Advocacy and Social Justice in Counseling

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Political Ideology and Perceptions of Social Justice Advocacy Among Members of the American Counseling Association

Janeé M. Steele & Gary H. Bischof & Stephen E. Craig

Published online: 17 September 2014 # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract This study explored perceptions of social justice advocacy among liberal, moderate, and conservative members (N=214) of the American Counseling Association (ACA). Results showed that conservative participants had somewhat less favorable perceptions of social justice advocacy, but generally did not differ statistically from liberal and moderate partici- pants. Statistically significant differences, however, were found among extremely liberal participants. All participants generally supported the use of ACA resources for social activism. Implications and limitations are discussed.

Keywords Social Justice Advocacy. Political Ideology. American Counseling Association

Introduction

Organizations in countries around the world embrace social justice advocacy as an important aspect of counselor identity. The mission of the International Association for Counselling (IAC), for example, is “To serve as an international leader and catalyst for counsellors and counselling associations by advancing culturally relevant counselling practice, research and policy to promote well being, respect, social justice and peace worldwide” (www.iac-irtac.org/ node/36). Similarly, the Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association’s (CCPA) Standards of Practice require counselors to “convey respect for human dignity, principles of equity and social justice, and speak out or take other appropriate actions against practices,

Int J Adv Counselling (2014) 36:450–467 DOI 10.1007/s10447-014-9217-0

J. M. Steele (*): G. H. Bischof Department of Counselor Education and Counseling Psychology, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5226, USA e-mail: [email protected]

G. H. Bischof e-mail: [email protected]

S. E. Craig Family and Consumer Sciences, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5322, USA e-mail: [email protected]

policies, laws, and regulations that directly or indirectly bring harm to others or violate their human rights” (www.ccpa-accp.ca/en /standardsofpractice/). Social justice advocacy is considered one of five primary themes in the internationalization movement currently taking place across the counseling profession today (Ng & Noonan 2012), and is gradually becoming recognized as one of counseling’s core competencies.

Despite notable support throughout counseling’s international community, social justice advocacy has become an increasingly controversial topic in the United States, especially among some members of the American Counseling Association (ACA). Specifically, concerns have been raised over what is perceived to be: (a) the liberal political agenda of social justice advocates, (b) the marginalization of conservative counselors, and (c) the inappropriate use of ACA resources for social activism (Canfield 2007, 2008a, b; Hunsaker 2008; King 2010). Concerns of this nature suggest that contrary to what is most often stated by social justice proponents, many counselors may question if efforts to address social and political issues are appropriate tasks for counselors in their professional roles. They further imply that opinions about social justice advocacy among counselors may be shaped by differences in liberal and conservative political ideologies.

While various opinions have been expressed about the nature and purpose of social justice advocacy in counseling (cf., Harrist & Richardson 2012; Hunsaker 2011; Smith, Reynolds, & Rovnak 2009), there is little empirical evidence to document perceptions of social justice advocacy among counseling professionals. Claims that conservative counselors are likely to object to social justice advocacy are also largely unsubstantiated within the literature. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to examine the relationship between perceptions of social justice advocacy in counseling and political ideology among members of the American Counseling Association (ACA). Specifically, this study examined: (a) perceptions of the attitudes, behaviors, knowledge, skills, importance, and personal practices associated with social justice advocacy, as well as differences in those perceptions among liberal, moderate, and conservative counselors; (b) support for the use of ACA resources to advocate for social issues; and (c) the relationship between perceptions of social justice advocacy and social and political characteristics, including highest degree obtained, gender, age, race, sexual orienta- tion, income, political party affiliation, and political involvement.

Overview

Social justice advocacy, defined as “professional practice, research, or scholarship intended to identify and intervene in social policies and practices that have a negative impact on the mental health of clients who are marginalized on the basis of their social status” (Steele 2008, pp. 75– 76), has been infused into nearly all aspects of counseling, including counselor training, ethics, and professional development in the United States and other parts of the world. The Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs Standards (CACREP) (2009), for example, states that all accredited counselor education programs must provide training in social justice and advocacy processes (Section II Standard G.1.i.; Standard G.2.e.). Similarly, the ACA Code of Ethics (2005) indicates that counselors have an ethical obligation to advocate for clients at individual, group, institutional, or societal levels when appropriate (A.6.a). Attitudes, knowledge, and skills necessary for advocacy at these levels are defined through ACA endorsed competencies (Lewis, Arnold, House, & Toporek 2003). Numerous books, articles, and special journal issues published within the last decade further define how counselors can work within their professional roles to eliminate societal barriers that hinder mental health and human development (e.g., Chang, Crethar, & Ratts 2010; Crethar & Winterowd 2012; Goodman 2009; Holcomb-McCoy 2007; Lee 2007).

Int J Adv Counselling (2014) 36:450–467 451

In spite of what appears to be widespread support for social justice advocacy in counseling, recent literature highlights significant concerns regarding its role in the profession, especially as it relates to its political aspects (cf., Harrist & Richardson 2012; Hunsaker 2011; Smith et al. 2009). Special opinion pieces and letters to the editor of Counseling Today, ACA’s monthly newsletter, illustrate these concerns among practitioners, students, and even those within counseling’s leadership ranks. For example, in articles written for Counseling Today, Brian Canfield (2008a, b), a former ACA President, argued that the social justice movement in counseling is based primarily on liberal values that are not reflective of a consensus within the profession. According to Canfield, because counselors come from both liberal and conserva- tive backgrounds, social justice activists should stop trying to utilize the resources of profes- sional organizations like ACA in order to advocate for specific social positions, as to use such resources would be unfair to members who would advocate for opposing positions. Similarly, Robert Hunsaker (2008), a practicing counselor, and students Fred Lockhard and Christopher Stack (2008) also utilized Counseling Today to speak out against what they considered a growing liberal and political agenda in counseling. Hunsaker (2008) stated:

…it is rather nonsensical to say that social justice is “highly political,” when, in fact, it is entirely political. What else does one call activism on behalf of minority issues at the group level? …social justice can be practiced only by those on the political far-left. Consider for example how incongruent it would be for Republican, objectivist, pastoral, independent or perhaps even moderate Democrat counselors to advocate for gay marriage or a variety of other group- level minority issues (p. 21)…it makes more sense when you consider that social justice is largely the product of academics…several studies show an extreme liberal bias in universities. (p. 43)

Whereas, Lockhard and Stack (2008) wrote:

It was our extreme displeasure to see a clearly political, anti-war, anti-service member letter to the editor posted in the November 2007 issue of Counseling Today. We have our own, differing political views and opinions, yet we would never even think of asking ACA as a body to support our political agenda. Is that objective? Is that non-biased? If so, perhaps the professor will join us in asking ACA to speak out against gun control! Is this type of political rhetoric in the best interest of counseling as a profession? We do not think so. (p. 4)

Research in the political science discipline has shown that differences in liberal and conservative ideologies do account for preferences in many areas outside of formal politics. In particular, liberal and conservative political ideologies have been found to account for preferential differences in issues closely related to social justice, including social change, equality, progress, and flexibility (Jost, Federico, & Napier 2009).

Political ideology in this article is defined as a broad system of ideas, beliefs, attitudes, and values that give meaning to social concerns and guide ideas concerning how society should operate (Adams 2001; Freeden 1996; Kerlinger 1984). Liberalism is defined as an ideology characterized by concern for change, equality, and positive government action to improve human welfare, while conservatism is defined as concern for stability, tradition, and limited government involvement in domestic social interests (Dunn & Woodard 2003; Jost et al. 2009; Kerlinger 1984).

As previously mentioned, research concerning the role of political ideology in counseling, specifically as it relates to perceptions of social justice advocacy, is limited. In a study of American School Counselor Association (ASCA) members, Parikh, Post, and Flowers (2011)

452 Int J Adv Counselling (2014) 36:450–467

found that school counselors with liberal political ideologies were more likely to engage in social justice advocacy behaviors and have positive attitudes toward social justice advocacy than other school counselors. Similarly, in a study of clinical, counseling, and school psychol- ogy graduate students in APA-accredited programs, Linnemeyer (2009) found that participants who identified their political ideology as far left had significantly higher social justice advocacy attitudes and behaviors than those who identified as liberal, middle of the road, or conservative.

Overall, while the above-mentioned studies support claims of a relationship be- tween political ideology and social justice advocacy in counseling, they fail to provide evidence of objections to social justice advocacy among conservative counselors, and provide little insight into opinions about the use of resources obtained through professional organizations like ACA for social activism. These studies also fail to provide empirical support for assertions that social justice advocacy is largely the product of academicians and is unlikely to be supported among counselors outside of the realm of higher education (Hunsaker 2011). The current study adds to the literature by examining differences in perceptions of social justice advocacy among liberal, moderate, and conservative counselor members of ACA, while also examining differences between members who work primarily in higher education as counselor educators, and those who work primarily in clinical settings.

Method

Procedure

Participants were selected from a randomized sample of 999 individuals from the Counselor (n=500) and Counselor Educator (n=499) membership categories of the American Counseling Association (ACA). After obtaining university institutional re- view board approval, participants were invited to an online administration of the study’s survey by postcards sent via the United States Postal Service, followed by two email invitations. Of the 999 email invitations, 42 were returned as undeliverable. Two hundred and sixty three (263) initiated the survey, representing an overall response rate of 27.48 %. Five of the respondents indicated that they did not consent to participate in the study, and 44 were excluded from analysis due to missing data. The final number of respondents who were included in the study, therefore, was 214. The survey took approximately 20 min to complete, and participants were offered a chance to win one of four $50 VISA gift cards as an incentive.

Participants

Participants ranged from 27 to 75 years of age (M=51.30, SD=11.31). The majority of participants reported their race/ethnic group as Caucasian (78.04 %, n=167). African American was the second most highly represented race/ethnic group (10.28 %, n=22), followed by Hispanic/Latino (2.80 %, n=6); Other (2.34 %, n=5); Asian/Pacific Islander (1.87 %, n=4); Multiracial (1.87 %, n=4); and Native American (.47 %, n=1). Approximately 67 % of the participants were Female (n=143), 31.31 % (n=67) Male, and .47 % (n=1) Transgendered. In regard to sexual orientation, 89.72 % (n=192) identified as Straight, 4.21 % (n=9) identified as Lesbian, 2.80 % (n=6) identified as Gay, 1.40 % (n=3) identified as Other, .93 % (n=2) identified as Bisexual, and .47 % (n=1) identified as Questioning. The largest

Int J Adv Counselling (2014) 36:450–467 453

(modal) group of participants had an annual family income of more than $100,000 (27.10 %, n=58). There was nearly an equal amount of participants with Master’s (49.07 %, n=105) and Doctoral degrees (47.20 %, n=101). Seven participants (3.27 %) held a Specialist degree, which in the United States is a type of post-master’s degree, typically from the field of education. Approximately 47 % (n=101) of the participants indicated that they were Counselor Educators, while 52.34 % (n=112) were Counselors.

Measures

Perceptions of social justice advocacy

Perceptions of social justice advocacy were measured using the Advocacy Characteristics Scales (Paylo 2007). These scales include five separate self-report measures of advocacy attributes, attitudes, behaviors, skills, and knowledge, as well as three measures that assess respondents’ views regarding the importance of advo- cacy, their actual advocacy practices, and the levels at which they advocate. The Attributes, Attitudes, Behaviors, Skills, and Knowledge of Advocacy subscales each consist of 15 items. The Importance of Advocacy and Actual Advocacy scales each consist of 5 items. The Level of Advocacy Scale consists of three items to measure advocacy at the individual, school/community, and national levels. Response alterna- tives for each item range from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).

In order to reduce the amount of time required for respondent participation, the Attributes Scale was excluded from use in this study, decreasing the number of items on the Advocacy Characteristic Scales for the present research from 88 to 73. Cronbach’s alphas reported by Paylo for the Attitudes, Behaviors, Skills, Knowledge, Importance of Advocacy, and Actual Advocacy scales were .83, .91, .88, .91, .88, and .85 respectively. Reliability estimates for the same scales for the present study were .77, .91, .87, .89, .87, and .84 respectively.

Political characteristics

Political characteristics measured for the purpose of this study included political party affiliation, political ideology, and political involvement. For political party affiliation, participants chose from Independent, Democrat, Republican, and Other. Political ideology and political involvement were measured using items taken from the American National Election Studies Time Series Study (ANES n.d.). Since 1948, ANES has conducted nationwide surveys to measure various political characteristics of the U.S. electorate during presidential election years. The political ideology mea- sure asked: When it comes to politics do you usually think of yourself as (a) Extremely Liberal, (b) Liberal, (c) Slightly Liberal, (d) Moderate, (e) Slightly Conservative, (f) Conservative, (g) Extremely Conservative, or (h) Haven’t thought much about this?

To measure political involvement, participants answered Yes or No concerning their participation in seven types of political activity, such as attending political rallies or giving money to an individual candidate running for office during the last presidential campaign. Additionally, participants were also asked to indicate whether they voted in the last presidential election, as voting is traditionally considered a key indicator of political involvement.

454 Int J Adv Counselling (2014) 36:450–467

Results

Perceptions of Social Justice Advocacy and Agreement With ACA Using its Resources for Social Activism

As shown in Table 1, descriptive statistics indicate that participants in this study generally had positive perceptions of social justice advocacy according to scores obtained on the Advocacy Characteristics Scales (item means, standard deviations, medians, and modes are presented in the Appendix). Differences between counselors and counselor educators and scores on the Advocacy Characteristics Scales were tested using a 2 x 6 multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). The main effect for the interaction between status as a Counselor or Counselor Educator and scores on the Advocacy Characteristic Scales, Wilks’ Λ=.96, F(6, 206)=1.43, p=.20, partial η2=.04, was not statistically significant. Follow-up univariate ANOVAs were, therefore, not interpreted.

Regarding social activism, descriptive statistics showed that the majority of participants either strongly agreed or agreed with ACA using its resources to advocate for social issues. In response to the question, To what extent do you agree with ACA using its resources to advocate for social issues?, 33.64 % (n=72) of participants indicated that they Strongly Agree; 43.93 % (n=94) said that they Agree; 12.62 % (n=27) were Neutral; 3.74 % Disagreed (n=8); and 6.07 % Strongly Disagreed (n=13). Results from an independent samples t-test indicated that there was not a statistically significant difference between Counselors (M=3.97, SD=1.04) and Counselor Educators (M=3.94, SD=1.13) in terms of their level of agreement with ACA using its resources to advocate for social issues (t(211)=−.22, p=.83, d=.03).

Political Ideology and Perceptions of Social Justice Advocacy

Table 2 presents a summary of the political characteristics that were measured during this study compared with national percentages where available. A 6 × 7 MANOVAwas conducted to test differences in perceptions of social justice advocacy as measured by the Advocacy Characteristic Scales among the various political ideologies. Results of the MANOVA showed a statistically significant main effect for the interaction between scores obtained on the Advocacy Characteristic Scales and political ideology, Wilks’ Λ=.63, F(42, 932.15)=2.27, p<.01, partial η2=.07. Follow-up univariate ANOVAs revealed statistically significant differ- ences among participants from the various categories of self-identified political ideology for Attitudes, F(7, 155.73)=5.39, p<.01, partial η2=.16; Behaviors, F(7, 478.29)=6.67, p<.01, partial η2=.19; Skills, F(7, 277.71)=5.97, p<.01, partial η2=.17; Knowledge of Advocacy, F(7, 169.11)=3.94, p<.01, partial η2=.12; Importance of Advocacy, F(7, 81.14)=6.55, p<.01, partial η2=.18; and Actual Advocacy, F(7, 53.98)=3.67, p<.01, partial η2=.11.

Post-hoc comparisons using Tukey Honestly Significant Difference tests (Pallant 2007) were conducted to determine the nature of the differences among the groups. Comparisons indicated that the Extremely Liberal group had significantly higher scores on Attitudes than Liberal, Slightly Liberal, Moderate, Slightly Conservative, Conservative, and Extremely Conservative groups. The Extremely Liberal group also had significantly higher scores when compared with the rest of the groups on Behaviors, Skills, Knowledge, Importance, and Actual Advocacy. Comparisons further indicated that the Extremely Conservative group had signif- icantly lower scores on the Importance scale when compared to Extremely Liberal, Liberal, Slightly Liberal, and Moderate groups. See Table 1 for means and standard deviations by groups.

Int J Adv Counselling (2014) 36:450–467 455

Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations for the Advocacy Characteristic Scales

Ratings Summed Scores

M SD M SD

Attitudesa

Total 4.27 .39 64.12 5.78

Extremely Liberal 4.63 .22 69.50 3.35

Liberal 4.32 .33 64.84 5.00

Slightly Liberal 4.28 .33 64.17 4.89

Moderate 4.28 .39 64.18 5.85

Slightly Conservative 4.14 .31 62.13 4.69

Conservative 4.07 .44 61.07 6.67

Extremely Conservative 3.97 .65 59.50 9.75

Behaviorsa

Total 3.82 .62 57.27 9.30

Extremely Liberal 4.50 .51 67.50 7.62

Liberal 3.84 .52 57.59 7.75

Slightly Liberal 3.78 .55 56.65 8.31

Moderate 3.89 .56 58.35 8.39

Slightly Conservative 3.53 .76 52.96 11.44

Conservative 3.52 .58 52.80 8.67

Extremely Conservative 3.16 .91 47.38 13.61

Skillsa

Total 4.09 .49 61.34 7.42

Extremely Liberal 4.62 .44 69.33 6.61

Liberal 4.08 .42 61.27 6.37

Slightly Liberal 3.96 .46 59.41 6.95

Moderate 4.17 .46 62.56 6.87

Slightly Conservative 3.83 .47 57.48 7.11

Conservative 4.01 .48 60.15 7.19

Extremely Conservative 3.58 .89 53.75 13.30

Knowledgea

Total 4.29 .46 64.37 6.91

Extremely Liberal 4.67 .42 70.06 6.31

Liberal 4.30 .44 64.45 6.60

Slightly Liberal 4.23 .38 63.41 5.71

Moderate 4.33 .46 65.00 6.89

Slightly Conservative 3.98 .51 59.74 7.72

Conservative 4.25 .40 63.76 6.01

Extremely Conservative 3.83 .70 57.50 10.54

Importanceb

Total 3.98 .77 19.89 3.85

Extremely Liberal 4.61 .57 23.06 2.84

Liberal 4.05 .67 20.25 3.37

Slightly Liberal 3.95 .60 19.77 2.99

Moderate 4.12 .73 20.53 3.67

Slightly Conservative 3.61 .79 18.07 3.97

Conservative 3.61 .76 18.03 3.79

Extremely Conservative 2.55 1.48 12.75 7.41

Actual Advocacyb

Total 3.43 .81 17.16 4.04

456 Int J Adv Counselling (2014) 36:450–467

Social and Political Characteristics and Perceptions of Social Justice Advocacy

Six separate stepwise multiple regressions were conducted to describe the relationship between the dependent variables (i.e., each of the Advocacy Characteristics Scales), and the study’s independent variables (i.e., highest degree obtained, gender, age, race, sexual orientation, income, party affiliation, and political involvement). There is little empirical research or theory concerning the relationship among social justice advocacy in counseling and the independent variables tested in this study to guide their ordering into a regression equation. For this reason, stepwise regression was utilized following recommendations by made Garson (2010), who suggested that stepwise regression is preferable in exploratory phases of research. Table 3 shows the unstandardized regression coefficient (B), standard error for B, standardized regression coefficient (β), partial correlation, R2, adjusted R2, and significance value for each regression analysis conducted on the Attitudes, Behaviors, Skills, Knowledge, Importance, and Actual Advocacy scales.

Attitudes

Results from the first stepwise multiple regression showed that political involvement (F(1, 189)=5.80, p=.02, R2=.03, adjusted R2=.03) was significantly related to scores on the Attitudes scale, explaining 3 % of the total variance. Higher political involve- ment resulted in higher Attitudes scores. The remaining variables did not enter into the equation.

Behaviors

Stepwise multiple regression analysis showed that both political involvement and African American race had a significant influence on Behaviors scores. Political involvement was entered in step 1, explaining 6 % of the total variance of the Behaviors scores (F(1, 189)= 13.68, p<.01, R2=.07, adjusted R2=.06). African American race was entered into the regres- sion equation with political involvement at step 2, explaining 10 % of the total variance (F(2, 188)=11.39, p<.01, R2=.11, adjusted R2=.10). As shown, both political involvement and African American race had a positive effect on scores on the Behaviors scale, indicating that

Table 1 (continued)

Ratings Summed Scores

M SD M SD

Extremely Liberal 4.11 .84 20.56 4.19

Liberal 3.34 .80 16.71 4.01

Slightly Liberal 3.42 .67 17.11 3.37

Moderate 3.61 .76 18.03 3.81

Slightly Conservative 3.19 .62 15.97 3.12

Conservative 3.11 .76 15.53 3.83

Extremely Conservative 2.95 1.10 14.75 5.50

Note. Response choices range from 1 Strongly Disagree to 5 Strongly Agree a Highest rating=5. Total possible summed score=75 b Highest rating=5. Total possible summed score=25

Int J Adv Counselling (2014) 36:450–467 457

participants with higher political involvement and those who identified as African American were more likely to agree with items on the Behaviors scale.

Skills

Stepwise multiple regression showed that political involvement (F(1, 189)=5.80, p<.01) had a significant influence on Skills scores. As in the Attitudes and Behaviors models, political involvement had a small influence on Skills scores. R2 was .05, and adjusted R2 was .04, indicating that political involvement accounted for 4 % of the variance in this model. Participants with higher political involvement scores had higher Skills scores.

Table 2 Frequencies and percentages of participant political characteristics compared to national percentages during 2004 election

Counselor Educator Counselor National a

Variable Category f % f % %

Political Party Independent 21 20.79 27 24.11 10.00

Democrat 54 53.47 56 50.00 49.00

Republican 18 17.82 17 15.18 41.00

Other 7 6.93 9 8.04 —

Missing 1 .99 3 2.68 —

Political Ideology Extremely liberal 11 10.89 7 6.25 2.00

Liberal 29 28.71 38 33.93 9.00

Slightly liberal 14 13.86 15 13.39 12.00

Moderate 16 15.84 24 21.43 26.00

Slightly conservative 9 8.91 6 5.36 13.00

Conservative 15 14.85 15 13.39 16.00

Extremely conservative 2 1.98 2 1.79 3.00

Haven’t thought much about this 3 2.97 4 3.57 20.00

Missing 2 1.98 1 .89 —

Political Involvement (Yes)

Talk to any people and try to show them why they should vote for or against one of the parties or candidates?

63 62.38 66 58.93 48.00

Go to any political meetings or rallies?

40 39.60 36 32.14 7.00

Do any work for one of the parties or candidates?

20 19.80 16 14.29 3.00

Wear a campaign button, put a campaign sticker on your car, or place a sign in your window or in front of your house?

42 41.58 39 34.82 21.00

Give money to an INDIVIDUAL CANDIDATE running for public office?

44 43.56 43 38.39 —

Give money to a POLITICAL PARTY during this election year?

34 33.66 23 20.54 —

Give any money to ANY OTHER GROUP that supported or opposed candidates?

16 15.84 23 20.54 —

Vote? 96 95.05 110 98.21 77. 00

Note. a ANES n.d. Data missing from empty cells not reported by ANES

458 Int J Adv Counselling (2014) 36:450–467

Knowledge

Results from the stepwise analysis on the Knowledge scores showed that political involvement and highest degree at the master’s level had a significant influence. Political involvement was entered in step 1, explaining 5 % of the total variance of the Knowledge scores (F(1, 189)=10.14, p<.01, R2=.05, adjusted R2=.05). Master’s degree was entered into the regression equation at

Table 3 Summary of Stepwise Regression Analyses for Variables Influencing Advocacy Characteristics Scales Scores

Step and Variable B SE B β Partial r R2 adj R2

Attitudes

Step 1 0.03 0.03

Political involvement 0.48 0.20 0.17* 0.17

Behavior

Step 1 0.07 0.06

Political involvement 1.16 0.31 0.26** 0.26

Step 2 0.11 0.10

Political involvement 1.26 0.31 0.28** 0.29

African American race 6.13 2.10 0.20** 0.21

Skills

Step 1 0.05 0.04

Political involvement 0.80 0.25 0.21** 0.21

Knowledge

Step 1 0.05 0.05

Political involvement 0.75 0.23 0.23** 0.23

Step 2 0.08 0.07

Political involvement 0.65 0.23 0.20** 0.20

Master’s degree −2.41 0.98 −0.18* −0.18 Importance

Step 1 0.06 0.06

Political involvement 0.46 0.13 0.25** 0.25

Step 2 0.10 0.09

Political involvement 0.56 0.13 0.30** 0.29

Age −0.06 0.03 −0.18* −0.18 Step 3 0.13 0.11

Political involvement 0.56 0.13 0.31** 0.31

Age −0.49 0.03 −0.14* −0.14 African American race 2.26 0.88 0.18** 0.18

Step 4 0.15 0.13

Political involvement 0.58 0.13 0.31** 0.31

Age −0.49 0.03 −0.14* −0.14 African American race 2.15 0.87 0.17* 0.17

Specialist degree −3.43 1.46 −0.16* −0.17 Actual Advocacy

Step 1 0.03 0.02

Political involvement 0.33 0.14 0.17** 0.17

Step 2 0.06 0.05

Political involvement 0.37 0.14 0.19** 0.19

African American race 2.36 0.94 0.18** 0.18

*p<.05, **p<.01

Int J Adv Counselling (2014) 36:450–467 459

step 2, increasing the total variance explained to 7 % (F(2, 188)=8.25, p<.01, R2=.08, adjusted R2=.07). As shown, while political involvement was associated with higher scores on the Knowledge scale, highest degree at the master’s level was associated with lower scores.

Importance

Results from the fifth stepwise analysis showed that political involvement, age, African American race, and having a specialist degree had a significant influence on Importance scores. Political involvement was entered in step 1, explaining 6 % of the total variance of the Importance scores (F(1, 189)=12.76, p<.01, R2=.06, adjusted R2=.06). Age was entered into the regression equation at step 2, increasing the total variance explained to 9 % (F(2, 188)=9.81, p<.01, R2=.10, adjusted R2=.09). African American race was entered into the regression equation at step 3, increasing the total variance explained to 11 % (F (3, 187)=8.91, p<.01, R2=.13, adjusted R2=.11). Specialist degree was entered into the regression equation at step 4, increasing the total variance explained to 13 % (F (4, 186)=8.22, p<.01, R2=.15, adjusted R2=.13). In this instance, both political involve- ment and African American race had a positive influence on Importance scores, while age and having a specialist degree had a negative relationship on Importance scores.

Actual Advocacy

Finally, stepwise analysis showed that political involvement and African American race had a significant influence on the Actual Advocacy scores. Political involvement was entered in step 1, explaining 2 % of the total variance of the Actual Advocacy scores (F (1, 189)=5.52, p=.02, R2=.03, adjusted R2=.02). African American race was entered into the regression equation at step 2, increasing the total variance explained to 5 % (F (2, 188)=6.01, p<.01, R2=.06, adjusted R2=.05). Similar to scores obtained on the Behaviors scale, participants with higher political involvement, and those of African American descent, were more likely to agree with items on the Actual Advocacy scale.

Discussion

Overall, the results of this study showed that members of ACA generally have positive perceptions of social justice advocacy. Mean ratings of scores obtained on the Attitudes, Skills, and Knowledge Advocacy Characteristics Scales (Paylo 2007) indicated very high agreement with the items contained therein, while the average ratings on the Behaviors and Importance scales were more moderate, but high nonetheless. The remaining scale, Actual Advocacy, showed participants to be quite neutral in their personal practice of social justice advocacy. These findings suggest that there may be a gap between the theory and practice associated with social justice advocacy. While counselors appear to perceive the qualities associated with social justice advocacy to be of significance, certain factors not revealed through this study may prevent the actual implementation of social justice advocacy. According to the results of a MANOVA, there were no statistical differences in this regard between counselors and counselor educators.

The results of a second MANOVA indicated that while conservative counselors had somewhat less favorable perceptions of social justice advocacy, their perceptions did not differ statistically from their liberal and moderate counterparts, except in the perceptions of extremely conservative participants concerning the importance of social justice advocacy. Extremely liberal participants had significantly higher perceptions of social justice advocacy attitudes, behaviors, and skills when compared to the perceptions of participants with less liberal, moderate, or conservative

460 Int J Adv Counselling (2014) 36:450–467

ideologies. A large majority of participants, 77.57 %, either strongly agreed or agreed with ACA using its resources to advocate for social issues. Only 9.81 % disagreed or strongly disagreed. The results of an independent samples t-test showed that there were no statistically significant differences between counselors and counselor educators in terms of their level of agreement with ACA using its resources to advocate for social issues. Given that no statistically significant differences were found between counselors and counselor educators in terms of their support for the use of ACA resources to advocate for social issues, and their perceptions of social justice advocacy, the assertion that social justice advocacy is heavily influenced by a liberal bias common throughout higher education remains unsupported. This finding is consistent with research conducted by Zipp and Fenwick (2006) who found increased movement toward the center politically among college and university faculty nationwide.

Among the social and political characteristics examined in this study beyond political ideology, political involvement was the only variable found to be a significant predictor of scores obtained for each of the Advocacy Characteristics Scales, according to results from stepwise regression. The relationship between political involvement and perceptions of social justice advocacy in this study supports findings from Linnemeyer (2009) who found a positive association between political activity and attitudes toward social justice advocacy. Likewise, results of the current study are similar to those from a study conducted by Nilsson and Schmidt (2005) who found that among graduate students, interest in politics predicted a greater desire to participate in social justice work.

A second notable finding from the results of stepwise regression is that African American race was a significant positive predictor of Importance, Behaviors, and Actual Advocacy scores. Harris (2005) suggested that social justice is one of the defining values of the African American community. An example of this can be seen in the role African American churches, one of the most important institutions within the African American community, have had historically in mobilizing its membership in political activities to address social justice issues (Mattis 2001). Given the role social justice has within the African American community, it is logical that African American race would have a positive influence on the Importance, Behaviors, and Actual Advocacy scores in this study.

Implications

The findings from this study have important implications for both counseling and counselor training. Social justice advocacy has had a significant impact on the profession in the U.S. over the past decade (e.g., American Counseling Association 2005; Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs 2009; Constantine, Hage, Kindaichi, & Bryant 2007; Lewis, Arnold, House, & Toporek 2003). Within the past five years, however, much of the discourse concerning the role of social justice advocacy in counseling, especially as it relates to its political aspects, has been divisive and polarizing. If social justice advocacy is to be cultivated into a vital aspect of counseling, leaders within ACA and other various areas of the profession might build consensus among professionals by doing more to discuss the results of studies such as this that provide data concerning differences in perceptions of social justice advocacy, especially those based on political ideology. As noted by Smith et al. (2009), if the social justice advocacy movement in counseling is to become strong, there must be ongoing discussions about its strengths and limitations. That extremely conservative counselors may disagree about the importance of social justice advocacy is a valid and important consideration that must be addressed in order to promote fair and responsible development of social justice advocacy within the profession.

To remain relevant in an increasingly internationalized profession, it is imperative that counselors in the United States and their professional organizations work to resolve disagreements concerning the role of social justice advocacy. As mentioned, social advocacy is one of five themes delineating

Int J Adv Counselling (2014) 36:450–467 461

the scope for internationalization of the counseling profession (Ng & Noonan 2012). This includes: (a) advocating for accessible and affordable mental health care for underserved populations; (b) promoting the development of strategies to empower individuals and communities; (c) promoting discourse that examines sociopolitical influences on the development of the counseling profession; (d) examining the impact of professional counseling on society; and (e) examining how practitioners promote ideas such as democracy, social justice, religious and individual freedom, marital relation- ship, sexual and reproductive rights, and human diversity and equality in their local communities (Ng & Noonan 2012). Without a consensus concerning the nature and purpose of social justice advocacy in the counseling profession, it is unlikely that counselors and counselor educators in the United States and elsewhere will be able to adequately address the theoretical and training issues necessary to promote competence in a task with a scope as wide as social advocacy, thereby excluding themselves from a significant aspect of counseling’s international context.

The findings of this study suggest that there may currently be a gap between the theory and practice associated with social justice advocacy. Participants reported high agreement with the attitudes, skills, and knowledge associated with social justice advocacy, but indicated lower participation in actual advocacy practices. This suggests a need for greater professional development and counselor training in this area. There are several ways to support the implementation of advocacy practices among counseling professionals. First, professional organizations that offer or oversee continuing education credits can do more to provide workshops or other opportunities focused on advocacy strategies relevant to specialty or presenting issues. For example, continuing education in social justice advocacy among school counselors could focus on specific ways to initiate systems-based efforts to address educational disparities that affect student achievement. Among counselors working with survivors of domestic violence, continuing education in social justice advocacy could focus on methods of advocating for better laws and policies to protect victims.

Counselor training at the graduate level provides an even greater opportunity to develop advocacy practices at the various levels. The inclusion of service learning projects in counselor education programs, for example, offers the chance for students to not only acquire the attitudes and knowledge associated with social justice advocacy, but also the practical experience necessary to be able to implement social justice advocacy interventions in their own professional practice. Service learning has been found to promote civic duty and social responsibility, key aspects of social justice advocacy (Burns 1998). Given that political involvement was found to have a positive influence on social justice advocacy in this study, service-learning projects that encourage students to be politically involved in ways that are consistent with their own values is likely to further support the development of social justice advocacy practices.

Limitations and Future Research

The results of this study must be considered within the context of its limitations. The relatively low response rate (27.48 %) obtained in this research may have resulted in a non-response error that limits the generalizability of the study’s results. Use of self-report measures subjected participant responses to issues associated with social desirability. The self-report nature of the political ideology measure in particular may have affected results due to the differing meanings people give to political concepts. Other limitations of this study relate to its sample. A randomized sampling procedure was utilized to reduce the potential for bias and provide a more accurate reflection of the variation of political ideology among members of ACA than what would have been obtained had a convenience sample been utilized. However, the resulting low number of extremely conservative participants, in addition to the unbalanced number of liberal and conservative participants, also limits the general- izability of this study’s findings. Conservative members of ACA may have been reluctant to

462 Int J Adv Counselling (2014) 36:450–467

participate given its subject matter, while liberal individuals or those committed to social justice advocacy in the counseling profession may have been more likely to participate in this study.

The limitations of this study suggest future lines of research that would oversample for conservative counselors and utilize a multi-item measurement of political ideology, as sug- gested by Knight (1999), in order to increase the generalizability of conclusions. Future research could also to be undertaken to expand the scope of the current study in several ways. First, different types of comparison studies could be conducted to provide greater understand- ing of points at which differences in perceptions of social justice advocacy occur. For example, future studies might explore differences among graduate students, recent graduates, and members of the counseling profession with varying clinical experience to determine what influence stage in career development has on perceptions of social justice advocacy. Similar research could also be conducted within the leadership ranks of ACA and other related professional organizations, both in the United States and internationally, to explore differences between leaders and general members in the United States and abroad.

A second way in which future research could be undertaken to expand the scope of this study would be to explore variables that may have an influence on perceptions of social advocacy beyond, or in more depth, than the social and political characteristics examined herein. For example, prior studies have found a positive relationship between variables such as white racial identity (e.g., Middleton, Ergüner-Tekinalp, Williams, Stadler, & Dow 2011; Ottavi, Pope-Davis, & Dings 1994), colorblind attitudes (Neville, Spanierman, & Doan 2006), and multicultural counseling knowledge, awareness, and skills. Future research could explore the influence of these variables on social justice advocacy utilizing current advances in inferential statistics such as path analysis or other forms of structural equation modeling.

Finally, the results of this study showed that while participants’ overall perceptions of social justice advocacy in counseling were quite positive, their reported levels of actual advocacy were quite moderate. Additional research could examine variables that lead to actual advocacy practices among counselors. These variables may include participation in advocacy projects during counselor training, membership in local professional organizations that participate in advocacy activities, and general levels of political involvement. Differences in actual advocacy at each of the three levels (i.e., individual, school/community, national) could also be explored.

Conclusion

The findings from this study add to the dearth of literature surrounding perceptions about the appropriateness of social justice activities in the counseling profession, and provide insight into how various factors, namely political ideology, may influence these perceptions. While the heightened controversy surrounding social justice advocacy is somewhat new, social justice advocacy has a long tradition in the counseling profession. As early as 1930, Arthur Jones, writer of the classic text Principles of Guidance, addressed the need for counselors to advocate for change in social conditions considered harmful to mental health, including unfair labor and industry practices, poor standards of living, and problems in public school systems (Sweeney 2001). Other pioneers of the profession, such as Jessie Davis, Frank Parsons, and Eli Weaver were also active in legislative and social change efforts to address similar social concerns (McClure & Russo 1996). From the results of this study, it seems that social justice advocacy is a valued activity in the profession that is likely to have continued impact well into the future. It is important, however, that as social justice advocacy continues to grow, leaders in the field are mindful and respectful of the differing value systems among professionals, and are careful not to enact the same types of disenfranchisement they work to eliminate.

Int J Adv Counselling (2014) 36:450–467 463

Appendix

Table 4 Advocacy Characteristics Scales Item Means, Standard Deviations, Medians, and Modes

Item M SD Median Mode

Attitudes

Nonjudgmental 4.60 .70 5 5

Relieve client suffering 4.57 .64 5 5

Avoid pathologizing client 4.37 .81 5 5

Change status quo 3.64 1.03 4 4

Advocacy role expected 4.00 1.09 4 4

Empower clients 4.56 .65 5 5

Awareness of cultural values 4.91 .29 5 5

Assume global perspective 4.33 .86 5 5

Accept clients’ culture 4.30 .87 5 5

Tolerate ambiguity 4.51 .70 5 5

Resist thinking in rights and wrongs 4.09 1.03 5 5

Respect the dignity and rights of others 4.82 .42 5 5

Help others speak on their own behalf 4.51 .62 5 5

Oppose oppression and injustice 4.22 .92 5 5

Accept and adopt the perspectives of clients 2.56 1.06 2 2

Behaviors

Avoid neutrality 2.85 1.08 3 3

Give voice 3.71 .98 4 4

Intervene on individual and group levels 3.64 1.18 4 4

Collaborate with others 3.93 .99 4 4

Share power 4.32 .84 5 5

Raise community awareness 3.85 1.03 4 4

Focus on strengths 4.48 .66 5 5

Political involvement 3.25 1.04 3 3

Use multimedia to address injustices 3.10 1.02 3 3

Analyze social influences 3.73 1.00 4 4

Recognize and address status quo 3.69 .96 4 4

Identify factors impeding client development 4.14 .76 4 4

Demonstrate cultural awareness 4.62 .65 5 5

Challenge barriers 3.79 1.09 4 4

Collaborate with communities and organizations 3.99 .90 4 4

Skills

Negotiate multiple systems 3.86 .97 4 4

Relationship building 4.70 .56 5 5

Intervene on multiple levels 3.93 1.02 4 4

Empower clients and communities 4.37 .78 5 5

Disseminate information to the public 3.79 .92 4 4

Gather differing views 3.50 1.03 4 4

Operate from a “not knowing” position 3.60 1.07 4 4

Handle and resolve conflict 3.56 .96 4 4

464 Int J Adv Counselling (2014) 36:450–467

Table 4 (continued)

Item M SD Median Mode

Problem-solving 4.02 .84 4 4

Change systems 3.68 1.00 4 4

Effectively communicate 4.81 .55 5 5

Build consensus 3.68 .98 4 4

Build credibility 4.63 .63 5 5

Consider subjective and objective needs of clients 4.51 .66 5 5

Be ethical 4.43 .83 5 5

Knowledge

Knowledge of how to intervene in the community 3.83 .97 4 4

Knowledge of systems theory 4.43 .75 5 5

Knowledge of how to assess acculturation 4.41 .70 5 5

Knowledge of how to assess etiology 4.44 .77 5 5

Knowledge of advocate behaviors and roles 4.20 .84 4 4

Knowledge of social policies 4.29 .66 4 4

Knowledge of laws applying to clients 4.32 .71 4 4

Knowledge of dispute resolution mechanisms 4.13 .79 4 4

Knowledge of advocacy models 3.88 .89 4 4

Knowledge of power influences 4.47 .79 5 5

Knowledge of multicultural issues 4.73 .57 5 5

Knowledge of timing to intervene 3.88 .95 4 4

Knowledge of how to identify oppression 4.28 .81 5 5

Knowledge of how external forces impact development 4.54 .62 5 5

Knowledge of community resource parameters 4.23 .77 4 4

Importance of Advocacy

Advocacy is important 4.21 .83 4 4

Advocacy is helpful 4.18 .81 4 4

Advocacy is expected 3.74 1.17 4 4

Social action is appropriate 3.73 1.04 4 4

Oppression is relevant for counselors to address 3.93 .98 4 4

Actual Advocacy

Advocate for all clients 3.78 .98 4 4

Implement empowerment and social action 3.57 1.15 4 4

Raise awareness 3.37 1.13 4 4

Seek equal rights 3.87 1.02 4 4

Overthrow status quo 2.47 1.04 2 2

Level of Advocating

Advocate on the individual level 4.01 .92 4 4

Advocate on the school/community level 3.66 1.08 4 4

Advocate on a national level 3.16 1.12 3 3

Note. Response choices range from 1 Strongly Disagree to 5 Strongly Agree

Int J Adv Counselling (2014) 36:450–467 465

References

Adams, I. (2001). Political ideology today. Manchester: Manchester University Press. American Counseling Association. (2005). ACA code of ethics. Alexandria: Author. American National Elections Studies. (n.d.). ANES American National Election Studies. Retrieved from: http://

www.electionstudies.org/ Burns, L. (1998). Make sure it's service learning, not just community service. The Education Digest, 64(2), 38–

41. Canfield, B. S. (2007, December). Back to the future of counseling [From the President]. Counseling Today, p. 5 Canfield, B. S. (2008a, January). Valuing diversity of thought [From the President]. Counseling Today, p. 5 Canfield, B. S. (2008b, May). The informed counselor [From the President]. Counseling Today, p. 5 Chang, C. Y., Crethar, H. C., & Ratts, M. J. (2010). Social justice: A national imperative for counselor education

and supervision. Counselor Education & Supervision, 50(2), 82–87. Constantine, M. G., Hage, S. M., Kindaichi, M. M., & Bryant, R. M. (2007). Social justice and multicultural

issues: Implications for the practice and training of counselors and counseling psychologists. Journal of Counseling & Development, 85(1), 24–29.

Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2009). CACREP accreditation manual. Alexandria, VA: Author

Crethar, H. C., & Winterowd, C. L. (2012). Special section: Spiritual, ethical, and religious issues and social justice in counseling: Values and social justice in counseling. Counseling and Values, 57(1), 3–9.

Dunn, C. W., & Woodard, J. D. (2003). The conservative tradition in America. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Freeden, M. (1996). Ideologies and political theory: A conceptual approach. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

Garson, G. D. (2010). Multiple regression. Statnotes: Topics in multivariate analysis. Retrieved from: http:// faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/statnote.htm.

Goodman, J. (2009). Starfish, salmon, and whales: An introduction to the special section. Journal of Counseling & Development, 87(3), 259.

Harris, D. B. (2005). Postmodernist diversions in African American thought. Journal of Black Studies, 36(2), 209–228.

Harrist, S., & Richardson, F. C. (2012). Disguised ideologies in counseling and social justice work. Counseling and Values, 57(1), 38–44.

Holcomb-McCoy, C. (2007). School counseling to close the achievement gap: A social justice framework for success. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

Hunsaker, R. (2008, April). Social justice: An inconvenient irony [Opinion]. Counseling Today, p. 21, 43 Hunsaker, R. C. (2011). Counseling and social justice. Academic Questions, 24(3), 319–340. Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective

affinities. Annuall Review on Psychology, 60, 307–337. Kerlinger, F. N. (1984). Liberalism and conservatism. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. King, J. H. (2010, June). Are professional counselors becoming social workers? [Opinion]. Counseling Today, p.

51 Knight, K. (1999). Liberalism and conservatism. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.),

Measures of social psychological attitudes (Vol. 2, pp. 59–158). San Diego: Academic. Lee, C. C. (Ed.). (2007). Counseling for social justice (2nd ed.). Alexandria: American Counseling Association. Lewis, J., Arnold, M., House, R., & Toporek, R. (2003). Advocacy competencies. Retrieved October 12, 2005,

from http://www.counseling.org/Resources. Linnemeyer, R. M. (2009). Social justice advocacy among graduate students: An empirical investigation.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Retrieved June 29, 2010 from Dissertations and Theses database.

Lockhard, F. W., & Stack, C. L. (2008, January). ACA’s role doesn’t include supporting personal political agendas [Letters]. Counseling Today, p. 4

Mattis, J. S. (2001). Religion and African American political life. Political Psychology, 22(2), 263–278. McClure, B. A., & Russo, T. R. (1996). The politics of counseling: Looking back and forward. Counseling &

Values, 40(3), 162–174. Middleton, R. A., Ergüner-Tekinalp, B., Williams, N. F., Stadler, H. A., & Dow, J. E. (2011). Racial identity

development and multicultural counseling competencies of White mental health practitioners. International Journal of Psychology & Psychological Therapy, 11(2), 201–218.

Neville, H., Spanierman, L., & Doan, B.-T. (2006). Exploring the association between color-blind racial ideology and multicultural counseling competencies. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12(2), 275– 290.

466 Int J Adv Counselling (2014) 36:450–467

Ng, K.-M., & Noonan, B. M. (2012). Internationalization of the counseling profession: Meaning, scope and concerns. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 34(1), 5–18.

Nilsson, J. E., & Schmidt, C. K. (2005). Social justice advocacy among graduate students in counseling: An initial exploration. Journal of College Student Development, 46(3), 267–279.

Ottavi, T. M., Pope-Davis, D. B., & Dings, J. G. (1994). Relationship between White racial identity attitudes and self-reported multicultural counseling competencies. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41(2), 149–154.

Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual. New York: Open University Press. Parikh, S. B., Post, P., & Flowers, C. (2011). Relationship between a belief in a just world and social justice

advocacy attitudes of school counselors. Counseling and Values, 56(1–2), 57–72. Paylo, M. J. (2007). Characteristics of counselors that advocate for clients. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Virginia. Retrieved July 8, 2008 from Dissertations and Theses database. Smith, S. D., Reynolds, C. A., & Rovnak, A. (2009). A critical analysis of the social advocacy movement in

counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 87(4), 483–491. Steele, J. M. (2008). Preparing counselors to advocate for social justice: A liberation model. Counselor

Education and Supervision, 48(2), 74–85. Sweeney, T. J. (2001). Counseling: Historical origins and philosophical roots. In D. C. Locke, J. E. Myers, & E.

L. Herr (Eds.), The handbook of counseling (pp. 3–26). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. Zipp, J. F., & Fenwick, R. (2006). Is the academy a liberal hegemony? Public Opinion Quarterly. Volume, 70(3),

304–326.

Int J Adv Counselling (2014) 36:450–467 467

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.