Introduction Counseling is a relatively
Counseling is a relatively new field struggling with its own identity and the ability to
provide clients with needed services (Chi Sigma Iota, 2005; Eriksen, 1999; Gale & Austin, 2003;
Myers & Sweeney, 2004). Recently, the profession fought unsuccessfully to become Medicare
providers due to the need to cut costs to the Senate-passed health insurance reform bill (ACA,
2010). In 2008, the credentials, preparation and training of licensed mental health counselors
were scrutinized by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to determine whether counselors could
practice independently under TRICARE, the health care benefits program for The Department of
Defense (IOM, 2010). Currently, National Certified School Counselors, along with other
specialized employees and teachers, are faced with the possibility of losing earned stipends in
some public school districts due to state budget cuts (W. Rock, personal communication, April
22, 2010). Professional counselors also regularly express concerns about the lack of employment
opportunities within state and federal agencies due merely to their credentials (ACA, 2006).
In the current climate of federal, state and local budget cuts where clients and
professional counselors are affected, professional counselors are pressed to advocate for
themselves and the clients they serve. Advocacy, broadly defined, is a systematic process of
arguing, pleading or representing an issue that may not be heard by those who make decisions on
behalf of consumer populations (Lee, 2007; Patrick, 2007). Consumer populations can be
characterized as individuals, or groups of individuals, who have a disability or mental illness or
who are considered to be a disenfranchised or oppressed group such as women, gay and lesbian
individuals, and the elderly. The definition can be expanded to include the counseling profession
(Patrick, 2007) because it is a relatively young field struggling with its own identity (Chi Sigma
Iota, 2005; Eriksen, 1999; Gale & Austin, 2003; Myers & Sweeney, 2004). Client oppression and
the need to strengthen the profession of counseling are two equally important issues. In light of
this fact, some leaders emphasize advocating for both client and for the profession (Myers &
Sweeney, 2004; Meyers, Sweeney & White, 2002; Patrick, 2007). This two-pronged approach to
professional advocacy is the most effective and comprehensive approach to advocacy as it allows
both the profession and its clients to reach their fullest potential.
Defining Advocacy Principles
Advocacy is an element of the much broader concept, social justice. Social justice is
defined in the literature by Lee (2007) as:
promoting access and equity to ensure full participation of all people in the life of
a society, particularly for those who have been systematically excluded on the
basis of race or ethnicity, gender, age, physical or mental disability, education,
sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics of background or
group membership. (p. xiv)
Social justice within the counseling profession includes the elements of empowerment, advocacy,
and agent of social change (Lee, 2007). Lee suggested that counselors can work effectively
toward social justice initiatives by maintaining an awareness of individual and systemic issues
while maintaining a nonjudgmental approach to clients. He further stated that clinicians should
be cognizant of client viewpoints within the context of their lives, recognize environmental
influences on client development, and intercede to challenge systemic barriers.
Empowerment has been defined in the mental health professional literature as altering the
balance of power for marginalized clients at several systemic levels (i.e., interpersonal,
community, and societal) and concurrently influencing both the individual and the community
(Gale & Austin, 2003). Empowerment is a form of social justice that has its origins in social
work, community psychology, feminist theory, multicultural counseling, and education
(McWhirter, 1997). As the major goal of social work intervention, Pinderhughes (1983) stated
that clinicians must understand a client‟s power dynamic operating within the systemic levels
(individual, familial, societal and cultural) to effectively empower clients. She defined power as
“the capacity to influence the forces which affect one‟s life space for one‟s own benefit” (p.
332). Furthermore, empowerment is the developed ability and capacity to cope constructively
with entities that undermine and/or hinder coping, goal achievement or reasonable control over
individual destiny (Pinderhughes, 1983). In the counseling field, empowerment is a complex
process involving counselor self-reflection, action, awareness of environmental power and
dynamics, development of skills to enhance communities, a foundation for social action, and
client and counselor both looking beyond individual counseling (Lee, 2007).
The professional literature uses various definitions and terms to explain advocacy. Lee
identified advocacy as the “process or act of arguing or pleading for a cause or proposal either of
one‟s own or on behalf of someone else” (1998, p. xvi). Advocacy also has been described
narrowly in the literature as an “action taken by a counseling professional to facilitate the
removal of external and institutional barriers to clients‟ well-being” (Toporek, 2000, p. 6).
Further, advocacy follows a systemic perspective in which counselors have knowledge of
principles to assist with changing systems and partner with clients who lack knowledge and skill.
Conceptual Framework
Social justice and advocacy can be traced to the philosophical beliefs of the political
philosopher and theorist, John Rawls. His chief work, A Theory of Justice (1971) is a
commentary on the social contract tradition of John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and
Immanuel Kant. The term “social contract” refers to a broad class of political theories established
to explain an actual or theoretical agreement among members of an organized community in
which its constituents give up their natural freedoms and the inherent rights, duties and limits of
its members in exchange for personal safety (Barker, Locke, Hume, Rousseau, & Hopkins, 1960;
Hobbes & Gaskin, 1998; Rawls, 1971). Rawls (1971) introduced two major principles of social
contract: 1) each person has the inherent rights and liberties in comparison to like liberties of
others, and 2) inequalities within the distribution of wealth and power are just only if they are
reasonably expected to improve the lives of those least well off. Rawls described these liberties
to include political liberty or the right to vote, freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of
conscious or freedom of thought, freedom of the person and the right to hold property, and the
freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure. He further elaborated on the definition of inequalities
such as disparities in the distribution of income and wealth and institutional biases. Institutional
biases are prejudice, which comes from any institution, be it a business, family or other group,
and can be represented by differences in authority, responsibility or chains in command making it
difficult to have true equality. Rawls defended his stance by balancing the claims of liberty and
equality. His philosophical writing created much discussion on the topic of justice and continues
to warrant discourse (Boucher & Kelly, 1994).
Jane Addams, another pioneer of social justice and proponent of advocacy, is known for
her community-based initiatives. As a social activist, Addams founded Chicago‟s Hull House
which helped establish the settlement movement in the United States. The Hull House was an
effort to “provide a center for a high social life; to institute and maintain educational and
philanthropic enterprises and to investigate and improve the conditions in the industrial districts
of Chicago” (Addams, 1910, p. 112). Jane Addams employed many forms of advocacy within
her lifetime. She empowered individuals and disenfranchised groups through her service,
leadership and modeling. She advocated for individuals, communities and the whole of the
United States by giving talks, speeches, and lectures. She wrote and published on a variety of
topics in an effort to promote her philanthropic ideals. Addams also helped institute and
participated in many professional organizations using her leadership skills to ultimately further
her cause.
Addams and Rawls were pioneers who increased the philosophical understanding and
appreciation of social justice principles. Rawls debated theoretical concepts of justice and
inequality. Addams served her community and country by advocating for the rights of the
oppressed. The discourse and action of these historical figures are precursors to modern day
efforts in advocacy.
The counseling profession is increasingly becoming aware of oppression and the negative
impact that social inequities have on client mental health (Toporek, 2000). In response to this
phenomenon, Loretta Bradley announced a call to action during her 1999 Presidency of the
American Counseling Association (ACA). Lewis, Arnold, House and Toporek, taskforce
members of the Counselors for Social Justice (CSJ), an ACA division, developed the Advocacy
Competency Domains in 2002. These competencies were then endorsed by the ACA Governing
Council at the 2003 National Conference as a means to define counselors‟ various roles and
responsibilities as advocates (Lewis et al., 2003). Understanding these competencies assists
counselors in developing ways in which they can address identified inequities.
The competency domains are explained using a matrix of two continuums and outline the
comprehensive range of advocacy efforts prescribed by the task force. One continuum represents
the micro-level and widens to include the macro-level of involvement. The micro/macro level
continuum outlines with whom the counselor is involved: client/student, school/community, and
public arena. In other words, the continuum begins with the student/client and expands to include
the group, school/community or general public. The “acting” continuum addresses the level of
involvement and includes: acting with (empowerment, collaboration and information) to acting
on behalf (advocacy). This continuum explains the counselor acting with or acting on behalf of
the client; which, plainly stated, is the professional counselor assisting individuals or groups in
advocating for themselves to the counselor actually advocating for the individual or group. Client
empowerment, also known as self-advocacy, uses system change and empowerment strategies in
direct counseling.
Client advocacy is characterized by taking action on behalf of a client when external
forces that impede an individual‟s development are identified (Lewis et al., 2003). Professional
counselors can conduct community collaboration using interpersonal relations, communication,
training and research to respond. Systems advocacy is a form of advocacy that involves
collaborating with stakeholders at the school or community level to address issues and systemic
factors that are barriers to client development. Public information level outlines competencies
that are paramount to informing the public about the environmental factors in human
development and involves recognizing the impact of oppression, identifying environmental
factors and preparing and ethically communicating informational multi-media materials to the
public. The final domain, social/political advocacy, involves social and political advocacy by
“influencing public policy in a large public arena” (Lewis et al., 2003, p. 2). The two continuums
shape the advocacy competency domains and assist the profession in conceptualizing advocacy
involvement at various levels of the educational setting or client within the community or agency
system.
Defining Professional Counselor Advocacy
Professional advocacy, a predominant mode of advocacy can be defined as a goaloriented,
multi-level process aimed at creating change by using personal and professional skills to
promote, empower, support, and/or protect the growth and development of the professional, the
profession and the consumers it serves. This process is developed by counselors and the
profession itself having a strong professional identity and through advocacy strategies such as
consumer education, professional education, legislative and community collaboration, and
positive communication of individual counselors and the profession.
Much of the literature published includes professional advocacy as significant to overall
advocacy efforts. Chi Sigma Iota, the counseling honor society, endorses advocacy of the
profession noting that the right to serve a specific client population may be limited if counselors
do not advocate on behalf of the profession (Chi Sigma Iota, 1998, Advocacy section, para.1).
Although some in the field believe that advocating for the profession diminishes client resources
and can be seen as self-serving (McClure & Russo, 1996; Toporek, 2000) others believe that
advocacy is multifaceted and must involve both advocacy for clients and advocacy for the
profession.
Historically, these two types of advocating, client advocacy and professional advocacy
have been seen as mutually exclusive (Myers, Sweeney & White, 2002; Patrick, 2007). The
contemporary view of advocating is a hybrid of both client and professional advocacy. Myers
and Sweeney have argued that “advocacy of the profession has the potential to place counselors
in positions where they can advocate effectively for the causes of their clients” (2004, p. 466).
Further emphasis is made that all counselors have both the opportunity and responsibility to
advocate for both their clients and their profession (Myers, Sweeney & White, 2002). The
literature also supports using these competencies both for the profession and to increase the
availability of mental health services to consumers (D‟Andrea & Daniels, 2000; Goodman &
Waters, 2000; Patrick, 2007; Stone, 2003; Weissberg, Kumpfer & Seligman, 2003). Advocacy of
the counseling profession is important to the unique philosophy of professional counseling and
its deserving clients.
Chi Sigma Iota (CSI), the counseling honor society, instituted a new advocacy initiative
and its executive team decided to make advocacy for counselors a “long-term, sustained
commitment,” (CSI, 2007) that would be “broadly based and inclusive as the profession itself.”
The counselor advocacy leadership conferences held in 1998 spawned six advocacy themes
which were developed to address professional counselor advocacy. These themes included: a)
counselor education, b) intra-professional relations, c) marketplace recognition, d)
interprofessional relations, e) research, and f) prevention/wellness. The counselor education
theme was developed to “ensure that all counselor education students graduate with a clear
identity and sense of pride as professional counselors” (CSI, 2007, Theme A). Intra-professional
relations are important to professional advocacy and involve the development and
implementation of a
“unified, collaborative advocacy plan for the advancement of counselors and those whom they
serve” (CSI, Theme B). Marketplace recognition was developed to address the need for
counselors to receive suitable compensation for their services in all settings and have the freedom
to provide services within their scope of practice. Inter-professional relations are accomplished
by collaborating with other organizations, groups and disciplines on issues of shared importance
(CSI, 2007). Research is an effective means to advocate using scientific research to further the
counseling profession and the services counselors provide. True to the professional identity of
counselors, prevention and wellness is established by encouraging client wellness; incorporating
wellness into their philosophical orientation, practices, research and advocacy for client welfare;
and by identifying counselor needs and training and to retraining counselors from a
wellness/prevention model.
Key Studies on Advocacy within the Counseling Profession
Several studies have been conducted to conceptualize advocacy (Eriksen, 1999; Field &
Baker, 2004; Myers & Sweeney, 2004; White & Semivan, 2006). The studies define advocacy
and collectively educate the counseling profession on the skills, values, beliefs and the actual
process of advocacy for clients and the profession. The researchers delved into the perceived
reasons and motivations for professional counselor advocacy, and they noted several barriers to
advocating.
White and Semivan (2006) conducted a qualitative research study involving 24
participants aimed to operationally define advocacy while identifying differences between
advocating for the counseling profession and advocating for the client. Participants were asked to
generate lists of the most important components of advocacy, reasons why it is important for
counselors to learn advocacy skills, and ways in which they have advocated successfully. The
participants ranged in age from 20 to over 60 years old with the majority of participants ranging
from 30 to 59 years of age. Almost 66% of the participants were female and nearly 92% held two
or more leadership positions. Participants in the study reported that the techniques, strategies,
basic concepts and overall skills are the same whether advocating for the client or the profession;
however, the study generated a few differences between advocating for the profession versus for
the client. The differences include the focus, goals and scope of advocating. The researchers
recognized the top five components of advocacy to include knowledge/skill level (of needs,
environments, legislation, values and personal biases), interest and passion,
collaboration/systemic intervention (for client, colleagues and organization), action/implement
change, and research (including fact finding and gathering data). Based on results, professional
counselor advocacy is used to protect and promote the profession, develop the counselor role and
professional identity, and for the knowledge and use of skills in leadership, clinical and
organizational settings. The research further identified several actions that were successful in
advocating: political legislative action; active involvement in professional organizations;
research/publishing; and community service/promote knowledge of the field.
In the quest to understand advocacy within the school counseling setting, Field and Baker
(2004) conducted a qualitative study. This study was in response to two initiatives: the National
School Counselor Training Initiative developed by the Education Trust which stresses the
importance of advocating for the academic success of students (House & Hayes, 2002) and the
American School Counselor Association‟s (ASCA) position that professional school counselors
should advocate as members of the educational team (ASCA, 1997). Participants were nine
female, high-school school counselors who participated in two focus group interviews. Six
counselors identified themselves as European American and three self-identified as African
American. The mean age and years of work experience were 45.3 and 14.2 respectively. All five
of the counselors from the first focus group were at the same large high school; however, the
second focus group was comprised of four counselors from different, smaller high schools within
the same county. The focus group participants recognized advocacy strategies and environmental
factors affecting these efforts. Participants reportedly gained knowledge through formal training
(counselor education programs, professional conferences, workshops), modeling by colleagues
with strong advocacy skills, personality traits (altruism, helping professional), and experiences.
Field and Baker‟s research identified fundamental counseling skills that can be translated into
advocacy. Participants identified environmental barriers such as a vague job description and
unclear expectations, lack of communication regarding students, and feeling devalued. Counselor
participants recognized fellow counselors, balance and professional boundaries as environmental
strengths.
An earlier qualitative study was conducted by Eriksen (1999) to gain a scientific
understanding of professional advocacy within the counseling field. The study was conducted
using participant-observation, key informant interviewing, and document analysis and consisted
of 28 interviews of leaders of the counseling profession who were actively involved in advocacy.
Fifty percent of the professionals were female with two of the participants were from an ethnic
minority group. Seventy-five percent were licensed as counselors and 68% had doctoral degrees.
Over 75% were over forty years old and 54% had advocated for the profession for 11 or more
years. Eriksen‟s research on professional counselor advocacy indicated that counselors believed
that they can translate their skills, values and personalities that make them effective counselors
into appropriate advocacy efforts. A clear sense of professional identity also emerged as an
essential element of professional advocacy efforts. Eriksen‟s qualitative research indicated
several barriers to the advocacy process, including a lack of a clear professional identity and
internal conflicts within the subspecialties of the counseling field.
The literature reflects only one quantitative study concerning professional advocacy
which was conducted by Myers and Sweeney (2004). Myers and Sweeney mailed 180 surveys to
leaders in the field. Leaders in state (n = 71), regional and national professional and credentialing
counseling associations responded to the survey. Respondents (51%) reported having doctoral
degrees and one in five reported being counselor educators. More than two thirds (69%) had
been in the field for 16 or more years, and over 41% had been counselors for more than 20 years.
With an average of 21 years in the field, the respondents offered a wealth of information;
however respondents with the years of experience and level of knowledge did not represent the
perceptions of a majority of counselors, especially those who are not in leadership roles.
Respondents to the Myers and Sweeney (2004) survey reported on the types and success of
advocacy activities implemented. The leaders gave valuable input on their perception of the
advocacy needs of professional counselors. Additionally, Myers and Sweeney (2004) asked
leaders to rate key obstacles to advocacy efforts. The results of Myers and Sweeney‟s national
survey indicated that there are a variety of ongoing advocacy initiatives. The study identified a
specific need for resources and inter-professional collaboration. Participants agreed on the
importance of advocacy for the future of the profession, and 87% of respondents indicated that
advocacy efforts need to “improve the public and professional image of counselors” (p. 468).
Importance of the Study
The recent issues regarding budget cuts and the instability of personal income due to the
lack of opportunities for professional counselors have been discussed passionately for the past
several years within the professional counselor literature. In a study by Myers and Sweeney
(2004), most leaders agreed that the profession needs to “improve the public and professional
image of counselors” (p. 468). In 2000, Fall, Levitov, Jennings and Eberts (2000) completed an
empirical study, which examined the public‟s “confidence levels” across five vignettes of
varying severity of mental health problems. Fall et al. explored professional identity from the
perspective of the client-consumer, finding that participants knew less about the counseling
profession as opposed to the other professions studied. The literature also documents the
disjointed nature of subspecialties and training which has contributed to the inability of the
profession and its members to communicate the uniqueness of the profession (Gale & Austin,
2003).
Professional counselors also continue to have a strained relationship with psychologists
which began in 1970 when professional counselors became a distinct profession after gaining
licensure and accreditation (Goodyear, 2000). Although there is a shared identity between
counseling and psychology, as reflected in the memberships of both associations, professional
counselors promoting licensure, scope of practice and other legislation inclusive of professional
counselors are met with continued opposition by the psychology boards (Gale & Austin, 2003).
McDaniels, one of the professionals interviewed by Gale and Austin, warned that professional
counselors must create intra-professional relations and work together to advocate because “there
are people who would deny [professional counselors] the opportunity to work in ways, and with
groups, that are best reached through counseling” (Gale & Austin, p.206). Professionals
emphasized that professional counselors must be willing to undertake new roles and to work
collaboratively both with each other and with professionals from other helping professions.
Briddick added that the counseling profession must have knowledge of competing professions
and whether what professional counselors do is effective, similar to or different from other
professions (Briddick, 1997).
The existing research defines professional advocacy and assists the profession in related
concepts; however it does not provide information on average professional counselors in the
field. Eriksen (1999) added to the knowledge of professional advocacy within the counseling
field using qualitative research techniques including 28 interviews of leaders of the counseling
profession who were actively involved in advocacy. Most participants were licensed counselors,
over forty years old, held doctoral degrees and reported having advocated for the profession for
11 or more years. Field and Baker‟s study (2004) offered rich information about the definition,
barriers and optimal conditions for advocacy; however, this study does not represent the views of
non-school counseling professionals. The sample population of White and Semivan‟s study was
predominantly professionals seasoned in their careers and involved in their professional
associations (2006). Although this information adds to the knowledge of advocacy, this sample
does not represent the average counseling professional. These studies were qualitative in nature;
therefore, the results of the study are not generalizable to the counselor population. Myers and
Sweeney (2004) conducted the only quantitative study. They only surveyed leaders in the field
therefore, their results are not indicative of the average licensed professional counselor in the
field ranging from the novice to the seasoned professional. Expanding the research by using
quantitative methods could yield valuable information about the general population of counselors
and increase the profession‟s knowledge of professional advocacy.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was to identify the perceptions of professional counselor
advocacy held by counselors of different backgrounds. The literature has suggested a number of
factors that influence the attitudes of professionals towards professional counselor advocacy
initiatives (Eriksen, 1999; Field & Baker, 2003; Myers & Sweeney, 2003; Patrick, 2007; White &
Semivan, 2006), including knowledge of professional advocacy principles, skills and traits,
actual advocacy activities utilized, perceived barriers to professional advocacy, and perceived
support to advocate. The results of this study provide insight into professional counselors‟
willingness and ability to advocate on behalf of the profession by identifying the attitudes
counseling professionals have regarding their knowledge of professional advocacy (and where
they gained this knowledge), skills and qualities endorsed; advocacy activities practiced;
opinions on the importance and need to advocate; barriers encountered; and support gained from
various entities. By exploring the relationship between counseling professionals‟ attitudes
toward professional counselor advocacy and their perceived level of conducting professional
counselor advocacy activities, the results of the study provide insight into professional
counselors‟ willingness and ability to advocate on behalf of the profession.
Research Questions
This study explored several general research questions in order to understand how
numerous factors relate to whether counselors advocate for themselves and their profession. The
questions were:
To what degree do professional counselors perceive they are knowledgeable of
professional advocacy?
Where do professional counselors gain their knowledge of professional counselor
advocacy?
To what degree do professional counselors believe that they have the skills to participate
in professional advocacy efforts?
To what degree do professional counselors believe that they have the qualities
(interest/passion, commitment, resilience/persistence, toughness/force, life-long learner
attitude and self-confidence) to participate in professional advocacy efforts?
To what degree do professional counselors believe that they participate in professional
advocacy efforts?
To what degree do professional counselors believe that it is important and that there is a
need to participate in professional counselor advocacy efforts?
To what degree do professional counselors believe there are barriers to participating in
professional counselor advocacy?
What do professional counselors identify as barriers to participating in professional
counselor advocacy efforts?
To what degree do professional counselors feel they receive support from counselor
educators, supervisors, associations, and colleagues in participate in professional
advocacy efforts?
Is there a correlation between the level professional counselors‟ perceive they are
knowledgeable of professional advocacy and their involvement in professional advocacy
activities?
Is there a correlation between professional counselors‟ level of participating in
professional advocacy efforts and their perceived level of skill to conduct professional
advocacy?
Is there a correlation between professional counselors‟ level of participating in
professional advocacy efforts and their perception of their professional advocacy
qualities?
Is there a correlation between professional counselors‟ level of participating in
professional advocacy efforts and their perception of the importance or need to advocate?
Is there a correlation between professional counselors‟ level of participating in
professional advocacy efforts and their perception of the barriers to advocating?
Is there a correlation between professional counselors‟ level of participating in
professional advocacy efforts and the perceived level of support participants receive from
counselor educators, supervisors, associations and colleagues?
Assumptions of the study
The researcher made basic assumptions regarding the research for this study. The first
assumption was that the Professional Counselor Advocacy Inventory (PCAI) created by the
researcher for this exploratory study is valid and accurately measures counselors‟ perceptions as
they pertain to professional advocacy. In addition, it is assumed that the participants who
complete the PCAI are licensed professional counselors who will willingly and honestly answer
the inventory questions.
Summary
This chapter introduced and defined professional counselor advocacy and the need for the
counseling profession to advocate. In addition, it provided a conceptual framework and the
importance of the study including research questions and assumptions of the study. Future
chapters provide a review of the literature, research methodology, results and discussion
regarding this topic.
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The purpose of this chapter is to examine literature and research related to professional
counselor advocacy and the perceptions of counselors regarding their knowledge of advocacy
principles, skills and qualities, advocacy activities, barriers, and support. This chapter is
organized into eight sections that build a conceptual framework for examining professional
advocacy. In the first section, the origins of advocacy and social justice are examined. Then, the
history of advocacy within the counseling profession is summarized. Sections three and four
discuss client and then professional advocacy using the advocacy competencies, themes and
professional advocacy plans. Research regarding client and professional advocacy is reviewed.
The last sections summarize the professional advocacy components, barriers and supports
identified in the literature.
Leaders in the counseling field are encouraging practitioners to develop a social justice
perspective to counseling to ensure fair and equitable treatment of clients (Lee, 2007; Lee &
Waltz, 1998; Lewis, Arnold, House & Toporek, 2003; Toporek, 2000). The counseling literature
stresses the importance of advocating on the behalf of these individuals (Lee, 2007; Lee & Waltz,
1998; Lewis, Arnold, House, & Toporek, 2003; Lewis & Bradley, 2000). Advocacy, broadly
defined, is a systematic process of arguing, pleading or representing an issue that may not be
heard by those who make decisions on behalf of consumer populations (Lee, 2007; Patrick,
2007). Consumer populations can be characterized as individuals, or groups of individuals, who
have a disability or mental illness or who are considered to be a disenfranchised or oppressed
group such as women, gay and lesbian individuals, and the elderly. The definition can be
expanded to include the counseling profession (Patrick, 2007) because it is a relatively young
field struggling with its own identity (Chi Sigma Iota, 2005; Eriksen, 1999; Gale & Austin, 2003;
Myers & Sweeney, 2004). Client oppression and the need to strengthen the profession of
counseling are two equally important issues. In light of this fact, some leaders emphasize
advocating for both client and for the profession (Myers & Sweeney, 2004; Meyers, Sweeney &
White, 2002; Patrick, 2007). This two-pronged approach to professional advocacy is the most
effective and comprehensive approach to advocacy as it allows both the profession and its clients
to reach their fullest potential.
Advocacy is an element of the much broader concept, social justice. Social justice is
defined in the literature by Lee (2007) as:
promoting access and equity to ensure full participation of all people in the life of
a society, particularly for those who have been systematically excluded on the
basis of race or ethnicity, gender, age, physical or mental disability, education,
sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics of background or
group membership (p. xiv).
Social justice within the counseling profession includes the elements of empowerment, advocacy,
and agent of social change (Lee, 2007). Lee suggested that counselors can work effectively
toward social justice initiatives by maintaining an awareness of individual and systemic issues
while maintaining a nonjudgmental approach to clients. He further stated that clinicians should
be cognizant of client viewpoints within the context of their lives, recognize environmental
influences on client development, and intercede to challenge systemic barriers.
Empowerment has been defined in the mental health professional literature as altering the
balance of power for marginalized clients at several systemic levels (i.e., interpersonal,
community, and societal) and concurrently influencing both the individual and the community
(Gale & Austin, 2003). Empowerment is a form of social justice that has its origins in social
work, community psychology, feminist theory, multicultural counseling, and education
(McWhirter, 1997). As the major goal of social work intervention, Pinderhughes (1983) stated
that clinicians must understand a client‟s power dynamic operating within the systemic levels
(individual, familial, societal and cultural) to effectively empower clients. She defined power as
“the capacity to influence the forces which affect one‟s life space for one‟s own benefit” (p.
332). Furthermore, empowerment is the developed ability and capacity to cope constructively
with entities that undermine and/or hinder coping, goal achievement or reasonable control over
individual destiny (Pinderhughes, 1983). In the counseling field, empowerment is a complex
process involving counselor self-reflection, action, awareness of environmental power and
dynamics, development of skills to enhance communities, a foundation for social action, and
client and counselor both looking beyond individual counseling (Lee, 2007).
The professional literature uses various definitions and terms to explain advocacy. Lee
identified advocacy as the “process or act of arguing or pleading for a cause or proposal either of
one‟s own or on behalf of someone else” (1998 p. xvi). Advocacy also has been described
narrowly in the literature as an “action taken by a counseling professional to facilitate the
removal of external and institutional barriers to clients‟ well-being” (Toporek, 2000, p. 6).
Further, advocacy follows a systemic perspective in which counselors have knowledge of
principles to assist with changing systems and partner with clients who lack knowledge and skill.
Social Justice Roots
Social justice can be traced to the philosophical beliefs of political philosopher and
theorist, John Rawls. His chief work, A Theory of Justice (1971) is a commentary on the social
contract tradition of John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant. The term “social
contract” refers to a broad class of political theories established to explain an actual or theoretical
agreement among members of an organized community in which its constituents give up their
natural freedoms and the inherent rights, duties and limits of its members in exchange for
personal safety (Barker, Locke, Hume, Rousseau, & Hopkins, 1960; Hobbes & Gaskin, 1998;
Rawls, 1971). Rawls (1971) introduced two major principles of social contract: 1) each person
has inherent rights and liberties in comparison to like liberties of others, and 2) inequalities
within the distribution of wealth and power are just only if they are reasonably expected to
improve the lives of those least well off. Rawls described these liberties to include political
liberty or the right to vote, freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscious or freedom of
thought, freedom of the person and the right to hold property, and the freedom from arbitrary
arrest and seizure. He further elaborated on the definition of inequalities such as disparities in the
distribution of income and wealth and institutional biases. Institutional biases are prejudice
which comes from any institution, be it a business, family or other group, and can be represented
by differences in authority, responsibility or chains in command, making it difficult to have true
equality. Rawls defends his stance by balancing the claims of liberty and equality. His
philosophical writing created much discussion on the topic of justice and continues to warrant
discourse (Boucher & Kelly, 1994).
Jane Addams, another pioneer of social justice and proponent of advocacy is known for
her community-based initiatives. The National Association of Social Workers (NASW)
celebrates Addams as a leader of the 19th and 20th century progressive movement and as the first
American female recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1931 (NASW, 2008). NASW touts
Addams‟ achievements in the area of social justice and strives to embody the ideals held by
Addams, which can be found in the NASW‟s current mission to reinvest in community
advancement initiatives (NASW, 2008).
As a social activist, Addams founded Chicago‟s Hull House which helped establish the
settlement movement in the United States. The Hull House was an effort to “provide a center for
a high social life; to institute and maintain educational and philanthropic enterprises and to
investigate and improve the conditions in the industrial districts of Chicago” (Addams, 1910, p.
112). Within the first year of the house, Addams and a friend, Ellen Starr, actively assisted the
poor within the industrial districts of Chicago by caring for children, nursing the infirm, and
providing an outlet for troubled people to express their concerns. The dynamic team advocated
for the poor by giving speeches and convincing young women from elite families to assist in
their cause to improve the conditions of the community (The Nobel Foundation, 1931). Addams
spent a great deal of time traveling to express her views and she became the first president of the
National Federation of Settlements. Addams also advocated to educate her community and
created opportunities to advance the cause of peace during World War I.
Jane Addams employed many forms of advocacy within her lifetime; these techniques
will be discussed later in this chapter. She empowered individuals and disenfranchised groups
through her service, leadership and modeling. She advocated for individuals, communities and
the whole of the United States by giving talks, speeches, and lectures. She wrote and published
on a variety of topics in an effort to promote her philanthropic ideals. Addams also helped
institute and participated in many professional organizations using her leadership skills to
ultimately further her cause.
Addams and Rawls were pioneers who increased the philosophical understanding and
appreciation of social justice principles. Rawls debated theoretical concepts of justice and
inequality. Addams served her community and country by advocating for the rights of the
oppressed. The discourse and action of these historical figures are precursors to modern day
efforts in advocacy.
History of Advocacy in the Field of Counseling
According to Kiselica and Robinson (2001), a social justice perspective, including
advocacy initiatives, has been infused into the counseling profession from its beginnings. Frank
Parsons and Clifford Beers were pioneers and advocated for their clients‟ vocational and
occupational needs, and humane treatment for those diagnosed with mental illness (Kiselica &
Robinson, 2001; McWhirter, 1997). Many other counseling professionals also have made
significant contributions to the field of social justice. Social justice oriented publications emerged
in the 1970s and seemed to be in response to the civil rights movement (Takaki, 1993), the
women‟s movement (Adams et al., 2000), and gay and lesbian movements (Adams et al., 2000;
Jennings, 1994). These movements made it increasingly difficult to ignore the larger, social,
political and economic context affecting human development at the time.
In the 1980s and 1990s, literature continued to discuss advocacy principles as a plea to
address the needs of clients (Conye, 1983; Eldride, 1983; Katz, 1985; Lee & Waltz, 1998;
McWhirter, 1991; Wren, 1983). Katz (1985) published “The Sociopolitical Nature of
Counseling,” one of the most powerful articles of the time, in The Counseling Psychologist. She
called for the profession to engage in self-examination. Katz (1985) observed that the profession
of counseling psychology was unaware that the inherent set of values and norms that inform the
profession creates a judgmental atmosphere and limits effectiveness. She explored how
counseling theory, research and practice were founded by the values and norms of the White
culture and argued that the traditional, Western counseling perspectives disregarded
environmental factors and cultural experiences. Furthermore, she provided an overview of the
evolution of psychological history and how the dominant culture‟s value and belief system had
shaped counseling practice. She further demonstrated that the sociopolitical nature of the
profession demanded that the field of counseling psychology be transformed to meet the needs of
the client population.
Katz prescribed many approaches to address the profession‟s lack of attention to social
justice principles within the counseling profession. She proposed that the profession should
recognize the impact of the social/political climate, the impact of counselor values on counseling,
and that all forms of oppression affect the growth and development of minorities and the
dominant, White culture. Professionals were encouraged to make explicit their values; redesign
theory to include cultural and political impact; identify appropriate strategies, theories or models
based on the population; and diagnose from an environmental view as well as intrapsychic
perspective. She recommended that the profession expand services to include
remedial/preventative mechanisms and flexible delivery of services to address social issues.
Increasing the number of minority counseling professionals and developing licensing and
accrediting procedures to create cultural competence in the counseling field were also suggested.
Another publication, edited by Courtland Lee and Gary Waltz, which discusses
advocacy and social justice principles, is Social action: A mandate for counselors (1998). The
authors argued for the need for counselors to provide counseling from a social justice
perspective, to empower clients within disenfranchised groups or to assist clients by actively
advocating for the causes of both individuals and groups from these disenfranchised groups. In
one of the most recent books regarding social justice, Counseling for Social Justice, Lee (2007)
and contributing authors challenged educational inequities, identified socioeconomic
disadvantages of sexism and ageism, advocated for equal access for those with disabilities, and
promoted healthy male development and racial/ethnic equality. The authors also focused on
professional issues related to social justice including international issues, ethics, fair access and
use of assessments, conducting research, and counselor training in social justice.
Advocating for Clients
Advocacy Competencies and the Counseling Professional’s Role
The counseling profession is increasingly becoming aware of oppression and the negative
impact that social inequities have on client mental health (Toporek, 2000). In response to this
phenomenon, Loretta Bradley announced a call to action during her 1999 Presidency of the
American Counseling Association (ACA). Lewis, Arnold, House and Toporek, taskforce
members of the Counselors for Social Justice (CSJ), an ACA division, developed the Advocacy
Competency Domains in 2002. These competencies were then endorsed by the ACA Governing
Council at the 2003 National Conference as a means to define counselors‟ various roles and
responsibilities as advocates (Lewis et al., 2003). Understanding these competencies assists
counselors in developing ways in which they can address identified inequities.
The competency domains are explained using a matrix of two continuums and outline the
comprehensive range of advocacy efforts prescribed by the task force. One continuum represents
the micro-level and widens to include the macro-level of involvement. The micro/macro level
continuum outlines with whom the counselor is involved: client/student, school/community, and
public arena. In other words, the continuum begins with the client or student and expands to
include the group, school/community or general public. The “acting” continuum addresses the
level of involvement and includes: acting with (empowerment, collaboration and information) to
acting on behalf (advocacy). This continuum explains the counselor acting with or acting on
behalf of the client, which, plainly stated is the counselor assisting individuals or groups in
advocating for themselves to the counselor actually advocating for the individual or group. These
two continuums shape the advocacy competency domains and assist the profession in
conceptualizing advocacy involvement at various levels of the educational setting or client within
the community or agency system. A more specific explanation of the levels is defined in the
following section.
Client/student empowerment level. This type of advocacy, also known as self-advocacy,
uses system change and empowerment strategies in direct counseling. According to the
developed continuum, counselors who are advocacy-oriented are more in tune to the impact of
social, political, economic and cultural factors on human development. In order to lay the
groundwork for self-advocacy, Lewis et al. (2003) suggest that counselors help clients
“understand their own lives in context” (p.1). Direct interventions of this competency include:
identifying strengths, resources, factors within the client context, client responses to a systemic
or internalized oppression, and external barriers that affect development. Training students in
self-advocacy skills and assisting clients in developing and carrying out action plans are
additional interventions. Counselors can facilitate client empowerment through awareness of
sociopolitical forces and barriers to client well being within the counseling setting (Enns, 1993;
Toporek, 2000) and provide teaching, guiding and support for clients to seek mental health
services (Patrick, 2007).
Client/student advocacy level. Counselors take action on behalf of a student or client
when they become conscious of external forces that impede an individual‟s development (Lewis
et al., 2003). Environmental interventions include accessing needed resources, obtaining relevant
services and education, and identifying barriers to the well-being of individuals and vulnerable
groups. Developing plans, identifying allies, and implementing the plan to address barriers
would fall within this level of intervention.
Community collaboration level. Lewis et al. (2003) suggest that counselors can use
interpersonal relations, communication, training and research to respond when they recognize
recurrent themes within the environment. The proposed competencies are to identify the factors
within the community, inform appropriate groups of common concerns, and to develop alliances
by using counseling skills such as effective communication, the ability to identify strengths and
resources, and assessing the effect of counselor interactions within the community.
Systems advocacy level. This form of advocacy involves collaborating with stakeholders
at the school or community level to address issues and systemic factors that are barriers to client
development. In addition to providing and interpreting data, the competencies dictate that
counselor advocates must analyze the source of political influence, develop a plan, address
resistance, and assess the outcome of the advocacy.
Public information level. Another domain on the continuum outlines competencies that
are paramount to informing the public about the environmental factors in human development.
This domain involves recognizing the impact of oppression and other obstacles, identifying
environmental factors, preparing multi-media materials that provide a clear explanation of
environmental factors, ethically and appropriately communicating information for the
population, disseminating information to the media while identifying other professionals
involved in disseminating information, and assessing the influence of the public information.
Social/Political Advocacy level. The final domain involves social and political advocacy
by “influencing public policy in a large public arena” (Lewis et al., 2003, p. 2). According to
Lewis et al. counselors must distinguish problems best suited for this form of action, identify
appropriate avenues, seek and join allies, support existing alliances for change, and with allies
prepare data, lobby legislators and policy makers and maintain open dialogue with communities
and clients to ensure advocacy is consistent with original goals.
Advocating for the Profession
Professional Advocacy Defined
The advocacy competencies explained in the previous section were intended to guide the
professional in advocating for individuals within the community or school setting and do not
focus on advocacy for the profession of counseling. Professional advocacy is a predominant
mode of advocacy and has been well defined by White and Semivan (2006) as:
The collective goal-oriented multi-level actions proactively aimed at advancement of
individuals inclusive of prevention, access and provision of needed services and the
related professional/political activities that legitimize the professional actions and
intentions of professionals that are used to influence public views of the field of
counseling (p. 2).
Much of the published literature includes professional advocacy as significant to overall
advocacy efforts. Chi Sigma Iota, the counseling honor society endorses advocacy for the
profession, noting that the right to serve a specific client population may be limited if counselors
do not advocate on behalf of the profession (Chi Sigma Iota, 1998, Advocacy section, para.1).
Although some in the field believe that advocating for the profession diminishes client resources
and can be seen as self-serving (McClure & Russo, 1996; Toporek, 2000) others believe that
advocacy is multifaceted and must involve both advocacy of client and advocacy for the
profession.
Historically, these two types of advocating, client advocacy and professional advocacy
have been seen as mutually exclusive (Myers, Sweeney & White, 2002; Patrick, 2007). The
contemporary view of advocating is a hybrid of both client and professional advocacy. Myers
and Sweeney have argued that “advocacy of the profession has the potential to place counselors
in positions where they can advocate effectively for the causes of their clients” (2004, p. 466).
Further emphasis is made that all counselors have both the opportunity and responsibility to
advocate for both their clients and their profession (Myers, Sweeney & White, 2004). The
literature also supports using these competencies for both the profession and to increase the
availability of mental health services to consumers (D‟Andrea & Daniels, 2000; Goodman &
Waters, 2000; Patrick, 2007; Stone, 2003; Weissberg, Kumpfer & Seligman, 2003). Advocacy of
the counseling profession is important to the unique philosophy of professional counseling and
its deserving clients.
Advocacy Themes
Chi Sigma Iota (CSI), the counseling honor society, instituted a new advocacy initiative
and its executive team decided to make advocacy for counselors a “long-term, sustained
commitment,” (CSI, 2007) that would be “broadly based and inclusive as the profession itself.”
The counselor advocacy leadership conferences held in 1998 spawned six advocacy themes
which were developed to address professional counselor advocacy. These themes included: a)
counselor education, b) intra-professional relations, c) marketplace recognition, d)
interprofessional relations, e) research, and f) prevention/wellness.
Theme A: Counselor Education. This theme is “to ensure that all counselor education
students graduate with a clear identity and sense of pride as professional counselors” (CSI,
2007). Leadership developed eight objectives to achieve this goal. Several objectives suggest
that educators in counselor education programs identify themselves as professional counselors
and will be credentialed accordingly at state and national levels. Educators are to be members of
state and national associations and will be involved in and encourage their students to be
involved in these associations. The leadership requires students to identify themselves as
professional counselors, become members of the state counseling association, ACA and its
divisions, develop a respect for and knowledge of counseling specialties and as graduates be
eligible for professional counselor credentials at both the state and national level (NCC, LPC)
upon completion of supervised post-graduate clinical experience. Counselor education programs
are encouraged to adopt CACREP accreditation standards and within their curriculum teach
advocacy for clients and the profession.
Theme B: Intra-professional relations. The leaders address the need for the counseling
profession, with all of its specialties, to intermingle and collaborate with one another.
Intraprofessional relations, as stressed in this theme, are important to professional advocacy and
involve the development and implementation of a “unified, collaborative advocacy plan for the
advancement of counselors and those whom they serve” (CSI, 2007). Professional counseling
associations are encouraged by leaders to establish a professional identity that is then expressed
to the public; proactively collaborate on advocacy assignments through research, grants,
legislation and connected activities; and maintain a cohesive front in seeking counselor-related
legislation at all levels of government (CSI, 2007, Theme B).
Theme C: Marketplace Recognition. The leaders addressed the need for professional
counselors to receive suitable compensation for their services in all settings and have the freedom
to provide services within their scope of practice (CSI, 2007, Theme C). One objective was
developed to identify professional counselors as competent service providers. Another objective
was created to stress that professional counselors have access to employment and/or
compensation across settings for services these counselors are qualified to perform. Counselors
should also be recognized in the media and elsewhere as providing valuable service to clients,
families, organizations, and the general public as a part of marketplace recognition (CSI, 2007,
Theme C).
Theme D: Inter-professional Relations. The goal set forth by the leaders is to achieve
advocacy goals for both the profession and clients by collaborating with other organizations,
groups and disciplines on issues of shared importance. (CSI, 2007 Theme D) The objectives
include: 1) identify state and national entities to develop relationships, open communication,
share information and to form possible alliances; 2) initiate and cultivate a relationship with these
organizations to modify and/or address developing or changing concerns or situations; 3)
establish a strategy to address initiatives by other groups or organizations that could potentially
omit, limit or block the employment or practice of professional counselors; and 4) sustain
counselor advocacy initiatives by establishing and maintaining resources and personnel (CSI,
2007, Theme D).
Theme E: Research. Based on the themes, it is effective to advocate using scientific
research to further the counseling profession and the services counselors provide (CSI, 2007,
Theme E). Researchers can demonstrate effectiveness of counseling through outcome research,
assessing outcomes of counselor preparation, assessing public awareness of counseling,
determining sources of funding research, and encouraging the use of research. CSI encourages
research by offering grants, awards, and other incentives.
Theme F: Prevention and Wellness. True to the professional identity of counselors, the
Theme F was established to “promote optimum human development across the life span through
prevention and wellness” (CSI, 2007, Theme F). CSI identifies three objectives for counselors to
maintain a prevention and wellness perspective. Counselors are encouraged to focus on client
wellness by incorporating wellness into their philosophical orientation, practices, research and
advocacy practices; by identifying counselor needs and training related to wellness and
prevention; and to retraining counselors from a wellness/prevention model.
Planning for Professional Advocacy
The literature describes core elements of the advocacy process and chronologically
accounts the beginnings of advocacy and social justice initiatives (Kiselica & Robinson, 2001);
however, the literature falls short of providing a comprehensive system to effectively plan for
advocacy from a dual perspective for both client and profession (Patrick, 2007). Patrick
introduced such an advocacy model and outlines this method through activities that are intrinsic
to advocating for the client population while promoting the profession through professional
advocacy initiatives. Patrick encouraged counselors to employ these initiatives throughout their
careers through community leadership, consumer education, professional education, legislation
promotion, professional association involvement, publishing, public policy involvement, and
advocacy training. Her thorough plan offers counselors opportunities to promote professional
agendas of the counseling profession while counselors and the profession are already acting from
their role as helping professionals. The following is a summary of the advocacy strategies that
Patrick and others in the field found effective in advocating for both client and profession.
Community Leadership. Patrick viewed community leadership as a component of the
professional role in which counselors add a powerful expertise, embody the advocacy role and
are viewed as decision makers by the community. She promoted direct collaboration by initiating
legislative agendas and forming coalitions (2007). Counselors can advocate from the dual
perspective by establishing advisory boards in educational settings (Weist, 2003), and by
providing outreach to empower clients to self-advocate (March, 1999; Myers & Gill, 2004;
Wallack, Doorfman, Jernigan, & Themba, 1993). Indirect collaboration such as counselors in
practice within the community (Eriksen, 1999) also promotes the counseling profession through
media contact and public forums. These initiatives assist the client and community while
promoting the profession.
Consumer education. Counseling professionals can serve as experts to the community by
providing information to the community on mental health issues and engage in media advocacy
on behalf of clients and the profession (Patrick, 2007). This exposure provides accurate
dissemination of information to the public through websites. Each counseling profession
maintains a website (i.e.: apa.org, counseling.org, socialworkers.org) that provides information to
consumers and its professional members about mental health and well being. Other outreach
efforts include psycho-education to schools, mental health agencies, and other counselor
professionals; community forums on subjects ranging from child abuse prevention to domestic
violence; and professionals as experts on topical radio programs on parenting, medical conditions
and life span (CSI, 2009; Patrick, 2007). The consumer education in all formats has a dual
purpose: to educate the public and for individuals to be “exposed to the role of the counselor
professional and the value of this role to their well-being or potential well-being” (Patrick, 2007
p. 194).
Professional education. Counselors can obtain education on advocacy through advocacy
competencies and themes, CACREP standards, courses specific to the topic, and throughout the
curriculum in counselor education programs (CACREP, 2007; Capella, 2007; CSI, 2007; Lewis
et al., 2003; Osborne et al., 1998). Additional knowledge can be obtained from various websites
for the mental health professions (apa.org, counseling.org, nasw.org). The American
Psychological Association (APA) website informs professionals and the public that the
association “represents the largest most visible national presence advocating for psychology at
the federal level” (APA, Government Relations). According to the site, APA collaborates with
legislators and federal agencies while these entities create regulations and legislation relevant to
psychologists. APA reportedly seeks to educate Congress about the field and its relevance to
federal policy, advocate for increased funding and support for research and behavioral and
mental health services, strengthen the voice of the psychology field at the regulatory level,
advance opportunities for education and training of psychologists, and combine expertise within
the field for the welfare of the country. The website informs both the public and professionals
that the organization advocates for education, public interest and science, and for the purpose of
government relations.
The American Counseling Association (ACA) website, www.counseling.org, offers
similar educational opportunities. Under the resource section of the website, counselors can find
downloadable documents such as the Definition of Professional Counseling, Public Awareness
Ideas and strategies for Professional Counselors, and the advocacy competencies previously
mentioned. The website provides information on legislative updates and information on current
issues such as spending bills for education and other agencies, counselor recognition within the
Veterans Affairs (VA) system and Medicare (ACA, n.d., Public Policy). Another section within
public policy offers information and research on how to communicate with Congress including
statistics on the most effective means of advocating to the legislature. The Call to Action link is
connected to capwiz.com and assists individuals in finding their local, state and federal
legislators, relevant issues and alerts, elections and candidates, and a media guide of national
media organizations, local newspapers, television stations, and radio. ACA provides resources
and reports such as the effectiveness and need for professional counselors, and statistics on the
number of mental health professionals and supervision requirements. Counselors also can access
additional links and a government relations list-serve.
NASW also dedicates a segment of their website to educating professionals and
consumers and coordinates advocacy efforts. Sections contain information on grassroots
advocacy, legislative advocacy, congressional testimony, letters and comments, education for
professionals and the public on legislative issues of concern to NASW, updates and advocacy
materials on governmental relations issues, and political action for candidate election (NASW,
2009a).
Legislative Promotion. Professional counselor advocacy can be enacted by professional
associations or by organizations promoting a specific mental health agenda (Patrick, 2007).
Psychologists promote professional interests through a wide range of advocacy activities while
focusing on consumers‟ services, the healthcare marketplace and policy makers (Martin, 2000).
NASW recently created initiatives to increase the welfare of general society while promoting the
profession of social work. One extensive movement is the Social Work Reinvestment Initiative
(NASW, 2009b) which is a collaborative effort to strengthen the profession of social work and
the communities it serves. The initiative, comprised of leading social work organizations and
other stakeholders, is committed to securing federal and state investments related to recruitment,
training, retention and research for the profession of social work. The Dorothy I. Height and
Whitney M. Young, Jr. Social Work Reinvestment Act is a part of that federal initiative. The act
was developed to address the challenges to the social work profession such as dangerous working
conditions, significant educational debt, and comparatively inadequate compensation.
This legislation was proposed in an effort to “create the foundation for a professional workforce
to meet the ever-increasing demand for the essential services that social workers provide”
(NASW, 2009b, p.1). In 2004, the American Counseling Association‟s Public Policy Agenda
mission was to “increase support for professional counselors and their clients in all appropriate
Federal and State laws, regulations and legislation” (ACA, 2005). An advocacy strategy was then
built around this idea and was the impetus to advocate for the policies and positions related to the
cause. Current issues such as spending bills for education and other agencies and counselor
recognition within the Veterans Affairs (VA) system and Medicare, are examples of such policies
(ACA, 2009, Public Policy). Patrick identified that legislative advocacy may focus on support of
legislation that ultimately results in enacting laws that regulate the title and practice of
counseling at the state level (2007).
Advocacy Training. A portion of research in the field has been dedicated to understanding
and implementing professional advocacy (CSI, 2007; Eriksen 1999; Field & Baker, 2004; Myers
& Sweeney, 2004; Patrick, 2007; White & Semivan, 2007) Counselors armed with advocacy
skills gained through professional counselor associations, other professions, or advocacy groups
can more effectively represent the goals of the profession while influencing policy and swaying
decision makers (2007). Counselors can enhance communication through media advocacy efforts
and creating influential dialogue and messages to legislators or other entities (Patrick, 2007).
Counselor advocates have increasingly utilized media advocacy, the persuasive use of
such mediums as print, television, radio and internet to deliver a message, proposal or cause to
strengthen the profession (Brawley, 1997; Eriksen, 1997; Kiselica & Robinson, 2001; Myers,
Sweeney & White, 2002; Wallack, Dorfman, Jernigan & Themba, 1993; Wallack, Woodruff,
Dorfman & Diaz, 1999). The various mental health professions (ACA, APA, and NASW) have
utilized internet, YouTube, Twitter, newspaper, television, and radio to get messages out about
consumers and/or their profession. NASW, particularly, has capitalized on technology by using
YouTube, video streams of the NASW lobbyist educating professionals and consumers on their
recent Initiative (NASW, 2009b). SocialWorkersSpeak.org, an interactive site developed by
NASW, was developed to improve public understanding of the strengths and expertise of the
social work profession and to critically analyze and therefore improve the way social issues are
covered and portrayed in the news media and entertainment industries.
Professional Association Involvement. The literature recognizes involvement in
professional associations to be an effective means of advocacy (CSI, 2009; Eriksen, 1997; Lewis
et al., 2003; Patrick, 2007; White & Semivan, 2006). The professional association has the
capacity to institute change within the profession or community through several avenues. The
associations and their leaders highlight causes and issues from a state, regional, national and
global level. This phenomenon can be seen in the 2007 Association for Counselor Educators and
Supervisors, (ACES) Conference, Vanguards for Change: ACES and Social Justice where this
theme sparked counselor supervisors and educators to research, present and dialogue about social
justice and advocacy concepts. Patrick (2007) recommended that professionals can participate in
professional activities in regional or state associations through presentations, research,
publishing, specialized projects for consumer needs, interest groups, serving on advocacy-based
committees, using media appearances to represent the profession or a cause promoted by the
association, volunteering at events, and participating in list serves requesting a “call to action.”
Publishing. Publishing is considered a distinctive form of counselor and professional advocacy
and comes in journal articles, books, newsletters, other print materials and web-based formats.
Literature helps define the purpose of advocacy and lends itself as a process and activity that is
generative to the profession (Leahy, Chan & Saunders, 2003; Myers & Gill, 2004; Tanenbaum,
2005). Publishing provides detailed information about the nature and importance of advocacy,
and educates readers on advocacy models and the possible impact of advocacy within the
counseling professions (Patrick, 2007). As an integral part of research, an investigator must first
fact find, gather data, evaluate and then publish research findings for the profession and for
overall consumption (Eriksen, 1999; White & Semivan, 2006). This literature guides and
prepares practitioners on advocacy and areas of needed improvement, directly informs the
activities of the advocate (Eriksen, 1997; Kiselica & Robinson, 2001; Lee, 1998; Lorion, Iscoe,
DeLeon, & VandenBos, 1996; Myers & Gill, 2004; Myers; Sweeney & White, 2002; Patrick,
2007), encourages dissemination of manuals to guide advocacy planning and action (Eriksen
1997; Lewis & Bradley, 2000; Teasdale, 1998; Wallack, Dorfman, Jernigan & Themba, 1993)
and informs and drives interest in advocacy as an effective tool for counseling professions
(Patrick, 2007).
Public Policy Involvement. The counseling profession has used public policy measures to
address mental health care, licensure legislation, and social issues (Abramson, Steele &
Abramson, 2003; Karlin & Duffy, 2004). Patrick (2007) identified knowledge about the needs of
consumers, historic efforts of the advocate and strong research skills as necessary for this specific
form of advocacy. These position statements must be backed by goal-supported research and
reflect the strategic plan of the association (Kiselica & Robinson, 2001; Myers, Sweeney &
White, 2002; Wallack, Dorfman, and Jernigan & Themba, 1993). Coalition builders at the
community level can promote the mission of the profession while building relationships to
address consumer issues important to human service professionals. As noted by Patrick (2007),
the counselor advocate can act on behalf of the consumer‟s needs to bring about social change
and directly impact the quality of life of these consumers or the advocate can work in a
professional advocacy role, working toward improving the profession, thereby also impacting the
services that clients ultimately receive.
Research Studies on Advocacy within the Counseling Profession
Several studies have been conducted to conceptualize advocacy (Eriksen, 1999; Field &
Baker, 2004; Myers & Sweeney, 2004; White & Semivan, 2006). The studies define advocacy
and collectively educate the counseling profession on the skills, values, beliefs and the actual
process of advocacy for clients and the profession. The studies delved into the perceived reasons
and motivations for professional counselor advocacy, as well as, noted several barriers to
advocating.
White and Semivan (2006) conducted a qualitative research study involving 24
participants aimed to operationally define advocacy while identifying differences between
advocating for the counseling profession and advocating for the client. Participants were asked to
generate lists of the most important components of advocacy, reasons why it is important for
counselors to learn advocacy skills, and ways in which they have advocated successfully. The
participants ranged in age from 20 years to over 60 years old with the majority of participants
ranging from 30 to 59 years of age. Almost 66% of the participants were female and nearly 92%
held two or more leadership positions. Based on the results of their study, White and Semivan
defined advocacy as “a process that seeks to create change by using personal and professional
skills to promote, empower, support, and/or protect the growth and development of an
organization or person” (p. 2). They further define professional advocacy as:
The collective goal-oriented multi-level actions proactively aimed at advancement of
individuals inclusive of prevention, access and provision of needed services and the
related professional/political activities that legitimize the professional actions and
intentions of professionals that are used to influence public views of the field of
counseling (p. 2).
Participants in the study reported that the techniques, strategies, basic concepts and
overall skills are the same whether advocating for the client or the profession; however, the study
generated a few differences between advocating for the profession versus for the client. The
differences include the focus, goals and scope of advocating. The researchers recognized the top
five components of advocacy to include knowledge/skill level (of needs, environments,
legislation, values and personal biases), interest and passion, collaboration/systemic intervention
(for client, colleagues and organization), action/implement change, and research (including fact
finding and gathering data). Participants reported the focus and goal of client advocacy is to
protect and assist clients and to change policy and make systemic interventions. Based on results,
professional counselor advocacy is used to protect and promote the profession, develop the
counselor role and professional identity, and for the knowledge and use of skills in leadership,
clinical and organizational settings. The research further identified several actions that were
successful in advocating: political legislative action; active involvement in professional
organizations; research/publishing; and community service/promote knowledge of the field.
The researchers offered several ways in which counselors can advocate for clients, for
self, for the profession, and for agency. Based on their research, White and Semivan
recommended that clinicians advocate for clients through services such as psycho-education
groups, skills training programs, support groups, and direct support to clients. The researchers
recommended following a social justice perspective by respecting clients‟ culture and world
view, assisting clients around barriers, and extending and changing availability to meet needs of
various populations. Suggestions for advocating for self include educating oneself about the
issues effecting counseling and clients, joining professional associations and utilizing the ACA
website to write letters to legislators, writing media organizations that misrepresent mental illness
and mental health counselors, and taking action against public advertisements that misuse the
word counselor.
Advocating for the profession, as stated by White and Semivan, incorporates creating
brochures that describe a counselor‟s identity and skills, a website explaining the role of a
professional counselor and speaking about mental health organizations at venues such as
YMCA/YWCAs, libraries, community service centers and churches to reduce the stigma around
mental illness. Advocating for the agency involves teaching colleagues how to advocate for self
and clients, support colleagues in advocacy efforts, share conference information with colleagues
and start a list serve to inform work colleagues of legislation that affects counselors and clients.
The sample for White and Semivan‟s study was predominantly professionals seasoned in
their careers and involved in their professional associations. Nearly 92% of the individuals held
two or more leadership positions and fell within 30-59 years of age. Although this information
adds to the knowledge of advocacy, this sample does not represent the average counseling
professional. Expanding the research by using quantitative research could gain valuable
information about the general population of counselors and increase the profession‟s knowledge
of professional advocacy.
In the quest to understand advocacy within the school counseling setting, Field and Baker
(2004) conducted a qualitative study. This study was in response to two initiatives: the National
School Counselor Training Initiative developed by the Education Trust which stresses the
importance of advocating for the academic success of students (House & Hayes, 2002), and the
American School Counselor Association‟s (ASCA) position that professional school counselors
should advocate as members of the educational team (ASCA, 1997). Participants were nine
female, high-school school counselors who participated in two focus group interviews. Six
counselors identified themselves as European American and three self-identified as African
American. The mean age and years of work experience were 45.3 and 14.2 respectively. All five
of the counselors from the first focus group were at the same large high school; however, the
second focus group was comprised of four counselors from different, smaller high schools within
the same county. The researchers sought to define advocacy and what it meant to the participant
counselors. In addition, the researchers sought to identify 1) the most important advocacy
behaviors performed by school counselors, 2) ways in which they learned to be advocates, 3)
how the environment strengthens or inhibits the ability to advocate and 4) evidence that the
participants value advocacy in practice. Three main themes emerged from the focus groups:
counselors extending themselves beyond regular counseling duties; performing specific
behaviors such as supporting, writing letters, simplifying processes, and communicating with
decision makers on behalf of students; and focusing on the student on a case level, or individual
client level of intervention. The participants defined advocacy as focusing on the individual,
supporting counseling colleagues, having an ethical belief system or philosophy, and advocating
for the profession. One counselor stated, “We have to be advocates of our profession because
nobody else in the whole school understands our position and or what it is we are supposed to
do…it is a daily struggle, from my perspective, not to be dumped upon” (Field & Baker, 2004, p.
59). Counselor participants reported consistency, support from administrators, and positive
feedback from students, parents, and community agencies as evidence of the value of advocacy
in practice.
The focus group participants recognized advocacy strategies and environmental factors
affecting these efforts. Participants reportedly gained knowledge through formal training
(counselor education programs, professional conferences, workshops), modeling by colleagues
with strong advocacy skills, personality traits (altruism, helping professional), and experiences.
Field and Baker‟s research identified fundamental counseling skills that can be translated into
advocacy such as understanding and embracing differences, maintaining emotional
independence, flexibility, acceptance, realistic expectations and humor. Although not themes,
participants identified humor and speaking for students as ways to advocate. Field and Baker
(2004) also noted that counselors may have difficulty identifying advocacy behaviors without
adequate training in those behaviors. Participants identified environmental barriers such as a
vague job description and unclear expectations, lack of communication regarding students, and
feeling devalued. Counselor participants recognized fellow counselors, balance and professional
boundaries as environmental strengths.
Field and Baker‟s study offered rich information about the definition, barriers and
optimal conditions for advocacy; however, the study does not represent the views of non-school
counseling professionals. In addition, the study was qualitative in nature; therefore the results of
the study are not generalizable to the counselor population. A quantitative study would elicit
more comprehensive results from a broader base of counselors provided that the research is
conducted using appropriate sampling techniques.
An earlier qualitative study was conducted by Eriksen (1999) to gain a scientific
understanding of professional advocacy within the counseling field. The study was conducted
using participant-observation, key informant interviewing, and document analysis and consisted
of 28 interviews of leaders of the counseling profession who were actively involved in advocacy.
Fifty percent of the professionals were female and two of the participants were from an ethnic
minority group. Seventy-five percent were licensed as counselors and 68% had doctoral degrees.
Sixty-four percent identified themselves as mental health counselors, while the rest of the
participants were from other specialties. Forty-six percent were practicing counselors, 32%
administrators, 29% counselor educators, and 7% researchers. Over 75% were over forty years
old and 54% had advocated for the profession for 11 or more years. Fifty-four percent had
advocated at the national level, 36% advocated at the state level, and 10% had advocated in both
arenas.
Eriksen sought to answer the following research questions: a) What are the essential
elements of counselor advocacy? b) What do counselor advocates believe works best in
advancing the profession? c) What do counselor advocates do when advocating? d) What factors
influence the choice of advocacy strategies? e) Who do counselor advocates consider to be the
main targets of their advocacy? f) What are the obstacles to advocacy and how can they be
overcome? Eriksen‟s research on professional counselor advocacy indicated that counselors
believed that they can translate their skills, values and personalities that make them effective
counselors into appropriate advocacy efforts. The research elicited four skills/values from the
counseling profession that are also essential elements of advocating. These values include
inclusiveness towards specialties and other mental health specialties, education on what
counselors do, good communication and listening skills (asking questions, info gathering, and
clarifying) and relationship building. Other elements identified were leadership, organizational
strength and unity, long-term planning, perseverance and consumer focus. A clear sense of
professional identity also emerged as an essential element of professional advocacy efforts. The
types of personalities that make effective counselor advocates are described as energetic,
forceful, enthusiastic, upbeat, intelligent, and having a confident attitude. However, she noted
that just as many personalities were nearly the opposite and as introverts effected change through
subtle, non-verbal communication (Erksen, 1999). These findings suggest that counselor
advocates do not fit a specific mold and can fight for social justice principles modestly or
through expressive means.
Eriksen‟s qualitative study also outlined key steps to the advocacy process and timeline.
The steps include the development of a professional identity, problem identification, assessing
resources, strategic planning, training members, and celebrating victories. The data suggested
that group advocacy is comprised of a small, core group of diverse individuals that handles
planning, networks for action, establishes a protocol for authority to make immediate decisions,
creates a structure for disseminating information quickly and includes objectives for both internal
and external group concerns.
Counselors indicated in Eriksen‟s study that the magnitude of the problem would
indicate the level of motivation to act. The participants identified several situations that
warranted action: (a) losing clients due to their inability to pay out of pocket and lack of
insurance coverage for counselors, (b) inability to find work at schools or mental health agencies
that do not hire counselors, and (c) concern for clients and students who are unable to access
programs or services due to shortages of funds and providers.
Eriksen‟s qualitative research indicated several barriers to the advocacy process. Two
major obstacles noted were the lack of a clear sense of professional identity and the internal
conflicts within ACA. Conflicts “within groups” represented groups inside the counseling field.
This conflict was reported to cause stress, tension, and distrust among ACA members. Noted
factors included polarization, dominance by subgroups within ACA, underrepresentation of the
interests of other groups within the organization. Additional obstacles identified were a general
lack of unification within the ACA and a lack of focus on the future as an association. Intergroup
conflict, as termed by Eriksen, is the conflict caused between the counseling profession and other
professional groups which causes public uncertainty, loss of status with legislators, insurance
companies and other funding sources, confusion over decision makers, and success by groups
merely because of the most Political Action Committee (PAC) funds. Eriksen listed many
obstacles to counselor professional advocacy such as counselors‟ unwillingness to take a stand
for themselves or a belief, being complacent, apathetic, satisfied with the status quo, and lack of
self esteem. Participants voiced a concern that they lacked resources such as sufficient funds,
position and time to make an impact. Counselors indicated that individuals can selfadvocate
immediately; however, strategic planning is necessary to plan group advocacy efforts. Additional
obstacles included the inability of leaders to motivate membership and the phenomenon that
most work is done by only a few individuals.
The literature reflects only one quantitative study concerning professional advocacy
which was conducted by Myers and Sweeney (2004). Seventy-one leaders in state, regional and
national professional and credentialing counseling associations responded to the survey. The
survey collected the respondents‟: a) demographic information, b) structure of the advocacy
efforts of the organization, c) nature and success of these efforts, d) perception of current
advocacy needs of the profession, e) resources needed by the organization for advocacy efforts,
f) existence of inter-professional alliances for advocacy and perception for need of such
alliances, g) obstacles to effective advocacy, and h) perceptions of the importance of advocacy
for the future of the counseling profession.
Myer and Sweeney mailed 180 surveys to leaders in the field who were state and division
presidents and/or past presidents of the American Counseling Association (ACA), executive
directors and past presidents of the various counseling boards and committees, and past and
current chairs of ACA‟s public policy and legislation committees at the division, state branch
and national levels. Thirty-nine percent of the sample population responded to the survey.
Fiftyone percent of the respondents reported having doctoral degrees and one in five reported
being counselor educators. More than two thirds (69%) had been in the field for 16 or more
years, and over 41% had been counselors for more than 20 years. With an average of 21 years in
the field, the respondents offered a wealth of information; however respondents with such years
of experience and level of knowledge do not represent the perceptions of a majority of
counselors, especially those who are not in leadership roles.
In addition, the survey commented on the structure of the organization and professional
advocacy. More than half of the organizations have a statement concerning professional
advocacy and of those, 31% stated that it was a part of their mission statement, 39% noted that it
was a part of their strategic plan, almost two thirds reported having committees, half reported
having a fee for professional advocacy, nearly one third reported having a lobbyist and one fourth
reported paying a staff person to perform the task.
Respondents to the Myers and Sweeney (2004) survey reported on the types and success
of advocacy activities implemented. Unpaid individuals were frequently utilized through
committees/volunteers (68%), coalitions with professional groups (59%), and government
relations liaisons (55%). Media opportunities (e.g., radio, television) (48%), and written material
such as literature and information (63%) and advocacy training packets (47%) were other
categories frequently employed. Categories reported as least utilized include paid staff (31%),
paid consultants (24%), and other (10%). The activities that received the highest reported success
were used most often. It is important to note that government relations liaisons and advocacy
literature/information were reported by the leaders to be the least needed resources needed by
only 31% and 32%, respectively, even though they were reported as being used more frequently
than some of the other advocacy resources.
The leaders gave valuable input on their perception of the advocacy needs of professional
counselors. A significant number of respondents (87%) agreed that the profession needs to
“improve the public and professional image of counselors” (p. 468). This response was followed
by publicizing counseling and services counselors provide (75%). Equal numbers (69%)
reported pursuing legislative action on behalf of jobs for professional counselors, ensuring equal
access to employment with other professionals and parity of pay for counselors with other mental
health professionals as important advocacy efforts. Well over half (59%) checked the need to
develop a common definition/identity for professional counselors. Hiring paid staff was least
checked (23%) suggesting that the majority of the participants believe that there is no need to
hire professionals to advocate.
Additionally, Myers and Sweeney (2004) asked leaders to rate key obstacles to advocacy
efforts. The obstacles generated were inadequate resources (58%), not enough money (51%),
opposition by other providers (51%), lack of collaboration (47%), resistance of public policy
makers (42%), lack of training in advocacy (41%), not enough time to deal with advocacy (39%),
lack of advocacy leadership (39%), lack of awareness of advocacy issues (35%), not a priority
(28%), little interest in advocacy (27%), and not having a training packet in advocacy (18%). The
researchers noted several participants provided written responses regarding obstacles to advocacy
ranging from politics, lack of energy, lack of commitment, the belief that counselors are apathetic
to concerns due to the demands of the profession, and that counselors are reluctant to self-
advocate. Nearly 80% rated advocacy of the profession as most important on a 1-3 scale.
The results of Myers and Sweeney‟s national survey indicated that there are a variety of
ongoing advocacy initiatives. The study identified a specific need for resources and
interprofessional collaboration. Participants agreed on the importance of advocacy for the future
of the profession, and 87% of respondents most frequently checked that advocacy efforts need to
“improve the public and professional image of counselors” (p. 468).
Characteristics of Professional Advocacy
Professional Identity
Advocacy for clients and the profession is an integral part of professional identity and is
noted in the counseling standards, journals and research (CSI, 2007; Eriksen, 1999; LaFleur,
2007; Myers & Sweeney, 2004). Counselor educators and supervisors are encouraged to guide
and mentor novice counselors towards a strong professional identity (Myers et al., 2002; Remley
& Herlihy, 2010). Leaders recognize that in order for the counseling profession and its
constituents to develop a strong identity they need to have a strong knowledge and appreciation
for the concepts of professional identity (Lafleur, 2007; Remley & Herlihy, 2010).
The Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs
(CACREP) was developed more than 25 years ago to ensure that counseling students master
knowledge and skill while developing a professional counselor identity (CACREP, 2009). The
CACREP 2009 Standards require counseling programs to include advocacy as a part of
professional orientation and ethical practice, one of the eight core curricular areas. CACREP
stipulates that curricula for this core area should include the role and processes of advocating for
the profession as well as the processes of advocating in an effort to eradicate systemic barriers to
access, equality and the overall achievement of clients.
Advocacy of the profession ironically strengthens professional identity and, in essence,
allows it. Having the ability to articulate distinctions among mental health professionals enables
recognition of the profession and allows for the profession to fight for its position in the
marketplace (Pistole, 2002). Remley and Herlihy (2010) consider understanding and having a
sense of pride in one‟s profession as essential to the development of a professional identity.
They further assert that pride can be articulated by defending the profession against inaccurate
statements about the profession or its members. In other words, having pride and a strong sense
of professional identity assists the individual professional in advocating for self and the
profession as a whole. This self-advocacy is indirectly related to advocating for clients who may
not be able to utilize professional counselors‟ services due to such issues as politics, role
clarification, and inability to access care from a professional who espouses the unique holistic,
developmental, counseling perspective.
Advocacy Skills
Aside from the advocacy competencies and the advocacy themes, the review of the
literature identifies many components of advocacy through dialogue, speculation and research in
the field. Some of the skills used in advocacy are qualities inherent in counselor practice and
already present in the individual (Eriksen 1997, 1999; Field & Baker, 2004; White & Semivan,
2006). Eriksen‟s (1999) qualitative research indicated that counseling skills and values such as
the educational approach and inclusive nature of the counseling profession are central to
advocacy intervention. Relationship building, good communication and effective listening skills
can be effective advocating skills with specialties within the counseling field, other mental health
professions and others within the community. Field and Baker‟s (2004) research identified
fundamental counseling skills that can be translated into advocacy such as understanding and
embracing differences, maintaining emotional independence, flexibility, acceptance, realistic
expectations and humor. Additional counseling skills germane to advocating are the abilities to
be sensitive to clients, assess client needs, define goals, implement effective research-based
interventions, and evaluate outcomes (Kiselica & Robinson, 2001; Kurpuis & Rozecki, 1992;
Patrick, 2007)
Advocacy Qualities
Interest, passion, and personality are deemed important qualities in the advocacy process
(Eriksen, 1999; Patrick, 2007; White & Semivan, 2007). Patrick (2007) listed passion and
commitment, drive and persistence, toughness and resilience, life-long learner attitude, and
selfconfidence as important qualities of the counselor advocate. The types of personalities that
make effective counselor advocates are described by Eriksen (1999) as energetic, forceful,
enthusiastic, upbeat, intelligent, and confident attitude. However, Eriksen noted that just as many
personalities were nearly the opposite and as introverts effected change through subtle, non-
verbal communication (1999). Additional skill sets effective for advocacy include
communication competencies such as public speaking or writing, time management and
organizational skills, role balance and coalition building (Patrick, 2007) Eriksen outlined
leadership skills, long-range planning, education and training, and consumer focus as essential to
the process.
Importance and Need to Advocate for the Profession
The counseling profession has noted that professional advocacy is important to clients,
the professionals themselves and to the actual profession. White and Semivan‟s (2006) study
reported reasons to advocate such as to protect and promote the profession, protect and assist
clients, change policy and make systemic interventions, develop the counselor role and
professional identity, and to have the ability to use knowledge and skills in leadership, clinical
and organizational environments. Counselors indicated in Eriksen‟s study (1999) that the
magnitude of the problem would indicate the level of motivation to act. The participants
identified several situations that warranted action: (a) losing clients due to their inability to pay
out of pocket and lack of insurance coverage for counselors, (b) inability to find work at schools
or mental health agencies that do not hire counselors, and (c) concern for clients and students
who are unable to access programs or services due to shortages of funds and providers.
The counseling profession also has a barrier to advocacy within its own identity. In the
Myers and Sweeney (2004) study, most leaders agreed that the profession needs to “improve the
public and professional image of counselors” (p. 468) and nearly 80% rated advocacy of the
profession as most important to the profession. The literature documents the disjointed nature of
subspecialties and training which has contributed to the inability of the profession and its
members to communicate the uniqueness of the profession (Gale & Austin, 2003).
In 2000, Fall, Levitov, Jennings and Eberts (2000) completed an empirical study, which
examined the public‟s “confidence levels” across five vignettes of varying severity of mental
health problems. Two graduate students over a six-month time frame conducted the study at an
international airport, an interstate bus/train station, and a shopping center, all within the same
southern city. The sample of 190 participants volunteered to complete the survey which included
a) demographic section, b) five case vignettes and c) the Knowledge of Mental Health
Practitioners assessment. Fall et al. explored professional identity from the perspective of the
client-consumer and found that doctoral-level counselors were preferred over masters-level
counselors. Participants were less confident in the Licensed Professional Counselors‟ (LPC)
ability to treat serious psychiatric disorders. The study produced additional findings that the
participants knew less about the counseling profession as opposed to the other professions
studied.
Professional counselors also continue to have a strained relationship with psychologists,
which began in 1970 when professional counselors became a distinct profession after gaining
licensure and accreditation (Goodyear, 2000). Although there is a shared identity between
counseling and psychology, as reflected in the memberships of both associations, professional
counselors promoting licensure, scope of practice and other legislation inclusive of professional
counselors are met with continued opposition by the psychology boards (Gale & Austin, 2003).
McDaniels, one of the professionals interviewed by Gale and Austin, warned that professional
counselors must create intra-professional relations and work together to advocate because “there
are people who would deny [professional counselors] the opportunity to work in ways, and with
groups, that are best reached through counseling” (Gale & Austin, p. 206). Professionals
emphasized that professional counselors must be willing to undertake new roles and to work
collaboratively both with each other and with professions from other helping professionals.
Briddick added that the counseling profession must have knowledge of competing professions
and of whether what professional counselors do is effective, similar to or different from other
professions (Briddick, 1997).
Barriers to Professional Counselor Advocacy
The professional counselor literature identifies many of the barriers to professional
advocacy. Contributors to the Journal of Counseling and Development identified the lack of
research within the association and inability of the membership to identify strengths to actively
promote the profession impedes the development of the identity of professional counseling (Gale
& Austin, 2003). The literature indicated that the profession and its members lack a clear sense
of professional identity and focus on the future (Eriksen, 1999; Gale & Austin, 2003). These
weaknesses in turn obstruct the advocacy process. Research identified inadequate resources,
limited funding and lack of time as significant deterrents (Eriksen, 1999; Myers & Sweeney,
2004). Additional deficits of individual counselors identified in the research were lack of
selfesteem, indifference, complacency and an unwillingness to take a stand for themselves or for
their beliefs (Eriksen, 1999).
Participants in the Field and Baker (2004) qualitative study identified environmental
barriers to advocacy such as a vague job description, unclear expectations, and feeling devalued.
Studies noted problems with intra- and inter-professional relations including opposition by other
providers and the lack of collaboration/communication within the profession. Research noted that
the conflict between the counseling profession and other professional groups causes public
uncertainty and loss of status with legislators, insurance companies and other funding sources,
confusion over decision makers, and success by groups merely because of the most Political
Action Committee (PAC) funds. Additional obstacles included the need for strategic planning,
lack of advocacy leadership, inability of leaders to motivate membership and the phenomenon
that most work is done by only a few individuals (Eriksen, 1999; Myers & Sweeney, 2004).
Although there are barriers to advocacy, the counseling profession must be compelled to
advocate for the profession and in doing so assist their clients. White and Semivan‟s (2006)
qualitative study was able to operationally define advocacy while identifying differences between
advocating for the counseling profession and advocating for the client. The research suggested
that the techniques, strategies, basic concepts and overall skills are the same whether advocating
for the client or the profession. The researchers recognized the top five components of advocacy
to include knowledge/skill level, interest and passion, collaboration/systemic intervention,
action/implement change, and research. Participants reported the focus and goal of client
advocacy is to protect and assist clients and to change policy and make systemic interventions.
Based on results, professional counselor advocacy is used to protect and promote the profession,
develop the counselor role and professional identity, and for the knowledge and use of skills in
leadership, clinical and organizational settings. The research further identified several actions
that were successful in advocating: political legislative action; active involvement in professional
organizations; research/publishing; and community service/promote knowledge of the field. The
sample population of White and Semivan‟s (2006) study was predominantly professionals who
were seasoned in their careers and involved in their professional associations. Nearly 92% of the
individuals held two or more leadership positions and were 30-59 years of age. Although this
information adds to the knowledge of advocacy, this sample does not represent the average
counseling professional. Expanding the research by using quantitative research could yield
valuable information about the general population of counselors and increase the profession‟s
knowledge of professional advocacy.
It is important to understand the evolution of the counseling field together with its social
justice perspective. As argued by many leaders in the field, counselors must advocate and assist
clients in becoming empowered. The counseling profession can benefit from viewing issues
from a systemic perspective and both individually and collectively address their own issues of
oppression within the mental health field. As Myers, Sweeney, and White (2002) stated,
advocacy has a dual role and includes advocacy for the client as well as the profession.
Individuals cannot advocate for clients if they are unhappy in their position or are not given the
chance to provide services that they are qualified to provide. The advocacy competencies can be
extended to include the microcosmic system in which counselors find themselves. The very
characteristics that support effective practice as counselors also support the potential to advocate
effectively for others and for the profession. Counselor educators, supervisors, colleagues and
individual counselors can assist and support counselors not only with how they will look at the
client‟s world systemically, but their own professional experience and how it affects the
counselor, the client and the profession.
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
The methodology used in this study is described in this chapter. The chapter is organized
in the following subsections: purpose of the study, research question, characteristics of sample,
instrument development, expert panel, data collection plan, data analysis, and delimitations.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was to identify the perceptions of professional counselor
advocacy held by counselors of different backgrounds. The literature has suggested a number of
factors that influence the attitudes of professionals towards professional counselor advocacy
initiatives (Eriksen, 1999; Field & Baker, 2003; Myers & Sweeney, 2003; Patrick, 2007; White &
Semivan, 2006) including knowledge of professional advocacy principles, skills and traits, actual
advocacy activities utilized, perceived barriers to professional advocacy, and perceived support to
advocate.
The results of this study provide insight into professional counselors‟ willingness and
ability to advocate on behalf of the profession by identifying the attitudes counseling
professionals have regarding their knowledge of professional advocacy (and where they gained
this knowledge), skills and qualities endorsed; advocacy activities practiced; opinions on the
importance and need to advocate; barriers encountered; and support gained from various entities.
By exploring the relationship between counseling professionals‟ attitudes toward professional
counselor advocacy and their perceived level of conducting professional counselor advocacy
activities, the results of the study provide insight into professional counselors‟ willingness and
ability to advocate on behalf of the profession.
Research Questions
This study explored several general research questions in order to understand how
numerous factors relate to whether counselors advocate for themselves and their profession. The
questions were:
To what degree do professional counselors perceive they are knowledgeable of
professional advocacy?
Where do professional counselors gain their knowledge of professional counselor
advocacy?
To what degree do professional counselors believe that they have the skills to participate
in professional advocacy efforts?
To what degree do professional counselors believe that they have the qualities
(interest/passion, commitment, resilience/persistence, toughness/force, life-long learner
attitude and self-confidence) to participate in professional advocacy efforts?
To what degree do professional counselors believe that they participate in professional
advocacy efforts?
To what degree do professional counselors believe that it is important and that there is a
need to participate in professional counselor advocacy efforts?
To what degree do professional counselors believe there are barriers to participating in
professional counselor advocacy?
What do professional counselors identify as barriers to participating in professional
counselor advocacy efforts?
To what degree do professional counselors feel they receive support from counselor
educators, supervisors, associations, and colleagues in participate in professional
advocacy efforts?
Is there a correlation between the level at which professional counselors perceive they are
knowledgeable of professional advocacy and their involvement in professional advocacy
activities?
Is there a correlation between professional counselors‟ level of participating in
professional advocacy efforts and their perceived level of skill to conduct professional
advocacy?
Is there a correlation between professional counselors‟ level of participating in
professional advocacy efforts and their perception of their professional advocacy
qualities?
Is there a correlation between professional counselors‟ level of participating in
professional advocacy efforts and their perception of the importance or need to advocate?
Is there a correlation between professional counselors‟ level of participating in
professional advocacy efforts and their perception of the barriers to advocating?
Is there a correlation between professional counselors‟ level of participating in
professional advocacy efforts and the perceived level of support participants receive from
counselor educators, supervisors, associations and colleagues?
Characteristics of the Sample
Participants for this study were drawn from the American Counseling Association (ACA)
membership which has over 44,000 members; of that total, 21,200 members are professional
members. ACA provided a random sample of 3,000 professional members of ACA. Participants
were contacted through a mass, electronic email message (see Appendix B) using the lists titled,
Professional Counselor Advocacy List (PCAL) and Professional Counselor Advocacy List
(PCAL2). These lists were compiled of working email addresses from the ACA Directory. Of
the 3,000 email addresses provided, two addresses were undeliverable and were eliminated from
the potential pool, yielding a sample of 2,998 of potential respondents. Surveys were returned by
452 participants representing a 15% return rate and of those returned, 390 of the surveys were
fully completed. The data were analyzed using the participant responses.
The August 2010 ACA membership statistics reported 73% of its current membership is
female. A significant number of respondents for this study were female (79.2%), thus making the
sample similar to the gender characteristics of ACA members. Descriptive data for the
participants‟ sex appear in Table 1.
Table 1
Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Sex
Sex n %
Female
309
79.2
Male
81
20.8
Total
390
100.0
Participants represented a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds (see Table 2). Most of
the respondents identified themselves as European American/White (84.1%). African American
made up 6.9% (n = 27) of the respondents, Hispanic/Latino represented 3.1% and Asian
American/Pacific Islander and Native American/Indian each represented 1% and Middle Eastern
represented 0.8% of the population sampled. Participants who selected the racial/ethnic category
“other” represented 3.1% of the population and included self-identifiers of Asian Indian,
Chicano, Tri-racial and Mestizo/Mixed.
Table 2
Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity n %
African American/Black
27
6.9
Asian American/Pacific Islander
4
1.0
European American/White
328
84.1
Hispanic/Latino
12
3.1
Middle Eastern
3
0.8
Native American/American Indian
4
1.0
Other
12
3.1
Total
390
100.0
Note. Participants who selected the racial/ethnic category “other” represented 3.1% of the
population and included self-identifiers of Asian Indian, Chicano, Tri-racial and Mestizo/Mixed.
Respondents to the survey were also asked to identify whether they have any disability.
Results are reported in Table 3. Almost 94% (n = 366) of respondents denied having any
disability. Those respondents who reported having some sort of disability included 4.9% with an
acquired disability (n = 19), 0.5% with a developmental disability from birth (n = 2), 0.5% with a
psychological disability from birth (n = 2) and 0.3% with a physical disability from birth.
Table 3
Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Disability Status
Disability Status n %
Physical Disability from Birth
1
0.3
Psychological Disability from Birth
2
0.5
Developmental Disability
2
0.5
Acquired Disability
19
4.9
No Disability
366
93.8
Total
390
100.0
Participants were asked to disclose their age in years (see Table 4) for the purposes of
comparing the study‟s sample population to the age of respondents from previous research on
professional advocacy within the counseling profession. The respondents‟ age ranged from 23
years to 76 years old. The mean age was 48 years with a standard deviation of 11.86.
Table 4
Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Age
Age
N
%
Age
N
%
23
1
0.3
50
9
2.3
24
2
0.5
51
12
3.1
25
2
0.5
52
10
2.6
26
4
1.0
53
17
4.4
27
7
1.8
54
11
2.8
28
4
1.0
55
14
3.6
29
9
2.3
56
11
2.8
30
9
2.3
57
25
6.4
31
7
1.8
58
9
2.3
32
7
1.8
59
16
4.1
33
11
2.8
60
14
3.6
34
5
1.3
61
10
2.6
Table 4 (continued)
Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Age
Age N % Age n %
35
7
1.8
62
11
2.8
36
5
1.3
63
12
3.1
37
10
2.6
64
3
0.8
38
7
1.8
65
5
1.3
39
7
1.8
66
10
2.6
40
13
3.3
67
1
0.3
41
2
0.5
68
0
0.0
42
6
1.5
69
2
0.5
43
5
1.3
70
1
0.3
44
9
2.3
71
0
0.0
45
9
2.3
72
0
0.0
46
8
2.1
73
1
0.3
47
7
1.8
74
1
0.3
48
12
3.1
75
1
0.3
49
8
2.1
76
1
0.3
Total
390
100.0
Participants were asked to report all current professional licenses. The results are reported
in Table 5. Totals for the frequencies of responses exceed the total number of respondents due to
the common practice of members of the counseling profession holding multiple licenses. licensed
professional counselors (LPC) (n = 245) represented the highest number of responses with
62.8%. Licensed mental health counselors (LMHC) represented 12.8%, licensed rehabilitation
counselors (LRC) represented 1.3% and licensed marriage and Family Therapists (LMFT) made
up a total of 3.8% of the responses. Nearly 42.8% percent (n=165) of the respondents identified
having certifications that were not listed. Respondents were able to list licenses within the “other
category.” Many of the respondents identified that they were not yet licensed (n = 23) and they
were working on a “counseling certification,” “not fully licensed yet as mental health counselor,”
“not yet a licensed school counselor,” “not licensed,” “resident in counseling,” “completing LPC
hours,” “working towards LPCC,” “completing LPC hours, student,” “[licensed mental health
counselors] LMHC Board eligible,” “associate licensed counselor.” Twelve respondents reported
being national board certified counselors including those who were reported to be working on
their license and one who stated “to be grandfathered in as a licensee in 2011.” Additional
respondents reported that they were licensed professional counselors (LCPC) (n = 7), licensed
alcohol and drug abuse counselors (LADAC) (n = 7), psychologist or psychology (n = 7);
licensed clinical social worker (LCSW) (n = 3), and school counselors (n = 4). A few listed non-
mental health professions such as law and teaching. A complete list of those
licenses/certifications can be found in Appendix C.
Table 5
Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Licensure Attained
Licensure Status n %
Licensed Professional Counselor
238
62.8
Licensed Mental Health Counselor
46
12.8
Licensed Rehabilitation Counselor
4
1.3
Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist
14
3.8
Other
165
42.8
Total
467
123.5
Note. Since it is common for members of the counseling profession to hold multiple licensure or
certifications, totals for the frequencies of respondents exceed the total number of respondents.
Many respondents identified that they were not yet licensed (n = 23) Twelve respondents
reported being National Board Certified Counselors, Licensed Clinical Professional Counselors
(LCPC) (n = 7), Licensed Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counselors (LADAC) (n = 7), Psychologist
or in Psychology (n = 7); Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) (n = 3), and school
counselors (n = 4). A few participants listed non-mental health professions such as law and
teaching. A complete list of those certifications can be found in Appendix C.
Participants were also asked to indicate their primary specialty. The results are presented
in Table 6. Nearly 57% (n = 219) of the respondents identified mental health counseling as their
specialty and 10. 8% indicated Counselor Education was their primary specialty. substance abuse
counseling (n = 18), marriage and family counseling (n = 22), professional school counseling (n
= 26), rehabilitation counseling (n = 5) and supervision (n = 1) represent smaller portions of the
sample with 4.6%, 5.6%, 6.7%, 1.3% and 0.3%, respectively. Fifty-seven respondents chose the
“Other” category making up the second largest specialty category with 14.6%. A complete list of
specialties listed in the “Other” category can be found in Appendix C.
Table 6
Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Primary Specialty
Primary Specialty n %
Mental Health Counseling
219
56.2
Substance Abuse Counseling
18
4.6
Counselor Education
42
10.8
Marriage and Family Counseling
22
5.6
Professional School Counseling
26
6.7
Rehabilitation Counseling
5
1.3
Supervision
1
0.3
Other
57
14.6
Total
390
100.0
The study provided information regarding respondents‟ primary work setting. The
frequencies for this are listed in Table 7. Options for this category included agency (federal,
state, nonprofit, or private), college (counseling/advising or counselor education), private
practice, supervision and other. Nearly one-third (n = 113) of respondents reported practicing in a
private practice setting. Nonprofit agency held the second highest response rate with 17.9% (n =
70), college – counselor education (n = 54) third at 13.8%, and the “Other” category (n = 50)
fourth, with 12.8%. Several remaining categories, agency-private (n = 31), college – counseling
and advising (n = 27), agency –state (n = 25), agency – federal (n = 10), and supervision (n = 4)
together accounted for the remaining 24.8%.
Table 7
Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Primary Work Setting
Primary Setting n %
Agency- Federal
10
2.6
Agency - State
25
6.4
Agency – Nonprofit
70
17.9
Agency – Private
31
7.9
College - Counseling/Advising
27
6.9
College - Counselor Education
54
13.8
Private Practice
119
30.5
Supervision
4
1.0
Other
50
12.8
Total
390
100.0
Participants of the survey were asked to indicate in which state they currently reside.
ACA is comprised of four regions: Midwest, North Atlantic, Southern and Western. ACA
members automatically belong to one of these regions based on the state in which they reside.
There are 13 states in the ACA Midwest Region: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.
The North Atlantic Region includes 10 states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont. There are
14 states in the southern region: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West
Virginia. The western region incorporates 13 states, plus the Philippines: Alaska, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington
State, and Wyoming. ACA members who reside in any of these jurisdictions and belong to the
ACA automatically belong to the ACA-Western Region. The results are presented in Table 8.
Table 8
Frequency Distribution of Respondents by State of Residence
State
n
%
Alabama
8
2
Alaska
2
1
Arizona
16
4
Arkansas
3
1
California
11
3
Colorado
11
3
Connecticut
4
1
Delaware
0
0
District of Columbia
2
1
Florida
13
3
Georgia
14
4
Hawaii
1
0
Idaho
3
1
Illinois
23
6
Indiana
7
2
Iowa
3
1
Kansas
2
1
Kentucky
3
1
Louisiana
11
3
Maine
0
0
Maryland
9
2
Massachusetts
6
2
Michigan
14
4
Minnesota
6
2
Mississippi
4
1
Table 8 (continued from page 67)
State
n
%
Missouri
14
4
Montana
3
1
Nebraska
7
2
Nevada
2
1
New Hampshire
0
0
New Jersey
11
3
New Mexico
7
2
New York
18
5
North Carolina
10
3
North Dakota
0
0
Ohio
18
5
Oklahoma
7
2
Oregon
1
0
Pennsylvania
14
4
Puerto Rico
0
0
Rhode Island
2
1
South Carolina
6
2
South Dakota
1
0
Tennessee
8
2
Texas
38
10
Utah
1
0
Vermont
0
0
Virginia
21
5
Washington
4
1
West Virginia
2
1
Wisconsin
9
2
Wyoming
3
1
I do not reside in the United States
5
1
Total
388
100
Participants were asked to provide the number of years in the field (see Table 9) for the
purposes of comparing the study‟s sample population to the number of years of respondents from
previous research on professional advocacy within the counseling profession. The participants‟
years of experience ranged from 1 year to 40 years of experience. The mean years of experience
was 14.16 with a standard deviation of 10.49 indicating considerable variability in experience.
Table 9
Frequency Distribution of Respondents by years of experience in the counseling profession.
Years of
Experience
n
%
Years of
Experience
n
%
M
SD
1
16
4.1
21
7
1.8
2
21
5.4
22
4
1.0
3
19
4.9
23
1
0.3
4
20
5.1
24
4
1.0
5
31
7.9
25
17
4.4
6
12
3.1
26
6
1.5
7
11
2.8
27
2
0.5
8
15
3.8
28
7
1.8
9
6
1.5
29
3
0.8
10
38
9.7
30
11
2.8
11
11
2.8
31
2
0.5
12
15
3.8
32
3
0.8
13
9
2.3
33
4
1.0
14
8
2.1
34
0
0.0
15
16
4.1
35
7
1.8
16
7
1.8
36
4
1.0
17
5
1.3
37
6
1.5
18
11
2.8
38
4
1.0
19
4
1.0
39
5
1.3
20
17
4.4
40
1
0.3
Total
390
100
14.16
10.49
The electronic message requesting participation was sent over a five-week time span. The
first message was successfully sent to 1998 email addresses on the PCAL resulting in 220 started
surveys and 156 completed surveys. The second message was sent to 1988 email addresses from
the PCAL producing 116 surveys started and 78 completed. After consulting the dissertation
chair, the investigator purchased an additional email list of 1000 unduplicated emails of
professional members of ACA. This list, called Professional Counselor Advocacy List 2
(PCAL2), was purchased in order to ensure a minimum required response rate. The PCAL2 was
sent at Week 4 and produced 89 started surveys and 66 completed surveys. The final message
was sent to both email panels, the PCAL and PCAL2 and resulted in an additional 121 started
surveys and 78 completed surveys. The total responses of the survey totaled 390 completed
surveys surpassing the minimum of 300. It was assumed that responses from each list were equal
as they were each randomly generated.
Personal information was gathered on participants in order to provide descriptive
statistics and to assist future researchers in developing studies in this area. Information on
gender, race/ethnicity, disability status, age, degree, license, and state of residence were collected
to identify the characteristics of the sample. Data were collected on primary work setting,
primary specialty and number of years in the field and were expected to contribute to differences
in the attitude ratings of the participants. Prior researchers (Eriksen, 1999; Field & Baker, 2003;
Myers & Sweeney, 2003; White & Semivan, 2006) have focused on the meaning of professional
advocacy and counselors‟ perceptions of their ability, identified barriers and means of support to
advocate. Several factors such as age, years in the field, level of education and specialty were
identified by researchers; however, the findings were not generalizable to the population of
professional counselors. For instance, the quantitative research of Myers and Sweeney (2004)
was limited to leaders in the field which is an elite representation of professional counselors; and,
the qualitative research findings are limited to the general concepts of advocacy and cannot be
generalized to the entire population of counselors (Eriksen, 1999; Field & Baker, 2003; Myers &
Sweeney, 2003; White & Semivan, 2006).
There is limited research examining the impact of many variables on the attitudes of
professional counselors regarding professional advocacy. Currently, there is no research that
examines where counselors gain knowledge of professional advocacy or that has examined the
impact of work setting, specialty, level of perceived support and level of perceived barriers of
professional advocacy on counselors‟ involvement in professional advocacy activities. There is
limited research on perceived barriers to and support for professional advocacy (Eriksen, 1999;
Myers & Sweeney, 2003). Additionally, there is only limited research on the impact that age,
level of education, and years of experience have on the likelihood that practitioners will conduct
advocacy activities (Eriksen, 1999; Field & Baker, 2003; Myers & Sweeney, 2003; White &
Semivan, 2006).
Instrument Development
No previous study has examined counseling professionals‟ perceptions of their level of
knowledge, ability, involvement in, support for, or barriers to conducting professional advocacy,
nor is there an existing instrument appropriate to collect the data necessary for this study. A few
studies, however, have touched upon the subject of advocacy of the counseling profession and
are important to mention. In a qualitative research study involving 24 participants, White and
Semivan (2006) conducted focus groups aimed to operationally define advocacy while
identifying differences between advocating for the counseling profession and advocating for the
client. An earlier qualitative study was conducted by Eriksen (1999) to gain a scientific
understanding of professional advocacy within the counseling field. The study was conducted
using participant-observation, key informant interviewing, and document analysis and consisted
of 28 interviews of leaders of the counseling profession who were actively involved in advocacy.
In the quest to understand advocacy within the school counseling setting, Field and Baker (2004)
conducted a qualitative study involving nine female, high-school counselors who participated in
two focus group interviews.
One quantitative study by Myers and Sweeney (2004) added to knowledge obtained from
the qualitative studies previously mentioned. The researchers mailed surveys to 180 leaders in
the field who were state and division presidents and/or past presidents of American Counseling
Association (ACA), executive directors and past presidents of the various counseling boards and
committees, and past and current chairs of ACA‟s public policy and legislation committees at the
division, state branch and national levels. The researchers identified successful advocacy
strategies; advocacy needs, including the need to improve the public and professional image of
counselors; and advocacy obstacles.
I created the Professional Counselor Advocacy Inventory (PCAI) (see Appendix A) for
this study with the specific purpose of determining professional counselors‟ perceptions of their
level of (a) knowledge and where they gained this knowledge, (b) skill, (c) qualities, (d)
involvement, (e) importance and need (f) identified barriers, and (f) support related to
professional counselor advocacy. The study also provided analysis of the relationship between
counseling professionals‟ attitudes toward professional counselor advocacy and their perceived
level of conducting professional counselor advocacy activities. The results of the study provided
insight into professional counselors‟ willingness and ability to advocate on behalf of the
profession.
The instrument consisted of 73 items divided into seven sections. In Section I -
Knowledge of Professional Advocacy, participants were asked to rate their personal knowledge
of professional counselor advocacy and where they gained that knowledge. Item 1 asked
participants to rate their knowledge of how to conduct professional advocacy using a 7-point
Likert scale with anchored responses at each point. Possible responses range from strongly
disagree (1), somewhat disagree (2), disagree (3), neither agree nor disagree (4), somewhat agree
(5), agree (6) and strongly agree (7). Items 2-15 asked respondents to indicate where they
received this knowledge. Items 2, 5, 8 and 11, and 14 asked respondents to first indicate either
yes or no for each type of knowledge source (educational program, conference or workshop,
publication, website, and modeling. After noting yes or no, the participants were asked to rate
their level of agreement on questions 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 on the same Likert scale developed for
item 1 with the addition of a “Not Applicable” response indicating that the respondent did not use
the identified source. For items 4, 7, 10, and 13, participants were invited to list additional
sources where they gained knowledge of professional advocacy other than from ACA or Chi
Sigma Iota.
Items 1-15 were derived from White and Semivan‟s (2004) study (see Table 10 for list of
references) which identified knowledge/skill level as one of the main themes of advocacy and
recognized that advocacy involves teaching colleagues how to advocate for self and clients and
encouraged sharing conference information with colleagues (see Table 10 for all items and
literature references). Field and Baker‟s (2004) study introduced formal training (counselor
education programs, professional conferences, and workshops) and modeling by colleagues with
strong advocacy skills. Myers and Sweeney (2006) researched the use of advocacy-training
packets to teach professional advocacy. These items were also derived from the CACREP 2009
Standards (CACREP, 2007), which includes curriculum that teaches the role and processes of
advocating for the profession and for clients, the advocacy competencies which include teaching
self-advocacy skills (Lewis et al., 2003), and advocacy themes identified by CSI, which
encourages counseling programs to adopt the CACREP accreditation standards to teach advocacy
for clients and the profession within the curriculum (CSI, 2007). Patrick (2007) encouraged
learning and teaching professional advocacy skills through publishing in journals and through
websites.
In Section II, Professional Skills and Qualities, participants were asked to respond to 14
opinion statements indicating whether they possess the skills and qualities to conduct
professional advocacy using a 7-point Likert scale with anchored responses at each point.
Possible responses range from strongly disagree (1), somewhat disagree (2), disagree (3), neither
agree nor disagree (4), somewhat agree (5), agree (6) and strongly agree (7). These items were
derived from the research of White and Semivan (2006) who identified interest and passion as
one of the top five themes of advocacy; Eriksen (1999) who described general counseling skills
in addition to confidence, tough/forceful, resilience/persistence, commitment and tough/forceful
attributes; and Field and Baker (2004) who identified fundamental counseling skills that can be
translated into advocacy. Public speaking, writing and life-long learner were also discussed in the
literature as skills and qualities necessary to advocate (Patrick, 2007).
In Section III, Professional Advocacy Efforts, participants were asked to respond to 13
opinion statements concerning professional advocacy efforts indicating their level of agreement
by using a 7-point Likert scale with anchored responses at each point. Possible responses range
from strongly disagree (1), somewhat disagree (2), disagree (3), neither agree nor disagree (4),
somewhat agree (5), agree (6) and strongly agree (7). Items 30-42 stem from the research and
literature regarding educating others about counselor preparation, the role as a counselor,
similarities and differences to other professions. Remley and Herlihy (2010) discussed the
importance of knowing how to explain the role of counselor and the differences from other
professions as a part of professional identity. Eriksen (1999) and White and Semivan (2006)
gained information from their qualitative studies elaborating on the concepts of educating others.
Items 33 -34 relate to building alliances through inter- and intra-professional relations and were
derived from Eriksen (1999) and White and Semivan‟s research that identified these issues
qualitatively. These ideas were also discussed in the advocacy themes through inter- and
intraprofessional relations and through the competencies through self-advocacy and systems
advocacy (CSI, 2007, Lewis, 2003). Item 35 is related to conducting community service projects
and is noted by White and Semivan‟s (2006) research and Patrick (2007) as a valuable means to
provide assistance to clients while promoting the profession. Item 36 relates to creating
multimedia activities which was noted in the advocacy themes (CSI, 2007) as market place
recognition and the public information level of the advocacy competencies (Lewis et. al, 2003),
and from Patrick (2007) as consumer education. Item 37 relates to research and publishing and
was derived from White and Semivan‟s research (2006) which identified research and publishing
as a main theme, by the advocacy theme regarding research (2007) and by Patrick (2007), an
avid proponent of research and publishing for professional education and promotion of the
profession. Item 38 was derived from the CSI (2007) advocacy themes and touches on the need
to educate, model and promote prevention and wellness. Items 39 and 40 were draw from the
research of White and Semivan (2006) and Myers and Sweeney (2004) which suggested being
involved in associations, and from the advocacy competencies which recommend that students
become members of professional associations for counselors. Item 41 was taken from Eriksen
(1999), White and Semivan (2006) and Myers and Sweeney‟s (2004) research which all
identified the importance of being involved on boards or committees as a way of advocating. The
literature also stressed the importance of being on a board or committee, and is noted in Patrick‟s
(2003) literature as professional association involvement and through the advocacy theme
counselor education (CSI, 2007). Item 42, regarding participation in legislative activities, was an
idea that originated from the advocacy competencies (Lewis et al., 2003) as political advocacy,
by Patrick (2007) as legislative promotion and from Eriksen‟s (1999) research which noted
legislative promotion as key to the professional advocacy process.
Section IV, Importance for and Need to Advocate, required responses to 5 opinion
statements, items 44-48, indicating respondents‟ level of agreement by using a 7-point Likert
scale with anchored responses at each point. Possible responses range from strongly disagree (1),
somewhat disagree (2), disagree (3), neither agree nor disagree (4), somewhat agree (5), agree
(6) and strongly agree (7). Item 43 was derived from the advocacy competencies (Lewis et. al,
2003). Item 44 relates to the need to improve the public and professional opinion of the
profession and is derived from Myers and Sweeney‟s (2004) research which specifically asked
participants to rate this idea and from Fall et al. (2000) in which the researchers found that
participants knew less about the counseling profession as opposed to other professions studied.
Item 45 and 46 were taken from Eriksen‟s (1999) research and the advocacy competencies which
both identified employment and compensation as issues that warranted action. Item 47 was
derived from the literature regarding social justice and the idea that individuals can be
disenfranchised and need to advocate for themselves (Lee, 2007).
In Section V, Barriers to Professional Advocacy, participants were asked to respond to 12
opinion statements indicating participants‟ level of agreement by using a 7-point Likert scale
with anchored responses at each point. Possible responses range from strongly disagree (1),
somewhat disagree (2), disagree (3), neither agree nor disagree (4), somewhat agree (5), agree (6)
and strongly agree (7). In Item 60, participants were also invited to add additional barriers for
item 60 not mentioned in the opinion statements. Item 48 concerns the barrier of lack of
knowledge of professional advocacy strategies which is covered by the same literature on which
items 1-15 were built. Item 49 relates to the inability to explain counselor credentials, role or
comparison to other professionals and is derived from Eriksen‟s (1999) research regarding
barriers and the advocacy theme of counselor education (CSI, 2007). Item 50 is identified by the
lack of collaboration on legislative activities initiated from Eriksen‟s (1999) research regarding
the presence of internal conflict within ACA and specifically quantified by Myers and Sweeney
(2004). Item 51 regarding roadblocks caused by other professionals was specifically identified by
both Goodyear (2000) and Gale and Austin (2003) who discuss the issues counselors are faced
with in the marketplace. Items 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58 were derived from Eriksen
(1999) who identified many barriers such as counselors‟ satisfaction with the status quo, lack of
sufficient funds, lack of position, lack of time, lack of leadership, lack of skill level, and fear of
being seen as a “trouble maker.” Myers and Sweeney (2004) were also referred to for items 54,
55, 56 and 57, and Field and Baker (2004) for item 57. Item 59 and 60 were added to the
instrument for respondents to rate “other” barriers and list those specific barriers and were
prompted by all of the aforementioned research regarding barriers to professional advocacy.
In Section VI, Support for Professional Advocacy, participants were asked to respond to
4 opinion statements concerning support of professional advocacy, indicating their level of
agreement by using a 7-point Likert scale with anchored responses at each point. Possible
responses range from strongly disagree (1), somewhat disagree (2), disagree (3), neither agree
nor disagree (4), somewhat agree (5), agree (6) and strongly agree (7). Items 61-64 were derived
from the research of White and Semivan (2006) and Field and Baker (2004) who both discussed
receiving support from colleagues in advocacy efforts. Their ideas were expanded to include
other entities such as counselor educators, supervisors and associations.
Section VII, Demographic Information, was designed to collect information used to
construct the independent variables for the study. These variables are: sex, race, disability status,
age, degree attained, license, specialty, primary work setting, state in which they are licensed,
and number of years in the field.
Table 10
Instrument Development - Professional Counselor Advocacy Inventory
Section I -Knowledge of Professional Advocacy
1-15 Field & Baker (2004); CSI, (2007 ); Lewis et
al. (2003); Myers & Sweeney, (2004); Patrick
(2007); White & Semivan (2006)
Section II – Professional Advocacy Skills and Qualities
16-23 Eriksen (1999); Field & Baker (2004); Lewis
et al. (2003); Patrick (2007); White &
Semivan, (2006)
24 – 29 Eriksen, (1999); Field & Baker (2004);
Myers & Sweeney (2004); White & Semivan
(2006)
Section III– Advocacy Efforts
Table 10 (continued from page 78)
30 - 42 CSI (2007); Eriksen, (1999); Lewis et al
(2003); Myers & Sweeney, (2004); Patrick
(2007); Remely & Herlihy (2010); White &
Semivan, (2006)
Section IV – Importance for and Need to Advocate
Items
Literature Reference
Items
43 – 47 CSI (2007); Eriksen (1999); Fall et al.
(2000); Lee (2007); Myers & Sweeney
(2004); White & Semivan (2006);
Literature Reference
48 - 60 CSI (2007); Eriksen (1999); Field & Baker
(2004; Gale & Austin (2003); Goodyear
(2000); Lewis et al. (2003); Myers &
Sweeney (2004);
Section VI– Support for Professional Advocacy
61-64 Field & Baker (2004); Lewis et al. (2003);
White & Semivan (2007)
Section VII– Demographic Information
65 – 74 Participants‟ Demographic Information
Expert Panel
Two expert panels were used to review the original 43-item PCAI to ensure content
validity. The first expert panel consisted of five female professional counselors. Four were
Caucasian and one African American. All five panel members lived and worked in Louisiana.
They each identified their primary specialty with two reporting mental health counseling, one
professional school counseling, and two counselor education. Settings included one school, two
private practices, one non-profit agency and one college. The highest degree earned for two of
the panelists was a doctorate while the other three held master‟s degrees. Panel members all
identified themselves as being licensed professional counselors (LPC). Panel members‟ mean
number of years in the counseling field was 11 years (range 4.5-23 years).
The first expert panel made suggestions regarding the PCAI ranging from increasing the
ease of reading specific items to adding or changing questions. Two members suggested
reducing the number of short answer questions to simplify the survey and data collection process.
One member gave additional feedback on using a drop-down menu to assist potential participants
in easily identifying specific skills, barriers and other professional advocacy variables while also
clarifying the meaning of those items. Overall, the panel reported taking approximately 15
minutes to complete the survey.
After obtaining the feedback from the panel, the PCAI became a 64-item inventory, due
in part to the addition of several items instead of using short-answer responses. Additionally, a
Likert scale component was added to the inventory. The suggestions and new items were
discussed with the dissertation chair and then implemented.
Due to the new length of the inventory and the nature of the changes, the inventory
underwent review by an additional expert panel. The second panel consisted of four panel
members. All four were Caucasian and lived and worked in Louisiana. Three were female and
one male. The specialties reported included one individual in professional school counseling,
one private practice, and two within the mental health field. Settings included one school, two
private practice, and two state agencies. The highest degree earned for all panelists was the
master‟s degree. All panel members identified themselves as being licensed professional
counselors (LPC); one also identified himself as a licensed marriage and family therapist
(LMFT). Panel members‟ mean number of years in the counseling field was 16 years (range 428
years).
The second panel provided some insight to the clarity and ease of the PCAI. One
member suggested that the phrase “if yes, then rate each item below” be added to items 14-17.
The item only had “Yes ____ No ____ if yes, then” after each type of source of knowledge. For
instance, for educational program, the item read “Educational Program Yes ____ No ____ if
yes, then.” The member suggested that the phrase be changed to “Educational Program Yes ____
No ____ if yes then rate each item below” therefore ensuring that each item be completed as
intended. All members reported the inventory was fairly simple to complete and of reasonable
length. One panelist stated that the instrument was “easy to understand and follow and kept me
interested. I did not have to think, „What is she asking?‟ or „What does she mean?‟” The
members reported taking anywhere from 9-15 minutes to complete the inventory with a mean of
13 minutes. All changes were reviewed by the dissertation chair and implemented.
Data Collection
Several steps were completed to ensure accurate and appropriate data collection. The
University of New Orleans Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research (IRB)
reviewed and approved all procedures and protocols related to data collection (see Appendix B).
The survey was sent out using Qualtrics™ (www.neworleans.qualtrics.com), an on-line survey
and data collection service, after receiving approval from the committee. The data were then
collected using the membership list provided by ACA.
The Professional Counselor Advocacy Inventory (PCAI) was developed for use as an
online survey through Qualtrics.com creation tools. A secure electronic link was created through
which participants could access the survey. Although the total population of potential
participants is identifiable by means of their electronic mail addresses before data collection, the
PCAL did not contain questions that could reveal the identity of individual respondents. The
data collection tool does not provide any mechanism for identifying participants.
ACA provided a randomly selected list of 3,000 professional members‟ names and email
addresses. These email addresses were then entered into a generic electronic mailing list titled
Professional Counselor Advocacy List (PCAL). The list had no identifying information and
contained only electronic mail addresses provided by ACA. Potential participants for the
inventory were contacted by a generic mass electronic message requesting participation. The
electronic message included a brief description of the study, a statement regarding participant
anonymity, and a consent form to participate in the study. The message provided directions for
accessing the PCAI via a secure electronic link generated by Qualtrics.com. Thus, participation
in the study was both completely anonymous and voluntary.
After the participants accessed the on-line version of the PCAI, they were asked to
complete the survey including demographic information. Two generic electronic messages (see
Appendix B) were sent via mass email to potential participants thanking those who had already
participated and reminding those who had not. The electronic reminders were sent at weeks 3
and 5 of the study. The final generic mass message was sent to thank all participants, indicate that
data collection had been completed and to notify participants of the opportunity to request the
results of the study to be sent via email.
Data Analysis
Data analysis for this study included descriptive statistics, and Pearson product moment
correlations to identify components of professional counselor advocacy and the perceived
differences among professional counselors from varying backgrounds of the knowledge, skills,
qualities, importance, activities, barriers, and support of professional advocacy.
Research Question 1
To what degree do professional counselors perceive they are knowledgeable of
professional advocacy?
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated on inventory responses to item 13.
Research Question 2
Where do professional counselors gain their knowledge of professional counselor
advocacy?
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated on inventory responses to items 14-18.
Research Question 3
To what degree do professional counselors believe that they have the skills to participate
in professional advocacy efforts?
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated on inventory responses to items 19-26.
Research Question 4
To what degree do professional counselors believe that they have the qualities
(interest/passion, commitment, resilience/persistence, toughness/force, life-long learner attitude
and self-confidence) to participate in professional advocacy efforts?
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated on inventory responses to items 27-32.
Research Question 5
To what degree do professional counselors believe that they participate in professional
advocacy efforts?
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated on inventory responses to items 33-45.
Research Question 6
To what degree do professional counselors believe that it is important and that there is a
need to participate in professional counselor advocacy efforts?
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated on inventory responses to items 46-50.
Research Question 7
To what degree do professional counselors believe there are barriers to participating in
professional counselor advocacy?
Analysis
Item 60 which elicited short-answer responses regarding barriers to professional
counselor advocacy was analyzed by the grounded theory approach, which utilizes an open
coding technique (see Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). The data were specifically analyzed
by: 1) reading and re-reading open-ended responses from participants, 2) coding these data
according to the emerging themes, 3) re-reading responses to organize sub-themes within the
data until reaching saturation, and 4) counting the frequency of those themes.
Research Question 8
What do professional counselors identify as barriers to participating in professional
counselor advocacy efforts?
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated on inventory responses to items 51-60.
Research Question 9
To what degree do professional counselors feel they receive support from counselor
educators, supervisors, associations, and colleagues in participate in professional advocacy
efforts?
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated on inventory responses to items 61-64.
Research Question 10
Is there a correlation between the level professional counselors perceive they are
knowledgeable of professional advocacy and their involvement in professional advocacy
activities?
Data Analysis
Pearson product moment correlations were used to answer this research question. A
factor analysis was completed to assist in validating the instrument and to determine the
psychometric properties of the instrument. Data were gathered from Item 1 and from items
related to advocacy activities (factors 1-3 and Items 38-40) to answer this question. A
conservative alpha level was used to determine significance (p <.01).
Research Question 11
Is there a correlation between professional counselors‟ level of participating in
professional advocacy efforts and their perceived level of skill to conduct professional advocacy?
Data Analysis
Pearson product moment correlations were used to answer this research question. A factor
analysis was completed to assist in validating the instrument and to determine the psychometric
properties of the instrument. It was felt that the large number of items that seemed similar could
be parsimoniously examined with less tests of significance by using a factor analysis with
varimax rotation to group significant items into summed scores based on the identified factor
structure. This procedure has been recommended by DiStefano, Zhu, & Mindrila (2009). A scree
test (Costello & Osborne, 2005) was used to identify factors. Data were gathered from advocacy
skills (Items 16-23) and from items related to advocacy activities (factors 1-3 and items 38-40) to
answer this question. A conservative alpha level was used to determine significance (p <.01).
Research Question 12
Is there a correlation between professional counselors‟ level of participating in
professional advocacy efforts and their perception of their professional advocacy qualities?
Data Analysis
Pearson product moment correlations were used to answer this research question. A factor
analysis with varimax rotation was completed to assist in validating the instrument and to
determine the psychometric properties of the instrument. The same procedures identified in
research question 11 were used. Data were gathered from advocacy qualities (items 24-29) and
from items related to advocacy activities (factors 1-3 and items 38-40) to answer this question. A
conservative alpha level was used to determine the level of significance (p <.01).
Research Question 13
Is there a correlation between professional counselors‟ level of participating in
professional advocacy efforts and their perception of the importance or need to advocate?
Data Analysis
Pearson product moment correlations were used to answer this research question. A factor
analysis was completed to assist in validating the instrument and to determine the psychometric
properties of the instrument. The same procedures for the factor analysis in research question 12
were used here. The perceptions of licensed professional counselors‟ professional advocacy
efforts (factors 1-3 and items 38-40) were correlated to the importance and need to advocate
(items 43-47) to answer this question. A conservative alpha level was used to determine the level
of significance (p <.01).
Research Question 14
Is there a correlation between professional counselors‟ level of participating in
professional advocacy efforts and their perception of the barriers to advocating?
Data Analysis
Pearson product moment correlations were used to answer this research question. A factor
analysis, similar in procedure to research question 11, was completed to assist in validating the
instrument and to determine the psychometric properties of the instrument. The perceptions of
licensed professional counselors‟ professional advocacy efforts (factors 1-3 and items 38-40)
were correlated to professional counselors‟ perception of barriers to advocating (items 51-60) to
answer this question. A conservative alpha level was used to determine the level of significance
(p <.01).
Research Question 15
Is there a correlation between professional counselors‟ level of participating in
professional advocacy efforts and the perceived level of support participants receive from
counselor educators, supervisors, associations and colleagues?
Data Analysis
Pearson product moment correlations were used to answer this research question. A factor
analysis, similar to research question 11, was completed to assist in validating the instrument and
to determine the psychometric properties of the instrument. The results of the perception of
professional counselors‟ level of participating in professional advocacy efforts (factors 1-3 and
items 38-40), were correlated to the results of perceived level of support participants receive
from counselor educators, supervisors, associations and colleagues (items 61-64) to answer this
question. A conservative alpha level was used to determine the level of significance. (p< .01).
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to identify the perceptions held by counselors of different
backgrounds regarding professional counselor advocacy. The literature has suggested a number
of factors that influence the attitudes of professionals towards professional counselor advocacy
initiatives (e.g., Eriksen, 1999; Field & Baker, 2003; Myers & Sweeney, 2003; Patrick, 2007;
White & Semivan, 2006), including knowledge of professional advocacy principles, skills and
traits, actual advocacy activities utilized, perceived barriers to professional advocacy, and
perceived support to advocate. By exploring the relationship between counseling professionals‟
attitudes toward professional counselor advocacy and their level of preparation, years in the field,
licensure status, specialty, work setting, and need to advocate on a personal level, the results of
the study may provide insight into professional counselors‟ willingness and ability to
advocate on behalf of the profession.
Analysis of Research Questions
Research Questions
This study explored several general research questions in order to understand how
numerous factors relate to whether counselors advocate for themselves and their profession. The
questions were:
To what degree do professional counselors perceive they are knowledgeable of
professional advocacy?
Where do professional counselors gain their knowledge of professional counselor
advocacy?
To what degree do professional counselors believe that they have the skills to
participate in professional advocacy efforts?
To what degree do professional counselors believe that they have the qualities
(interest/passion, commitment, resilience/persistence, toughness/force, life-long
learner attitude and self-confidence) to participate in professional advocacy
efforts?
To what degree do professional counselors believe that they participate in
professional advocacy efforts?
To what degree do professional counselors believe that it is important to
participate in professional counselor advocacy efforts?
What do professional counselors identify as barriers to participating in
professional counselor advocacy efforts?
To what degree do professional counselors believe there are barriers to
participating in professional counselor advocacy?
To what degree do professional counselors feel they receive support from
counselor educators, supervisors, associations, and colleagues to participate in
professional advocacy efforts?
Is there a relationship between number of years of experience as a counselor and
professional counselors‟ involvement in professional advocacy?
Is there a difference among the specialties of professional counselors and their
reported knowledge of professional advocacy?
Is there a correlation between professional counselors‟ level of participating in
professional advocacy efforts and their perception of the barriers to advocating?
Is there a correlation between professional counselors‟ level of participating in
professional advocacy efforts and the perceived level of support they receive from
counselor educators, supervisors, associations and colleagues?
Instrumentation
I created the 73-item Professional Counselor Advocacy Inventory (PCAI) for this study
with the specific purpose of determining professional counselors‟ perceptions of their level of:
(a) knowledge and where they gained this knowledge, (b) skill, (c) qualities, (d) involvement, (e)
importance and need (f) identified barriers, and (f) support related to professional counselor
advocacy. In addition, differences among counselors‟ level of participation in professional
counselor advocacy activities were calculated based on (a) number of years in counseling field,
(b) primary work setting, (c) primary specialty, (d) perception of barriers, and (e) perceived level
of support. The instrument is divided into seven sections: Knowledge of Professional
Advocacy, Professional Advocacy Skills and Qualities, Advocacy Efforts, Importance for and
Need to Advocate, Professional Advocacy, Barriers to Professional Advocacy, Support for
Professional Advocacy and Demographic Information.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked to what degree professional counselors perceive they are
knowledgeable of professional advocacy. Descriptive survey statistics were calculated on
inventory responses for PCAI item 1. The frequency for each item and statistical results for
Research Question 1 are presented in Table 11. The results indicated that of the 390 participants,
305 (78.2%) agreed to some level that they know how to advocate for the profession. Of the
respondents who agreed, nearly 43% of the respondents reported they strongly agree and almost
36% reported agreeing with the statement. Only 65 respondents (16.6%) reported that they
disagreed, ranging from strongly disagree to somewhat disagree, and 5.1% neither agreed nor
disagreed with the concept. The mean of the distribution was 5.06 with a standard deviation of
1.48. The results indicated that a strong majority of individuals from the sample agreed that they
know how to advocate and seem to more than somewhat agree.
Table 11
Frequency Distribution for Item 1 for Research Question 1
Item n % M SD
Knowledge of Professional Advocacy
1. I know how to advocate for the
profession.
Strongly Disagree
15
3.8%
Disagree
15
3.8%
Somewhat Disagree
35
9.0%
Neither Agree nor Disagree
20
5.1%
Somewhat Agree
139
35.6%
Agree
115
29.5%
Strongly Agree
51
13.1%
Total
390
100%
5.06
1.48
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked where professional counselors gained their knowledge of
professional counselor advocacy. Descriptive survey statistics were calculated on inventory
responses to items 2-3. The comparisons of the descriptive statistics and frequency for each item
and statistical results for Research Question 2 are presented in Table 12. The results indicate that
of the 390 participants, 207 (53%) indicated that they gained knowledge of professional
advocacy from their master‟s or doctoral educational program and 183 (47%) reported not
gaining knowledge of professional advocacy from a program.
Of the participants who agreed to have gained knowledge of professional advocacy from
an educational program, 194 participants reportedly gained the knowledge from their master‟s
program in counselor education and 44 participants indicated that they received knowledge from
a master‟s program in a related field. Respondents who gained knowledge from a counselor
education program indicated a 94% (n = 182) level of agreement, ranging from somewhat agree
to strongly agree. The mean was 5.70 with a standard deviation of 1.21. The participants who
indicated gaining knowledge from a master‟s program in a related field indicated a 75% (n = 33)
level of agreement using that same scale. The mean for that group was 5.18 and the standard
deviation was 1.90. A higher mean indicates a stronger agreement with the statement regarding
professional advocacy beliefs; a lower mean indicates a stronger disagreement. Higher scores
regarding gaining knowledge of professional advocacy from master‟s programs in both
counseling and related fields indicated a high level of agreement.
Respondents also reported that they received knowledge of professional advocacy from a
doctoral program; 62 reported receiving knowledge from a doctoral program in counselor
education and 23 indicated obtaining information about professional advocacy from a doctoral
program from a related field. The respondents who received knowledge from a doctoral program
in counselor education agreed (ranging from somewhat agree to strongly agree) at a rate of 92%
(n = 57) with a mean of 6.15 and standard deviation of 0.96. The respondents who indicated
gaining knowledge from a doctoral program from a related field agreed on that same scale at a
rate of 69.5% (n = 23) with a mean of 5.52 and a standard deviation of 1.41. A higher mean
indicates a stronger agreement with the statement regarding professional advocacy beliefs; a
lower mean indicates a stronger disagreement. Higher scores on this item regarding gaining
knowledge of professional advocacy from doctoral programs in both counseling and related
fields indicated a high level of agreement.
Based on this study, master‟s students in general seem to have gained more knowledge
from their program. Doctoral students indicated that they received more professional advocacy
training from counselor education programs. The percentage of respondents who did not gain
knowledge of professional advocacy is surprisingly high at 47%. In addition, those who
reportedly gained knowledge, nearly 30%, reported not gaining much.
Table 12
Frequency Distribution for Item 2-3 for Research Question 2
Item n % M SD
Knowledge of Professional Advocacy
2. I gained knowledge of professional advocacy from my
masters or doctoral educational program.
Yes
207
53.1
No
183
46.9
Total
390
100
3. If yes, indicate the degree of knowledge gained from
masters or doctoral educational program.
Master‟s program in counseling Strongly
Disagree
5
2.6
Disagree
3
1.5
Somewhat Disagree
1
0.5
Neither Agree nor Disagree
3
1.5
Somewhat Agree
60
30.9
Agree
74
38.1
Strongly Agree
48
24.7
Total
194
100
5.70
1.21
Table 12 (continued from page 94)
Item
n
%
M
SD
Master‟s program in related field
Strongly Disagree
4
9.1
Disagree
3
6.8
Somewhat Disagree
0
0.0
Neither Agree nor Disagree
4
9.1
Somewhat Agree
8
18.2
Agree
13
29.5
Strongly Agree
12
27.3
Total
44
100
5.18
1.90
Doctoral program in counseling
Strongly Disagree
0
0.0
Disagree
0
0.0
Somewhat Disagree
0
0.0
Neither Agree nor Disagree
5
8.1
Somewhat Agree
9
14.5
Agree
20
32.3
Strongly Agree
28
45.2
Total
62
100.0
6.15
0.96
Doctoral program in related field
Strongly Disagree
0
0.0
Disagree
1
4.3
Somewhat Disagree
0
0.0
Neither Agree nor Disagree
6
26.1
Somewhat Agree
2
8.7
Agree
7
30.4
Strongly Agree
7
30.4
Total
23
100.0
5.52
1.41
Research Question 2 asked where professional counselors gained their knowledge of
professional counselor advocacy. Descriptive survey statistics were calculated on inventory
responses to items 5-6. The comparisons of the descriptive statistics and frequencies for each
item and statistical results for Research Question 2 are presented in Table 13. Respondents
reported whether they gained knowledge of professional advocacy from association
conferences and workshops sponsored by local, state, regional, and national American
Counseling
Association (ACA) and/or Chi Sigma Iota (CSI), an international counseling honor society.
A significant number of participants (64.1%) indicated that they gained knowledge of
professional advocacy from ACA conferences and workshops. Of those respondents who gained
knowledge from this source, 93.5% (n = 188) endorsed some level of agreement, ranging from
somewhat agree to strongly agree. The mean of this group was 5.89 with a standard deviation of
1.14. A higher mean indicates a stronger agreement with the statement regarding professional
advocacy beliefs; a lower mean indicate a stronger disagreement. Higher scores on knowledge
gained from conferences and workshops indicated a high level of agreement. Nearly 65% of the
participants gained knowledge of professional advocacy from ACA conferences and workshops
and nearly all of those agreed to have received knowledge.
Participants indicated some level of agreement as to whether they gained knowledge from
conferences or workshops from a regional association of ACA (i.e., Midwest, North Atlantic,
Southern or Western) and of those 66.3% (n = 51) indicated some level of agreement, with a
mean of 5.18 and a standard deviation of 1.90. ACA state associations had an 80.8% level of
agreement with a mean of 5.38 and a standard deviation of 1.57; ACA divisions at 78.8% with a
mean of 5.42 and a standard deviation of 1.65; and CSI at 69.5% with a mean of 4.83 and a
standard deviation of 1.83. Participants also responded to an “other” category where 89%
indicated some level of agreement with a mean of 5.62 and standard deviation of 1.22. A higher
mean indicates a stronger agreement with the statement regarding professional advocacy beliefs;
a lower mean indicates a stronger disagreement. Higher scores on knowledge gained from
conferences and workshops indicated a high level of agreement. Respondents appeared to have
gained most from “other” conferences and workshops. This may be due to the fact that many of
the responses that were generated were from their specialty areas, such as play therapy or
substance abuse, or from non-counseling associations such as psychology or social work. ACA
state and division conferences also had high percentages, but CSI and regional ACA conferences
had the least.
Respondents were asked to list specific conference or workshop sources other than ACA
or CSI where they gained knowledge of professional advocacy. Many of the responses
represented ACA national, regional, state and local conferences and workshops; however, a
number of the responses were unique. Respondents reported gaining knowledge of professional
advocacy from associations on drug abuse, art therapy, Christianity, clinical pastoral supervision
and psychotherapy, marriage and family, mental health, psychology (general, psychology of
women, Black psychologists and psychologists for social responsibility) education, higher
education and disability, adult intellectual disabilities, career development, school counseling,
play therapy, licensure boards, social work, victim assistance, national boards, occupational
health nursing, rehabilitation, on-line continuing education, yoga therapy, behavioral health,
professional golf, advanced human behavior, eating disorders, equine assisted growth and
learning (horse therapy), and choice theory. A full list of responses is provided in Appendix D.
Table 13
Frequency Distribution for Item 5-6 for Research Question 2
Item n % M SD
Knowledge of Professional Advocacy –
Conferences/Workshops
5. I gained knowledge of professional advocacy from
association conference(s) or workshop(s).
Yes
250
64.1
No
140
35.9
Total
390
100.0
6. If yes, degree of knowledge gained from professional
advocacy from conference(s) or workshop(s).
ACA
Strongly Disagree
3
1.5
Disagree
4
2.0
Somewhat Disagree
1
0.5
Neither Agree nor Disagree
3
1.5.
Somewhat Agree
41
20.6
Agree
88
44.2
Strongly Agree
59
28.7
Total
199
100.0
5.89
1.14
Regional association of ACA (Midwest, North Atlantic, Southern
or Western)
Strongly Disagree
3
3.9
Disagree
7
9.1
Somewhat Disagree
1
1.3
Neither Agree nor Disagree
15
19.5
Somewhat Agree
20
26.0
Agree
20
26.0
Strongly Agree
11
14.3
Total
77
100.0
4.90
1.59
Table 13 (continued from page 98)
Item
n
%
M
SD
State Association of ACA
Strongly Disagree
6
4.6
Disagree
6
4.6
Somewhat Disagree
1
0.8
Neither Agree nor Disagree
12
9.2
Somewhat Agree
32
24.6
Agree
40
30.8
Strongly Agree
33
25.4
Total
130
100.0
5.38
1.57
Division of ACA
Strongly Disagree
6
5.1
Disagree
5
4.3
Somewhat Disagree
3
2.6
Neither Agree nor Disagree
11
9.4
Somewhat Agree
21
17.9
Agree
37
31.6
Strongly Agree
34
29.1
Total
117
100.0
5.42
1.65
Chi Sigma Iota
Strongly Disagree
6
8.3
Disagree
6
8.3
Somewhat Disagree
4
5.6
Neither Agree nor Disagree
6
8.3
Somewhat Agree
18
25.0
Agree
20
27.8
Strongly Agree
12
16.7
Total
72
100.0
4.83
1.83
Table 13 (continued from page 99)
Item
n
%
M
SD
Other professional association (APA, NASW, etc.)
Strongly Disagree
4
3.1
Disagree
0
0.0
Somewhat Disagree
2
01.6
Neither Agree nor Disagree
8
6.3
Somewhat Agree
29
22.7
Agree
59
46.1
Strongly Agree
26
20.3
Total
128
100.0
5.65
1.22
Note. Sources for conferences and workshops included associations on drug abuse, art therapy,
Christianity, clinical pastoral supervision and psychotherapy, marriage and family, mental health,
psychology (general, psychology of women, black psychologists and psychologists for social
responsibility) education, higher education and disability, adult intellectual disabilities, career
development, school counseling, play therapy, licensure boards, social work, victim assistance,
national boards, occupational health nursing, rehabilitation, on-line continuing education, yoga
therapy, behavioral health, professional golf, advanced human behavior, eating disorders, equine
assisted growth and learning (horse therapy), choice theory, and Union. A full list of responses is
provided in Appendix D.
Research Question 2 also asked professional counselors to indicate whether they gained
knowledge of professional advocacy from publications sponsored by local, state, regional, and
national American Counseling Association (ACA) and/or Chi Sigma Iota (CSI) an international
counseling honor society. Descriptive survey statistics were calculated on inventory responses to
items 8-9. The comparisons of the descriptive statistics and frequencies for each item and
statistical results for Research Question 2 are presented in Table 14. Most participants, 79.7% (n
= 311), reported gaining knowledge of professional advocacy from publications.
Three hundred respondents reported gaining knowledge from ACA publications; 95.7 %
of those respondents (n = 287) endorsed some level of agreement, ranging from somewhat agree
to strongly agree. The mean of this group was 5.97 with a standard deviation of 0.98. Participants
(n = 85) agreed that they gained knowledge from publications from a regional association of
ACA (i.e., Midwest, North Atlantic, Southern or Western) and of those 48.2 % (n = 41) indicated
some level of agreement with a mean of 4.26 and a standard deviation of 1.82. Respondents (n =
142) indicated a 69.7% level of agreement that the received knowledge from ACA state
associations with a mean of 5.02 and a standard deviation of 1.66. One hundred forty-two
respondents received knowledge from ACA divisions at 71.8 % with a mean of 5.14 and a
standard deviation of 1.64. Those who responded receiving knowledge from CSI (n = 83)
responded favorably at 56.7 % with a mean of 4.53 and a standard deviation of 1.80.
Participants (n = 138) also responded to the “other” type of publication category where 80.1%
indicated some level of agreement with a mean of 5.46 and standard deviation of 1.43. A higher
mean indicates a stronger agreement with the statement regarding professional advocacy beliefs;
lower means indicate a stronger disagreement. Higher scores on knowledge gained from
publications indicated a high level of agreement. ACA publications received the highest response
rate with the highest level of agreement. Half the participants indicated that they gained
knowledge from state and division publications with only approximately a 70% agreement rate.
Participants gave the lowest agreement rating ranging from 48-57% to Regional and CSI sources.
Respondents were asked to list if they gained knowledge of professional advocacy from
publications of professional association(s) other than ACA or CSI. Many of the responses
represented ACA national, regional, state and local conferences and workshops; however, a
number of the responses indicated specialties within the counseling, psychology and social work
fields. The full list of responses is presented in Appendix D.
Table 14
Frequency Distribution for Item 8-9 for Research Question 2
Item n % M SD
Knowledge of Professional Advocacy – Publications
8. I gained knowledge of professional advocacy from
publications.
Yes
311
79.7
No
79
20.3
Total
390
100
9. If yes, degree of knowledge gained from professional
advocacy from publications.
ACA
Strongly Disagree
1
0.3
Disagree
4
1.3
Somewhat Disagree
2
0.7
Neither Agree nor Disagree
6
2.0
Somewhat Agree
75
25.0
Agree
126
42.0
Strongly Agree
86
28.7
Total
300
100
5.91
0.98
Regional association of ACA (Midwest, North Atlantic, Southern
or Western)
Strongly Disagree
8
9.4
Disagree
13
15.3
Somewhat Disagree
4
4.7
Neither Agree nor Disagree
19
22.4
Somewhat Agree
11
12.9
Agree
25
29.4
Strongly Agree
5
5.9
Total
85
100
4.26
1.82
Table 14 (continued from page 102)
Item
n
%
M
SD
State Association of ACA
Strongly Disagree
8
5.6
Disagree
10
7.0
Somewhat Disagree
2
1.4
Neither Agree nor Disagree
23
16.2
Somewhat Agree
30
21.1
Agree
46
32.4
Strongly Agree
23
16.2
Strongly Agree
142
100.0
5.02
1.66
Division of ACA
Strongly Disagree
5
3.5
Disagree
13
9.2
Somewhat Disagree
2
1.4
Neither Agree nor Disagree
20
14.1
Somewhat Agree
25
17.6
Agree
51
35.9
Strongly Agree
26
18.3
Total
142
100.0
5.14
1.64
Chi Sigma Iota
Strongly Disagree
6
7.2
Disagree
11
13.3
Somewhat Disagree
3
3.6
Neither Agree nor Disagree
16
19.3
Somewhat Agree
18
21.7
Agree
18
21.7
Strongly Agree
11
13.3
Strongly Agree
83
100
4.53
1.80
Table 14 (continued from page 103)
Item
n
%
M
SD
Other professional association (APA, NASW, etc.)
Strongly Disagree
4
2.9
Disagree
7
5.1
Somewhat Disagree
0
0.0
Neither Agree nor Disagree
11
8.0
Somewhat Agree
35
25.4
Agree
51
37.0
Strongly Agree
30
21.7
Total
138
100
5.46
1.43
Research Question 2 also asked professional counselors to indicate whether they gained
knowledge of professional advocacy from websites sponsored by local, state, regional, and
national American Counseling Association (ACA) and/or CSI. Descriptive survey statistics were
calculated on inventory responses to items 10-11. The comparisons of the descriptive statistics
and frequencies for each item and statistical results for Research Question 2 are presented in
Table 15. Less than half, 43.3% (n = 169), reported gaining knowledge of professional advocacy
from websites.
Respondents (n = 159) reported gaining knowledge from the ACA website; 92% of those
respondents (n = 153) endorsed some level of agreement, ranging from somewhat agree to
strongly agree. The mean of this group was 5.99 with a standard deviation of 0.99. Participants (n
= 50) indicated some level of agreement as to whether they gained knowledge from a regional
association of ACA (i.e., Midwest, North Atlantic, Southern or Western) website, and of those
56% (n = 28) indicated some level of agreement with a mean of 4.66 and a standard deviation of
1.61. Respondents (n = 77) indicated a 70.2 % level of agreement that they received knowledge
from websites from ACA state associations with a mean of 5.12 and a standard deviation of 1.61.
Respondents (n = 72) received knowledge from ACA divisions at 75.8% with a mean of 5.25 and
a standard deviation of 1.56. Of those who responded receiving knowledge from CSI (n = 33),
51.5% responded favorably with a mean of 4.58 and a standard deviation of 1.64.
Participants (n = 79) also responded to the “other” website source where 82.3% indicated some
level of agreement with a mean of 5.34 and standard deviation of 1.46. A higher mean indicates a
stronger agreement with the statement regarding professional advocacy beliefs; lower means
indicate a stronger disagreement. Higher scores on knowledge gained from websites indicated a
high level of agreement. ACA websites had the most responses and the highest percentage of
agreement (92%) in gaining knowledge about professional advocacy. Only half of the
participants responded receiving knowledge to state and division websites at a 70-76%
agreement, and Regional and CSI sources had the least responses and lowest percentages.
Respondents were asked to list if they gained knowledge of professional advocacy from
websites of professional association(s) other than ACA or CSI. Many of the responses
represented ACA national, regional, state and local websites. Additional responses indicated
specialties within the counseling, psychology and social work fields. The full list of responses is
presented in Appendix D.
Table 15
Frequency Distribution for Items 11-12 Research Question 2
Item n % M SD
11. I gained knowledge of professional advocacy from
websites.
Yes
169
43.3
No
221
56.7
Total
390
100.0
Table 15 (continued from page 105)
Item
n
%
M
SD
12. If yes, degree of knowledge gained from professional
advocacy from websites
ACA
Strongly Disagree
1
0.6
Disagree
2
1.3
Somewhat Disagree
0
0.0
Neither Agree nor Disagree
3
1.9
Somewhat Agree
34
21.4
Agree
67
42.1
Strongly Agree
52
32.7
Total
159
100
5.99
0.99
Regional association of ACA (Midwest, North Atlantic,
Southern or Western)
Strongly Disagree
2
4.0
Disagree
6
12.0
Somewhat Disagree
0
0.0
Neither Agree nor Disagree
14
28.0
Somewhat Agree
10
20.0
Agree
13
26.0
Strongly Agree
5
10.0
Total
50
100
4.66
1.61
State Association of ACA
Strongly Disagree
3
3.9
Disagree
6
7.8
Somewhat Disagree
0
0.0
Neither Agree nor Disagree
14
18.2
Somewhat Agree
15
19.5
Agree
25
32.5
Strongly Agree
14
18.2
Total
77
100
5.12
1.61
Table 15 (continued from page 106)
Item
n
%
M
SD
Division of ACA
Strongly Disagree
1
1.4
Disagree
7
9.7
Somewhat Disagree
1
1.4
Neither Agree nor Disagree
9
12.5
Somewhat Agree
16
22.2
Agree
22
30.6
Strongly Agree
16
22.2
Total
72
100
5.25
1.56
Chi Sigma Iota
Strongly Disagree
0
0.0
Disagree
5
15.2
Somewhat Disagree
3
9.1
Neither Agree nor Disagree
8
24.2
Somewhat Agree
8
24.2
Agree
3
9.1
Strongly Agree
6
18.2
Total
33
100
4.58
1.64
Other professional association (APA, NASW, etc.)
Strongly Disagree
3
3.8
Disagree
4
5.1
Somewhat Disagree
0
0.0
Neither Agree nor Disagree
7
8.9
Somewhat Agree
20
25.3
Agree
32
40.5
Strongly Agree
13
16.5
Total
79
100
5.34
1.46
Additional research for Question 2 was conducted on whether professional counselors
gained knowledge of professional advocacy modeled or taught by various individuals.
Descriptive survey statistics were calculated on inventory responses to items 14-15 to answer this
question. The comparisons of the descriptive statistics and frequencies for each item and
statistical results for Research Question 2 are presented in Table 16. Most participants, 76.9% (n
= 300), reported gaining knowledge of professional advocacy modeled or taught by others.
Respondents (n = 274) reported gaining knowledge modeled or taught by a colleague
with a counseling degree; 87.1% of those respondents (n = 247) endorsed some level of
agreement, ranging from somewhat agree to strongly agree. The mean of this group was 5.84
with a standard deviation of 1.41. Participants (n = 224) also indicated agreement as to whether
they gained knowledge modeled or taught by colleague with a related degree, and of those,
81.6% (n = 183) indicated agreement with a mean of 5.38 and a standard deviation of 1.58.
Respondents (n = 216) indicated a 75.9% level of agreement that they received knowledge of
professional advocacy modeled or taught by LPC/LMHC supervisor with a mean of 5.29 and a
standard deviation of 1.70. Respondents (n = 206) reported receiving knowledge modeled or
taught by “other” supervisor; 73.3% responded favorably with a mean of 5.14 and a standard
deviation of 1.78. A higher mean indicates a stronger agreement with the statement regarding
modeling professional counselor advocacy. High scores on knowledge gained from individuals
who modeled or taught professional advocacy indicated a high level of agreement. Overall,
participants reported gaining knowledge of professional advocacy from all four types of models
with the most individuals endorsing gaining that knowledge modeled by colleagues with a
counseling degree.
Table 16
Frequency Distribution for Items 14-15 for Research Question 2
Item n % M SD
Knowledge of Professional Advocacy
14. I gained knowledge of professional advocacy modeled of
taught by others.
Yes
300
76.9
No
90
23.1
Total
390
100
15. If yes, degree of knowledge modeled or taught by others.
Modeled/taught by colleague with counseling degree
Strongly Disagree
6
2.2
Disagree
13
4.7
Somewhat Disagree
3
1.1
Neither Agree nor Disagree
5
1.8
Somewhat Agree
42
15.3
Agree
105
38.3
Strongly Agree
100
36.5
Total
274
100
5.84
1.41
Modeled/taught by colleague with related degree
Strongly Disagree
8
3.6
Disagree
16
7.1
Somewhat Disagree
5
2.2
Neither Agree nor Disagree
12
5.4
Somewhat Agree
46
20.5
Agree
87
38.8
Strongly Agree
50
22.3
Total
224
100
5.38
1.58
Table 16 (continued from page 109)
Item
n
%
M
SD
Modeled/taught by LPC/LMHC supervisor
Strongly Disagree
9
4.2
Disagree
18
8.3
Somewhat Disagree
5
2.3
Neither Agree nor Disagree
20
9.3
Somewhat Agree
38
17.6
Agree
69
31.9
Strongly Agree
57
26.4
Total
216
100
5.29
1.70
Modeled/taught by other supervisor
Strongly Disagree
12
5.8
Disagree
18
8.7
Somewhat Disagree
6
2.9
Neither Agree nor Disagree
19
9.2
Somewhat Agree
38
18.4
Agree
65
31.6
Strongly Agree
48
23.3
Total
206
100
5.14
1.78
Research Question 3
Professional counselors indicated in Research Question 3 whether they believe that they
have the skills to participate in professional advocacy efforts. Descriptive survey statistics were
calculated on inventory responses to items 16-23. The comparisons of the descriptive statistics
and frequencies for each item and statistical results for Research Question 3 are presented in
Table 17. Most participants, 91.0% (n = 355), endorsed some level of agreement, ranging from
somewhat agree to strongly agree for item 16, that they take an educational approach to conduct
professional advocacy. The mean of this group was 5.81 with a standard deviation of 1.08.
Participants indicated some level of agreement for item 17, acceptance (i.e., inclusive
nature, embracing differences), and of those 97.1% (n = 379) indicated some level of agreement
with a mean of 6.18 and a standard deviation of 0.82. Respondents indicated a 98.4% (n = 384)
level of agreement on Item 18, “relationship building (i.e., communication skills, listening skills)
with a mean of 6.39 and a standard deviation of 0.78. Responses to Item 19 indicated that 91.2%
(n = 356) participants agreed at some level that they have “emotional independence,” with a
mean of 5.96 and a standard deviation of 1.00. The response to Item 20, “realistic goal setting
(i.e., assess needs, define goals, implement research-based interventions, evaluate outcomes),
elicited 354 favorable responses at 90.7% with a mean of 5.88 and a standard deviation of 1.04.
Participants responded to Item 21 and 360, or 92.3%, indicated that they agree to some level that
they have time management and organizational skills. This item had a mean of 5.87 and a
standard deviation of 1.02. Nearly 86% (n = 335) of participants responded to Item 22 and
endorsed the skill of public speaking. The mean was 5.64 and the standard deviation was 1.41.
Writing skills, Item 23, was endorsed by 361 participants (92.6%) with a mean of 5.92 and
standard deviation of 1.11. Essentially, most participants agreed that they have the skills to
conduct professional advocacy. Acceptance and relationship building had the highest percentage
of agreement with 97% and 98.4% respectively. Participants agreed the least with the skill of
public speaking at 86%. Higher scores on professional counselors‟ beliefs that they have the skill
level to conduct professional advocacy indicated a high level of agreement with means ranging
from 5.64 – 6.39.
Table 17
Frequency Distribution for Items 19-26 for Research Question 3
Item n % M SD
I believe that I have the following skills to conduct
professional advocacy:
16. Take an educational approach
Strongly Disagree
3
0.8
Disagree
5
1.3
Somewhat Disagree
4
1.0
Neither Agree nor Disagree
23
5.9
Somewhat Agree
82
21.0
Agree
171
43.8
Strongly Agree
102
26.2
Total
390
100
5.81
1.08
17. Acceptance (i.e., inclusive nature, embracing differences)
Strongly Disagree
2
0.5
Disagree
1
0.3
Somewhat Disagree
0
0.0
Neither Agree nor Disagree
8
2.1
Somewhat Agree
38
9.7
Agree
201
51.5
Strongly Agree
140
35.9
Total
390
100
6.18
0.82
18. Relationship building (i.e., communication skills, listening
skills)
Strongly Disagree
2
0.5
Disagree
0
0.0
Somewhat Disagree
0
0.0
Neither Agree nor Disagree
4
1.0
Somewhat Agree
31
7.9
Table 17 (continued from page 112)
Item n
% M
SD
Agree
151
38.7
Strongly Agree
202
51.8
Total
390
100
6.39
.78
19. Emotional independence
Strongly Disagree
3
0.8
Disagree
0
0.0
Somewhat Disagree
4
1.0
Neither Agree nor Disagree
27
6.9
Somewhat Agree
52
13.3
Agree
188
48.2
Strongly Agree
116
29.7
Total
390
100
5.96
1.00
20. Realistic goal setting (i.e., assess needs, define goals,
implement research-based interventions, evaluate outcomes)
Strongly Disagree
2
0.5
Disagree
3
0.8
Somewhat Disagree
6
1.5
Neither Agree nor Disagree
25
6.4
Somewhat Agree
66
16.9
Agree
179
45.9
Strongly Agree
109
27.9
Total
390
390
5.88
1.04
21. Time management and organizational skills
Strongly Disagree
2
0.5
Disagree
1
0.3
Somewhat Disagree
6
1.5
Neither Agree nor Disagree
21
6.4
Somewhat Agree
90
23.1
Table 17 (continued from page 113)
Item
n
%
M
SD
Agree
156
40.0
Strongly Agree
114
29.2
Total
390
100
5.87
1.02
22. Public speaking Strongly
Disagree
8
2.1
Disagree
14
3.6
Somewhat Disagree
13
3.3
Neither Agree nor Disagree
20
5.1
Somewhat Agree
84
21.5
Agree
131
33.6
Strongly Agree
120
30.8
Total
390
100
5.64
1.41
23. Writing skills
Strongly Disagree
4
1.0
Disagree
5
1.3
Somewhat Disagree
5
1.3
Neither Agree nor Disagree
15
3.8
Somewhat Agree
74
19.0
Agree
160
41.0
Strongly Agree
127
32.6
Total
390
100
5.92
1.11
Research Question 4
Research Question 4 asked professional counselors to what degree they believe that they
have the qualities (interest/passion, commitment, resilience/persistence, toughness/force, lifelong
learner attitude and self-confidence) to participate in professional advocacy efforts. Descriptive
survey statistics were calculated on inventory responses to items 24-29. The comparisons of the
descriptive statistics and frequencies for each item and statistical results for Research Question 4
are presented in Table 18. Most participants, 86.1% (n = 337), endorsed some level of
agreement, ranging from somewhat agree to strongly agree for item 24, that they have interest
and passion (i.e., drive, enthusiasm) to conduct professional advocacy. The mean of this group
was 5.69 with a standard deviation of 1.30. Participants (n = 261) indicated that they agree with
Item 25 and at some level they have commitment, to conduct professional advocacy, with a mean
of 5.72 and a standard deviation of 1.26. Respondents indicated a 90.5% (n = 354) level of
agreement on Item 26, resilience and persistence, with a mean of 5.82 and a standard deviation of
1.17. Responses to Item 27 indicated that 198 participants agreed at some level that they
consider themselves tough and forceful with a mean of 4.83 and a standard deviation of 1.49.
Item 28, life-long learner, elicited the most responses regarding qualities used to conduct
professional advocacy (n = 380) at an overwhelming 97.5% with a mean of 5.88 and a standard
deviation of 1.04. Responses to Item 29 were nearly as high, at 95.1%, indicating that
respondents agree to some level that they have the self-confidence. This item had a mean of 6.05
and a standard deviation of 0.95. Participants held a high level of agreement with the qualities of
life-long learner, self-confident, and resilience/persistence. Interest had a somewhat high level of
agreement with 86.1%; but commitment and tough/forceful attributes had the lowest with 67%
and 50.8%, respectively.
Table 18
Frequency Distribution for Item 24-29 for Research Question 4
Item n % M SD
Qualities for Professional Advocacy
I believe that I have the following qualities to conduct
professional advocacy:
Table 18 (continued from page 115)
Item
n
%
M
SD
24. Interest/Passion (i.e., drive, enthusiasm)
Strongly Disagree
5
1.3
Disagree
10
2.6
Somewhat Disagree
11
2.8
Neither Agree nor Disagree
27
6.9
Somewhat Agree
86
22.1
Agree
132
33.8
Strongly Agree
119
30.5
Total
390
100
5.69
1.30
25. Commitment
Strongly Disagree
4
1.0
Disagree
8
2.1
Somewhat Disagree
16
4.1
Neither Agree nor Disagree
21
5.4
Somewhat Agree
80
20.5
Agree
148
37.9
Strongly Agree
113
29.0
Total
390
100
5.72
1.26
26.Resilience, persistence
Strongly Disagree
3
0.8
Disagree
6
1.5
Somewhat Disagree
12
3.1
Neither Agree nor Disagree
15
3.8
Somewhat Agree
89
22.8
Agree
143
36.7
Strongly Agree
122
31.3
Total
390
100
5.82
1.17
Table 18 (continued from page 116)
Item
n
%
M
SD
27. Tough, forceful Strongly
Disagree
8
2.1
Disagree
27
6.9
Somewhat Disagree
39
10.0
Neither Agree nor Disagree
58
14.9
Somewhat Agree
121
31.0
Agree
85
21.8
Strongly Agree
52
13.3
Total
390
100
4.83
1.49
28. Life-long learner Strongly
Disagree
2
0.5
Disagree
0
0.0
Somewhat Disagree
1
0.3
Neither Agree nor Disagree
7
1.8
Somewhat Agree
35
9.0
Agree
120
30.8
Strongly Agree
225
57.7
Total
390
100
6.42
0.85
29. Self-confident
Strongly Disagree
2
0.5
Disagree
2
0.5
Somewhat Disagree
4
1.0
Neither Agree nor Disagree
11
2.8
Somewhat Agree
60
15.4
Agree
178
45.6
Strongly Agree
133
34.1
Total
390
100
6.05
0.95
Research Question 5
Professional counselors were asked in Research Question 5 to indicate to what degree
they participate in professional advocacy efforts. Descriptive survey statistics were calculated on
inventory responses to items 30-42. The comparisons of the descriptive statistics and frequency
for each item and statistical results for Research Question 5 are presented in Tables 18-22. Table
19 presents questions regarding educating others about the profession. Nearly 80% of
participants (n = 309) indicated some level of agreement with Item 30, that they educate other
professionals (i.e., social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, nurses, administrators, and
educators) about counselor preparation, licensure and abilities. The mean and standard deviation
for this group were 5.36 and 1.60, respectively. More participants (n = 358) indicated some level
of agreement to Item 31, that they educate other professionals (i.e., social workers, psychologists,
psychiatrists, nurses, administrators, and educators) about their role as a counselor. The mean for
this group was 4.87 and standard deviation was 1.13. Participants (n = 326) indicated that they
agree with Item 32 and at some level they educate other professionals (i.e., social workers,
psychologists, psychiatrists, nurses, administrators, and educators) about the similarities and
differences of counseling to other professions. The mean for this group was 5.52 and the standard
deviation was 1.40. Most respondents identified, at a rate of 83.5 to 91.7%, that they educate
other professionals about their: a) counselor preparation, licensure and abilities, b) role as a
counselor, and c) similarities and differences of counseling to other professions.
Table 19
Frequency Distribution for Items 30-32 for Research Question 5
Item n % M SD
Advocacy Efforts
30. I educate other professionals (i.e., social workers,
psychologists, psychiatrists, nurses, administrators, and
educators) about counselor preparation, licensure and abilities.
Strongly Disagree
12
3.1
Disagree
28
7.2
Somewhat Disagree
12
3.1
Neither Agree nor Disagree
29
7.4
Somewhat Agree
82
21.0
Agree
129
33.1
Strongly Agree
98
25.1
Total
390
100.0
5.36
1.60
31. I educate other professionals (i.e., social workers,
psychologists, psychiatrists, nurses, administrators, and
educators) about the role of a counselor.
Strongly Disagree
10
2.6
Disagree
10
2.6
Somewhat Disagree
12
3.1
Somewhat Agree
80
20.5
Agree
156
40.0
Strongly Agree
122
31.3
Total
390
100.0
4.87
1.13
32. I educate other professionals (i.e., social workers,
psychologists, psychiatrists, nurses, administrators, and
educators) about the similarities and differences of counseling to
other professions.
Strongly Disagree
9
2.3
Disagree
15
3.8
Somewhat Disagree
10
2.6
Table 19 (continued from page 119)
Item
n
%
M
SD
Neither Agree nor Disagree
30
7.7
Somewhat Agree
94
24.1
Agree
137
35.1
Strongly Agree
95
24.4
Total
390
100.0
5.50
1.40
Building alliances, Items 33-34, are also a part of professional advocacy efforts. The
comparisons of the descriptive statistics and frequencies for each item and statistical results
related to alliances for Research Question 5 are presented in Table 20. Participants (n = 336)
indicated some level of agreement with Item 33 indicating that 86.2% of participants believe that
they build alliances with other professionals (i.e., social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists,
nurses, administrators, and educators) regarding consumer and/or professional issues. The mean
and standard deviation for this group were 5.76 and 1.26, respectively. Slightly more participants
(n = 346) indicated some level of agreement to Item 34, that they build alliances with other
counselors (school, mental health, rehabilitation, college, private practice, etc.) regarding
consumer and/or professional issues regarding consumer and/or professional issues.
The mean for this group was 5.77 and standard deviation was 1.39.
Table 20
Frequency Distribution for Items 33-34 for Research Question 5
Item n % M SD
Advocacy Efforts (continued)
33. I build alliances with other professionals (i.e., social
workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, nurses, administrators,
and educators) regarding consumer and/or professional issues.
Strongly Disagree
2
0.5
Disagree
11
2.8
Somewhat Disagree
12
3.1
Neither Agree nor Disagree
29
7.4
Somewhat Agree
69
17.7
Agree
143
36.7
Strongly Agree
124
31.8
Total
390
100.0
5.76
1.26
34. I build alliances with other counselors (school, mental
health, rehabilitation, college, private practice, etc.) regarding
consumer and/or professional issues.
Strongly Disagree
3
0.8
Disagree
7
1.8
Somewhat Disagree
10
2.6
Neither Agree nor Disagree
24
6.2
Somewhat Agree
79
20.3
Agree
158
40.5
Strongly Agree
109
27.9
Total
390
100.0
5.77
1.39
Professional counselors were asked about their ability to conduct, promote or create as
part of conducting advocacy activities. Items 35-37 measure these efforts and the comparisons of
these descriptive statistics and frequencies for each item and statistical results for Question 5 are
presented in Table 21. Only 47.4% participants (n = 185) indicated some level of agreement with
Item 35, that they conduct service projects in the community representing the counseling
profession. The mean and standard deviation for this group were 4.17 and 1.84, respectively.
Less than one-third of respondents (n = 114) indicated that they agree to some level with Item 36,
that they create multi-media activities informing the public about client issues and awareness of
the counseling profession participants. The mean of this group was 3.38 and standard deviation
was 1.75. Only 17.7% of participants (n = 69) agree to some level that they conduct and publish
research on the counseling theories and techniques that they use. The mean for this group is 2.70
and standard deviation was 1.78 indicating a very low agreement with this statement.
Table 21
Frequency Distribution for Items 35-37 for Research Question 5
Item n % M SD
Advocacy Efforts (continued)
35. I conduct service projects in the community representing
the counseling profession.
Strongly Disagree
26
6.7
Disagree
82
21.0
Somewhat Disagree
34
8.7
Neither Agree nor Disagree
63
16.2
Somewhat Agree
65
16.7
Agree
82
21.0
Strongly Agree
38
9.7
Total
390
100.0
4.17
1.84
36. I create multi-media activities informing the public about
client issues and/or awareness of the counseling profession.
Strongly Disagree
49
12.6
Disagree
123
31.5
Somewhat Disagree
39
10.0
Neither Agree nor Disagree
65
16.7
Table 21 (continued from page 122)
Item
n
%
M
SD
Somewhat Agree
57
14.6
Agree
39
10.0
Strongly Agree
18
4.6
Total
390
100.0
3.38
1.75
37. I conduct and publish research on the counseling theories
and techniques that I use.
Strongly Disagree
122
31.3
Disagree
125
32.1
Somewhat Disagree
18
4.6
Neither Agree nor Disagree
56
14.4
Somewhat Agree
28
7.2
Agree
25
6.4
Strongly Agree
16
4.1
Total
390
100.0
2.70
1.78
Previous research and literature has indicated that professional identity is related to
professional advocacy (Lafleur, 2007; Remily & Herlihy, 2010). Items 38-41 measure these
efforts. The comparisons of these descriptive statistics and frequencies for each item and
statistical results for Question 5 are presented in Table 22. Participants (n = 185) indicated some
level of agreement with Item 38, indicating that they educate, model and promote prevention
and wellness strategies. The mean and standard deviation for this group were 5.67 and 1.27,
respectively. Nearly all respondents, 98.9%, indicated that they agree to some level with Item
39, that they belong to one or more professional associations for counselors. The mean of this
group was 6.51 and standard deviation was 0.73. More than 75% of the participants (n = 301)
agree to some level that they attend at least one conference for the counseling profession a year.
The mean for this group was 5.64 and standard deviation was 1.70. Only 28.2% of the
respondents indicated some level of agreement with Item 41, indicating that the participants
belong to one or more boards or committees within the counseling profession. The mean for this
group was 3.18 with a 2.15 standard deviation. Most participants indicated a high level of
agreement that they belong to a professional association (98.9%) and three-fourths agree to
attending a conference once a year. Less than half of the participants indicated that they educate,
model and promote prevention and wellness strategies and less than one-third is indicated that
they are on a board or committee within the counseling profession.
Table 22
Frequency Distribution for Items 38-41 for Research Question 5
Item n % M SD
Advocacy Efforts (continued)
38. I educate, model and promote prevention and wellness
strategies.
Strongly Disagree
6
1.5
Disagree
8
2.1
Somewhat Disagree
11
2.8
Neither Agree nor Disagree
21
5.4
Somewhat Agree
97
24.9
Agree
140
35.9
Strongly Agree
107
27.4
Total
390
100.0
5.67
1.27
39. I belong to one or more professional association for
counselors.
Strongly Disagree
2
0.5
Disagree
1
0.3
Somewhat Disagree
0
0.0
Neither Agree nor Disagree
1
0.3
Somewhat Agree
11
2.8
Table 22 (continued from page 124)
Item
n
%
M
SD
Agree
148
37.9
Strongly Agree
227
58.2
Total
390
100.0
6.51
0.73
40. I attend at least one conference for the counseling profession
a year.
Strongly Disagree
7
1.8
Disagree
34
8.7
Somewhat Disagree
13
3.3
Neither Agree nor Disagree
35
9.0
Somewhat Agree
31
7.9
Agree
99
25.4
Strongly Agree
171
43.8
Total
390
100.0
5.64
1.70
41. I belong to one or more board or committee within the
counseling profession.
Strongly Disagree
93
23.8
Disagree
144
36.9
Somewhat Disagree
10
2.6
Neither Agree nor Disagree
33
8.5
Somewhat Agree
13
3.3
Agree
48
12.3
Strongly Agree
49
12.6
Total
390
100.0
3.18
2.15
Professional counselors were asked to indicate their agreement with Item 42 which
measured their agreement with whether they participate in legislative activities. The descriptive
statistics, frequencies and statistical results for Item 42 of Question 5 are presented in Table 23.
Participants (n = 163) indicated some level of agreement with Item 42, indicating that they
participate in legislative activities such as letter writing campaigns and contacting members of
congress regarding job opportunities, scope of practice, and systemic barriers to employment for
counselors. The mean and standard deviation for this group were 3.68 and 2.03, respectively.
Table 23
Frequency Distribution for Items 42 for Research Question 5
Item n % M SD
Advocacy Efforts (continued)
42. I participate in legislative activities such as letter writing
campaigns and contacting members of congress regarding job
opportunities, scope of practice, and systemic barriers to
employment for counselors.
Strongly Disagree
66
16.9
Disagree
99
25.4
Somewhat Disagree
22
5.6
Neither Agree nor Disagree
40
10.3
Somewhat Agree
69
17.7
Agree
57
14.6
Strongly Agree
37
9.5
Total
390
100.0
3.68
2.03
Research Question 6
Professional counselors were asked to what degree they believe that it is important to
participate in professional counselor advocacy efforts. Items 43-47 measure these beliefs.
Comparisons of these descriptive statistics and frequencies for each item and statistical results
for Question 6 are presented in Table 24. Overwhelmingly, 97.7% of participants (n = 381)
indicated a high level of agreement with Item 43, that “I think it is important to advocate for the
profession of counseling.” The mean and standard deviation for this group was 6.43 and 0.79,
respectively. As noted, there was little variability among the respondents in their endorsement of
this item. Respondents (n = 378) also overwhelmingly indicated a 96.9% agreement for Item 44,
that counselors must improve their public and professional image with a mean of 6.38 and
standard deviation of 0.82. Almost half of the respondents agreed to some degree with Item 45,
that I have lost clients due to the lack of insurance coverage for counselors. The mean was 4.38
and standard deviation was 2.12. Almost 42% of respondents (n = 163) also agreed with Item 46
to some level that they have been denied jobs in schools, mental health or other settings due to
their degree or license as a counselor. The mean was 3.82 and standard deviation was 2.19.
Similarly, 41.8% of participants indicated some level of agreement with Item 47, that they have
the need to advocate for themselves other than for the profession of counseling. The mean of
was 4.22 and standard deviation was 1.68. Respondents overwhelmingly agreed with the
statements regarding the importance of advocating for the profession of counseling and
counselors need to improve the public and professional image of counselors. Lower percentages
within the category of importance and need are reflected in the statements regarding losing
clients due to lack of insurance coverage, being denied jobs, and having a need to advocate for
self other than for the profession.
Table 24
Frequency Distribution for Items 43-47 for Research Question 6
Item n % M SD
Importance of Advocacy
43. I think it is important to advocate for the profession of
counseling.
Strongly Disagree
0
0.0
Disagree
1
0.3
Somewhat Disagree
3
0.8
Neither Agree nor Disagree
5
1.3
Somewhat Agree
32
8.2
Agree
128
32.8
Strongly Agree
221
56.7
Total
390
100.0
6.43
0.79
Table 24 (continued from page 127)
Item
n
%
M
SD
44. I believe counselors must improve the public and
professional image of counselors
Strongly Disagree
0
0.0
Disagree
1
0.3
Somewhat Disagree
2
0.5
Neither Agree nor Disagree
9
2.3
Somewhat Agree
35
9.0
Agree
133
34.1
Strongly Agree
210
53.8
Total
390
100.0
6.38
0.82
45. I have lost clients due to the lack of insurance coverage for
counselors
Strongly Disagree
50
12.8
Disagree
60
15.4
Somewhat Disagree
11
2.8
Neither Agree nor Disagree
87
22.3
Somewhat Agree
27
6.9
Agree
64
16.4
Strongly Agree
91
23.3
Total
390
100.0
4.38
2.12
46. I have been denied jobs in schools, mental health or other
settings due to my degree/license as a counselor. Strongly
Disagree
74
6.4
Disagree
87
14.9
Somewhat Disagree
12
5.9
Neither Agree nor Disagree
66
31.0
Somewhat Agree
36
16.4
Agree
43
16.2
Strongly Agree
72
9.2
Total
390
100.0
3.82
2.19
Table 24 (continued from page 128)
Item
n
%
M
SD
47. I have had the need to advocate for myself other than for
the profession of counseling.
Strongly Disagree
25
6.4
Disagree
58
14.9
Somewhat Disagree
23
5.9
Neither Agree nor Disagree
121
31.0
Somewhat Agree
64
16.4
Agree
63
16.2
Strongly Agree
36
9.2
Total
390
100.0
4.22
1.68
Research Question 7
Participants were asked to indicate to what degree they believe there are barriers to
participating in professional counselor advocacy. Items 48-59 list barriers which were used to
measure these beliefs. Comparisons of these descriptive statistics and frequencies for each item
and statistical results for Question 7 are presented in Table 25. More than half of the participants
(n = 203) endorsed some level of agreement, ranging from somewhat agree to strongly agree for
Item 48, indicating that they believe that lack of leadership in the counseling field is a barrier to
conducting professional advocacy. The mean of this group was 4.43 with a standard deviation of
1.62. Participants (n = 245) indicated some level of agreement for item 49, agreeing that the lack
of collaboration within the profession on legislative advocacy initiatives is a barrier to
professional counselor advocacy. The mean for this group was 4.80 and the standard deviation
was 1.51. Respondents indicated a 73.1% (n = 285) level of agreement on Item 50 indicating an
agreement that roadblocks caused by other professionals (i.e., psychologists, social workers) was
a barrier to professional counselor advocacy. This group had a mean of 5.27 and a standard
deviation of 1.56. Responses to Item 51 indicated that 69.8% of participants (n = 272) agreed at
some level that insufficient knowledge of professional advocacy strategies was a barrier. The
mean for this group was 5.00 with a standard deviation of 1.52. Only 20% of respondents
indicated some level of agreement with Item 52, that the inability to explain credentials, what I
do as counselor, and/or how my profession compares to others is a barrier to professional
counselor advocacy. The mean for this group was 2.76 and the standard deviation was 1.68.
Only 35.4% indicated that Item 53, lack of position, is a barrier to professional advocacy. The
mean was 3.66 and standard deviation was 1.83. Participants responded at 57.2% agreement that
insufficient funds, Item 54, are a barrier to professional advocacy. The mean for this group was
4.69 and the standard deviation was 1.71. More than 75% of the respondents (n = 296) indicated
that Item 55, not enough time, was a barrier to professional advocacy. The mean of this group
was 5.32 with a 1.48 standard deviation. More than one-third of respondents (n = 139) agreed to
some level that lack of skill level to advocate, Item 56, is a barrier to professional advocacy.
This item had a mean of 3.62 and a standard deviation of 1.73. Only 18.2% of respondents (n =
71) agreed that a barrier to advocacy is being satisfied with the status of the counseling
profession. This group had a mean of 3.04 and a standard deviation of 1.55. Only 14% agreed to
Item 58, that they would be seen as a “trouble maker.” The mean for this group was 2.68 with a
standard deviation of 1.56. Only 5.9% of respondents endorsed Item 59, “other” barriers with a
3.47 mean and a 1.38 standard deviation. The top three barriers assessed by participants include
not enough time (75%), roadblocks caused by other professionals (73.1%), and insufficient
knowledge of professional advocacy strategies (69.8%). The lowest responses range from lack of
skill level to advocate (35.6%), lack of position (35.4%), inability to explain credentials (20%),
satisfied with status of the counseling profession (18.2%), and the statement “I would be seen as
a „trouble-maker‟” (14%).
Table 25
Frequency Distribution for Items 48-59 for Research Question 7
Item n % M SD
Barriers to Professional Advocacy
I believe that the following are barriers to conducting
professional advocacy:
48. Lack of leadership in the counseling field
Strongly Disagree
18
4.6
Disagree
47
12.1
Somewhat Disagree
35
9.0
Neither Agree nor Disagree
87
22.3
Somewhat Agree
85
21.8
Agree
87
22.3
Strongly Agree
31
7.9
Total
390
100.0
4.43
1.62
49. Lack of collaboration within the profession on
legislative advocacy initiatives
Strongly Disagree
12
3.1
Disagree
29
7.4
Somewhat Disagree
27
6.9
Neither Agree nor Disagree
77
19.7
Somewhat Agree
99
25.4
Agree
105
26.9
Strongly Agree
41
10.5
Total
390
100.0
4.80
1.51
Table 25 (continued from page 131)
Item
n
%
M
SD
50. Roadblocks caused by other professionals (i.e.,
psychologists, social workers)
Strongly Disagree
6
1.5
Disagree
27
6.9
Somewhat Disagree
19
4.9
Neither Agree nor Disagree
53
13.6
Somewhat Agree
87
22.3
Agree
94
24.1
Strongly Agree
104
26.7
Total
390
100.0
5.27
1.56
51. Insufficient knowledge of professional advocacy
strategies
Strongly Disagree
9
2.3
Disagree
28
7.2
Somewhat Disagree
30
7.7
Neither Agree nor Disagree
51
13.1
Somewhat Agree
95
24.4
Agree
124
31.8
Strongly Agree
53
13.6
Total
390
100.0
5.00
1.52
52. Inability to explain my credentials (training, education,
etc.), what I do as a counselor, and/or how my profession
compares to others
Strongly Disagree
105
26.9
Disagree
118
30.3
Somewhat Disagree
52
13.3
Neither Agree nor Disagree
37
9.5
Somewhat Agree
45
11.5
Agree
24
6.2
Strongly Agree
9
2.3
Total
390
100.0
2.76
1.68
Table 25 (continued from page 132)
Item
n
%
M
SD
53. Lack of position Strongly
Disagree
58
14.9
Disagree
82
21.0
Somewhat Disagree
28
7.2
Neither Agree nor Disagree
84
21.5
Somewhat Agree
71
18.2
Agree
40
10.3
Strongly Agree
27
6.9
Total
390
100.0
3.66
1.83
54. Insufficient funds Strongly
Disagree
15
3.8
Disagree
49
12.6
Somewhat Disagree
21
5.4
Neither Agree nor Disagree
82
21.0
Somewhat Agree
69
17.7
Agree
98
25.1
Strongly Agree
56
14.4
Total
390
100.0
4.69
1.71
55. Not enough time Strongly
Disagree
4
1.0
Disagree
23
5.9
Somewhat Disagree
22
5.6
Neither Agree nor Disagree
45
11.5
Somewhat Agree
92
23.6
Agree
108
27.7
Strongly Agree
96
24.6
Total
390
100.0
5.32
1.48
Table 25 (continued from page 133
Item
n
%
M
SD
56. Lack of skill level to advocate
Strongly Disagree
48
12.3
Disagree
85
21.8
Somewhat Disagree
48
12.3
Neither Agree nor Disagree
70
17.9
Somewhat Agree
77
19.7
Agree
48
12.3
Strongly Agree
14
3.6
Total
390
100.0
3.62
1.73
57. Satisfied with status of the counseling profession
Strongly Disagree
61
15.6%
Disagree
114
29.2%
Somewhat Disagree
79
20.3%
Neither Agree nor Disagree
65
16.7%
Somewhat Agree
36
9.2%
Agree
27
6.9%
Strongly Agree
8
2.1%
Total
390
100.0%
3.04
1.55
58. I would be seen as a “trouble maker” Strongly
Disagree
99
25.4
Disagree
134
34.4
Somewhat Disagree
38
9.7
Neither Agree nor Disagree
64
16.4
Somewhat Agree
29
7.4
Agree
20
5.1
Strongly Agree
6
1.5
Total
390
100.0
2.68
1.56
Table 25 (continued from page 134)
Item
n
%
M
SD
59. Other
Strongly Disagree
70
17.9
Disagree
22
5.6
Somewhat Disagree
3
0.8
Neither Agree nor Disagree
271
69.5
Somewhat Agree
7
1.8
Agree
7
1.8
Strongly Agree
10
2.6
Total
390
100.0
3.47
1.38
Research Question 8
Participants were asked to indicate by short-answer format what they think the barriers
are to participating in professional counselor advocacy efforts. Of the 390 respondents who
reported that there are barriers to conducting professional counselor advocacy, 59 chose to
answer item 60, which asked participants to mention any barriers to conducting professional
advocacy that were not mentioned in Section V, Barriers to Advocacy. Eight of the participants
indicated that the they did not have any barriers and listed “none,” “NA”, “n/a” and “None that I
can think of” as responses. Several respondents listed more than one barrier, increasing the
number of supporting quotes to a total of 65 responses.
Item 60 was analyzed by the grounded theory approach, which utilizes an open coding
technique (see Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). The data were specifically analyzed by: 1)
reading and re-reading open-ended responses from participants, 2) coding this data according to
the emerging themes, 3) re-reading responses to organize sub-themes within the data until
reaching saturation, and 4) counting the frequency of those themes. The themes and sub-themes
described below are listed along with supporting quotes in Table 26. Participants (n=59)
responded with open-ended input regarding barriers. While the total of respondents who provided
written comments was a small percent of the total, the qualitative nature of the individual
comments was instructive in shedding light on these important advocacy issues. The themes
presented add additional data to support respondent‟s perceptions of advocacy.
Five major issue-based themes and several sub-themes were identified in the data. The
first theme, negative or weak inter-professional relations, was cited by 21 participants (32%) and
is defined as the relationship between counselors and other professions. Several sub-themes
included: a) roadblocks by social workers, psychologists, licensure bodies and legislators
regarding legislation (e.g., Medicare, Tricare, Department of Defense, Veterans Administration);
b) lack of support and recognition from employers, the community, licensure boards and other
professions; and c) lack of knowledge by legislators about mental health and the role of
counselors. The second theme, negative or weak intra-professional relations, was identified by 12
participants (18%) and is explained as the relationship among counselors regardless of division
or specialty. Two sub-themes that emerged were: a) disjointed profession (diversity of education
and training, inconsistency in requirements for licensure, lack of reciprocity among states,
“contamination by others professions”) and b) lack of support from leaders and fellow counselors
(ACA, licensure boards, divisions, level of education). The third theme, attitude toward
professional advocacy, was identified by 12 individuals (18%). The sub-themes included:
a) lack of involvement of students/interns; b) lack of importance/need (ex: comparison between
professional counselors‟ and other professionals‟ ability to conduct professional advocacy, need
for more counselors to advocate); c) lack of belief that professional advocacy would be
useful/effective; and d) lack of passion.
The fourth theme, power differential/limited position was noted by 11 participants (17%).
The sub-themes identified were: a) limited job-opportunities and positions in relation to other
professions, b) lack of negotiating power, and c) limited time, resources and money. Several
individuals indicated that they are unable to get positions that other mental health professionals
were able to obtain. One stated, “It seems to me that LC Social Workers may do counseling, but a
counselor may not do social work, which limits job opportunities.” Another informed that, “…in
Florida my license as an LPC is not acceptable for counseling positions. I have been hired
because of being an RN.” Still another stated, “State, Federal, and County level jobs for
counseling are few or rare.” The lack of positions available are a cause to advocate but also are a
barrier to advocating due to the lack of position counselors have within the major entities that
assist in developing legislative policy to address consumer needs.
The fifth theme, lack of knowledge/experience, was identified by 6 participants (9%) and
includes the lack of experience in the field, insufficient training in advocacy and counselor
identity, and knowledge of issues and laws that affect counselors. Individual challenges/concerns
were noted by 3 respondents (5%) and include barriers such as physical challenges, cultural
background and stress. Analysis of these data identifies negative or weak inter-professional
relations (33%) as the largest barrier self-reported. Several of the barriers follow with a range of
17-18% each; negative or weak intra-professional relations (18%), attitude towards professional
advocacy (18%), and power-differential/limited position (17%). The most problematic area that
professional counselors need to address, based on these data, is the relationship both intra- and
inter-professionally which accounts for 50% of the barriers listed in this report.
Table 26
Themes from responses to item 60 for Research Question 8
Themes
n
Supporting Quotes
Negative or weak
interprofessional relations
21
“Federal legislation that has been
blocked by Department of Defense,
(DOD) and the Veterans Administration
(VA) implementation policies”
- Roadblocks by social
workers,
psychologists,
licensure bodies and
legislators
(regarding Medicare,
Tricare, DOD, and
VA)
- Lack of support and
recognition from
employer,
community, licensure
boards, and
other professions
- Lack of knowledge
by legislators about
mental health and
counselors
“When it comes to laws pertaining to
counseling it often feels like the
government doesn't care.”
“…for the Medicare legislat[ors] to allow
us to be recognized…”
“Government legislation that is
unfavorable to the counseling profession”
“[Lawmakers] lack of knowledge of
mental health”
“Lack of knowledge and understanding
regarding school counselors and
professional counselors.”
“Lawmakers do not make it a priority”
“Lack of connection(s) to leadership and
legislature”
“Lack of sophistication regarding the
varying laws across states that have been
passed in the past that exclude
counselors, in favor of previously licensed
professionals (especially psychologists);”
“The House of Rep. continues to block the
counseling profession the ability and
opportunity to treat Medicare, or Tricare
covered individuals without supervision by
an MD. S”
in a not for profit, state funded community mental
health agency)”
“Lack of support from other counseling
professionals”
“Need more support for what we do for
the community and the importance of our
field”
“…for NASW to not block us …”
“I believe the LCSW's are a barrier to
counselors, also…”
“Roadblocks caused by licensure bodies (i.e.
the state of California's board of behavioral
sciences)”
“Lack of respect between disciplines
(other professionals)”
“Sometimes the distinctions between mental
health professions distract from the common
purpose between them, and create adversarial
and territorial dynamics that don't serve the
public good”
)
Table 26 (continued from page 138
Themes
n
Supporting Quotes
Negative or weak inter
-
professional relations
continued
)
(
“Political positions”
“Lack of social acceptance for periodic
counseling”
“Lack of community
interest”
“Lack of support from employer ([I] work
Table 26 (continued from page 139)
Themes
n
Supporting Quotes
Negative or weak
Intraprofessional relations
- Disjointed
profession
- Lack of support from
ACA, licensure
boards, and other
counselors
12
“TPA has always advocated against it's
own masters level professionals”
“Contamination by counseling
psychologists who want counseling
licenses who dilute the profession”
“Diversity of educational & training
requirements”
“Unwillingness of divisions to give up
specialty turf to unify profession”
“Lack of reciprocity between states”
“Disjointedness between levels of the
profession - we don't value each other,
support each other, help each other.
“Division in counseling profession (i.e.
school, professional, MFT, etc)”
“Inconsistencies in requirements for
licensed counselors across country.”
“Lack of consensus and unity among
counseling divisions regarding the
profession of counseling”
“Variation in licenses (i.e. LMHP, LPC,
LIMHP, etc) in states”
“State licensure boards providing
insufficient support”
“Lack of support and/or follow through
by the National (ACA) organization
regarding advocacy for the counseling
profession. The ACA can often be too
passive about advocacy.”
Table 26 (continued from page 140)
Themes
n
Supporting Quotes
Attitude toward professional
advocacy
- Lack of involvement
of Students/Interns
- lack belief of
effectiveness
- lack passion
- lack importance/ need
12
“Aspiring professional counselor”
“I am currently a student and do not have
my licensure yet”
…“I look forward to advocating when I
am employed full-time in the counseling
field.”
“I'm still a student”
“We must stand up for our clients thus
advocate so trouble maker is true but
okay.”
“Attitude”
“Lack of belief that it would be useful/
effective.”
“Lack of passion”
“Need more LPC's to advocate…”
“The members of the mental health field
who do not perceive advocacy as vital”
“Social work has a stronger advocacy.
Psychologist also have a strong advocacy
and tougher demands for profession”
“Lack of understanding of importance of
professional as opposed to client
advocacy”
Table 26 (continued from page141)
Themes
n
Supporting Quotes
Power deferential/limited
position
- Limited job
opportunities/positio
ns
- Lack of negotiating
power
- Limited time,
resources and money
11
“It seems to me that LC Social Workers
may do counseling, but a counselor may
not do social work, which limits job
opportunities.”
“Lack of time being allocated by
employer”
“Financial”
“Amount of time spent in the field”
“I am currently working full-time as a
self-employed, state registered family day
care provider and going part-time to
school to complete my last LPC course.”
“Lack of negotiating power with
insurance companies”
“Lack of accessibility”
“We don't get paid enough to get taken
seriously!!!!!!!!!”
“Lack of opportunity”
“…in Florida my license as an LPC is not
acceptable for counseling positions I have
been hired because of being an RN”
“State, Federal, and County level jobs for
counseling are few or rare.
Table 26 (continued from page 142)
Themes n Supporting Quotes
Lack of
knowledge/experience
- Experience in field
- Insufficient training in
advocacy and
counselor identity
- Knowledge of
issues/laws affecting
counselors
6
“Lack of experience within the field”
“Lack of knowledge”
“Lack of “knowledge of what issues are
most affecting the majority of the
counseling profession”
“Lack of sophistication regarding federal
laws that exclude counselors”
“Insufficient counselor identity training,
promotion, and advocacy in graduate
schools.”
“Lack of sophistication regarding the
varying laws across states that have been
passed in the past that exclude
counselors, in favor of previously licensed
professionals (especially psychologists)”
“Physical challenges that may hinder
travel, obtaining meeting protocols, etc.”
“Cultural background”
“Stress”
Note. Five major issue-based themes were identified in the data: 1) negative or weak
interprofessional relations, 2) negative or weak intra-professional relations, 3) attitude toward
professional advocacy, 4) power differential/limited position, 5) lack of knowledge/experience.
Three participants listed individual challenges/concerns.
Research Question 9
Participants were asked to indicate to what degree they feel they receive support from
colleagues, counselor educators, supervisors, and associations, in participating in professional
advocacy efforts. Descriptive statistics were calculated on inventory responses to items 61-64.
Comparisons of these descriptive statistics and frequencies for each item and statistical results
for Question 9 are presented in Table 27. More than 80% of the participants (n = 318) endorsed
some level of agreement, ranging from somewhat agree to strongly agree for Item 61, indicating
that they receive support from colleagues to advocate for the profession. The mean of this group
was 5.43 with a standard deviation of 1.34. Over 69% of participants (n = 271) indicated some
level of agreement for Item 62, agreeing that they receive support from counselor educators and
professors to advocate for the profession. The mean for this group was 5.17 with a standard
deviation of 1.65. Respondents (n = 231) indicated some level of agreement for Item 63, that
they receive support from supervisors to advocate for the profession. The mean for this group
was 4.75 with a standard deviation of 1.74. More than 78% of respondents (n = 305) indicated
some level of agreement with Item 54, that they receive support from associations to advocate for
the profession. The mean for this group was 5.45 with a standard deviation of 1.29.
Participants reported receiving the most support from colleagues (80%) and associations (78%).
Although better than average, the responses for counselor educators (69%) and supervisors
(59%) showed that they were less supportive than the other two categories.
Table 27
Frequency Distribution for Items 61-64 for Research Question 9
Item n % M SD
Perceived Support
61. I receive support from colleagues to advocate for the
profession.
Strongly Disagree
7
1.8
Disagree
10
2.6
Somewhat Disagree
15
3.8
Neither Agree nor Disagree
40
10.3
Table 27 (continued from page 144)
Item n
% M
SD
Somewhat Agree
100
25.6
Agree
134
34.4
Strongly Agree
84
21.5
Total
62. I receive support from counselor educators and
390
100.0
5.45
1.34
professors to advocate for the profession.
Strongly Disagree
16
4.1
Disagree
22
5.6
Somewhat Disagree
17
4.4
Neither Agree nor Disagree
64
16.4
Somewhat Agree
67
17.2
Agree
112
28.7
Strongly Agree
92
23.6
Total
390
100.0
5.17
1.65
63. I receive support from supervisors to advocate for the
profession.
Strongly Disagree
25
6.5
Disagree
29
7.5
Somewhat Disagree
28
7.2
Neither Agree nor Disagree
74
19.1
Somewhat Agree
73
18.9
Agree
95
24.5
Strongly Agree
63
16.3
Total
64. I receive support from associations to advocate for the
387
100.0
4.75
1.74
profession.
Strongly Disagree
5
1.3
Disagree
8
2.1
Somewhat Disagree
13
3.4
Neither Agree nor Disagree
57
14.7
Table 27 (continued from page 145)
Item
n
%
M
SD
64. I receive support from associations to advocate for the
profession
Somewhat Agree
84
21.6
Agree
142
36.6
Strongly Agree
79
20.4
Total
388
100.0
5.45
1.29
Factor Analysis Used to Assist in the Analysis of Research Questions 10-15
While it wasn‟t initially part of the original design for instrument development, a
principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation was conducted to minimize the
number of variables in the analysis of Research Questions 10-15 and thus to simplify the
interpretation items that I deemed similar in the questionnaire. This exploratory factor analysis
involved the generation of a correlational matrix, extraction of initial factor data, rotation and
interpretation of the generated factors, and the construction of subscales to use in further
analysis. This process is recommended in the literature as a means of reducing a large number of
items from a survey into a small number of components for ease in analysis (Costello &
Osborne, 2005; DiStefano, Zhu, & Mindrila, 2009; Hair et al., 2006; Line, 1994). After the
correlational matrix was constructed, the extraction method yielded three components identified
by using the eigenvalues greater than 1.00. The practice of using eigenvalues greater than 1.00 to
establish the number of isolated factors is documented in the research literature and is standard
when using statistical programs such as SPSS (Flynn-Thapalia, 2011) The factors were then
rotated using the varimax rotation method with Kaiser normalization which produced a rotated
factor matrix and allowed for the exploration of the factor loadings which were used to interpret
the meaning of the factors. DiStefano et al. suggest that this factor rotation is optimal and allows
for researchers to determine which factors are linked together with the understanding that an item
is more closely linked to a factor the higher the absolute value of the loading (ranging from -1.0
to 1.0). He also posits that the pattern identified by the factor loadings can be used to interpret the
underlying factors and is typically dependent on the decisions made by the researcher. Although
the cut-off value is admittedly arbitrary, Distefano et al. (2009) has indicated that it is common
practice to establish a cut-off marker to consider the item‟s relationship to each factor and to use
as a criterion for using the factor loadings to justify summing the identified items into a summed
score (subscale) for meaning, parsimony, and any further analysis. For this study, .40 was used
as the minimum for the cutoff. Finally, summated scores were developed by adding the original
scores for each of the items and developing the newly constructed factors. This nonrefined
method has been documented in research literature and since these scales are exploratory this
method preserves the variability in the original data as recommended by Hair et al. (2006).
Names were then given to the factors based on the knowledge of the literature and previous
research.
The advocacy activities, items 30-42, were analyzed producing three factors that were
extracted from the original 13 items. The findings from the analysis are presented in Table 28.
Items 30-32 seemed to have the most commonality to the first factor, renamed professional
counselor self-advocacy with loadings of 0.72, 0.87 and 0.79. Factor 2, renamed community
outreach and involvement, is comprised of items 35, 36, 37, 42 with loadings of 0.57, 0.55, 0.63,
0.44, respectively. Items 33-34 had high loadings, 0.79 and 0.79 for the third factor, renamed
professional alliance building. The remaining items had minimal associations to the factors. Item
38 had a low association and was equally distributed through all factors (0.28, 0.26, and 0.23).
Item 39 had an even lower association with the three factors (0.19, 0.21, and 0.09). Item 40 was
shown to be related to both factor 1 and 2, but had a fairly low association to them (0.23, 0.35).
In light of the findings and the research literature cited, correlations were calculated using Factor
1, professional counselor self-advocacy; Factor 2, community outreach and involvement; Factor
3, professional alliance building, and the remaining items 38-40.
Table 28
Principal Components Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation for Items 30-42 for Research
Questions 10-15
Items
Factor
1
2
3
30. I educate other professionals (i.e., social workers,
psychologists, psychiatrists, nurses, administrators, and
educators) about counselor preparation, licensure and
abilities.
.719
.206
.195
31. I educate other professionals (i.e., social workers,
psychologists, psychiatrists, nurses, administrators, and
educators) about the role of a counselor.
.869
.175
.210
32. I educate other professionals (i.e., social workers,
psychologists, psychiatrists, nurses, administrators, and
educators) about the similarities and differences of counseling to
other professions.
.793
.175
.193
33. I build alliances with other professionals (i.e., social
workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, nurses, administrators,
and educators) regarding consumer and/or professional
issues.
.231
.142
.790
34. I build alliances with other counselors (school, mental
health, rehabilitation, college, private practice, etc.)
regarding consumer and/or professional issues.
.266
.192
.792
Table 28 (continued from 148)
Items
Factor
1
2
3
35. I conduct service projects in the community representing
the counseling profession.
.116
.568
.340
36. I create multi-media activities informing the public about
client issues and/or awareness of the counseling profession.
.124
.589
.250
37. I conduct and publish research on the counseling theories
and techniques that I use.
.096
.546
.070
38. I educate, model and promote prevention and wellness
strategies.
.279
.263
.225
39. I belong to one or more professional association for
counselors.
.194
.210
.092
40. I attend at least one conference for the counseling profession
a year.
.236
.347
.041
41. I belong to one or more board or committee within the
counseling profession.
.099
.624
.011
42. I participate in legislative activities such as letter writing
campaigns and contacting members of congress regarding job
opportunities, scope of practice, and systemic barriers to
employment for counselors.
.176
.439
.096
Note. Boldface indicates significant factor loadings.
Research Question 10
This study was completed to determine whether there is a relationship between
professional counselor‟s perception of their ability to advocate for the profession and their
perception of their involvement in professional advocacy activities. Pearson product moment
correlations were used to answer this research question using a conservative alpha level to
determine significance (p. <.01). Data were gathered from Item 1 and from items related to
advocacy activities, factors 1-3 and Items 38-40. The first correlation was computed between
Factor 1, professional counselor self-advocacy and Item 1, I know how to advocate for the
profession. A significant correlation with a small effect size was found (r (390) = .340, r2 = .116.
p < .000) between the two variables. The second correlation was computed between Factor 2,
outreach and involvement, and Item 1, I know how to advocate for the profession. A significant
correlation with a small effect size was found (r (390) = .390, r2 = .152. p < .000) between the
two variables. The third correlation was computed between Factor 3, alliance building, and Item
1, I know how to advocate for the profession. A significant correlation with a marginal effect size
was found (r (390) = .306, r2 = .094. p < .000) between the two variables. The fourth correlation
was computed between Item 38, I educate, model and promote prevention and wellness strategies
and Item 1, I know how to advocate for the profession. A significant correlation with a small
effect size was found (r (390) = .199, r2 = .040. p < .000) between the two variables. The fifth
correlation was computed between Item 39, I belong to one or more professional associations for
counselors, and Item 1, I know how to advocate for the profession.
A significant correlation with a small effect size was found (r (390) = .241, r2 = .058. p < .000).
The sixth correlation was computed between Item 40, I attend at least one conference for the
profession a year and Item 1, I know how to advocate for the profession. A significant correlation
with a small effect size was found (r (390) = .218, r2 = .048. p < .000). Based on the results of
these correlations, participants indicated that they agree highly that they would be involved in
outreach and involvement activities if they perceive they know how to advocate. Also, since I
know how to advocate for the profession was significantly correlated to all factors related
professional counselor advocacy activities, participants indicated that if they know how to
advocate they will conduct all professional self-advocacy activities. The means and standard
deviations for Question 10 are listed Table 29.
Table 29
Means and Standard Deviations for items 1 and 33-45 for Research Question 10 (n = 390)
Item M SD
1. I know how to advocate for the profession.
5.06
1.48
Advocacy Activities:
Factor 1. Professional counselor self-advocacy
15.73
3.69
Factor 2. Outreach and involvement
17.11
6.57
Factor 3. Alliance building
11.53
2.28
38. I educate, model and promote prevention and wellness
strategies.
5.67
1.27
39. I belong to one or more professional
association for counselors.
6.51
0.73
40. I attend at least one conference for the
counseling profession a year.
5.64
1.70
Note. Factors 1-3 are the factors created by the principal components factor analysis with
varimax rotation conducted to minimize the number of variables. This method simplifies the
interpretation of the factors and assists in validating the instrument. Scores for factors 1-3 could
range from 3- 21 while scores for items 38-40 range from 1-7
Research Question 11
One of the purposes of the study was to determine if there was a correlation between
professional counselors‟ level of participating in professional advocacy efforts and their
perceived level of skill to engage in professional advocacy activities. Pearson product moment
correlations were used to answer this research question and data were gathered from advocacy
skills, Items 16-23, and from items related to advocacy activities, factors 1-3 and items 38-40. A
conservative alpha level was used to determine significance (p. < .01). Means and standard
deviations for Question 11 are listed in Table 30.
The first set of correlations for Question 11 was computed between Factor 1, professional
counselor self-advocacy and items 16-23. A significant correlation with a large effect size was
found (r (390) = .425, r2 = .181. p < .000) between professional counselor self-advocacy and take
an educational approach. Significant correlations with small effect sizes were found between
professional counselor self-advocacy and Item 17, acceptance (r (390) = .362, r2 = .131. p <
.000); Item 18, relationship building (r (390) = .333, r2 = .111. p < .000); Item 19, emotional
independence (r (390) = .287, r2 = .082. p < .000); Item 20, realistic goal setting (r (390) = .305,
r2 = .093. p < .000); Item 22, public speaking (r (390) = .349, r2 = .122. p < .000), Item 23 writing
skills(r (390) = .243, r2 = .059. p < .000) and Item 21, time management and organizational
skills.
The second set of correlations for Question 11 was computed between Factor 2, outreach
and involvement, and items 16-23. The means and standard deviations are presented in Table 29.
Significant correlations with small effect sizes were found between Factor 2, outreach and
involvement, and Item 16, (r (390) = .289, r2 = .084. p <.000; Item 20, (r (390) = .343, r2 = .118.
p < .000); Item 22, (r (390) = .357, r2 = .127. p < .000) and Item 23, (r (390) = .235, r2 = .055. p
< .000). Outreach and involvement produced significant correlations with small effect sizes with
Item 17, (r (390) = .200, r2 = .040. p < .000; Item 18, (r (390) = .173, r2 = .030. p < .001); Item
19, (r (390) = .183, r2 = .033. p < .000) and Item 21 (r (390) = .229, r2 = .052. p < .000).
The third set of correlations for Question 11 was computed between Factor 3, alliance
building, and items 16-23. A significant correlation with a medium effect size (r (390) = .386, r2
= .149. p < .000) was found between alliance building and Item 16, take an educational
approach. Significant correlations with medium effect sizes were found between Factor 3,
alliance building and Item 17, (r (390) = .291, r2 = .085 p <.000; Item 18, (r (390) = .337, r2 =
.114. p < .000); Item 19, (r (390) = .240, r2 = .058. p < .000); Item 20, (r (390) = .340, r2 = .116. p
< .000) Item 21, (r (390) = .264, r2 = .070. p < .000); Item 22, (r (390) = .250, r2 = .063. p <
.000); and Item 23, (r (390) = .205, r2 = .042. p < .000 producing a small effect size.
The fourth set of correlations for Question 11 was computed between Item 38, I educate,
model and promote prevention and wellness, and items 16-23. Significant correlations with small
effect sizes were found between Item 38 and Item 16, take an educational approach (r (390) =
.275, r2 = .076. p <.000); Item 17 acceptance (r (390) = .256, r2 = .066. p < .000); Item 18,
relationship building (r (390) = .264, r2 = .070. p < .000); Item 19, emotional independence, (r
(390) = .231, r2 = .053. p < .000); and Item 22, public speaking (r (390) = .299, r2 = .090. p <
.000). Significant correlations with small effect sizes were also found between Item 38 and Item
20, realistic goal setting (r (390) = .230, r2 = .053. p <.000; Item 21, time management/
organizational skills (r (390) = .197, r2 = .039. p < .000); Item 23, writing skills (r (390) = .180,
r2 = .032. p <.000).
The fifth set of correlations for Question 11 was computed between Item 39, I belong to
one or more professional association for counselors and items 16-23. Significant correlations
were found between item 39 and Item 17, (r (390) = .151, r2 = .023. p <.003; Item 18, (r (390) =
.147, r2 = .022. p < .004); Item 19, (r (390) = .176, r2 = .031. p < .000); Item 20, (r (390) = .140,
r2 = .020. p < .006); and Item 22, public speaking (r (390) = .171, r2 = .030. p < .001) producing
small effect sizes.
The sixth set of correlations for Question 11 was computed between Item 40, I attend at
least one conference for the profession a year and items 16-23. Significant correlations with
small effect sizes were found between Item 40 and Item 16, (r (390) = .162, r2 = .026. p <.001;
Item 17, (r (390) = .163, r2 = .027. p < .001); Item 18, (r (390) = .156, r2 = .024. p < .002); Item
19, (r (390) = .170, r2 = .029. p < .001); Item 20, (r (390) = .142, r2 = . 020. p < .005); Item 21, (r
(390) = .147, r2 = . 022. p < .004); and Item 22, (r (390) = .149, r2 = .022. p < .003). Based on
these results, the more professional counselors believe that they have skills the more they will
conduct these advocacy activities. Also, belonging to a professional association does not related
to counselors taking an educational approach or using writing skills to advocate. The results also
indicate that it is necessary to take an educational approach when involved in professional self
advocacy and outreach and involvement activities. Attending a conference did not produce any
significant correlations to any of the advocacy activities, indicating that attending a conference
does not have a strong relationship to professional counselors advocating.
Table 30
Means and Standard Deviations for Items 16-23, Factors 1-3 and Items 38-40 for Research
Question 11 (n =390)
Item M SD
I believe that I have the following skills to conduct professional advocacy:
16. Take an educational approach
5.81
1.08
17. Acceptance (i.e. inclusive nature, embracing
differences)
6.18
0.82
18. Relationship building (i.e. communication
skills, listening skills)
6.39
0.78
19. Emotional independence
5.96
1.00
20. Realistic goal setting (i.e. assess needs, define
goals, implement research-based interventions,
evaluate outcomes)
5.88
1.04
21. Time management and organizational skill
5.87
1.02
Table 30 (continued from page 154)
Item M
SD
22. Public speaking
5.64
1.41
23. Writing skills
5.92
1.12
Advocacy Activities:
Factor 1. Professional counselor self-advocacy
15.73
3.69
Factor 2. Outreach and involvement
17.11
6.57
Factor 3. Alliance building
11.53
2.28
38. I educate, model and promote prevention and wellness
strategies.
5.67
1.27
39. I belong to one or more professional
association for counselors.
6.51
0.73
40. I attend at least one conference for the
counseling profession a year.
5.64
1.70
Note. Factors 1-3 are the factors created by the principal components factor analysis with
varimax rotation conducted to minimize the number of variables. This method simplifies the
interpretation of the factors and assists in validating the instrument. Scores for factors 1-3 could
range from 3- 21 while items 38-40 could range from 1-7.
Research Question 12
The study was conducted to determine if there was a correlation between professional
counselors‟ perceived level of participation in professional advocacy efforts and their perception
of their professional advocacy qualities. Pearson product moment correlations were used to
answer this research question using a conservative alpha level to determine significance (p.
<.01). Data were gathered from advocacy qualities, items 24-29, and from items related to
advocacy activities, factors 1-3 and items 38-40. The means and standard deviations for Question
12 are listed in Table 31.
Correlations were computed for Factor 1, professional counselor self-advocacy, and items
24-29. Significant correlations with small effect sizes were found between professional counselor
self-advocacy and Item 24 interest/passion, (r (390) = .293, r2 = .086. p < .000); Item 25,
commitment (r (390) = .256, r2 = .066. p < .000); Item 26, resilience (r (390) = .258, r2 = .067. p
< .000); Item 27, tough/forceful (r (390) = .335, r2 = .112. p < .000); Item 29, self-confident (r
(390) = .329, r2 = .108. p < .000). Professional counselor self-advocacy was correlated to Item
28, producing a significant correlation with a small effect size (r (390) = .216, r2 = .033. p <
.000).
Correlations for Question 12 were computed between Factor 2, outreach and involvement
and items 24-29. Factor 2, outreach and involvement was significantly correlated to Item 24, (r
(390) = .328, r2 = .106. p <.000); Item 25, (r (390) = .347, r2 = .120. p <.000); Item 26, (r (390)
= .301, r2 = .091. p <.000); Item 27, (r (390) = .291, r2 = .085. p <.000); and Item 29, (r (390) =
.256, r2 = .066 p <.000), producing small effect sizes. Outreach and involvement was also
correlated to Item 28, (r (390) = .207, r2 = .043. p <.000) producing a significant correlation and
small effect size.
The third set of correlations for Question 12 was computed between Factor 3, alliance
building, and items 24-29. A significant correlation with a small effect size (r (390) = .371, r2 =
.138. p < .000) was found between alliance building and Item 24, Interest/passion (i.e., drive,
enthusiasm). Significant correlations with small effect sizes were found between Factor 3,
alliance building, and Item 25, (r (390) = .316, r2 = .10. p <.000); Item 26, (r (390) = .320, r2 =
.102. p < .000); Item 27, (r (390) = .247, r2 = .061 p < .000); Item 28, (r (390) = .241, r2 = .000. p
< .000); and Item 29, (r (390) = .271, r2 = .073. p < .000).
Correlations for Question 12 were computed between Item 38, I educate, model and
promote prevention and wellness and items 24-29. Item 38 and Item 29, (r (390) = .285, r2 = 081.
p < .000) produced a significant correlation with a small effect size. Significant correlations with
small effect sizes were found between item 38 and Item 24, interest and passion (r (390) = .208,
r2 = .043. p < .000); Item 25, commitment (r (390) = .184, r2 = .034. p < .000); Item 26,
resilience/persistence (r (390) = .205, r2 = .042. p < .000); and Item 27, tough/forceful (r (390) =
.200, r2 = .040. p < .000); and Item 28, life-long learner (r (390) = .202, r2 = 041. p <.000).
The fifth set of correlations for Question 12 was computed between Item 39, I belong to
one or more professional association for counselors and items 24-29. A significant correlation
with small effect size was found between item 39 and Item 28, (r (390) = .156, r2 = 024. p
<.002).
The sixth set of correlations for Question 12 was computed between Item 40, I attended at
least one conference for the profession a year and items 24-29. Significant correlations with
small effect sizes were found between Item 40 and Item 24, (r (390) = .135, r2 = .018. p <.008);
Item 25, (r (390) = .138, r2 = .019. p < .007); and Item 27, (r (390) = .139, r2 = .019. p < .006).
The results indicate that if counselors believe they have these qualities then they could
engage in professional advocacy activities. Alliance-building produced the only medium effect
size for this research question with the quality interest/passion indicating that those with this
quality are more likely to be involved in professional advocacy. It is also important to note that
belonging to one or more associations was correlated with only a small effect to one quality,
lifelong learner.
Table 31
Means and Standard Deviations for items 24-29 and Factors 1-3 and Items 38-40 for Research
Question 12 (n = 390)
Item M SD
I believe I have the following qualities to conduct professional
advocacy:
24. Interest/Passion (i.e. drive, enthusiasm)
5.69
1.30
25. Commitment
5.72
1.26
26. Resilience, persistence
5.82
1.18
27. Tough, forceful
4.85
1.49
28. Life-long learner
6.42
0.85
29. Self-confident
6.05
0.95
Advocacy Activities:
Factor 1. Professional counselor self-advocacy
15.73
3.69
Factor 2. Outreach and involvement
17.11
6.57
Factor 3. Alliance building
11.53
2.28
38. I educate, model and promote prevention and wellness
strategies.
5.67
1.27
39. I belong to one or more professional
association for counselors.
6.51
0.73
40. I attend at least one conference for the
counseling profession a year.
5.64
1.70
Note. Factors 1-3 are the factors created by the principal components factor analysis with
varimax rotation conducted to minimize the number of variables. This method simplifies the
interpretation of the factors and assists in validating the instrument. Scores for factors 1-3 could
range from 3-21 while scores for items 38-40 could range from 1-7.
Research Question 13
The study was conducted to determine if there was a correlation between professional
counselors‟ level of participating in professional advocacy efforts and their perception of the
importance or need to advocate. Pearson product moment correlations were used to answer this
research question using a conservative alpha level to determine significance (p. <.01). Data were
gathered from questions related to the importance and need to advocate, items 43-47 and from
items related to advocacy activities, factors 1-3 and items 38-40. The means and standard
deviations for Question 13 are listed Table 32.
Factor 1, professional counselor self-advocacy and items 43-47 produced significant
correlations. A medium effect size was found between Factor 1 and Item 44, I believe counselors
must improve the public and professional image of counselors (r (390) = .242, r2 = .059. p <
.000) and a small effect size was found between Factor 1 and Item 43, I think it is important to
advocate for the profession of counseling (r (390) = .233, r2 = .054. p < .000). The second set of
correlations for Question 13 was computed between Factor 2, outreach and involvement and
items 43-47. Significant correlations with small effect sizes were found between Factor 2,
outreach and involvement and Item 43, (r (390) = .220, r2 = .048. p <.000) and Item 44, (r (390)
= .234, r2 = .055. p <.000). Correlations were computed between Factor 3, alliance building and
items 43-47 and a significant correlation with a small effect size was found between Factor 3,
alliance building and Item 43, (r (390) = .272, r2 = .074. p <.000). A significant correlation with a
small effect size was found between Factor 3 and Item 44, (r (390) = .233, r2 = .054. p <.000).
Correlations for Question 13 were computed between Item 38, I educate, model and promote
prevention and wellness and items 43-47. Only one significant correlation with a small effect size
was found between Item 38 and Item 44, (r (390) = .149, r2 = .022. p < .003). Item 39, I belong to
one or more professional association for counselors was correlated to items 43-47. A significant
correlation with small effect size was found between Item 39 and Item 43, (r (390) = .249, r2 =
062. p < .000) and a significant correlation with a small effect size was found between item 39
and Item 44, (r (390) = .159, r2 = 025. p <.002). Correlations for Question 13 were computed
between Item 40, I attend at least one conference for the profession a year and items
43-47. Significant correlations with a small effect size were found between Item 40 and Item 43,
(r (390) = .170, r2 = .029. p <.001) and between Item 40 and Item 44, (r (390) = .173, r2 = .030. p
< .001).
The results indicate that counselors who are concerned about improving the public and
professional image of counselors and the importance of advocating for the profession of
counseling (r (390) = .233, r2 = .054. p < .000) are likely to conduct professional counselor
selfadvocacy. I educate, model and promote prevention and wellness strategies also shows a
relationship to I believe that counselors must improve the public and professional image of
counselors. This correlation means that if counselors want to improve the public opinion of the
counseling profession they could educate, model and promote prevention and wellness strategies.
Several importance/need items (e.g., lack of insurance coverage, and I have a need to advocate
for myself other than for the profession of counseling) shared no significant correlations with
advocacy activities, meaning that these items do not compel counselors to participate in
professional advocacy activities.
Table 32
Means and Standard Deviations for items 43-47 and Factors 1-3 and Items 38-40 for Research
Question 13. (n = 390)
Item M SD
Importance/Need to Advocate:
43. I think it is important to advocate for the
profession of counseling
6.43
.794
(continued)
44. I believe counselors must improve the public
and professional image of counselors
6.38
.817
45. I have lost clients due to the lack of insurance coverage for
counselors
4.38
2.12
46. I have been denied jobs in schools, mental
health or other settings due to my degree/license as
a counselor
3.82
2.19
47. I have a need to advocate for myself other than for
the profession of counseling
4.22
1.68
Advocacy Activities:
Factor 1. Professional counselor self-advocacy
15.73
3.69
Factor 2. Outreach and involvement
17.11
6.57
Factor 3. Alliance building
11.53
2.28
38. I educate, model and promote prevention and wellness
strategies.
5.67
1.27
39. I belong to one or more professional
association for counselors.
6.51
0.73
40. I attend at least one conference for the
counseling profession a year.
5.64
1.70
Note. Factors 1-3 are the factors created by the principal components factor analysis with
varimax rotation conducted to minimize the number of variables. This method simplifies the
interpretation of the factors and assists in validating the instrument. Scores for factors 1-3 could
range from 3-21 while scores for items 38-40 could range from 1-7.
Research Question 14
One of the purposes of the study was to determine if there was a correlation between
professional counselors‟ level of participating in professional advocacy efforts and their
perception of the barriers to advocating. Pearson product moment correlations were used to
answer this research question using a conservative alpha level to determine significance (p.
<.01). Data were gathered from barriers to advocating, Items 48-59 and from items related to
advocacy activities, factors 1-3 and items 38-40. The means and standard deviations for Question
14 are listed in Table 33.
The first correlations were computed between Factor 1, professional counselor
selfadvocacy and items 48-59. A significant negative correlation with a medium effect size was
found (r (390) = -.372, r2 = .138. p < .000) between professional counselor self-advocacy and
Item 56, satisfied with the status of the counseling profession and a correlation with a medium
effect size, for Item 52, inability to explain my credentials (training, education, etc.), what I do
as a counselor, and/or how my profession compares to others (r (390) = -.224, r2 =.050. p < .000).
Significant negative correlations with small effect sizes were found between professional
counselor self-advocacy and Item 53, lack of position (r (390) = -.165, r2 = .027. p < .001) and
item 58, I would be seen as a “trouble-maker” (r (390) = -.134, r2 = .018. p < .008) Professional
counselor self-advocacy was positively correlated to Item 50, roadblocks caused by other
professionals (i.e. psychologists, social workers). The correlation was significant and had a small
effect size (r (390) = .176, r2 = .030. p < .000).
The second set of correlations for Question 14 was computed between Factor 2, outreach
and involvement, and items 48-59. Factor 2, and Item 55, not enough time had a significant and
negative correlation with a small effect size (r (390) = -.260, r2 = .068. p < .000). Significant
negative correlations with small effect sizes were found between Factor 2 and Item 52, inability
to explain my credentials (training, education, etc.), what I do as a counselor, and/or how my
profession compares to others (r (390) = - .203, r2 = .041. p <.000) and Item 54, insufficient
funds (r (390) = -.164, r2 = .027. p < .001). Positive, significant correlations were also found
between Factor 2 and Item 48, lack of leadership in the counseling field (r (390) = .205, r2 =
.042. p < .000) and Item 49, lack of collaboration within the profession on legislative advocacy
initiatives (r (390) = .176, r2 = .030. p < .000). Correlations were also computed between Factor
3, alliance-building and items 48-59. A significant positive correlation with a small effect size
was found between Factor 3, alliance building and Item 49, (r (390) = .132, r2 = .017. p <
.009).
The fourth set of correlations for Question 14 was computed between Item 38, “I educate,
model and promote prevention and wellness” and items 48-59. Item 38 and Item 55, not enough
time (r (390) = -.232, r2 = .054. p <.000) produced a significant, negative correlation with a
medium effect size. Significant, negative correlations with small effect sizes were found between
Item 38 and Item 51, insufficient knowledge of professional advocacy strategies (r (390) = -.170,
r2 = .029. p <.001; Item 52, (r (390) = -.209, r2 = .044. p < .000) and Item 57, (r (390) = -.210, r2
= .044. p < .000).
The fifth set of correlations for Question 14 was computed between Item 39, I belong to
one or more professional association for counselors and items 48-59. Significant, negative
correlations with small effect sizes were found between item 39 and Item 52, Inability to explain
my credentials (training, education, etc.), what I do as a counselor, and/or how my profession
compares to others (r (390) = -.169, r2 = .029. p <.001); Item 55, not enough time (r (390) = -
.169, r2 = .029. p < .001) and a positive correlation with Item 57, satisfied with the status of the
counseling profession (r (390) = .146, r2 = .021. p < .004).
The final correlations for Question 14 were computed between Item 40, I attend at least
one conference for the profession a year and items 48-59. A significant, positive correlation with
a small effect size was found between Item 40 and Item 49, lack of collaboration within the
profession on legislative advocacy initiatives (r (390) = .157, r2 = .025. p <.002) and a
significant, negative correlation existed between Item 40 and Item 55, not enough time (r (390)
= -.173, r2 = .030. p < .001).
Results indicate that there is both a negative and positive statistically significant
correlation between the professional counselors‟ level of participating in professional advocacy
activities and their perception of barriers to advocating. All of the professional advocacy
activities have negative relationships to several barriers which indicates that the more
professional counselors conduct professional advocacy activities the less they perceive there are
barriers or the less they perceive there are barriers the more they participate in advocacy. Positive
correlations were noted between professional-self advocacy and roadblocks caused by other
professionals (i.e., psychologists, social workers) denoting that the more participants perceived
there were roadblocks, the more they reported self-advocating. Extremely important is the fact
that outreach and involvement was positively correlated to the lack of leadership in the
counseling field and to lack of collaboration within the profession on legislative advocacy
initiatives, indicating that the more professional counselors were involved in outreach and
involvement the more they perceived that there is a lack of leadership in the field and of
collaboration within the profession on legislative advocacy initiatives.
Table 33
Means and Standard Deviations for items 48-59 and Factors 1-3 and Items 38-40 for Research
Question 14. (n = 390)
Item M SD
Barriers:
48. Lack of leadership in the counseling field
4.80
1.51
49. Lack of collaboration within the profession on
legislative advocacy initiatives
5.27
1.56
50. Roadblocks caused by other professionals (i.e.
psychologists, social workers)
5.00
1.52
51. Insufficient knowledge of professional advocacy
strategies
2.76
1.68
52. Inability to explain my credentials (training,
education, etc.), what I do as a counselor, and/or
how my profession compares to others
3.66
1.83
53. Lack of position
4.69
1.71
54. Insufficient funds
5.32
1.48
55. Not enough time
3.62
1.73
56. Lack of skill level to advocate
3.04
1.55
57. Satisfied with the status of the counseling
profession
2.68
1.56
58. I would be seen as a "trouble maker"
3.47
1.38
59. Other
4.43
1.62
Advocacy Activities:
Factor 1. Professional counselor self-advocacy 15.73 3.69
Factor 2. Outreach and involvement 17.11 6.57
Factor 3. Alliance building 11.53 2.28
Table 33 (continued from page 165)
Item M SD
38. I educate, model and promote prevention and
wellness strategies.
5.67
1.27
39. I belong to one or more professional
association for counselors.
6.51
0.73
40. I attend at least one conference for the
counseling profession a year.
5.64
1.70
Note. Factors 1-3 are the factors created by the principal components factor analysis with
varimax rotation conducted to minimize the number of variables. This method simplifies the
interpretation of the factors and assists in validating the instrument. Scores for factors 1-3 could
range from 3-21 while scores for items 38-40 could range from 1-7.
Research Question 15
The final research question was completed to determine if there was a correlation
between professional counselors‟ level of participating in professional advocacy efforts and their
perceived level of support they received from counselor educators, supervisors, associations and
colleagues. Pearson product moment correlations were used to answer this research question
using a conservative alpha level to determine significance (p. <.01). Data were gathered from the
questions related to support for advocating, Items 61-64, and from items related to advocacy
activities, factors 1-3 and items 38-40. The means and standard deviations for Question 15 are
listed in Table 34.
The first set of correlations for Question 15 was computed between Factor 1, professional
counselor self-advocacy, and items 61-64. A significant, positive correlation with a medium
effect size was found (r (390) = .265, r2 = .019. p < .000) between professional counselor
selfadvocacy and Item 62, I receive support from counselor educators and professors to advocate
for the profession. Significant positive correlations with small effect sizes were found between
professional counselor self-advocacy and Item 61, I receive support from colleagues to advocate
for the profession (r (390) = .145, r2 =.021. p < .004) and Item 64, I receive support from
associations to advocate for the profession (r (390) = .187, r2 = .035. p < .000). Correlations
were also completed between Factor 2 and Items 61-63. Factor 2, outreach and involvement and
Item 61, counselors receive support from colleagues to advocate for the profession produced a
significant and positive correlation with a small effect size (r (390) = .239, r2 = .014. p < .000).
Significant positive correlations with small effect sizes were found between Factor 2 and Item
62, I receive support from counselor educators and professors to advocate for the profession (r
(390) = .216, r2 = .047. p <.000) and Item 63, support from supervisors to advocate for the
profession (r (387) = .161, r2 = .026. p < .002) and Item 64, support from associations to
advocate for the profession (r (388) = .182, r2 = .033. p < .000).
Correlations for Question 15 were computed between Factor 3, alliance-building and
items 61-64. A significant, positive correlation with a medium effect size was found between
Factor 3, alliance building and Item 61 (r (390) = .254, r2 = .065. p < .009). Significant, positive
correlations with small effect sizes were found between Factor 3 and Item 62, (r (390) = .165, r2
= .027. p <.001) and Item 63, (r (387) = .178, r2 = .032. p < .000) and Item 64, (r (388) = .150, r2
= .023. p < .003). The fourth correlations for Question 15 were completed between Item 38, I
educate, model and promote prevention and wellness, and items 61-64 producing significant,
positive correlations with small effect sizes between Item 38 and Item 61, (r (390) = .206, r2 =
.042. p <.000) and Item 64, (r (388) = .153, r2 = .023. p <.003).
Correlations were computed between Item 39, I belong to one or more professional
association for counselors and items 61-64 producing significant, positive correlations between
item 39 and Item 61, (r (390) = .169, r2 = .029. p <.001) and Item 64, (r (388) = .140, r2 = .020. p
< .006). Each had small effect sizes. Item 40, I belong to at least one conference for the
profession a year and items 61-64 were also correlated. Significant, positive correlations with
small effect sizes were found between Item 40 and Item 61, I receive support from colleagues to
advocate for the profession (r (390) = .182, r2 = .033. p <.000); Item 62, I receive support from
counselor educators and professors to advocate for the profession (r (390) = .158, r2 = .025. p <
.002) and Item 64, I receive support from associations to advocate for the profession (r (388) =
.142, r2 = .020. p < .005).
The results suggests that the greater the level of support from leaders in the field, the
more professional counselors will be involved in advocacy activities related to outreach and
involvement and alliance building. These two professional advocacy activities were the only two
items that were correlated to counselors reporting that they received support from supervisors to
advocate for the profession, indicating that professional counselors are more apt to advocate with
outreach and involvement and alliance building type activities if they receive support from
supervisors. Overall, the results indicate that professional counselors are more apt to be involved
in advocacy activities if they feel support from their colleagues, supervisors, counselor educators
and professional associations.
Table 34
Means and Standard Deviations for items 60-64 and Factors 1-3 and Items 38-40 for Research
Question 15.(n = 390)
Item M SD
61. I receive support from colleagues to advocate for the
profession.
5.45
1.34
62. I receive support from counselor educators and
professors to advocate for the profession.
5.17
1.65
63. I receive support from supervisors to advocate for the
profession.
4.75
1.74
Table 34 (continued from page168)
Item
M
SD
64. I receive support from associations to advocate for
the profession.
5.45
1.29
Advocacy Activities:
Factor 1. Professional counselor self-advocacy
15.73
3.69
Factor 2. Outreach and involvement
17.11
6.57
Factor 3. Alliance building
11.53
2.28
38. I educate, model and promote prevention and wellness
strategies.
5.67
1.27
39. I belong to one or more professional
association for counselors.
6.51
0.73
40. I attend at least one conference for the
counseling profession a year.
5.64
1.70
Note. Factors 1-3 are the factors created by the principal components factor analysis with
varimax rotation conducted to minimize the number of variables. This method simplifies the
interpretation of the factors and assists in validating the instrument. Scores for factors 1-3 could
range from 3-21 while scores for items 38-40 could range from 1-7.
Summary
This chapter presented the results of this research study. The results of research questions
1-15 were reported. Research questions 1- 5 were asked to explore the knowledge, skills and
qualities endorsed by professional counselors. The results indicated that of the 390 participants,
305 (78.2%) agreed at some level that they know how to advocate for the profession and nearly
43% of the respondents reported they strongly agree that they know how to advocate. When
asked about the sources where this knowledge was gained, most participants, 79.7% (n = 311)
reported gaining knowledge of professional advocacy from publications and that the knowledge
was modeled or taught by others 76.9% (n = 300) Surprisingly, results related to the educational
program indicated that 47% of the respondents did not gain knowledge of professional advocacy
from their educational program and of those who reportedly gained knowledge, nearly 30%
reported not gaining much knowledge. Approximately 64% of the participants also reported that
they gained knowledge of professional advocacy from conferences and workshops and less than
half of the participants, 43.3% (n = 169) reported gaining knowledge of professional advocacy
from websites.
Respondents were also asked to report the sources (i.e., educational programs,
conferences and workshops, publications, websites, and by modeling) of their knowledge.
Participants reportedly gained most knowledge from their master‟s educational programs in
counselor education. ACA sources (conferences, publications, etc.) were noted most often
followed by the “other” category, which represented sources other than ACA (national, regional,
state and local). Generally, the results indicated that ACA state and division associations also had
high representation, but Chi Sigma Iota and regional conferences and workshops received the
least endorsement. Participants reported gaining knowledge of professional advocacy from all
four types of individuals; colleagues with a counseling degree, colleagues with related degree,
LPC/LMHC supervisor, and other supervisor. Most individuals (87.1%) endorsed gaining
knowledge through observing professional advocacy modeled by colleagues with a counseling
degree.
Most participants agreed that they have all the skills listed to conduct professional
advocacy. Acceptance and relationship building had the highest percentage of agreement with
97% and 98.4% respectively. All items indicated a high level of agreement with means ranging
from 5.64 – 6.39. Participants held a high level of agreement with the quality of life-long learner
overwhelming at 97.5%, self-confidence at 95.1%, and resilience/persistence at 90.5%. Interest
and passion had a somewhat high level of agreement with 86.1%; and commitment and
tough/forceful attributes had the lowest level of agreement with 67% and 50.8%, respectively.
Most participants indicated a high level of agreement that they belonged to a professional
association (98.9%) which is probably directly related to the fact that the sample was taken from
the ACA database. Respondents identified at a rate of 77.1% to 91.7% that they attended at least
one conference a year, built alliances with other professionals (e.g., social workers,
psychologists, psychiatrists, nurses, administrators, and educators), built alliances with other
counselors (e.g., school, mental health, rehabilitation, college, private practice), and educated
other professionals about advocacy issues (88.2%).
For question 6, respondents overwhelmingly agreed with the statements of I think it is
important to advocate for the profession of counseling (n = 381, 97.7%) and I believe counselors
must improve the public and professional image of counselors (n = 378, 96.9%). Lower
percentages within the category of importance and need are reflected in the statements regarding
losing clients due to lack of insurance coverage (50.2%), being denied jobs (42%), and having a
need to advocate for self other than for the profession (41.8%).
Respondents were asked to indicate to what degree they believed that there are barriers to
participating in professional counselor advocacy for Question 7, Items 48-59. The top three
barriers included not enough time (75%), roadblocks caused by other professionals (73.1%), and
insufficient knowledge of professional advocacy strategies (69.8%). Lack of leadership in the
counseling field (52%), lack of collaboration within the profession on legislative activities
(62.8%), and insufficient funds (57.2) were each endorsed by a majority of the participants. The
lowest responses were from lack of skill level to advocate (35.6%), lack of position (35.4%),
inability to explain credentials (20%), satisfied with status of the counseling profession (18.2%)
and the statement I would be seen as a “trouble-maker” (14%).
Of the 390 respondents who reported that there were barriers to conducting professional
counselor advocacy, only 59 respondents chose to answer item 60. The question was analyzed by
the grounded theory approach, which utilized an open coding technique (see Cohen, Manion, &
Morrison, 2007). Five major issue-based themes were identified in the responses: 1) negative or
weak inter- professional relations (32%); 2) negative or weak intra-professional relations, (18%)
3) attitude toward professional advocacy (18%); 4) power differential/limited position (17%); 5)
and lack of knowledge/experience, (9%). Three participants noted individual
challenges/concerns. Findings identified negative or weak inter-professional relations (33%) as
the largest barrier self-reported. The most problematic area that professional counselors reported
the need to address was relationship, both intra- and inter-professionally, which accounted for
50% of the barriers listed.
Participants reported receiving the most support from colleagues (80%) and associations
(78%). Although the findings had better than majority percentages, professional counselors
perceived that counselor educators (69%) and supervisors (59%) were somewhat less supportive
than the other two categories.
Positive significant correlations were found between professional counselors‟ perceived
involvement in professional advocacy activities and all of the factors. Knowing how to advocate
for the profession was significantly correlated to all factors related to professional counselor
advocacy activities. In addition, the activities for outreach and involvement (r (390) = .390, r2 =
.152. p < .000) had the largest effect size of the group indicating a correlation with a small to
medium effect size. Participants indicated that they would be involved in outreach and
involvement activities if they perceive they know how to advocate.
The activities related of professional counselor self-advocacy, outreach and involvement,
alliance building and educating, modeling and promoting prevention and wellness strategies
correlated significantly to all eight skills and belonging to one or more professional association
for counselors was correlated to six. The analyses of taking an educational approach produced
the strongest effects of this group when correlated to the activities of professional self advocacy
(r (390) = .425, r2 = .181. p < .000) and outreach and involvement (r (390) = .386, r2 = .149. p <
.000), and indicated the necessity of approaching professional self advocacy and outreach and
involvement activities from an educational approach. Attending a conference did not produce any
significant relationships to any of the advocacy activities, indicating that attending conferences
does not have a strong relationship to professional counselors advocating.
Correlations between professional counselors‟ advocacy qualities and their involvement
in advocacy activities produced one medium, and several small effect sizes. Professional
counselor self-advocacy, outreach and involvement, and alliance building all produced positive
relationships with all of the advocacy qualities, indicating that if counselors believe they have
these qualities then they could engage in professional advocacy activities. Alliance building
produced the strongest correlation for this research question with the quality interest/passion,
indicating that those with this quality are more likely to be involved in professional advocacy. It
is also important to note that belonging to one or more associations was only mildly correlated to
one quality, being a life-long learner.
Participating in professional advocacy efforts was correlated to counselors‟ perception of
the importance or need to advocate. The importance of advocating and the belief that counselors
must improve the public and professional image of counselors were correlated to professional
self-advocacy, outreach and involvement, alliance building, I belong to one or more professional
association for counselors, and I attend at least one conference for the counseling profession a
year, producing mostly small effect sizes. This indicated that counselors who are concerned
about these two issues are likely to conduct those advocacy activities. I educate, model and
promote prevention and wellness strategies also showed a relationship to I believe that
counselors must improve to public and professional image of counselors. This correlation
suggests that if counselors want to improve the public opinion of the counseling profession they
could educate, model and promote prevention and wellness strategies. Several importance/need
items such as losing clients due to the lack of insurance coverage and having a need to advocate
for self other than for the profession of counseling shared no significant correlations with
advocacy activities.
Many significant negative and some positive correlations were found between barriers
and professional advocacy activities. All of the professional advocacy activities had negative
relationships to several barriers. In order of frequency, they were: inability to explain my
credentials (training, education, etc.), what I do as a counselor, and/or how my profession
compares to others (noted 4 times); not enough time (noted 3 times); satisfied with the status of
the counseling profession (noted 2 times); lack of position, I would be seen as a trouble maker;
insufficient funds; and insufficient knowledge (all noted one time). This indicates that the more
professional counselors conduct professional advocacy activities the less they perceive there are
barriers, or the less they perceive there are barriers the more they participate in advocacy.
Positive correlations were noted between professional-self advocacy and roadblocks caused by
other professionals (i.e., psychologists, social workers) denoting that the more participants
perceived there were roadblocks, the more they reported self-advocating. Extremely important
is the fact that outreach and involvement was positively correlated to the lack of leadership in
the counseling field and to lack of collaboration within the profession on legislative advocacy
initiatives indicating that the more professional counselors were involved in outreach and
involvement the more they perceived that there is a lack of leadership in the field and of
collaboration within the profession on legislative advocacy initiatives.
Outreach and involvement and alliance building produced significant correlations for all
support entities. These two professional advocacy activities were the only two items that were
correlated to receiving support from supervisors to advocate for the profession. In comparison,
the remaining professional advocacy activities, professional counselor self-advocacy, educating,
modeling and promoting prevention and wellness, belonging to one or more professional
association for counselors and attending at least one conference for the profession a year were
not positively correlated to participants reportedly receiving support from supervisors to
advocate for the profession.
Overall, results of this study indicated that professional counselors believe that they
participate in professional advocacy activities. Participants reported that they believe they also
have the knowledge, skills, and qualities to conduct those professional advocacy activities. They
endorsed the importance and need to conduct professional advocacy due to needing to improve
the public and professional image of counselors. Participants indicated the top three barriers to be
not enough time, roadblocks caused by other professionals, and insufficient knowledge of
professional advocacy strategies; however, participants generally find support to advocate in
colleagues, counselor educators, supervisors and professional associations. All variables have a
positive relationship to professional counselors conducting professional advocacy activities.
Additionally, several barriers produced significant, negative relationships with advocacy
activities.
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
This chapter summarizes and discusses the findings from this research study. Limitations,
implications for professional counselors, counselor educators and supervisors, and leaders in the
field, recommendations for future research and conclusions are also provided.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was to identify the perceptions of professional counselor
advocacy held by counselors of different backgrounds. The literature has suggested a number of
factors that influence the attitudes of professionals towards professional counselor advocacy
initiatives (Eriksen, 1999; Field & Baker, 2004; Myers & Sweeney, 2004; Patrick, 2007; White &
Semivan, 2006), including knowledge of professional advocacy principles, skills and traits,
actual advocacy activities utilized, perceived barriers to professional advocacy, and perceived
support to advocate. The results of this study provided insight into professional counselors‟
willingness and ability to advocate on behalf of the profession by identifying the attitudes of
counseling professionals regarding their knowledge of professional advocacy (and where they
gained this knowledge), skills and qualities endorsed; advocacy activities practiced; opinions on
the importance of and need to advocate; barriers encountered; and support gained from various
entities. By exploring the relationship between counseling professionals‟ attitudes toward
professional counselor advocacy and their perceived level of conducting professional counselor
advocacy activities, the results of the study provided insight into professional counselors‟
willingness and ability to advocate on behalf of the profession. These findings are discussed in
the next section.
Discussion of Findings
This study was built on several qualitative studies (Eriksen, 1999; Field & Baker, 2004;
White & Semivan, 2006) and one quantitative study (Myers & Sweeney, 2004). These studies
were conducted to conceptualize and define professional counselor advocacy as well as to
identify skills, values, beliefs and the actual process of advocacy for clients and the profession.
The studies delved into the perceived reasons and motivations for professional counselor
advocacy and noted several barriers to advocating. While the existing research defines
professional advocacy and assists the profession in related concepts, it does not provide
information on the beliefs of average professional counselors in the field of professional
counselor advocacy. My study assessed professional counselors‟ perceptions of activities,
knowledge about professional counselor advocacy and the avenue in which they gained this
knowledge, skills and qualities, importance/need, barriers and support of professional counselor
advocacy. I also examined what participants perceived as their barriers to advocacy.
I created the Professional Counselor Advocacy Inventory (PCAI) for this study with the
specific purpose of determining professional counselors‟ perceptions of their level of: (a)
involvement, b) knowledge and where they gained this knowledge, (c) skill, (d) qualities, (e)
importance and need (f) identified barriers, and (f) support related to professional counselor
advocacy.
Discussion of Participants’ Perceived Efforts to Conduct Professional Counselor Advocacy
One the most important objectives of this study was to examine the perceived level of
involvement in professional advocacy activities by professional counselors who are professional
members of ACA. Several variables related to professional advocacy activities were analyzed.
Another important objective of this study was to determine the relationship between professional
counselors‟ inclination to be involved in professional counselor activities and their perception of
their knowledge, skill level, qualities, importance/need, barriers, and support for professional
advocacy. The relationships between the efforts to conduct advocacy and the other variables will
be discussed in the remaining discussion sections of this chapter. This section focuses on the
frequency of advocacy activities that were endorsed by the participants.
Many of the professional advocacy activities that were researched were highly endorsed;
however, several were not. Participants indicated a high level of agreement that they belong to a
professional association (98.9%). This high percentage may be directly related to the fact that the
sample was taken from the ACA database. ACA is a professional association; therefore, the
respondents would agree with this statement merely due to the fact that they are members.
Activities related to alliance building, educating others, and attending one conference per year
held high endorsement ratings of 77.1% to 91.7%. These results regarding alliance building
support the finding of White and Semivan‟s (2006) qualitative study which identified the main
theme of collaboration/ systemic intervention (for client, colleagues and organization) in order to
advocate for both the client and profession, Eriksen‟s study (1999) which identified a need for
intra-professional collaboration due to internal conflict within ACA and its subgroups, and
Myers and Sweeney‟s research (2004) in which their respondents endorsed that they implement
coalitions with professional groups (59%).
The findings also support the research regarding educating the public about professional
counselor roles, educational backgrounds and similarities and differences to other professions.
Field and Baker‟s (2003) study identified that advocating for the profession is one of the key
elements of advocacy. One participant in the study alluded to educating others about the
counselor role when she stated, “We have to be advocates of our profession because nobody else
in the whole school understands our position and or what it is we are supposed to do…it is a
daily struggle, from my perspective, not to be dumped upon” (Field & Baker, 2004, p. 59).
These results are also pertinent to the historical relationships between professional
counselors and psychologists, which have been discussed in the literature (Gale & Austin, 2003;
Goodyear, 2000) because the relationships can be directly affected by the beliefs of professional
counselors‟ ability to foster alliances. McDaniels, one of the professionals interviewed by Gale
and Austin, warned that professional counselors must create intra-professional relations and work
together to advocate because “there are people who would deny [professional counselors] the
opportunity to work in ways, and with groups, that are best reached through counseling” (Gale &
Austin, p. 206).
In contrast to professional self-advocacy activities, outreach and involvement such as
conducting service projects (47.4%), participating in legislative activities (41.8%), participating
on a board or committee (28.2), or creating multi-media activities (29.2%) were less endorsed in
the PCAI study. These low percentages are a contradiction to the qualitative research of White
and Semivan‟s (2006) study which identified the importance of: 1) providing community service
while promoting knowledge of the field, 2) implementing change through becoming more
involved in professional organizations, and 3) political legislative action. Respondents to the
Myers and Sweeney (2004) study reported pursuing legislative action on behalf of jobs for
professional counselors and ensuring equal access to employment with other professionals and
parity of pay for counselors with other mental health professionals (69%). These participants,
who were leaders in the field, identified with the participating in legislative activities nearly 20%
more than the PCAI study (41.8%). Also in the Meyers and Sweeney study, media opportunities
(e.g., radio, television) (48%), written material such as literature and information (63%) and
advocacy training packets (47%) were frequently employed advocacy activities endorsed more
highly than the 29.2% reported in this study. The comparison between my study and the Myers
and Sweeny study (2006) shows that the average professional counselor with a professional
membership in ACA reports participating in outreach and involvement at a lower rate than did
the leaders in the Myers and Sweeney study. The results of my study suggest that those who are
leaders in the field and who are older, more seasoned, more involved in leadership roles, and
have more than those in education are more involved in advocacy activities than the average
professional counselor.
Also important to note, leaders in the counseling field have addressed the need for
professional counselors to receive suitable compensation for their services in all settings and to
have the freedom to provide services within their scope of practice through market place
recognition. This idea was identified as one of the advocacy themes developed through CSI
(2007). Objectives were developed to identify professional counselors as competent service
providers, to stress that professional counselors have access to employment and/or compensation
across settings for services these counselors are qualified to perform, and for professional
counselors to be recognized in the media and elsewhere as providing valuable service to clients,
families, organizations, and the general public. These ideals were not represented well by the
participants of the study who are professional members of ACA and who are involved as
members of professional associations. These findings do not bode well for the field since those
who are not members are even less likely than the participants to be involved in advocacy. The
less the profession as a whole is involved in professional advocacy, especially during the current
climate of budget cuts and layoffs, the more difficulties counselors will have securing positions,
increasing the awareness of their expertise, and being able to help clients.
The most problematic outreach and involvement activity were the low number of
respondents agreeing at a very low level (17.7%, M = 2.70, SD = 1.78) that they conduct and
publish research on the counseling theories and techniques that they use. These statistics were
disheartening since the literature and research stresses the effectiveness of using scientific
research to further the counseling profession and the services counselors provide (CSI, 2007;
Patrick, 2007; White & Semivan, 2006). White and Semivan (2006) identified research/
publishing as one of the main successful actions of professional advocacy. This could be because
the majority of their participants were 30 to 59 years of age and 92% held two or more leadership
positions. Research and publishing is an important advocacy tool because counselors need to
both advocate for the profession and learn more about issues concerning their clientele. By doing
so, they not only help their clientele and community as a whole, but the profession would
acknowledge them as experts in the field of counseling. Professional counselors can practice
with a master‟s degree and do not need to learn how to or are not expected to conduct research;
therefore, the results are representative of this fact.
Discussion of Participants’ Perceived Knowledge of Professional Counselor Advocacy
A main objective of this study was to examine whether professional counselors perceive
that they know how to advocate for the profession and if so where they gained this knowledge.
Another objective was to determine if there was a relationship between the participants‟ level of
participating in professional advocacy activities and their knowledge of professional advocacy.
Several variables were analyzed to answer these questions and include the 15 items related to
knowledge and sources of knowledge as well as the 11 advocacy activities. Frequencies were
completed for the first portion of this analysis and then correlations were calculated using a
conservative p value of .01 to minimize the potential of a Type I error.
First, the results of the frequencies indicated that of the 390 participants, 305 (78.2%)
agreed to some level that they know how to advocate for the profession, indicating that there
were a significant number of individuals from the sample who agreed that they know how to
advocate. These findings expand on the qualitative studies that sought to define professional
advocacy by ranking the level of knowledge. White and Semivan‟s (2006) study identified
knowledge/skill level as one of the top themes related to advocacy. Participants from Field and
Baker‟s (2004) study reportedly gained knowledge through counselor education programs. These
studies discussed the definition of professional advocacy, but did not give quantitative data to
determine if they believed that the participants were not knowledgeable, nor did the research find
out where knowledge was gained.
Surprisingly, the results from the PCAI regarding educational program revealed that 47%
of the respondents did not gain knowledge of professional advocacy from their educational
program and of those who reportedly gained knowledge, nearly 30%, reported not gaining much.
The results signified that beginning counselors are not well prepared in professional advocacy
due to this lack of education. These results identify a discrepancy between what participants
report and what the profession encourages in the CACREP Standards, advocacy competencies,
and CSI advocacy themes. If the profession is effective in teaching professional advocacy
through the standards, competencies and themes, more respondents would have gained
knowledge from their programs and would have reported gaining more than reported. The
profession adopted the CACREP 2009 Standards (CACREP, 2007), which includes curriculum
that teaches the role and processes of advocating for the profession as well as the processes of
advocating in an effort to eradicate systemic barriers to access, equality and the overall
achievement of clients. In addition, the profession developed and encouraged its members to
utilize advocacy competencies which includes teaching self-advocacy skills (Lewis et al., 2003),
and advocacy themes identified by CSI, which encourages counseling programs to adopt
CACREP accreditation standards and teach advocacy for clients and the profession within their
curriculum (CSI, 2007). Only 47% of the participants of the PCAI study noted that they gained
knowledge of professional advocacy from their educational program. If counselor educators and
counselor education programs would have adopted and effectively taught professional advocacy,
as promoted by the themes, competencies and standards, the number may have been higher.
In my study, participants reported that they received the most knowledge regarding
professional advocacy from publications (79.7%), from modeling by a significant counselor
(76.9%), conferences and workshops (64%), then from their master‟s or doctoral program
(53.1%) and last from websites (43.3%). Most knowledge was gained from ACA conferences and
workshops (93.5%), publications (95.7%), and websites (93.5%) demonstrating that ACA as an
entity is providing a significant portion of the education for professional advocacy. The second
highest percentages (84.1-89%) for conferences and workshops, publications and websites are
held by the “other” category, the category that represented any other entity other than ACA
(national, regional, state, division) or CSI. The high percentage can be partially explained by the
fact that several participants had more than one degree, specialty and/or license. The responses to
short-answer questions about the types of conferences and workshops attended, publications
viewed, websites resourced seem to represent the wide variety of specialties endorsed by
participants. Responses gave insight into many of the publication, conference and website
sources accessed such as: substance abuse, play therapy, marriage and family, equine assisted
growth and learning (horse therapy), psychology, education, social work and professional golf;
and licensure and national boards.
State and divisions (70-80%) came next in the rankings, still fairly high. Chi Sigma Iota
(69.5%) and regional (66.3%) ranked the lowest. Overwhelmingly, participants endorsed ACA
national, state and division conferences, conferences from their own specialty and finally CSI as
resources for professional advocacy knowledge. Most participants, 76.9% (n = 300), reported
gaining knowledge of professional advocacy modeled or taught by others. Overall, participants
reported gaining knowledge of professional advocacy from all four types of colleagues with the
most individuals, 87.1%, endorsing knowledge gained by observing professional advocacy
modeled by colleagues with a counseling degree. These results support Field and Baker (2004)
whose participants identified obtaining knowledge through the modeling of colleagues. Field and
Baker, however, did not inquire about the degrees colleagues had which might have assisted in
learning more about those who modeled professional advocacy.
Overall, the statistics regarding gaining knowledge from conferences, workshops and
from modeling by colleagues support the findings of Field and Baker‟s (2004) whoidentified
these as significant ways of gaining knowledge about professional advocacy. The only study that
researched publications was the Myers and Sweeney study, which determined that 63% of the
participants used advocacy-training packets (47%) to teach professional advocacy. The results of
the short-answer section of my study did not support the use of media materials as means of
gaining knowledge of professional advocacy. No study researched the use of websites to gain
professional advocacy; however, most professions, including counseling, social work, and
psychology have information on their websites on advocacy for their clients and for their
profession. So, while information is there and available, little is known about websites‟ use and
efficacy related to professional advocacy.
Results from my study gave evidence that there is a relationship between the participants‟
level of knowledge and their involvement in professional counselor activities. Specifically,
knowing how to advocate for the profession was significantly correlated to all factors related
professional counselor advocacy activities. Additionally, outreach and involvement (r (390) =
.390, r2 = .152. p < .000) had a small effect size indicating a small correlation between the two.
Based on the results of these correlations, participants indicated that they would be involved in
professional advocacy, especially outreach and involvement activities, if they perceive they know
how to advocate. This is important for counselor educators, supervisors and the leaders in the
field to know, because they are in the positions to effect change by becoming more effective in
their dissemination of information and teaching methods through educational programs,
conferences, publications, websites and modeling.
Discussion of Participants’ Perceived Skills of Professional Counselor Advocacy Most
participants agreed that they have the skills to conduct professional advocacy.
Acceptance (97%) and relationship building (98.4%) had the highest percentage of agreement.
Participants reported that public speaking was the least favored of the skills with a percentage of
86%. All items indicated a high level of agreement with means ranging from 5.64 – 6.39. These
statistics support the qualitative studies and literature cited. Eriksen‟s (1999) qualitative research
indicated that counseling skills and values such as take educational approach, inclusive nature of
the counseling profession, relationship building, good communication and effective listening
skills can be effective advocating skills with specialties within the counseling field, other mental
health professions and others within the community. Field and Baker (2004) identified
fundamental counseling skills that can be translated into advocacy such as understanding and
embracing differences, maintaining emotional independence, acceptance, and realistic goals and
expectations. Public speaking and writing were discussed in the literature as skills necessary to
advocate (Patrick, 2007).
Professional counselor self-advocacy, outreach and involvement, alliance building and
educating, modeling and promoting prevention and wellness strategies correlated significantly to
all eight skills and produced both medium and small effect sizes. This means that, especially for
these types of advocacy activities, the more skills counselors endorse the more they will
advocate. Belonging to one or more professional association for counselors was correlated to six
skills but had no significant relationship to take an educational approach and writing skills. This
denotes that fact that counselors belong to a professional association is not related to them taking
an educational approach or using writing skills to advocate. The analyses between take an
educational approach produced significant effect sizes when correlated to professional self
advocacy (r (390) = .425, r2 = .181. p < .000) and outreach and involvement (r (390) = .386, r2 =
.149. p < .000), suggesting that it is necessary to take an educational approach when involved in
professional self advocacy and outreach and involvement activities. Attending a conference did
not produce any significant correlations to any of the advocacy activities, indicating that
attending a conference does not have a strong relationship to professional counselors advocating.
My study expanded the knowledge of professional advocacy skills discussed in Eriksen‟s (1999)
and Field and Baker‟s (2004) qualitative studies, provided results regarding the variables of
public speaking and writing which was discussed in the literature (Patrick, 2007), and gave
evidence of a relationship between the participants‟ level of skill and their involvement in
professional counselor activities.
Discussion of Participants’ Perceived Qualities of Professional Counselor Advocacy
Participants held a high level of agreement with the quality of life-long learner at 97.5%,
self-confident (95.1%), and resilience/persistence (90.5%). Interest and passion had a somewhat
high level of agreement with 86.1%; but commitment and tough/forceful attributes had the
lowest with 67% and 50.8%, respectively. The results support the values identified throughout
the existing literature. None of the qualities were previously analyzed by quantitative means.
Life-long learner was discussed in the professional advocacy literature only by Patrick (2007),
and in my study received extremely high scores. White and Semivan (2006) identified interest
and passion as one of the top five themes of advocacy. In Eriksen‟s (1999) qualitative study,
confidence, tough/forceful, and resilience/persistence were identified as main advocacy qualities.
Commitment and tough/forceful attributes were identified in Eriksen‟s qualitative study as
themes, but received somewhat average scores on the PCAI study.
The results from the study validated the claim that there is a relationship between the
participants‟ qualities and their involvement in professional counselor activities. No other
research has examined these relationships. Professional counselor self-advocacy, outreach and
involvement, and alliance building all produced positive relationships with all of the advocacy
qualities, indicating that if counselors believe they have these qualities then they could engage in
professional advocacy activities. Alliance-building and the quality, interest/passion, produced the
largest effect between activities and qualities and demonstrates that those with this quality are
more likely to be involved in professional advocacy. It is also important to note that belonging to
one or more associations was only correlated with a small effect to one quality, life-long learner;
however, the participants endorsed each of these variables at a high frequency.
Discussion of Participants’ Perception of the Importance and Need for Professional
Counselor Advocacy
Respondents overwhelmingly agreed at 97% with the statements of I think it is import to
advocate for the profession of counseling and I believe counselors must improve the public and
professional image of counselors. These data support the Myers and Sweeney (2004) who found
that most leaders agreed that the profession needs to “improve the public and professional image
of counselors” (p. 468). Nearly 80% rated advocacy of the profession as most important to the
profession. In the present study, the general population of counselors held a higher percentage of
agreement with the statement that the profession needs to improve their image. The statements
regarding losing clients due to lack of insurance coverage (50.2%) and being denied jobs (42%)
had lower scores for the category of importance and need. These scores may represent a subset of
the population such as private practitioners or state and federal employees who are faced with
these issues more frequently than a professional school counselor, counselor educator, or career
counselor. The findings, regardless of the percentage, support Eriksen‟s (1999) qualitative
research finding that losing clients and insurance coverage were real concerns that required
professional advocacy. Literature on the advocacy competencies (Lewis et al., 2003) and social
justice (Lee, 2007) have noted many reasons individuals would need to advocate and included all
forms of disenfranchisement. Previous research has not identified the level a counselor is
compelled to self-advocate. Participants in the PCAI study indicated a need to advocate for self
other than for the profession at (41.8%) which maybe a high percentage within the sampling of
the general population, and warrants further research to determine the reasons professional
counselors would advocate for self other than for the profession.
Results supported the relationship between the participants‟ beliefs about the importance
and need to advocate and their involvement in professional counselor activities. Both the
importance of advocating for the profession of counseling and the belief that counselors must
improve the public and professional image of counselors were correlated to most of the advocacy
activities (professional self-advocacy, outreach and involvement, alliance building, belonging to
one or more professional association for counselors, and attending at least one conference for the
counseling profession a year) producing both medium and small effect sizes. This indicates that
counselors who are concerned about these two issues are likely to conduct those advocacy
activities. Educating, modeling and promoting prevention and wellness strategies also shows a
relationship to the belief that counselors must improve the public and professional image of
counselors. This suggested that if counselors want to improve the public opinion of the
counseling profession they could educate, model and promote prevention and wellness strategies.
Several importance/need items (losing clients due to the lack of insurance coverage, being denied
jobs in schools, mental health or other settings due to degree/license as a counselor, and having a
need to advocate for self other than for the profession of counseling) shared no significant
correlations with advocacy activities. This is important to note, especially for the leaders in the
field, because if there is no relationship between those variables and professional advocacy
activities, then those who believe that there are barriers to their employment, livelihood or
client‟s needs, did not indicate to even a weak significance that they were involved in any
activities to remedy these problems.
Discussion of Participants’ Perception of the Barriers to Conduct Professional Counselor
Advocacy Activities
Regarding the degree respondents believed there are barriers to participating in
professional counselor advocacy, the top three barriers proffered by participants included not
enough time (75%), roadblocks caused by other professionals (73.1%), and insufficient
knowledge of professional advocacy strategies (69.8%). The high percentage regarding
insufficient time supports the idea that counselors lacked time to make an impact and was a
higher percentage that the results to a similar question in Myers and Sweeney‟s (2004) study,
which respondents indicated a 39% agreement with the barrier of not enough time to deal with
advocacy. This discrepancy may be due to the fact that Myers and Sweeney surveyed leaders in
the field with an average of 21 years in the field with more than half reporting having doctoral
degrees and one in five reporting being a counselor educator. My participants were mostly
licensed professionals, 68% at least practicing clinically, with an average of 14 years in the field
and only 10% being counselor educators. Clinicians may not have time to advocate, whereas
educators and other leaders may have more time for professional advocacy, or perhaps they may
be willing to make more time.
The results for the item, roadblocks caused by other professionals, support both Eriksen‟s
(1999) study which identified conflict between the counseling profession and other professions
and Myers and Sweeney‟s (2004) study which indicated that participants rated opposition by
other providers (51%), resistance of public policy makers (42%) and a written response that
politics as key barriers to professional advocacy. The open-ended portion of the question
regarding barriers in my study indicated that roadblocks by professionals were a key element of
one of the main themes, negative intra-professional relations. This means that not only did
respondents of the PCAI acknowledge that roadblocks were a significant barrier quantitatively;
they also indicated this in open format. The results related to insufficient knowledge of
professional advocacy strategies supports the research of Myers and Sweeney (2004) in which
participants reported they lacked training in advocacy (41%). Also in my study, the open-ended
question regarding barriers elicited responses from only 9% of those who responded and
indicated lack of experience in the field, insufficient training in advocacy and counselor identity,
and knowledge of issues and laws that affect counselors as areas for training.
The results support Eriksen‟s (1999) study which identified conflict between the
counseling profession and other professions as a barrier to advocacy causing public uncertainty,
loss of status with legislators, insurance companies and other funding sources, confusion over
decision makers, and success by groups merely because of the most Political Action Committee
funds. Findings from this study also support Myers and Sweeney (2004) in that participants rated
opposition by other providers (51%) with fairly high percentages and provided written responses
that politics were key barriers to professional advocacy.
Additionally, in the PCAI study, lack of leadership in the counseling field (52%), lack of
collaboration within the profession on legislative activities (62.8%), and insufficient funds (57.2)
were each endorsed by more than half of the participants. The lowest responses range from lack
of skill level to advocate (35.6%), lack of position (35.4%), inability to explain credentials
(20%), satisfied with status of the counseling profession (18.2%) and the statement “I would be
seen as a „trouble-maker‟” (14%). These results support Eriksen‟s (1999) research in which
participants reported concern that they lacked resources such as sufficient funds and time to
make an impact. The participants of this study, however, disagreed at nearly 66% to ideas
identified in Eriksen‟s research that counselors believe that they lack position and are satisfied
with the status of the counseling profession; therefore, the results of this study did not support
her study. Lack of advocacy leadership (39%) and lack of collaboration (47%), which were
identified by participants of Myers and Sweeney‟s (2004) study, were supported. However, the
participants in my study endorsed these items at a higher level than the leaders who participated
in their study. Support by colleagues is discussed as a main theme of professional advocacy by
Field and Baker (2004) and their results indicated a need to increase the support to advocate.
Conversely, the results of my study did not support Field and Bakers‟ qualitative study in which
participants indicated that being seen as a “trouble maker” may be a barrier to professional
advocacy. This issue was not advanced by the participants of my study, and in fact it was noted
surprisingly by one participant as “… trouble maker is true but okay.”
Five major issue-based themes and several sub-themes were identified in the qualitative
inquiry into barriers to professional counselors participating in professional advocacy activities.
The themes were: 1) negative or weak inter-professional relations including roadblocks by
others, lack of support, and lack of knowledge by legislators about mental health and the role of
counselors; 2) negative or weak intra-professional relations including subthemes of a disjointed
profession and lack of support from leaders and fellow counselors; 3) attitude toward
professional advocacy (18%) including lack of involvement of students/interns; lack of
importance/need, need for more counselors to advocate; lack of belief that professional advocacy
would be useful/effective; and, lack of passion; 4) power differential/limited position (17%)
including limited job-opportunities and positions in relation to other professions, lack of
negotiating power, and limited time, resources and money; 5) lack of knowledge/experience
(9%). Three respondents listed individual concerns related to culture, stress and disability. The
most problematic area that professional counselors need to address, based on these data, was the
need to improve both negative or weak inter-intra-professional relations, which accounts for 50%
of the barriers listed in this report; however only 60 (15%) of the individuals provided short
answers regarding barriers. This small number needs to be taken into account when interpreting
the results.
Discussion of Participants’ Perception of their Support for Professional Counselor
Advocacy
Participants reported receiving the most support from colleagues (80%) and associations
(78%). Although the findings had better than average percentages, professional counselors
perceived that counselor educators (69%) and supervisors (59%) were less supportive than the
other two categories. These results are supported by the research by Field and Baker (2004)
whose study identified supporting counseling colleagues as professional advocacy; however
since theirs was a qualitative study the results were only exploratory in nature and not
generalizable to the general professional counselor population.
Results from my study did show evidence of significant relationships between
professional counselors‟ beliefs related to support for professional advocacy and their perceived
level of participating in professional advocacy efforts. Outreach and involvement and alliance
building produced significant correlations for all support entities, suggesting that the greater the
level of support from leaders in the field, the more professional counselors will be involved in
advocacy activities related to outreach and involvement and alliance building. These two
professional advocacy activities were the only two items that were correlated to I receive support
from supervisors to advocate for the profession, indicating that professional counselors are more
apt to advocate through outreach and involvement and alliance building type activities if they
receive support from supervisors. Overall, the results identified that professional counselors are
more apt to be involved in advocacy activities if they feel support from their colleagues,
supervisors, counselor educators and professional associations.
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study
Limitations of this study relate to the design of the instrument, sampling bias, and
collection of the data. The first limitation is in the design of the survey and includes item
construction. It is possible that the survey instrument may not have accurately measured
professional counselors‟ perceptions of their level of involvement, knowledge and where they
gained this knowledge, skill, qualities, importance and need, identified barriers, and support
related to professional counselor advocacy. The survey, as is true for any survey, is not able to
account for changes in opinion that may have occurred over time and therefore is limited to the
perceptions of participants at the time the survey was taken. Although the definition of
professional advocacy was provided at the beginning of the instrument, participants still could
have perceived the term to mean different things.
Another limitation, sampling bias, may have impacted the study. Since the participants
were not required to respond to or complete the instrument, professional members of the
American Counseling Association (ACA) who completed the survey may not have been
representative of professional counselors within ACA, or for that matter of the professional
counselor community. Of the 2,998 surveys sent to potential respondents, 452 were returned,
representing a 15% rate of return. However, after accounting for incomplete surveys 390 (13%)
were usable. Also, since all participants are ACA members, they may be more interested in the
topic of professional advocacy than the general population of professional counselors and
therefore create sampling bias.
Surveying members of ACA does not allow for a complete representation of the entire
population of professional counselors and causes disproportionate results; however, the
membership in ACA and in counseling is largely white and female. Difficulties in sampling
characteristics include the disproportionate number of European/White (84.1%) participants
sampled. The age range is disproportionate as well. In the study, 21-25 year olds were
represented by 11.9%, 26-35 year olds (17.9%), 36-55 year olds (46%) 56-68 year olds (30%),
69 year olds + (1.8%) ACA has 11.9% of 21-25 year olds, 26-35 year olds (29.7%) 36-55 year
olds (38%), 56-68 year olds (18%) and 69 year olds + category had 2.5% representation. The
numbers are based on the general ACA population and the study is represented by the
professional membership. Additionally, this sampling was taken from the professional member
category of ACA which does not distinguish members who are professional counselors from
those who are members with a professional degree and therefore the percentages may be either
more or less diverse than ACA characteristics. Likewise, participants reported several types of
professional counselor licenses including LPCs (63%), LMHCs (13%), LRCs (1%,) and 42%
who selected that they had another type of license than those prelisted. This sampling bias is
representative of professionals having more than one license in the profession and is symbolic of
the disjointed nature of the profession. This creates an issue regarding generalization in that
caution should be used in generalizing the findings to the entire population. Most states were
represented in the survey; however, no statistical analysis can be completed on the proportions
due to the fact that ACA does not categorize their database by state and professional membership.
Those who are interested in professional advocacy or have a need to advocate
professionally due to their individual or professional experiences may have skewed the sample
and represent a large portion of the respondents. Likewise, respondents could have opted out of
taking the survey due to disinterest in professional advocacy. This would result in a lower
response rate from that group of respondents and possible misrepresentation of that group.
Another limitation of sampling, which may misrepresent the entire population of professional
counselors, may have been the possibility that professional counselors who are professional
members of ACA may have a stronger sense of professional identity and in turn see value in
continuing education, keeping up with current trends in the field, and making contributions to
research in the area of professional advocacy.
Collection of data methods, such as the use of email, is always a limitation. Because the
survey was delivered electronically, only those who had access to email and the internet at the
time of survey delivery were able to participate.
A final limitation could be that professional counselors with all of their roles and
responsibilities may not have had time to respond to the survey resulting in a low response rate.
In order to make the study more manageable, several delimitations were implemented.
First, ACA provided a random sample of 3000 professional members from their national
database. This sample allowed for participants to be surveyed from all geographic locations;
however, this delimited the pool to ACA professional members. Since professional members of
ACA were surveyed, this excluded masters‟ students, doctoral students, and counselors in
training unless individuals purchased a professional membership. Individuals who are not
members of an organization or who are only members of state or local professional organizations
were not included in the sample. These delimitations, although necessary, had the possibility of
skewing the results.
Implications for Professional Counselors, Counselor Educators,
Supervisors and Leaders in the Field
The results of this study were intended to bring greater insight into professional
counselors‟ willingness and ability to advocate on behalf of the profession by identifying the
attitudes of counseling professionals regarding advocacy skills practices, their knowledge of
professional advocacy (and where they gained this knowledge), skills and qualities endorsed;
opinions on the importance and need to advocate; barriers encountered; and support gained from
various entities, as well as, by exploring the relationship between counseling professionals‟
attitudes toward professional counselor advocacy and their perceived level of conducting
professional counselor advocacy activities. By building on several qualitative studies and one
quantitative study (Eriksen, 1999; Field & Baker, 2004; Myers & Sweeney, 2004; White &
Semivan, 2006) conducted to conceptualize and define professional counselor advocacy as well
as to identify various beliefs about professional advocacy, the results of this study contribute to
the knowledge base on professional advocacy of professional counselors.
As a result of this study, professional counselors could increase their ability and level of
involvement in professional advocacy in several ways. First, counselors can request that
counselor educators and supervisors include coursework or curriculum on professional advocacy
as recommended in the 2009 CACREP Standards, CSI advocacy themes, and advocacy
competencies adopted in 2003 by the profession. These initiatives can increase the knowledge,
skills and qualities of professional advocacy for counselors. Asking professors and supervisors to
include more literature or coursework in professional advocacy may increase the knowledge
counseling students and interns gain through their program in counselor education. Second,
professional counselors could increase their involvement in outreach and involvement activities.
Professional counselors in the field could partner with counselor educators, supervisors and other
colleagues to conduct community outreach and service projects providing multi-media for both
clients and the profession, therefore creating a presence in the community and becoming seen as
experts on counseling issues. Professional counselors could partner with counselor educators to
conduct and publish research about counseling and client issues. Additionally, counselors could
become more active through participating in legislative activities and participating on a board or
committee for the betterment of both clients and the profession. Third, professional counselors
could self-advocate by using their innate counselor skills to educate others about professional
counselors and the profession. Since most professional counselors reported that it is important to
improve the public and professional image of counselors, perhaps they would not be opposed to
getting involved in professional self-advocacy and educating, modeling and promoting
prevention and wellness. Fourth, professional counselors should not only educate others, but
must learn more about other professions and collaborate with them to build intra- and
interprofessional relations to diminish the roadblocks caused within the profession and with other
professionals, as well as find ways to educate legislators and build relationships with them for the
betterment of clients and the profession. Last, professional counselors should consult the CSI
website to identify and develop ways that they can increase their involvement in professional
advocacy activities.
Counselor educators, supervisors and the association‟s hierarchy are the leaders in the
field and can guide the profession through action, modeling, education, and research. First,
counselor educators can infuse professional advocacy teaching into coursework or curriculum as
recommended in the 2009 CACREP Standards, CSI advocacy themes, and advocacy
competencies adopted in 2003 by the profession.
Counselor educators and supervisors can include professional advocacy as a part of
supervision by assisting supervisees in taking action for clients and to conduct professional
selfadvocacy. If necessary, supervisors could also act with or on behalf of supervisees who are
disenfranchised for individual or professional reasons. Second, counselor educators can partner
with professional counselors in the field to conduct community outreach, service projects and
provide multi-media outlets for both clients and the profession. Counselor educators can partner
with counselor educators to conduct and publish research about counseling and client issues.
Additionally, counselor educators and supervisors could encourage and model for their students
and supervisees to be more active through participating in legislative activities and participating
on a board or committee for the betterment of both clients and the profession. Third, counselor
educators and supervisors can challenge their students, supervisees, colleagues and themselves to
be more active in order to improve the public and professional image of counselors. Counselor
educators and supervisors could spearhead campaigns to learn about other professions,
collaborate with them and to build intra- and inter-professional relations. They could find ways
to educate legislators and build relationships with them for the betterment of clients and the
profession. Last, counselor educators, supervisors and other leaders in the field should access the
CSI website for pertinent information about professional advocacy, lesson plans, and examples of
media activities such as counselor awareness activities to assist in building this professional
advocacy curriculum.
Implications for Future Research
Since the research on professional advocacy among professional counselors was limited
to mostly qualitative studies, this study offers new information on the involvement of counselors
in professional advocacy and their perception of their knowledge and where they gained that
knowledge, skills, qualities, importance and need, barriers and support of professional counselor
advocacy. Future research should continue to focus on these aspects of professional advocacy for
professional counselors. This study provided a survey of several variables related to professional
advocacy. Each category could be expanded or refined to develop a better understanding of the
topics. For instance, knowledge, skills and qualities all relate to the ability of the professional
counselor to engage in professional advocacy activities. These ideas could be researched further
to develop further knowledge of their commonalities and differences.
My study explored only professional counselors‟ perceptions of their action, knowledge,
and abilities. Action research could assess these activities directly to assess what is being done.
The focus could be on a particular state or issue. Effectiveness could be gauged through pre- and
post-tests, or qualitatively through interviews or participant observations of the effectiveness of
professional advocacy activities.
This study focused on the perceptions of professional counselors who are professional
members of ACA. Other researchers could focus on counselor educators or supervisors to learn
more about their experiences in supporting their students and supervisees in professional
advocacy. Since students commented that they are only students when asked about barriers, a
quantitative, qualitative or mixed method study could tease out more information to assist in
learning more about students‟ experiences. Statements regarding losing clients due to lack of
insurance coverage (50.2%) and being denied jobs (42%) produced lower scores for the category
of importance and need. This may represent the opinions of a subset of the population such as
private practitioners or state and federal employees who are faced with these issues more
frequently than a professional school counselor, counselor educator, or career counselor and may
warrant additional study.
Future research could delve into some of the conflicting findings of this study. Having a
need to advocate for self other than for the profession had a somewhat high score of 41% within
the sampling of the general population. What is the reason for this percentage? How do
professional counselors define “other reasons to advocate other than for the profession of
counseling?” Could it be related to discrimination against individuals based on personal issues
such as race, gender, disability, and/or age or could the phenomena be related to professional
counselors wanting to help their clients or even colleagues advocate for themselves?
Qualitative or quantitative studies could inquire further into the reasons why taking an
educational approach highly correlated to professional self-advocacy (r (390) = .425, r2 = .181.
p < .000) and outreach and involvement (r (390) = .386, r2 = .149. p < .000), or that
alliancebuilding was highly correlated to interest/passion indicating that those with this quality
are more likely to be involved in professional advocacy. Also it would be crucial to find out
more information about why importance and need factors such as losing clients due to the lack
of insurance coverage and being denied jobs in schools, mental health or other settings due to
my degree/license as a counselor, and I have a need to advocate for myself other than for the
profession of counseling shared no significant correlations with advocacy activities.
Another area of interest is professional counselors‟ lack of involvement in outreach and
involvement such as conducting service projects, participating in legislative activities,
participating on a board or committee or creating multi-media activities, and conducting and
publishing research on counseling theories and techniques used. These areas could be researched
to further the ability of the profession to address these weaknesses. Additionally, research could
be conducted on what the implications mean in relation to the idea that the more professional
counselors are involved in outreach and involvement activities, the more they indicate that there
is a lack of leadership in the counseling field and lack of collaboration within the profession on
legislative advocacy initiatives.
This study could be replicated to provide a more representative sample of the nation‟s
professional counselors or samples could be made based on geographic areas to gain more
information from one area. Researchers could offer both paper and electronic versions of the
survey to increase the pool of recipients and attract those counselors who are not members of a
professional national associations or leaders in the field.
Conclusions
The findings of this study described the involvement of professional counselors in
professional advocacy activities and their perception of their knowledge and where they gained
that knowledge, skills, qualities, importance and need, barrier and support of professional
counselor advocacy. The results explored the sources professional counselors use to gain
knowledge of professional advocacy and the barriers that counselors face when attempting to be
involved in professional advocacy activities. Other goals of this study included determining if
there were relationships between participants‟ perceived involvement in professional counselor
advocacy activities and their beliefs regarding their ability to advocate based on their perceived
knowledge, skills, qualities, importance and need, barriers and support for professional advocacy.
Results of this study indicated that professional counselors believed that they participate
in professional advocacy activities. Participants also reported that they believe they have the
knowledge, skills, and qualities to conduct those professional advocacy activities. Respondents
reported not gaining knowledge of professional advocacy from their educational program and of
those who reportedly gained knowledge, nearly 30%, reported not gaining much knowledge. The
study did find that participants received most knowledge regarding professional advocacy from
publications, then from modeling by a significant counselor, conferences and workshops, then
from their master‟s or doctoral program, and last from websites. Overwhelmingly, participants
reported receiving most knowledge from ACA national resources and second from other sources
such as from resources related to subspecialties like substance abuse, play therapy, marriage and
family, equine assisted growth and learning (horse therapy), other professions such as
psychology, education, social work professional golf, licensure and licensure and national
boards. They endorsed the importance and need to conduct professional advocacy most due to
needing to improve the public and professional image of counselors.
Participants indicated the top three barriers are not enough time, roadblocks caused by
other professionals, and insufficient knowledge of professional advocacy strategies; however,
they generally found support to advocate in colleagues, counselor educators, supervisors and
professional associations. Knowledge, skill, qualities, importance/need, barriers and support
produced positive relationships when correlated to professional advocacy activities meaning that
if they have endorse these variables, they will be more involved in professional counselor
selfadvocacy. Additionally, several barriers produced significant, negative relationships with
advocacy activities indicating that if they perceive barriers they are less likely to be involved in
those advocacy activities. These findings are important for professional counselors, counselor
educators, supervisors and the leaders in the field to know, because by understanding both the
individual and collective strengths and weaknesses of professional advocacy education,
professional counselors will be more likely to be involved in professional advocacy and thus be
in a better position to effect change for those they serve and the profession itself.
