea Ward and Eastern Michigan University; (c) values, skills, and competency; (d) reactions to ACA policy on referral; (e) initiation of ethical responsibility to client; and (f) Ward v. Wilbanks: impact on the profession.</p> <p>Ward v. Wilbanks; gatekeeping; American Counseling Association; ethics</p> <p>The American Counseling Association (ACA; [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>] ) charges counselor educators with monitoring and addressing student deficiencies, and, when students are judged to be unfit for the profession, they are to be removed from the counseling program. For accredited programs, the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP; [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref2">4</reflink>] ) mandates similar appraisal of students and charges counselor educators with consistently assessing student development. Consequently, counselor educators are gatekeepers of the profession (McAdams, Foster, & Ward, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref3">17</reflink>] ; Rust, Raskin, & Hill, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref4">23</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Gatekeeping has frequently been a topic of inquiry within the counseling literature. Ziomek‐Daigle and Christensen ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref5">25</reflink>] ) conducted a grounded theory study of eight counselor educators and found that participants' counselor education programs addressed gatekeeping in four areas: preadmission, postadmission, remediation plan, and remediation outcome. Gaubatz and Vera ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref6">8</reflink>] ) surveyed 118 counselor educators across 79 counseling training programs to identify program variables linked to effective gatekeeping. They found that counseling faculty expressed hesitancy to take action with potentially impaired students and that programs accredited by CACREP and programs with formalized gatekeeping policies followed through more effectively with student concerns. Literature has also provided recommendations and guidelines regarding gatekeeping, including informing students upon admission to the program of how they will be assessed (Lumadue & Duffey, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref7">16</reflink>] ), being open and transparent with students about evaluation and remediation processes (Foster & McAdams, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref8">7</reflink>] ), and having comprehensive policies in place and clearly communicating these policies to students (Rust et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref9">23</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Recent literature has highlighted student experiences and perceptions in the gatekeeping process. Parker et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref10">20</reflink>] ) presented a grounded theory study of 12 students reporting their peers and identified that faculty's response to a student's report is the most critical and important factor. Parker and colleagues recommended future counselor educators receive training on how to respond to peer reporting. Similar to Lumadue and Duffey ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref11">16</reflink>] ) and Foster and McAdams ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref12">7</reflink>] ), Parker et al. also stressed clear and consistent communication of program policies to students. Foster, Leppma, and Hutchinson ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref13">6</reflink>] ) used case analysis to illuminate counseling students' perceptions of gatekeeping. Interviews with 10 counseling students found that students affirmed the importance of gatekeeping, identified core components of the gatekeeping process (robust admissions process, explicit parameters communicated to students), and should possess certain traits to be counselors (self‐awareness, concern for others). Foster et al. noted the importance of counseling programs clearly communicating program expectations and policies related to gatekeeping and emphasized the importance of consistent and fair application of policies (see also Rust et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref14">23</reflink>] ). In addition, counselor educators face legal challenges surrounding student remediation and dismissal. McAdams et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref15">17</reflink>] ) outlined counselor educators' decision to dismiss a student and the legal challenge that followed, stating that counselor educators are required to dismiss students considered to be incompetent but risk legal action when they do.</p> <hd id="AN0099709841-2">Ward v. Wilbanks</hd> <p>The litigation risks involved with student dismissal are exemplified in a highly publicized court case. In 2009, Julea Ward was a student who was near the end of her school counseling program at Eastern Michigan University (EMU). In the spring 2009 academic term, Ward was enrolled in practicum and was reviewing the file of a client who had been assigned to her. The client was seeking counseling for depression related to a same‐sex relationship (Kaplan, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref16">12</reflink>] ). Ward, an evangelical Christian, questioned whether she should refer the client to a different counselor. She subsequently became involved in EMU's remediation process and was ultimately dismissed from the university (see the Appendix; also see Kaplan, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref17">12</reflink>] , for more comprehensive descriptions). Ward sued EMU, and the case, Ward v. Wilbanks (2009), presented significant implications for counseling (Kaplan, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref18">12</reflink>] ).</p> <p>ACA became involved in Ward v. Wilbanks, filing an amicus brief and providing expert testimony (Kaplan, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref19">12</reflink>] ), and stated two reasons for its involvement:</p> <p>The first was to support a counselor education program accredited by [CACREP] as well as the CACREP accreditation standards (CACREP, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref20">4</reflink>] ), which require adherence to the ACA Code of Ethics (ACA, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref21">1</reflink>] ). The second reason focused on the fact that Ward v. Wilbanks directly challenged … the nondiscrimination section (Standard C.5.) of the ACA Code of Ethics (ACA, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref22">1</reflink>] , p. 10). (Kaplan, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref23">12</reflink>] , p. 143)</p> <p>Literature examining and discussing Ward v. Wilbanks is sparse. Kaplan's ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref24">12</reflink>] ) position paper for ACA articulated ACA's official position on Ward v. Wilbanks, focusing on four points:</p> <p>Professional counselors may not deny counseling services to a homosexual person (or an individual belonging to any other protected class of clients) on the basis of the counselor's values.</p> <p>Referrals are to be made on the basis of skill‐based competency, not values.</p> <p>To avoid abandonment, referral is an option of last resort.</p> <p>The counselor's ethical obligations to an individual start at first contact or assignment, not at the first session. (p. 146)</p> <p>Hutchens, Block, and Young ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref25">11</reflink>] ) included Ward v. Wilbanks while discussing the tension that may exist between the ability of a counseling program to enforce ethical standards and a student's right to free speech. Hutchens et al. stated that legal ambiguity does exist for counseling programs concerning this tension, and they recommended a continuous review of policies, students' signed statements that they have received and read program policies, and consistent application and documentation of procedures.</p> <p>At the time of this research, only one known empirical investigation had focused on Ward v. Wilbanks. Burkholder and Hall ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref26">3</reflink>] ) conducted a large‐scale qualitative study that examined the responses to Ward v. Wilbanks of a national sample (N = 201) of counseling students in CACREP‐accredited master's programs. Student responses to Ward v. Wilbanks included the following: (a) a discussion of different elements of gatekeeping, including the role counselor educators play as gatekeepers and the methods and timeliness of gatekeeping practices; (b) a view among participants that both Ward and EMU had taken unwavering positions and were unwilling to compromise; (c) the presence of both confusion and certainty among students concerning the events at EMU that preceded Ward v. Wilbanks; and (d) a recognition among students of how personal values, professional values, and the ACA Code of Ethics (ACA, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref27">1</reflink>] ) influenced perceptions of the case. Notably, Burkholder and Hall found that some students in counseling programs had been instructed that values‐based referrals are unethical, other students had been instructed that values‐based referrals are ethical, and yet other students had been hearing different faculty in their programs espousing both positions.</p> <p>Counseling students in CACREP‐accredited programs have received mixed messages from faculty regarding values‐based referrals (Burkholder & Hall, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref28">3</reflink>] ), which deserve further exploration because CACREP‐accredited counseling programs require adherence to the ACA Code of Ethics (Kaplan, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref29">12</reflink>] ). Counselor educators are responsible for providing ethics training for counseling students, and previous research has noted that counselor educators are the next logical source for further exploration on Ward v. Wilbanks (Burkholder & Hall, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref30">3</reflink>] ). Consequently, the following research question was used to guide the present study: What attitudes, perspectives, and pedagogical practices exist among counselor educators in CACREP‐accredited programs on Ward v. Wilbanks?</p> <hd id="AN0099709841-3">Method</hd> <p>On the basis of the issues within Ward v. Wilbanks and our previous research (Burkholder & Hall, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref31">3</reflink>] ), we were aware that some counselor educators may be uncomfortable openly and freely discussing Ward v. Wilbanks in face‐to‐face interviews. To facilitate honest and open responses, we chose to conduct this research using an online survey format via a web‐based research site (surveymonkey.com). In addition to facilitating honest responses, an online survey format was chosen as a direct way to gather large amounts of data (Reitz & Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref32">22</reflink>] ) while assisting in a straightforward transfer of survey responses from Survey Monkey to NVivo (McPeake, Bateson, & O'Neill, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref33">18</reflink>] ). We used a qualitative content analysis approach to analyze the open‐ended survey responses (Krippendorff, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref34">13</reflink>] ). Examples exist within the counseling literature of using surveys to gather qualitative responses online (Hunt & Milsom, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref35">10</reflink>] ; Mellin, Hunt, & Nichols, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref36">19</reflink>] ), including studies citing the same rationale as the present study (Burkholder & Hall, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref37">3</reflink>] ; Protivnak & Foss, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref38">21</reflink>] ).</p> <hd id="AN0099709841-4">Participant Selection</hd> <p>The participant criterion was being a counselor educator in a CACREP‐accredited program. We sampled counseling faculty from CACREP‐accredited programs for two reasons: (a) to demonstrate consistency with previous research on Ward v. Wilbanks that examined a national sample of counseling students from CACREP programs (Burkholder & Hall, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref39">3</reflink>] ), and (b) the ACA has detailed a clear position on Ward v. Wilbanks, and CACREP programs necessitate compliance with the ACA position (Kaplan, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref40">12</reflink>] ). Participants were solicited via CESNET‐L, along with an e‐mail sent to all CACREP contact liaisons in the United States, requesting that they forward the e‐mail to all counselor educators in their program. The e‐mail to both CESNET‐L and CACREP contact liaisons included a summary of this research and a survey link, and participants were provided more information about this study. They were also given a series of demographic questions in relation to gender, age, race/ethnicity, CACREP region, academic title, and years of teaching experience.</p> <p>Participants (N = 71) were 44 female and 27 male counselor educators, ranging in age from 27 to 75 years (SD = 10.76). Participants' race/ethnicity included 59 (83.1%) of Caucasian or European descent, four (5.6%) of African American/Afro‐Caribbean/African descent, three (4.2%) participants who identified as multiracial, two (2.8%) of Native American/Indian or First Nation descent, two (2.8%) of Asian/Polynesian or Pacific Islander descent, and one (1.4%) of Hispanic/Latina/Latino descent. (Percentages may not equal 100 because of rounding.) The majority of participants were located in the CACREP Southern region (42.3%, n = 30), followed by the North Central region (25.4%, n = 18), the North Atlantic and Rocky Mountain regions (14.1%, n = 10 for each), and the Western region (4.2%, n = 3). Associate professors made up 36.6% (n = 26) of participants, followed by assistant professors (25.4%, n = 18), full professors (19.7%, n = 14), adjunct faculty (9.9%, n = 7), non‐tenure‐track full‐time faculty (7.0%, n = 5), and a temporary instructor (1.4%, n = 1). The number of years as a faculty member in a counseling program ranged from 0 to 41 years, with an average of 11 years (SD = 9.31).</p> <hd id="AN0099709841-5">The Write‐Up</hd> <p>A write‐up was included for participants to refer to when answering the survey questions (see the Appendix). The content of the write‐up was constructed to encompass the primary events of the case as well as the ACA position statement (Kaplan, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref41">12</reflink>] ). The first three paragraphs of the write‐up were identical to part of a write‐up used in previous research on Ward v. Wilbanks by the first and second authors (Burkholder & Hall, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref42">3</reflink>] ) and represented the salient events surrounding the case. These paragraphs were constructed through consultation with Walter Kraft, EMU vice president for communications and the university's contact person for Ward v. Wilbanks. Kraft was e‐mailed an initial draft of the first three paragraphs of the write‐up, and he forwarded the draft to EMU's team for review. EMU's team examined and revised the draft, and Kraft e‐mailed this revision to us (W. Kraft, personal communication, February 29, 2012).</p> <p>Additionally, ACA's involvement and response to Ward v. Wilbanks were listed in the write‐up. The write‐up also presented two draft revisions (not shown in the Appendix) to the 2005 ACA Code of Ethics. David Kaplan, ACA's chief professional officer, who provided expert testimony in Ward v. Wilbanks and wrote ACA's official position statement on the case (Kaplan, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref43">12</reflink>] ), reviewed and confirmed that the content was representative of ACA's perspective (D. Kaplan, personal communication, April 19, 2013).</p> <hd id="AN0099709841-6">Survey</hd> <p>Participants were asked the following questions based on the write‐up:</p> <p>What factors do you think informed Julea Ward's course of action?</p> <p>What factors do you think informed the course of action taken by the EMU faculty?</p> <p>What is your response to EMU's decision to dismiss Julea Ward from the university?</p> <p>What personal/professional values informed your responses to Questions 1–3?</p> <p>What is your response to the four summative points of the ACA's position on Ward v. Wilbanks?</p> <p>How have you instructed counseling students on the issues (the four summative points) discussed in the ACA's official position paper on Ward v. Wilbanks?</p> <p>How does the ACA's official position on Ward v. Wilbanks impact how you will instruct students?</p> <p>The first four questions were the same questions presented to counseling students in previous research on Ward v. Wilbanks (Burkholder & Hall, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref44">3</reflink>] ). The survey questions were used to capture participants' perspectives and teaching practices concerning Ward v. Wilbanks and were instructed by previous research (Burkholder & Hall, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref45">3</reflink>] ), consultation with Kraft and Kaplan, and the pilot study.</p> <p>At the end of the survey, participants were given the option to provide an e‐mail address so that a member check could be conducted after analysis of the data. Of the 71 participants, 62 (87.3%) provided an e‐mail address. At the conclusion of data analysis, the participants who provided an e‐mail address were contacted and provided with both their responses to the survey questions and the themes identified from the data analysis. Participants were asked to provide feedback as to whether the identified themes were representative of their responses. Twenty‐seven participants responded to the member check, and all stated that the identified themes were representative of their responses.</p> <p>A pilot study was completed with eight counselor educators to test the fitness of the research question and to determine if the survey questions were clear and understandable. All of the participants in the pilot study gave responses that conveyed their attitudes, perspectives, and pedagogical practices on Ward v. Wilbanks, indicating the clarity of the survey questions as well as the fitness of the research question. Data from the pilot study were not used in the results of the present research.</p> <hd id="AN0099709841-7">Data Analysis</hd> <p>A computer‐assisted qualitative data analysis software program (NVivo 10) was used to enhance the rigor of the data analysis because of the large amount of participant data (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref46">14</reflink>] ). The structure of the data analysis followed best practices for using NVivo with qualitative research (Hoover & Koerber, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref47">9</reflink>] ), and the steps of the data analysis were held relatively consistent with other similar research (Burkholder & Hall, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref48">3</reflink>] ; Protivnak & Foss, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref49">21</reflink>] ). After participant responses were transferred verbatim from Survey Monkey to Microsoft Word, they were imported into NVivo. We then completed a line‐by‐line read‐through of all participant responses in conjunction with word frequency queries and coding the data. Coding data in NVivo involves the creation of nodes, and we thematically grouped participant responses into broad free nodes (Bergin, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref50">2</reflink>] ). We used the memo function in NVivo to (a) track any biases and assumptions while conducting the data analysis, (b) consider responses in relation to the research question, and (c) identify nodes that were distinct and combine nodes that were similar. Throughout this process, we compared and discussed memos until we arrived at an agreement on the final set of distinct and comprehensive themes.</p> <hd id="AN0099709841-8">Researchers and Trustworthiness Procedures</hd> <p>The first author is a male counselor educator who has been in a mental health counseling program for 5 years. The second author is a female counselor educator who has been in two mental health counseling programs totaling 7 years. The third author is a female counselor educator who has been in a mental health counseling program for 4 years. The first and second authors have published research on Ward v. Wilbanks (Burkholder & Hall, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref51">3</reflink>] ) and presented the research at the 2013 ACA conference. Both authors are interested in the present study because of the results of their previous research and the feedback generated at the ACA conference. The third author is motivated to explore this topic because of the wide range of opinions she has encountered discussing the case with both students and colleagues.</p> <p>We recognized that our previous research on the case and conversations with both colleagues and students could potentially affect our analysis, so bracketing was implemented during the data analysis to facilitate objective handling of the data (Fischer, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref52">5</reflink>] ). We identified the following primary assumptions: (a) Some counselor educators have attitudes and perspectives that are inconsistent with all or parts of the ACA position; (b) counselor educators have instructed students inconsistently concerning values‐based referrals; and (c) counselor educators in CACREP‐accredited programs must provide students clear and consistent instruction on ethics issues, particularly those surrounding Ward v. Wilbanks. Memos were used to identify and discuss these assumptions to mitigate any influence on the data analysis.</p> <p>We accounted for the credibility of the research through member checks and peer debriefing. We conducted a member check by e‐mailing participants the emergent themes and asking if the themes characterized their responses to the survey questions. Twenty seven participants responded to the member check, all confirming that the themes were reflective of their responses. We met with a counselor educator during data analysis to accomplish peer debriefing. We discussed the data analysis process and shared memos with the peer debriefer, who inquired about our analyses and probed for any possible biases. An external auditor addressed both confirmability and dependability of our research (Lincoln & Guba, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref53">15</reflink>] ). This auditor was a counselor educator with both pedagogical and research experiences with ethics issues. The auditor comprehensively examined significant elements of the present study, including the research question, survey questions, methodological choices, author assumptions, participant selection and responses, data collection and analysis, and trustworthiness procedures. The auditor verified the dependability and confirmability of this research. Transferability, the final mechanism of trustworthiness, was achieved through a “relatively large number of participants responding to open‐ended questions” (Protivnak & Foss, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref54">21</reflink>] , p. 242).</p> <hd id="AN0099709841-9">Results</hd> <p>Six themes were identified from our study: (a) views on gatekeeping and student training; (b) perceptions of Julea Ward and EMU; (c) values, skills, and competency; (d) reactions to ACA policy on referral; (e) initiation of ethical responsibility to client; and (f) Ward v. Wilbanks: impact on the profession. Table [NaN] provides sample descriptive participant quotes.</p> <p>Description and Frequency of Themes and Representative Participant Quotes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th>Theme</th><th>Description and Frequency</th><th>Sample Quotes</th></tr><tr><td>Views on gatekeeping and student training</td><td>A majority of participants (n = 59) viewed the actions of the EMU faculty as a direct function of their responsibility to serve as gatekeepers.</td><td>The faculty at EMU was doing what they had to, which was gatekeeping. Protecting clients, protecting the profession.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>A significant number of participants (n = 45) went beyond simply noting the role of gatekeeping by discussing how gatekeeping should be approached. Specifically, these participants questioned the timing of events, highlighting the importance of early intervention in the gatekeeping process and students having clarity of what will be expected.</td><td><p>While I fully support EMU's decision to dismiss Ms. Ward, I wonder how she was able to reach practicum (near the end of the program) without having to address the concerns that ultimately led to her dismissal.</p><p>Was it clear to Ward that the program insists that every student sees clients irrespective of certain/any characteristic about the client? … Training programs can be more clear about their expectations of students, particularly in regard to personal beliefs.</p></td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>A smaller number of participants (n = 12) reflected on the duty of counselor educators to attend to the development of counselors‐in‐training and questioned whether EMU had fulfilled this obligation. Rather than viewing the situation as necessitating remediation, these participants believed that EMU missed an opportunity to attend to the professional development of Julea Ward.</td><td><p>I think sometimes we remediate too quickly. Let's not lose sight of the duty to train our students before we immediately try to change them.</p><p>I think that EMU faculty showed gross negligence in how they addressed spiritual issues in counselor development.</p><p>I wonder if the faculty fully attempted to address Ms. Ward's (and other students') professional development in this area … and if not, it is unfortunate that she was dismissed.</p></td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>The final element in this theme included a discussion among the participants regarding how they have instructed students on the issues within Ward v. Wilbanks and how the ACA position statement will or will not affect their pedagogy. Many participants (n = 58) contended that their instruction has been consistent with and reinforced by the ACA position.</td><td><p>I have always instructed students consistent with the ACA position.</p><p>[The ACA position statement] welcomes, but only reinforces what we instructed already.</p><p>Students are informed that competency responsibility is on the counselor, not the client, that counselors cannot discriminate, and that referral for any reason other than documented competency issues is unethical and could constitute discrimination.</p></td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Not all participants indicated instruction consistent with the ACA position (n = 13). While some of these participants noted that the position statement would alter their instruction, other participants stated that they would not change their instruction to be consistent with ACA.</td><td><p>[Prior to reading the ACA position statement,] I instructed students to not impose their values on their client. However, I did instruct them if they felt that they would do harm to their client that they should refer.</p><p>[After reading the ACA position statement,] I now instruct students on how to avoid imposing their values on the client. I also make them aware of the ACA guidelines in accordance with this case.</p><p>The ACA's position does not impact how I will instruct students. The ACA does not dictate to me, as a professor, how I will teach on this issue, or any other issue.</p></td></tr><tr><td>Views on gatekeeping and student training</td><td>Not all participants indicated instruction consistent with the ACA position (n = 13). While some of these participants noted that the position statement would alter their instruction, other participants stated that they would not change their instruction to be consistent with ACA.</td><td><p>Position statements and ethics codes are not litmus tests or decrees for my pedagogy.</p><p>I have explained [to students] that if they think their beliefs have the potential to cause harm, then referral is appropriate. ACA is an activist/academic group and does not represent counselors.</p><p>If they know that another counselor would be better able to help a client achieve the client's goals, then referring to that counselor would be in the client's best interests and is the most helpful and ethical course of action. … I hope that wiser counselor educators will help the profession learn that religious freedom and respect and counseling services for homosexuals can coexist.</p></td></tr><tr><td>Perceptions of Julea Ward and EMU</td><td>Participants also expressed divergent views regarding what the right course of action was for both Julea Ward and EMU. A majority of participants (n = 50) felt that Julea Ward was unprepared for the situation and wrong in the way she responded. These participants believed that Julea Ward wanted to evangelize to the client and was focusing on herself rather than the client. Unsurprisingly, these participants thought that EMU did the right thing.</td><td><p>Erroneously believing that referral protected the client … putting [her] own values ahead of the client.</p><p>Underdeveloped understanding of her responsibilities of care toward sexual minorities.</p><p>Believes she knows the truth … believes she is responsible for enforcing her truth.</p><p>Julea displayed an inability to resolve conflict between her identification as a “Christian” and her identification as a counselor.</p><p>Julea was not able to navigate this scenario and EMU was correct in their approach.</p></td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Although not in the majority, many participants (n = 21) expressed disapproval with EMU's response to Julea Ward. These participants asserted that EMU's course of action was discriminatory and extinguished necessary dialogue while suppressing Julea Ward's views and beliefs. These participants believed that EMU's concern was based on a limited view of counseling and was focused on being politically correct. For these participants, Julea Ward was operating from a sincere and correct perspective and desired to do the right thing for both herself and the client.</td><td><p>Inability to effectively work with students who hold sincere spiritual beliefs … a narrow view of what a counselor is.</p><p>Religious discrimination … political correctness.</p><p>A desire for authenticity/genuineness … to preserve her religious freedom and client rights.</p><p>Trying to act ethically as she was surely instructed … wanted to avoid doing any harm.</p></td></tr><tr><td>Values, skills, and competency</td><td>Three groups of participants emerged: those who are certain that values and skills are separate, those who are certain that values and skills are inseparable, and those who are unsure. The first group (n = 41) included participants who agreed with the ACA position (that referral stems from skill‐based competency only) and who unquestioningly viewed competency as separate from values. For these participants, competency only related to the counselor's skill set, not their personal beliefs.</td><td><p>I agree. I've worked with many clients who hold very different worldviews and values than myself. It's not about me, it's about the client.</p><p>Personal beliefs do not and should not overlap into skills and competency.</p></td></tr><tr><td> </td><td><p>The second group of participants 
rejected the idea that skills alone, and not values, were the basis for a counselor's competency (n = 19). Participants in this group saw values and skills as two inseparable, interlocking entities that defined competency.</p><p>The third group (n = 11) was composed of participants who wrestled with the question of whether values do or do not inform competency. Participants in this group were either unsure or skeptical of the notion that values and skills can be separated and speculated that values influence a counselor's areas of competency.</p></td><td><p>Skills and values are likely interconnected in many cases.</p><p>A counselor's values unquestionably inform and determine [his or her] clinical skills.</p><p>How can anyone make a claim that skills and values are separate, and that one does not inform the other?</p><p>I am really struggling with understanding how the two can be so easily distinct.</p><p>Sure, but how do you assess the difference [between skills and values]? Can they in reality be separated?</p></td></tr><tr><td>Reactions to ACA policy on referral</td><td>Those participants who agreed with the ACA position (n = 45) articulated that counselors must be flexible and primarily concerned with accepting the client where they are, regardless of the client's beliefs. Others who agreed with the ACA position grounded their agreement in the protective nature of the ACA position—protection for both the counselor and client.</td><td><p>Counselors will need to be more adaptive in their ability to meet clients “where they are.” Who would we refer to and why? Why are we not adapting and growing?</p><p>I believe that this protects both the counselor and client.</p><p>Absolutely correct. Referrals are potentially harmful to clients and should be done rarely, when competency is the issue, not values.</p></td></tr><tr><td>Reactions to ACA policy on referral</td><td>Some participants disagreed (n = 26) on how referral was defined in the ACA position. For these participants, a broader definition of acceptable referral was desired to promote client care and serve client interests. These participants also described a policy of skill‐based referral as unrealistic and unreasonable.</td><td><p>We all have biases. … In some cases we can seek supervision and training to examine those biases and determine if we can work around them successfully. But when such a deeply held conviction is unlikely to change, isn't it better to know and admit to that and refer the client out rather than risk providing treatment that may negatively affect the client?</p><p>This seems to underestimate the difficulty all of us have with various areas of personal growth. I have met quite a number of non‐Christian counselors who should never see Christian clients due to their own biases, lack of understanding, and condescending views. I'm not sure they would see the application to themselves in this rule.</p></td></tr><tr><td>Initiation of ethical responsibility to client</td><td><p>Some participants (n = 28) agreed with the ACA position that ethical responsibility to a client is initiated at first contact.</p><p>A majority of participants disagreed or expressed confusion (n = 43). These participants believed that informed consent defines ethical obligation, and they expressed concern over potential implications from the ACA position.</p></td><td><p>Once you've made first contact, there is a counseling relationship.</p><p>Agreed—this protects clients against discriminatory counselors.</p><p>Informed consent should come first and then the potential client can decide if they want to work with the given counselor.</p><p>This is too loose. Anyone I talked to would then become my professional responsibility. I suggest it be revised to after an informed consent is signed.</p><p>Ethical obligation begins when there is a signed agreement in place.</p><p>It is unrealistic and overly prescriptive, and has the potential for tremendous, unintended consequences.</p><p>This code is overly broad given the many possibilities of first contact.</p><p>This is a huge change in duty and I think transparently reactionary to this Ward case. The potential for negative consequences is significant.</p></td></tr><tr><td>Ward v. Wilbanks: Impact on the profession</td><td>Most participants (n = 55) were in agreement with both the actions of EMU and the position of ACA (except for the question of when a client is a client). These participants felt Julea Ward was inappropriate for the counseling profession, EMU took a difficult but necessary stand, and the ACA involvement in and response to the case were largely appropriate and necessary.</td><td><p>EMU and the ACA both advocated for clients even though they could have taken easier paths. I'm proud of ACA.</p><p>The ACA and EMU had the correct perspective and focus, and followed through.</p></td></tr><tr><td>Ward v. Wilbanks: Impact on the profession</td><td>A smaller number of participants (n = 16) reflected on the effects of Ward v. Wilbanks as both negative and something that could have been avoided. These participants expressed concern about the effect the case has had on the counseling profession, as well as the impact of the case on current and future counseling students.</td><td><p>EMU and ACA are making education unsafe for people and suppressing personal growth. Many students are afraid to share their religious beliefs in counseling programs and even more so after watching this case.</p><p>EMU's dismissal of Julea Ward did nothing but polarize the counseling profession and did not do any service to Julea Ward.</p><p>Unfortunately, the Ward case has polarized our profession with conservative worldviews on one side and liberal worldviews on the other.</p><p>Their [EMU's] decision and subsequent statements were a politically correct overreaction, which unnecessarily polarized the counseling field.</p></td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Note. ACA = American Couneling Association; EMU = Eastern Michigan University.</p> <hd id="AN0099709841-10">Views on Gatekeeping and Student Training</hd> <p>Participants viewed Ward v. Wilbanks as a case that involved two fundamental responsibilities of counselor educators: gatekeeping and student development/training. The counselor educators in this study also reflected on their own responsibility to develop and train students, noting how they had carried out their responsibility in instructing their own students on issues central to Ward v. Wilbanks and how the ACA position statement had affected their pedagogical practices.</p> <hd id="AN0099709841-11">Perceptions of Julea Ward and EMU</hd> <p>Participants expressed divergent views regarding what the right course of action was for both Julea Ward and EMU. Some participants believed that Ward was not competent to handle the situation and that she acted unethically, whereas other participants condemned EMU's actions and believed Ward was rightfully expressing her sincere beliefs.</p> <hd id="AN0099709841-12">Values, Skills, and Competency</hd> <p>When responding to the ACA position statement on Ward v. Wilbanks, participants discussed the role of personal values and counseling skills, whether values and skills are distinct or indivisible, and how values and skills inform competency.</p> <hd id="AN0099709841-13">Reactions to ACA Policy on Referral</hd> <p>The ACA position statement also sparked discussion on the appropriate role of client referral. Participants were divided on when, and when not, to refer. Some participants viewed referral as a last resort that could potentially be harmful to clients, whereas other participants contended that serving the best interests of clients may sometimes involve referral based on value differences.</p> <hd id="AN0099709841-14">Initiation of Ethical Responsibility to Client</hd> <p>The final element of the ACA position that prompted discussion among participants was defining the moment when a counselor assumes ethical responsibility for a client. Unlike the previous two themes, in which the majority of participants agreed with ACA, the majority of participants expressed disagreement or confusion with the ACA position that ethical responsibility to a client begins at first contact or assignment (Kaplan, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref55">12</reflink>] ).</p> <hd id="AN0099709841-15">Ward v. Wilbanks: Impact on the Profession</hd> <p>Responding to Ward v. Wilbanks provided an opportunity for participants to reflect on the effect the case has had on the counseling profession. Sample reflections included appreciation for the actions of both EMU and ACA, as well as concern over the perceived negative impact Ward v. Wilbanks and the ACA involvement have had on the counseling profession.</p> <hd id="AN0099709841-16">Discussion</hd> <p>Themes present in this study mirrored previous literature on Ward v. Wilbanks. Some participants have taught their students that values‐based referrals are ethical, whereas other participants have taught their students that such referrals are unethical. This inconsistency reflected the mixed messages counseling students have previously reported on referrals (Burkholder & Hall, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref56">3</reflink>] ). Participants underscored the role counselor educators play as gatekeepers as well as the importance of addressing student concerns early (Burkholder & Hall, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref57">3</reflink>] ; Foster et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref58">6</reflink>] ; McAdams et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref59">17</reflink>] ; Ziomek‐Daigle & Christensen, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref60">25</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Themes illuminating counselor educators' perspectives and pedagogical practices on Ward v. Wilbanks are unique within the counseling literature. Whereas a small number of participants disagreed with EMU, the majority of participants agreed with EMU's course of action and supported ACA's response. A significant number of participants expressed concern, confusion, or disagreement with the following elements of the ACA position statement: (a) the divisibility of values and skills (and the notion that competency can only be from skills), (b) the role of referral, and (c) when a client is a client. Notably, most participants were clearly rejecting or skeptical of the fourth point in the ACA position statement: “The counselor's ethical obligations to an individual start at first contact or assignment, not at the first session” (Kaplan, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref61">12</reflink>] , p. 146). These points of divergence are underscored by the sentiments of some participants that they have instructed students inconsistently with ACA's position, disagree with some or all of ACA's position, and are unwilling to shift their instruction to be consistent with ACA's position. Additionally, participants in our study reflected on the impact Ward v. Wilbanks has had on the counseling profession, describing the case as polarizing and expressing concern that Julea Ward's dismissal raises the possibility that counseling programs may feel unsafe for students with religious beliefs.</p> <hd id="AN0099709841-17">Limitations and Areas for Future Research</hd> <p>As has been noted in previous large‐scale qualitative research (Burkholder & Hall, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref62">3</reflink>] ; Protivnak & Foss, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref63">21</reflink>] ), there are limitations inherent to the methodological choices made in this study. Large‐scale qualitative research does not permit researchers to discuss and explore responses with participants. Additionally, the events of Ward v. Wilbanks and the ACA position, both of which are nuanced, were presented to participants in a relatively brief write‐up. Although we conducted a member check, 62 of the 71 participants provided an e‐mail address, and only 27 responded to the member check. Finally, a limited sample size of 71 counselor educators participated in this study. Consequently, the participants may not represent all counselor educators, and those who responded may have particularly strong or biased views on the topic under investigation. Regardless of these limitations, we believe that the results are trustworthy and the subjective perspectives of the participants were captured.</p> <p>Qualitative studies with a smaller sample size of counselor educators may be useful for future research, because additional information may be discovered illuminating the perspectives and teaching practices of counseling faculty. To broaden counselor educators' understanding, future researchers should also explore the experiences counselor educators have had when training students who hold strong religious beliefs relevant to the issues present within Ward v. Wilbanks. Future researchers could also explore how individuals with strong religious beliefs experience being a student in a counseling program. Finally, future researchers should examine the attitudes and practices of counselors on issues such as referral and values, so the counseling community has insight into how practicing counselors respond when working with a client with different values.</p> <hd id="AN0099709841-18">Implications for Counselor Education</hd> <p>We expect that this research will prompt and inform intentional discourse among faculty in counselor education programs and that the faculty within them will consider Ward v. Wilbanks, along with the results of this research, and make decisions best suited for their programs and students. Based on the results of the present study, the following five areas of counselor preparation seem to be most significant for counseling faculty to consider: (a) the tension between gatekeeping and student development; (b) how to navigate a values‐based conflict between a counselor and a client; (c) the separateness or indivisibility of skills (competency) and values; (d) defining the moment of counselor responsibility for a client; and (e) how to engage with and instruct students, who may, like Julea Ward, express values that are counter to ACA's position, on the preceding areas (particularly the first and second areas). When considering how to instruct and approach students concerning the first four areas, counselor educators within CACREP‐accredited programs should be mindful of ACA's position statement and the responsibility to be consistent with ACA.</p> <p>We encourage educators within departments of counseling to consider the importance of consistently educating their students on the salient issues within Ward v. Wilbanks, particularly client referral, to prevent confusion among students (Burkholder & Hall, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref64">3</reflink>] ). Because literature has noted the importance of continuous reviews of gatekeeping policies (Hutchens et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref65">11</reflink>] ), given this study's findings, counselor education programs should evaluate their program policies in the context of the events that preceded Ward v. Wilbanks. Specifically, programs should articulate their expectations of students when they work with clients who have values different from their own, including having formalized and documented policies on client referral, and these policies should be clearly communicated to students (Rust et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref66">23</reflink>] ) and applied consistently and fairly (Foster et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref67">6</reflink>] ). Formalized policies may assist programs in following through with student concerns (Gaubatz & Vera, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref68">8</reflink>] ) and should also be provided to students as soon as possible, such as upon admittance to the program (Lumadue & Duffey, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref69">16</reflink>] ). Such transparency is consistent with recommendations in the literature (Burkholder & Hall, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref70">3</reflink>] ; Foster & McAdams, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref71">7</reflink>] ; Parker et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref72">20</reflink>] ; Rust et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref73">23</reflink>] ) and may prevent issues from arising later that may have been avoidable.</p> <p>One of the most striking elements within this study was the assertion of some participants who were not in agreement with the ACA position on referral that they had no intention of shifting their instruction. There are significant negative implications for students who receive instruction divergent from the ACA position. As this research has shown, counselor educators hold a variety of opinions on the issues central to Ward v. Wilbanks. However, counselor educators should consider the influence they have with students and the implications of instruction that is inconsistent with the ACA position. Although we recognize and respect academic freedom, the issues at play in this context represent fundamental values of the counseling profession as expressed by ACA (Kaplan, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref74">12</reflink>] ), and participants in this study represented CACREP‐accredited schools that require compliance with ACA (Kaplan, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref75">12</reflink>] ). Finally, our findings also identified that some participants were unclear or confused with some elements of the ACA position statement. Counselor educators would be well served to contact ACA with questions to have a clear understanding when presenting information to students.</p> <hd id="AN0099709841-19">Conclusion</hd> <p>It is apparent that disagreement exists within counselor education concerning the issues within Ward v. Wilbanks and the ACA position (Kaplan, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref76">12</reflink>] ). This disagreement is unsurprising, as the case taps into the diverse beliefs and value systems that shape and inform counselors' approaches to clients and students. Despite this disagreement, as the counseling profession continues to examine the events at EMU that led to the litigation, as well as the present study, we are hopeful that counselor education programs will engage in reflection and dialogue that result in program policies and pedagogical choices that best equip students to practice counseling both competently and ethically.</p> <hd id="AN0099709841-20">APPENDIX: Ward v. Wilbanks Write‐Up</hd> <p>In 2009, Julea Ward, a teacher and an evangelical Christian, was studying for a master's degree in the CACREP‐accredited school counseling program at Eastern Michigan University (EMU). Ms. Ward was near the end of her program and enrolled in practicum. Ms. Ward had earlier expressed both in class dialogues and papers that she believes that homosexuality is a sin.</p> <p>During her practicum course, Ms. Ward was examining the file of a prospective client who had been assigned to her. When she was reviewing the file, she noticed the client was in a same‐sex relationship and had sought counseling in the past about issues that may have impacted that relationship. Ms. Ward says that she asked her faculty supervisor if (a) she should see the client and refer the client only if the counseling session focused on the client's same‐sex relationship, or (b) if the client should be reassigned immediately to another counselor. Her faculty supervisor recalls it a bit differently, and that Ms. Ward told her that she could not counsel gay clients on relationship issues. In either event, the supervisor directed that the client be reassigned. She also told Ms. Ward that she would be scheduling an informal review that would include Ms. Ward, the supervisor, and Ms. Ward's program adviser. The informal review is an initial step in the program's academic disciplinary process that allows a faculty member with a concern about a student's behavior or performance to hold an informal meeting to address those concerns.</p> <p>At the conclusion of the informal review meeting, Ms. Ward was presented with three options: complete a remediation plan to help her learn to work with clients who hold values that are different from hers, seek a formal review, or withdraw from the program. Ms. Ward asked for a formal review. During this review, Ms. Ward reiterated her refusal to counsel clients concerning homosexual relationships and indicated that she also would be unable to counsel heterosexual clients regarding nonmarital sex, or persons who wished to explore the option of abortion, and indicated that, as a Christian, she was morally obligated to express the biblical viewpoint regarding proper sexual relationships. Ms. Ward was subsequently dismissed from the counseling program. Ms. Ward sued, claiming that EMU discriminated against her based on her religion and violated her constitutional rights to free speech, free expression, equal protection, and due process.</p> <p>One of the arguments within Julea Ward's lawsuit was that the nondiscrimination section (C.5) of the ACA Code of Ethics (American Counseling Association. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref77">1</reflink>] ) restricts constitutionally protected free speech and conduct. Because of this, the ACA became involved in the case, providing expert testimony in court, filing an amicus brief on behalf of EMU, and writing an official position paper on Ward v. Wilbanks. The ACA's official position on Ward v. Wilbanks focused on three questions: (a) Is it permissible to deny counseling services to a homosexual client on the basis of a counselor's values? (b) Can counselors make referrals at any time they wish to do so? and (c) When is a client a client? Four summative points in the ACA's position paper addressed those three questions:</p> <p>Professional counselors may not deny counseling services to a homosexual client (or any other protected class of clients) on the basis of the counselor's values.</p> <p>Referrals are to be made on the basis of skill‐based competency, not values.</p> <p>In order to avoid abandonment, referral is an option of last resort.</p> <p>Our ethical obligation to an individual starts at first contact or assignment, not at the first session.</p> <ref id="AN0099709841-21"> <title>References</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext>American Counseling Association. ( 2005 ). ACA code of ethics. Alexandria, VA : Author. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref50" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext>Bergin, M. ( 2011 ). NVivo 8 and consistency in data analysis: Reflecting on the use of a qualitative data analysis program. Nurse Researcher, 18, 6 – 12. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref26" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext>Burkholder, D., & Hall, S. F. ( 2014 ). Ward v. Wilbanks: Students respond. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92, 232 – 241. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref2" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext>Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. ( 2009 ). 2009 standards. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.cacrep.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2009-Standards.pdf">http://www.cacrep.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2009-Standards.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref52" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext>Fischer, C. T. ( 2009 ). Bracketing in qualitative research: Conceptual and practical matters. Psychotherapy Research, 19, 583 – 590. doi: 10.1080/10503300902798375 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref13" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext>Foster, J. M., Leppma, M., & Hutchinson, T. S. ( 2014 ). Students’ perspectives on gatekeeping in counselor education: A case study. Counselor Education and Supervision, 53, 190 – 203. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref8" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext>Foster, V. A., & McAdams, C. R., III ,. ( 2009 ). A framework for creating a climate of transparency for professional performance assessment: Fostering student investment in gatekeeping. Counselor Education and Supervision, 48, 271 – 284. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref6" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext>Gaubatz, M. D., & Vera, E. M. ( 2002 ). Do formalized gatekeeping procedures increase programs’ follow‐up with deficient trainees? Counselor Education and Supervision, 41, 294 – 305. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref47" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext>Hoover, R. S., & Koerber, A. L. ( 2011 ). Using NVivo to answer the challenges of qualitative research in professional communication: Benefits and best practices tutorial. Transactions on Professional Communication, 54, 68 – 82. doi: 10.1109/TPC.2009.2036896 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" idref="ref35" type="bt">10</bibl> <bibtext>Hunt, B., & Milsom, A. ( 2011 ). Academic writing: Reflections from successful counselor educators. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 50, 56 – 69. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib11" idref="ref25" type="bt">11</bibl> <bibtext>Hutchens, N., Block, J., & Young, M. ( 2013 ). Counselor educators’ gatekeeping responsibilities and students’ First Amendment rights. Counselor Education and Supervision, 52, 82 – 95. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib12" idref="ref16" type="bt">12</bibl> <bibtext>Kaplan, D. M. ( 2014 ). Ethical implications of a critical legal case for the counseling profession: Ward v. Wilbanks. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92, 142 – 146. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib13" idref="ref34" type="bt">13</bibl> <bibtext>Krippendorff, K. ( 2004 ). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology ( 2nd ed. ). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib14" idref="ref46" type="bt">14</bibl> <bibtext>Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. ( 2011 ). Beyond constant comparison qualitative data analysis: Using NVivo. School Psychology Quarterly, 26, 70 – 84. doi: 10.1037/a0022711 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib15" idref="ref53" type="bt">15</bibl> <bibtext>Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. ( 1985 ). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA : Sage. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib16" idref="ref7" type="bt">16</bibl> <bibtext>Lumadue, C. A., & Duffey, T. H. ( 1999 ). The role of graduate programs as gatekeepers: A model of evaluating student counselor competencies. Counselor Education and Supervision, 39, 101 – 109. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib17" idref="ref3" type="bt">17</bibl> <bibtext>McAdams, C. R., Foster, V. A., & Ward, T. J. ( 2007 ). Remediation and dismissal policies in counselor education: Lessons learned from a challenge in federal court. Counselor Education and Supervision, 46, 212 – 229. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib18" idref="ref33" type="bt">18</bibl> <bibtext>McPeake, J., Bateson, M., & O'Neill, A. ( 2014 ). Electronic surveys: How to maximise success. Nurse Researcher, 21, 24 – 26. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib19" idref="ref36" type="bt">19</bibl> <bibtext>Mellin, E. A., Hunt, B., & Nichols, L. ( 2011 ). Counselor professional identity: Findings and implications for counseling and interprofessional collaboration. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89, 140 – 147. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6678.2011.tb00071.x </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib20" idref="ref10" type="bt">20</bibl> <bibtext>Parker, L., Chang, C., Corthell, K., Walsh, M., Brack, G., & Grubbs, N. ( 2014 ). A grounded theory of counseling students who report problematic peers. Counselor Education and Supervision, 53, 111 – 125. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6978.2014.00052.x </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib21" idref="ref38" type="bt">21</bibl> <bibtext>Protivnak, J. J., & Foss, L. L. ( 2009 ). An exploration of themes that influence the counselor education doctoral student experience. Counselor Education and Supervision, 48, 239 – 256. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib22" idref="ref32" type="bt">22</bibl> <bibtext>Reitz, O. E., & Anderson, M. A. ( 2013 ). A comparison of survey methods in studies of the nurse workforce. Nurse Researcher, 20, 22 – 27. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib23" idref="ref4" type="bt">23</bibl> <bibtext>Rust, J. P., Raskin, J. D., & Hill, M. S. ( 2013 ). Problems of professional competence among counselor trainees: Programmatic issues and guidelines. Counselor Education and Supervision, 52, 30 – 42. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib24" type="bt">24</bibl> <bibtext>Ward v. Wilbanks, No. 09‐CV‐11237, Doc. 1 (E.D. Mich., Apr. 2, 2009). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib25" idref="ref5" type="bt">25</bibl> <bibtext>Ziomek‐Daigle, J., & Christensen, T. ( 2010 ). An emergent theory of gatekeeping practices in counselor education. Journal of Counseling & Development, 88, 407 – 415. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6678.2010.tb00040 </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By David Burkholder; Stephanie F. Hall and Jessica Burkholder</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1046588
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: 'Ward v. Wilbanks': Counselor Educators Respond
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burkholder%2C+David%22">Burkholder, David</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hall%2C+Stephanie+F%2E%22">Hall, Stephanie F.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burkholder%2C+Jessica%22">Burkholder, Jessica</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Counselor+Education+and+Supervision%22"><i>Counselor Education and Supervision</i></searchLink>. Dec 2014 53(4):267-283.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2014
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Counselor+Educators%22">Counselor Educators</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Court+Litigation%22">Court Litigation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Qualitative+Research%22">Qualitative Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Surveys%22">Teacher Surveys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Competence%22">Competence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Professional+Associations%22">Professional Associations</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ethics%22">Ethics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Counseling+Services%22">Counseling Services</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Development%22">Student Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Leadership%22">Leadership</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Investigations%22">Investigations</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Content+Analysis%22">Content Analysis</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/j.1556-6978.2014.00062.x
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0011-0035
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This article investigated 71 counselor educators' perspectives and pedagogical practices related to "Ward v. Wilbanks" (2009) and the American Counseling Association (ACA) response to the case. The authors used qualitative content analysis to identify 6 themes from survey data: (a) views on gatekeeping and student training; (b) perceptions of Julea Ward and Eastern Michigan University; (c) values, skills, and competency; (d) reactions to ACA policy on referral; (e) initiation of ethical responsibility to client; and (f) "Ward v. Wilbanks": impact on the profession.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2014
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1046588
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1046588
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/j.1556-6978.2014.00062.x
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 267
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Counselor Educators
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Court Litigation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Qualitative Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Surveys
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Competence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Professional Associations
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ethics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Counseling Services
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Leadership
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Investigations
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Content Analysis
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: 'Ward v. Wilbanks': Counselor Educators Respond
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Burkholder, David
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hall, Stephanie F.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Burkholder, Jessica
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2014
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0011-0035
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 53
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Counselor Education and Supervision
              Type: main
ResultId 1