1
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COUNSELOR
EDUCATORS' SOCIAL JUSTICE BELIEFS
AND ADVOCACY ACTIONS
Chapter 1: Introduction to Studies
Kiselica and Robinson (2001) and Malott and Knoper (2012) report that it is not a
new concept for counselors to improve their knowledge and experience in social justice
and advocacy to ensure the ethical treatment of their clients. Historical records confirm
that from the earliest formation of the counseling profession in the 20th century,
advocates of social justice considered these principles essential to counseling (Kiselica &
Robinson, 2001; Mallinckrodt, Miles, & Levy, 2014). In fact, proponents of this view
argue that advocating for those dealing with mental health issues is a moral obligation
(Kiselica & Robinson, 2001; Myers, Sweeney, & White, 2002).
In 1999, Loretta Bradley, then-president of the American Counseling Association
(ACA), emphasized in her opening remarks at the ACA convention the necessity for
mental health counselors to focus on social justice and advocacy as indicators of their
clients’ challenges (Kiselica & Robinson, 2001). Kiselica and Robinson (2001)
introduced the term advocacy counseling to highlight the importance of incorporating
social justice and advocacy into the counseling process (p. 388).
Integrating social justice and advocacy training into counselor education (CE)
curricula is also not a novel idea. Ratts (2009) stressed the importance of embedding the
social justice paradigm in counselor training. He referred to this development as the "fifth
force" of counseling, complementing the traditional four forces: psychodynamic,
cognitive-behavioral, existential-humanistic, and multicultural counseling (p. 161).
However, despite the long-standing recognition of the need for counselors to engage in
social justice practices, research on whether these concepts are taught in CE programs
remains limited (Chung & Bemak, 2013; Glosoff & Durham, 2010).
2
Numerous scholars have highlighted the lack of studies documenting the
integration of social justice and advocacy in graduate counseling programs (Brubaker,
Puig, Reese, & Young, 2010; Chung & Bemak, 2013; Malott & Knoper, 2012; Nilsson &
Schmidt, 2005). Much of the existing literature focuses on social justice theory rather
than its practical implementation in the counseling curriculum. Yet, incorporating these
concepts into graduate programs is crucial to equipping future counselors with the
competencies needed to serve diverse client populations (Chang, Crethar, & Ratts, 2010;
Collins, Arthur, Brown, & Kennedy, 2015; Mallinckrodt et al., 2014). The ACA’s
Advocacy Competencies further emphasize the importance of social justice in CE
programs (Chang et al., 2010; Ratts & Hutchins, 2009).
The identified problem is that students report low self-efficacy as agents of
change because their CE faculty did not teach or model social justice and advocacy
concepts in the classroom (Mallinckrodt et al., 2014; Malott & Knoper, 2012; Ratts &
Wood, 2011). Advocacy training is essential for future counselors to engage effectively
in this work (Collins et al., 2015). A notable gap exists in evidence-based studies
exploring the correlation between CE faculty attitudes, beliefs, and actions regarding
social justice and their inclusion of these concepts in personal and professional practices.
Additionally, there is little research on CE faculty attitudes, beliefs, or actions as agents
of change (Chung & Bemak, 2013; Malott & Knoper, 2012; Ratts, Singh, Nassar-
McMillian, Butler, & McCullough, 2016; Ratts & Woods, 2011).
Some literature suggests resistance among counselor educators to incorporating
social justice advocacy in the curriculum, with the shift perceived as too significant for
some administrators and faculty members (Mallinckrodt et al., 2014; Malott & Knoper,
2012; Odegard & Vereen, 2010; Ratts & Wood, 2011).
My study focuses on the relationship between CE faculty members' attitudes,
3
beliefs, and actions and the emphasis they place on incorporating social justice and
advocacy concepts in their personal and professional lives. The results of this research
could increase awareness of how faculty attitudes, beliefs, and actions either facilitate or
hinder the integration of these concepts into the curriculum. Understanding these
relationships may serve as a foundational step toward curriculum reform to include social
justice and advocacy.
The remainder of this chapter outlines the background and issues underpinning
this study, the research questions, theoretical foundations, and the study's nature. It also
defines key terms, outlines assumptions and scope, and describes limitations. The chapter
concludes by emphasizing the study's significance and summarizing its main points.
Study Background
An international theme among scholars in many auxiliary and teaching
professions such as social work, teacher education, and medical education is that social
justice and advocacy should be incorporated into the curriculum of programs that train
the next generation of practitioners to help facilitate the health and growth of diverse
populations (Arar & Oplatka, 2016; Mills & Ballantyne; 2016; Rice, Girvin, Frank, &
Foels, 2016). Several scholars in the counseling profession have also added to the
professional counseling literature by discussing the importance of including social
justice and advocacy training in the curriculum of graduate mental health counseling
programs (Bemak, Chung, Talleyrand, Jones, & Daquin, 2011; Brubaker, Puig, Reese, &
Young, 2010; Chang et al., 2010, Crethar & Ratts, 2010; Ratts et al., 2016; Ratts &
Wood, 2011).
Chang et al. (2010), Ratts (2009), and Ratts and Wood (2011) are among the scholars
who argue that future mental health counselors should understand that it is possible that
many social factors in the client's life may contribute to the client's present problems.
4
Many scholars of counseling psychology and mental health counseling agree that based
on their research, counselor educators should add the concepts of social justice and
advocacy to counseling programs (Bankston, 2010; Bemak et al., 2011; Brubaker et al.,
2010; Chang et al., 2010; Chung & Bemak, 2013; Collins et al., 2015; Glosoff &
Durham, 2010; Mallinckrodt et al., 2014; Malott & Knoper, 2012; Ratts & Wood, 2011;
Ratts et al., 2016).
The Importance of Social Justice and Advocacy for Clients and the Profession
Many of the research articles I reviewed for this study emphasized the
importance of mental health counselors understanding the concepts of social justice and
advocacy to understand the issues that clients present. Bemak et al. (2011) stated that
there is a need to change and embed social justice into the counseling development
program of George Mason University (GMU); they note that career counseling and
education courses at GMU would be a good tool to use in promoting social justice, as
students can look back on the work of social justice advocacy Frank Parsons, who was
the founder of the vocational counseling movement at the turn of the 20th century.
Counselor educators who continue to teach traditional counseling theory to students
perpetuate traditional individualist teaching methods that require students to remember
only the content of the theory (Brubaker et al., 2010; Collin et al., 2015). Educators must
teach from the pedagogy of social justice, which means that faculty must create an
atmosphere in which educators and students alike can develop an awareness of diverse
communities and can explore their own beliefs and assumptions (Brubaker et al., 2010;
Collin et al., 2015; Malott & Knoper, 2012). Chang et al. (2010) discuss a phenomenon
they call "fundamental attribution error", in which counselors have historically focused
on individuals without considering how one's environment may affect one's well-being
(p. 84). For example, Crethar et al. (2008) note that "social justice issues are an integral
5
part of counseling because our clients do not exist as individuals independent of society,
culture, and context" (p. 24). Steele (2008) emphasizes that social justice advocacy brings
an important addition to counselor training programs.
Traditional Beliefs and Attitudes of Administrators and Faculty
Some researchers have noted some resistance among CE programs and educator
counselors at higher education institutions regarding making changes to their current
curriculum. For example, Ratts and Wood (2011) note the problems associated with the
introduction of new ideas to academic institutions in general. They stated that academic
institutions tend to resist changes to the accepted and traditional way of thinking and
completing assignments. Rejection of this paradigm shift can make it difficult to add
social justice and advocacy as a new component in an established curriculum.
Changes in the traditional way of doing things can be seen as a threat to the
existing policies and practices of the CE program (Ratts & Wood, 2011). Odegard and
Vereen (2010) suggest that counselor educators who are willing to incorporate the
concepts of social justice and advocacy into their classrooms may need help navigating
the bureaucratic challenges of administrators who view changes to existing CE program
policies and practices as threats.
It is possible that individual counselor educators may feel threatened by moving
away from teaching counseling with a Western individualistic theoretical focus that
traditionally emphasizes client change rather than social change (Chang et al., 2010). For
example, Ratts and Wood (2011) state that introducing social justice into counselor
education can be seen as a threat to counselor educators who remain focused on
individual clients and who do not accept that the problems presented by clients can be
based on social, political, or economic conditions.
Then again, some counselor educators who try to implement the inclusion of
6
social justice concepts into their classrooms may experience obstacles that keep them
7
feel less successful. Odegard and Vereen (2010) note that due to the lack of social
justice teaching resources, counselor educators who try to use social justice materials to
facilitate classroom discussions find it difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of social
justice teaching. Researchers have laid the groundwork supporting the idea that the
attitudes, beliefs, and actions of educators and counselor administrators regarding the
application of social justice and advocacy into the CE curriculum or classroom are
essential if changes to the curriculum are to be made (Chung & Bemak, 2013; Ratts &
Wood, 2011).
Gaps in the literature and the need for current studies
Although mental health workers in the early 20th century felt it was important,
necessary, and right to include social justice and advocacy in their work with clients who
have mental health problems (Kiselica & Robinson, 2001; Myers, Sweeney & White,
2002), many contemporary researchers have noted the lack of research regarding
counselor training in social justice and advocacy in CE programs (Chung & Bemak,
2013; Mallinckrodt et al., 2014; Malott & Knoper, 2012). For example, as recently as
2005, some researchers noted that they could not find empirical studies on counselors
and social justice advocacy (Nilsson & Schmidt, 2005). Even as late as 2014, some
researchers observed that there was still little literature on the handling of the addition of
social justice advocacy to supervisor training during the surveillance process
(Mallinckrodt et al., 2014). After an extensive literature review, I found no evidence-
based research that identified a correlation between counselor educators' attitudes,
beliefs, and actions regarding social justice and advocacy and its importance
8
The faculty places on the inclusion of the concepts of social justice and advocacy in their
personal and professional lives.
Problem Statement
The problem I identified was that students reported low self-efficacy to be agents
of change because the concepts of social justice and advocacy were not taught or
modeled in their classrooms by their CE faculty (Mallinckrodt et al., 2014; Malott &
Knoper, 2012; Ratts & Wood, 2011). Social justice advocacy training is important if
future counselors are going to engage in such important work (Collins et al., 2015).
Some researchers have found that some students experience self-doubt about their ability
to be agents of change in the lives of their future clients, especially when previous social
justice counselor educators and advocates have not introduced the concept into the
student scheme (Collins et al., 2015; Mayhew & Fernández, 2007).
Without examining the attitudes, beliefs, and actions of counselor educators about how
to become agents of social change, the future goals of this counseling profession may not
materialize. Mayhew and Fernández (2007) report that according to social cognitive
theory, when people achieve self-efficacy (i.e., self-confidence is able to complete tasks
successfully), they gain a gradual rate of change in their behavior, and this visible change
in behavior increases their likelihood of becoming advocates of social justice. I discuss
the concept of self-efficacy in detail under the theoretical grounding in this chapter;
however, it is important to note that without practice and the ability to experience
success in a task, self-efficacy is unlikely to develop (Bandura, 1989, 2001). Therefore,
providing this experience for students in the CE program is of utmost importance.
9
Mayhew and Fernández (2007) report that students can gain self-efficacy for
social justice and advocacy work if they are challenged, supported, and given the
opportunity to practice skills; However, this will require interaction with and feedback
from the faculty. The interaction and feedback described by Mayhew and Fernández
requires a program with "rigor", which means a reduction in the standard class format of
lectures and an increase in role-playing, with students participating in interactive
exercises that show the suffering of disenfranchised groups in society (p. 56). Mayhew
and Fernández hypothesize that the cognitive skills students acquire will lead to retention
and understanding of the need for social justice and advocacy on behalf of those groups.
Further, these researchers note that classroom lectures, presentations (e.g., PowerPoints),
and research assignments do not replace the immersion of actual students into the world
of the disenfranchised group, arguing that such immersion more appropriately develops
the desired cognitive skills theorized by Bandura to lead to self-efficacy for social justice
and advocacy work. Mayhew and Fernández report that there is a need to create a form
of experiential learning for students that provides opportunities for them to learn about
social justice and at the same time overcome their refusal to learn about cultural
differences.
Educators' pedagogical methods for including social justice advocacy in graduate
mental health counseling programs have provided considerable information on inclusion
proposals (Bankston, 2010; Chung & Bemak, 2013; Mallinckrodt et al., 2013; Smith,
Reynolds, & Rovnak, 2009). A search by undergraduate practitioners for empirical data
on the inclusion of social justice studies and advocacy in graduate mental health
counseling programs has yielded few results (Brubaker et al., 2010; Chang et al., 2010;
10
Glosoff & Durham, 2010; Malott & Knoper, 2012; Nilsson & Schmidt, 2005; Odegard &
Vereen, 2010; Ratts & Wood, 2011; Steele, 2008). My own search for empirical data on
social justice inclusion and advocacy in graduate programs supports the outcomes of
other undergraduate practitioners.
Study Objectives
After a thorough literature review, I was unable to find any research that explored
the relationship between the attitudes, beliefs, and actions of faculty members in relation
to social justice and advocacy concepts, and practices in their professional and personal
lives.
Some researchers have supported the idea that there is some resistance by program
administrators and counselor educators to incorporate social justice and advocacy into
educational programs (Brubaker et al., 2010; Glosoff & Durham, 2010; Steele, 2008).
Therefore, my goal for this quantitative survey research is to examine the attitudes and
beliefs of CE faculty members related to social justice and advocacy actions by such
faculty members in their personal and professional lives.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
RQ: Is there a statistically significant relationship between faculty attitudes and
beliefs regarding the value of social justice and advocacy, and faculty taking action on
social justice and advocacy initiatives in their personal and professional lives?
H0: There was no statistically significant relationship between faculty attitudes
and beliefs regarding the value of social justice and advocacy as measured by the Social
Justice Scale (Torres-Harding, Siers, & Olson, 2012) and faculty taking action on social
justice and advocacy initiatives in their personal and professional lives as measured by
the Social Justice Scale.
11
Social Issue Advocacy Scale (Nilsson, Marszalek, Linnemeyer, Bahner, & Misilek, 2011).
H1: There is a statistically significant relationship between faculty attitudes and
beliefs regarding the value of social justice and advocacy as measured by the Social
Justice Scale (Torres-Harding et al., 2012) and faculty who take action on social justice
and advocacy initiatives in their personal and professional lives as measured by the
Social Issues Advocacy Scale (Nilsson et al., 2011).
Theoretical Framework
In my current study, I use the theoretical framework of Bandura's (1977) social
cognitive theory (SCT; also known as social learning theory) as a basis for exploring
faculty attitudes, beliefs, and actions regarding the inclusion of social justice and the
application of advocacy into their current mental health counseling curriculum. Through
SCT, Bandura emphasizes the reciprocity between self-efficacy, expectation of results,
and goal setting that may be achieved by modeling techniques by educators. Bandura
reports that a researcher can judge a theoretical method based on its effectiveness in
changing behavior. When a person understands his or her motivation for behavior
change, the person is more likely to internalize it than when the change is based on "self-
discovery" (Bandura, 1977, p. 4).
Bandura (1977) suggests that achieving self-awareness about any motivation to
change current beliefs about a subject is more likely to bring about a change in that belief
than any self-discovery. Bandura states that if a theory does not consider that how a
person thinks can influence or determine his actions
12
related to construction, the theory does not consider the complexity of human behavior.
People learn not only through self-discovery, but also from observing the
behavior of others in the environment. Bandura (1977) calls this type of learning
modelling (p. 22). Modeling offers benefits to observers because modeling provides
examples that allow others to study constructions or activities vicariously through
observation (Bandura, 1977). Social learning theory (i.e., SCT) describes modeling as an
influence that allows observers to learn figuratively about constructions or activities that
serve as guides for their behavior or performance (Bandura, 1977). It is important to
student learning that faculty exemplify social justice and advocacy in the classroom and
through their professional activities.
According to Bandura (1977), observational learning achieved from observing
others (i.e., modeling) occurs in four areas:
Mindfulness process: Bandura suggests that observation alone is not enough
to study a construction or activity, in which one must also attend (i.e., pay
attention) and become aware of the behavior being modeled and how the
modeling is exhibited.
Retention process: Bandura reports that if a person is unable to remember
what he or she has observed, the likelihood of observed modeling manifests
outside of the modeling environment is low. According to Bandura, two
permanent operational memory systems must exist in order for the observed
learning to materialize outside of the modeling environment; The system is
13
"imaginary and verbal" (p. 25), the memory code that enables the performance of the
observed model behavior (Bandura, 1977).
Motor reproduction process: This is the third effect of observation, and
involves converting modeled observations into performance through the
spatial and temporal areas of the human brain (Bandura, 1977).
Motivational process: This is the fourth effect of observational learning.
Bandura distinguishes between acquiring and performing the observed model
behavior. Bandura suggests that a person is most likely to perform an
observed model behavior if the results of that behavior are of value to that
person.
The self-discovery constructs associated with modeling are related to the perceived
constructs of self-efficacy, which involve how well a person believes that he or she can
effectively achieve or do well with any potential situational event (Bandura, 1982, 1993).
Bandura (1982, 1993) asserts that the determinations made by people regarding
their ability to achieve a phenomenon are based on their self-perception of efficacy; Their
perception of whether they have the ability to achieve something determines their choice
to participate in an activity or not. The perception of self-efficacy determines how much
effort a person puts in pursuing or not pursuing an activity or idea regardless of any
obstacles they have to overcome (Bandura, 1982, 1993). Self-perception of efficacy is not
a stand-alone belief but involves personal components of cognition, social skills, and
behavioral skills before any action or performance can be demonstrated by the individual
(Bandura, 1982, 1993). People with perceived self-efficacy can imagine
14
or visualize that they will be successful in any endeavor, without the ability to imagine
or visualize that the opposite will be true (Bandura, 1977, 1989). Belief in self-efficacy
may affect a person's cognitive ability to process information and become motivated to
try new and different constructions (Bandura, 1989, 1993).
Unfortunately, there is little research on how SCT and self-efficacy have affected
educators and students regarding social justice and advocacy in higher education
settings. An exception to this statement is the research of Sandage, Crabtree, and
Schweer (2014). These scholars examined the impact of educator attitudes, and
subsequent influences of educators, on students regarding social justice advocacy and
self-efficacy (Sandage et al., 2014).
The cumulative interest of counselors and psychologists regarding the inclusion
of social justice in the counseling curriculum led Sandage et al. (2014) to initiate a study
on social justice in educational programs. For this study, Sandage et al. decided to use
self-differentiation (DoS) and social justice as a framework for their research. DoS is a
construction based on a cooperative and broad self-definition or vision (Sandage et al.,
2014). In Chapter 2, I present an in-depth discussion of the research and research results
conducted by Sandage et al.
If current counselor educators are not trained in social justice and advocacy in
their master's or doctoral programs, this can affect their own efficacy to engage in social
justice and advocacy activities. I have not found any studies in which researchers studied
the attitudes, beliefs, and actions of counselor educators regarding social justice and
advocacy in their personal and professional lives. Remembering social justice and
advocacy
15
has not been incorporated into the CE curriculum, faculty perceptions of social justice
and advocacy and faculty trust in their abilities have important implications for CE.
Nature of Research
I used a quantitative survey research design for my study. Most quantitative
research begins with theory testing (Creswell, 2014). In accordance with the quantitative
approach, I use instruments to collect data on attitudes, beliefs, and actions; I analyzed
the data using statistical methods (Creswell, 2014). An interesting research question in
this study is related to the attitudes, beliefs, and actions of faculty members regarding
social justice and advocacy in their personal and professional lives.
I gave participating faculty from the CE program a completed and reinstated
initial approval of Torres et al. (2012) Social Justice Scale (SJS) and Nilsson et al. (2011)
Social Issue Advocacy Scale (SIAS). I analyzed the data using the latest version of the
SPSS to obtain the correlation coefficients of Pearson products for one group referenced
in a hypothesis regarding the relationship between faculty attitudes and beliefs regarding
the value of social justice and advocacy, and faculty taking action in social justice and
advocacy initiatives in their personal and professional lives.
Definition
Each research study involves terms that are specific and potentially unique to the
study. It is important for the reader to understand the definition of the term in order to
follow the researcher's intent. Therefore, I provide the following definition for this study.
Action: When researchers discuss social justice and advocacy, the word action
can apply to a variety of activities, such as faculty members actively trying to change
16
government policies that disproportionately impact a particular population, volunteer
for political causes and for candidates representing those causes, or participate in
demonstrations and demonstrations related to socioeconomic policies and oppression
(Torres-Harding et al., 2012).
Administrator: An administrator is a department head and program coordinator
who may have the power to determine faculty workload or course assignment and may
have the power to impose consequences on faculty members who encourage the
integration of social justice into CE, if that administrator opposes this integration of
social justice (Ratts & Wood, 2011).
Advocacy: Advocacy consists of individual actions that promote the rights of
other individuals and/or communities whose freedoms may be in danger of being lost
(West-Olatunji, 2010). It involves "actions directed to alter or alter the process of public
decision-making, thereby influencing the political, social, and economic context that
affects people's lives" (Nilsson et al., 2011, p. 259). Advocacy can be thought of as a
form of social justice work that targets social and institutional practices that create
barriers for clients to achieve access to tools for self-development and challenge social
oppression and inequality (Murray, Pope, & Rowell, 2010).
Advocacy competence: Advocacy competency is a term used to describe the
ability to understand and advocate effectively for those who do not have equal access to
goods and services in society (Toporek, Lewis, & Crethar, 2009).
Attitudes: Torres-Harding et al. (2012) describe attitudes "as involving a general
disposition of certain behaviors" (p. 79). They relate the definition of attitude
17
to Ajzen (1991). Torres-Harding et al. developed the SJS "to measure attitudes toward
social justice and values related to social justice, perceived self-efficacy around social
justice efforts, social norms around social justice efforts, and intentions to engage in
social justice-related activities and behaviors" (p. 80).
Curriculum: A curriculum can be described as a program specifically designed to
promote learning in a defined subject (e.g., social justice, advocacy, counseling, social
work, psychology); a defined subject has a faculty that teaches the subject matter
(Odegard & Vereen, 2010).
Faculty: Faculty is a term I used during this research to refer to people who are
employed as instructors/teachers in CE programs.
Multicultural competence: Multicultural competence is a concept found in the
statements of the ACA, the American Psychological Association, and the National
Association of Social Workers. The code of conduct emphasizes the professional
responsibility to recognize and respect the diversity of clients in order to allow equal
access to available services and to ensure that personal bias is not intrusive when
advising diverse populations (Pack-Brown, Thomas, & Seymour, 2008). Multicultural
competence refers to the information a faculty member has about the various worldview
orientations and histories of oppression experienced by marginalized groups, and
culturally specific values that influence the subjective and collective experiences of
marginalized populations (Constantine, Hage, Kindaichi, & Bryant, 2007).
Paradigm: Paradigm is a term used to describe a theory or model in
science (Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias, 2008). A faculty member who uses the
social justice counseling paradigm uses social advocacy and activism as a way to
overcome
18
unfair social, political, and economic conditions that interfere with the academic, career,
and personal or social development of a person, community, or family (Lewis, Ratts,
Paladino, & Toporek, 2011).
Social justice: Social justice is a concept undertaken by individuals who
recognize unequal systematic and oppressive access to resources provided to members of
society. Social justice involves addressing unequal access based on other forms of
sexism, racism, classism, and other isms, and bringing inclusive solutions to those
disenfranchised by policymakers (Odegard & Vereen, 2010).
Social justice advocacy: Social justice advocacy distinguishes advocacy as an
individual's direct service to clients and client groups from advocacy work that focuses
on professional or union issues (Toporek et al., 2009, p. 262).
Assumption
In this study, the first assumption is that counselor faculty members have
measurable attitudes, beliefs, and actions related to the importance of incorporating
advocacy and social justice practices into their personal and professional lives. My
second assumption is that participants answer the survey questions honestly. There are no
built-in safeguards for me to determine whether the participant's responses included in
the data collection are honest. I also assume that the selected survey will provide the data
intended to be collected based on the variables already mentioned.
Scope and Boundaries
The scope of this research includes all faculty currently working in counselor
education programs in the United States. I use a sample taken from all qualified faculty
members from the Association of Counselors, Educators, and Supervisors
19
(ACES) Counselor Education and Supervision Network Database (CESNET). This can
help improve the generalization of research results to more than just local participants in
a single geographic area (Creswell, 2014). In the beginning, I set up Survey Monkey to
ask inclusive questions, such as "Are you a faculty member for a master's or doctoral
program of counselor education?" If the participant's answer is "no", the participant is
automatically sent to the exit page. I did not extend participation in this study to other
counseling professionals (e.g., counseling psychologists, licensed marriage and family
counselors, or social workers) or graduate students enrolled in a program. By excluding
professionals in related professions, I limited this research to faculty in the mental health
counseling profession.
Limitations
The obstacle in this study is the limitation of volunteers who choose themselves
as participants; This self-selection may exclude important input from counselors and
other mental health educators. Indeed, Boslaugh and Watters (2008) stated that sampling
bias can occur when research participants can self-select into a study. Another limitation
was the inability to generalize the findings to other mental health professionals such as
social workers, psychologists, or licensed marriage and family therapists because the
study did not include participants from this professional group. The final limitation of
this study is that correlation studies do not measure cause and effect, as correlation can
only measure the relationship between two variables (Boslaugh & Watters, 2008).
20
Meaning
The discussion of including social justice training in pedagogy for prospective
counselors is not new. McDowell and Shelton (2002) examined the debate about
including social justice training in marriage and family therapy programs, noting a small
amount of research in this area that recognizes the needs of community members affected
by social justice and advocacy deficits in their lives. A search of the peer-reviewed
literature showed a lack of research identifying the attitudes and actions of counselor
educators regarding social justice and advocacy. The words I am looking for are the
counselor's attitude, the counselor's beliefs, and the counselor's actions about social
justice and advocacy. Some of the search sites I use are EBSCOhost, Sage, ProQuest,
Academic Search Complete, and PsycARTICLES. Undergraduate practitioners have
suggested that social justice and advocacy practices will be an important addition to
graduate programs to prepare future counselors to properly serve their clients (Brubaker
et al., 2010; Chang et al., 2010; Mallinckrodt et al., 2014; Malott & Knoper, 2012; Ratts,
2009; Ratts & Wood, 2011). It is critical to begin training students in graduate mental
health counseling programs on social justice and advocacy if these students are going to
serve a diverse client population (Mallinckrodt et al., 2014; Ratts, 2009; Ratts & Wood,
2011).
In the current research, I measured the attitudes, beliefs, and actions of faculty
regarding the concept of social justice and advocacy in their professional and personal
lives. Identification of attitudes, beliefs, and actions can facilitate or weaken faculty
motivation to embed the concept of social justice into the counselor's educational
curriculum. Gaining knowledge of faculty attitudes, beliefs, and actions can help
educators develop an understanding of what it takes to contribute to a paradigm shift in
21
how faculty conceptualize such practices in CE programs (Odegard & Vereen, 2010).
The inclusion of the social justice and advocacy paradigm by introducing the
concepts of social justice and advocacy during practicums, internships and supervision in
postgraduate counseling programs can lead to social change by helping researchers and
educators to understand the relationship between faculty attitudes and beliefs regarding
the concept and practice of social justice, and faculty taking action in social justice and
advocacy initiatives in their personal and professional lives. These concepts and actions
are embedded in the competencies developed by the ACA (Ratts, Toporek, & Lewis,
2010). This knowledge can lead to helping faculty develop a greater understanding of the
need to include the concepts of social justice and advocacy in the curriculum of
counsellor education and supervision. There is a need for educators to instill the concept
of social justice advocacy, combined with multiculturalism, to impart to their students, so
that students will develop a greater understanding of how injustice, injustice, and
oppression, based on factors such as race and culture, can affect the mental well-being of
their potential clients (Glosoff & Durham, 2010).
Summary
According to the ACA, social justice and advocacy are important pillars of the
counseling profession (Ratts et al., 2010). What scholars in the mental health profession
know is that there are outside forces in people's lives that influence how they interact in
the environment in which they live (Lee, 2007; Lee & Rogers, 2009). In the last decade,
scholars have emphasized the importance of counselor educators including
multiculturalism in student education in graduate counseling
22
program (Mallinckrodt et al., 2014; Malott & Knoper, 2012; Ratts et al., 2016; Ratts &
Wood, 2011). By embedding multicultural knowledge into the CE curriculum, it is
possible to ensure that counselors know and understand the importance of learning about
other cultures whose members seek services from mental health professionals (Arredondo
& Perez, 2003; Bemak et al., 2011; Konstantinus et al., 2007; Mallinckrodt et al., 2014;
Ratts et al., 2016). Researchers Chang et al. (2010), Constantine et al. (2007), and Glosoff
and Durham (2010) note in their study that mental health counseling perspectives are
Eurocentric in philosophy, and historically, some counselors do not understand their
clients who are not from European backgrounds. Often, these counselors base their
beliefs about others on their own biases and stereotypical information about others
(Chang et al., 2010; Glossoff & Durham, 2010).
Following the inclusion of multicultural classes in mental health counseling
graduate programs, scholars began reviewing literature proposing the need for additional
social justice and advocacy training for counselors (Arredondo & Perez, 2003;
Konstantinus et al., 2007; Mallinckrodt et al., 2014; Zalaquett et al., 2008). The
literature suggests that counselors may not be able to provide adequate services to
culturally different clients without learning about the importance of social justice and
advocacy in their clients' lives. Unless both educators and those who graduate from
counseling programs learn about the importance of these concepts, clients may not
benefit from counseling services (Arredondo & Perez, 2003; Collins et al., 2015;
Konstantinus et al., 2007; Crethar & Ratts, 2008; Zalaquett et al., 2008). In the United
States, historical and socio-political forces have created external barriers to resources for
many of these clients based on factors that include, but are not limited to, racism,
multiculturalism,
23
ethnicity, sexism, and socioeconomic status (Chang et al., 2010; Kiselica & Robinson,
2001; Ratts, 2009; Ratts & Wood, 2011).
However, despite the literature that has supported the need to include social
justice and advocacy in counselor programs (Bemak et al., 2011; Chang et al., 2010;
Crethar & Ratts, 2008), I have not been able to find any research that explores faculty
attitudes, beliefs, and actions or how these attitudes, beliefs, and actions in the personal
and professional lives of faculty members can be attributed to the importance that faculty
puts in place in applying such social justice concepts. In addition, some research
literature supports the idea that there is resistance from administrators and faculty
regarding this paradigm shift in their programs (Bemak et al., 2011; Chang et al., 2010;
Crethar & Ratts, 2008; Odegard & Vereen, 2010). There is a lack of empirical research
on faculty attitudes, beliefs, and actions regarding social justice and advocacy.
My goal in this quantitative survey research study is to explore the relationship
between the attitudes, beliefs, and actions of counselor educators about social justice and
advocacy in their personal and professional lives. Therefore, I examined one research
question: Is there a statistically significant relationship between faculty attitudes and
beliefs regarding the value of social justice and advocacy, and faculty who take action in
social justice and advocacy initiatives in their personal and professional lives?
This study can help counselor educators to develop awareness about faculty
attitudes, beliefs, and actions related to social justice and advocacy in their personal and
professional lives (Chang et al., 2010; Glosoff & Durham, 2010; Pohan & Aguilar,
2001). The information obtained from my research can contribute to the knowledge of
how
24
The attitudes and beliefs of faculty members relate to their actions. This knowledge can
lead to the development of strategies that can create a paradigm shift in counselor
education programs for the inclusion of social justice curricula. This concludes the
summary of Chapter 1. In Chapter 2, I provide the following information: an
introduction to the research problem and objectives, a synopsis of the current literature,
literature search strategies, theoretical foundations, and a review of the literature related
to the main variables and/or concepts.
25
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The problem I identified from the literature review is that students report low
self-efficacy to be agents of change because the concepts of social justice and advocacy
are not taught or modeled in their classrooms by their CE faculty (Mallinckrodt et al.,
2014; Malott & Knoper, 2012; Ratts & Wood, 2011). Social justice advocacy training is
important if future counselors are going to engage in such important work (Collins et al.,
2015). Some researchers have found that some students experience self-doubt about their
ability to be agents of change in the lives of their future clients, especially when previous
counselor educators did not introduce the concepts of social justice and advocacy into the
student scheme (Collins et al., 2015; Mayhew & Fernández, 2007). Without examining
the attitudes, beliefs, and actions of counselor educators about how to become agents of
social change, the future goals of this counseling profession may not materialize.
Other scholars have reported that students must be well-trained in the concepts of
social justice and advocacy if they are to become the agents of change that their clients
need in today's diverse world (Mallinckrodt et al., 2014; Malott & Knoper, 2012; Miller
& Sendrowitz, 2011). Collins et al. (2015) and Ginns et al. (2015) support findings by
other scholars that social justice and advocacy training are important if future counselors
are going to engage in such important work in their personal and professional lives.
After an extensive literature review, I found no evidence-based research identifying a
correlation between the attitudes, beliefs, and actions of counselor educators regarding
social justice and advocacy and the importance this faculty placed on the inclusion of
social justice and advocacy concepts in them
26
personal and professional life. Therefore, this study is the first step in determining
whether there are supports or obstacles related to faculty attitudes, beliefs, and actions
that may support or prevent the infusion of social justice and advocacy in counselor
education programs.
My goal for this quantitative survey study was to examine the relationship
between the attitudes and beliefs of university faculty members and the actions they take
toward the addition of social justice and advocacy practices in their personal and
professional lives. The sustainable variables I am interested in for this study are faculty
attitudes, beliefs, and actions, and the level of faculty importance to social justice and
advocacy in their personal and professional lives. The results of my research may
potentially support the research of the previously mentioned scholars regarding the
inclusion of social justice and advocacy in the personal and professional lives of mental
health counselor educators.
After finding research that supports the inclusion of social justice practices in the
pedagogy of CE programs but minimal research on social justice infusions, Odegard and
Vereen (2010) conducted a qualitative study using the theory that is based on
determining whether college educators in counseling programs integrate social justice
theory in their classrooms. The emerging theories resulting from this study include the
concept of the need to increase awareness, the need for a paradigm shift, and the need to
integrate the concept of social justice into the CE classroom. These authors also address
the many challenges of incorporating the concept of social justice into the curriculum but
continue to find limited knowledge about actual social justice practices in the classroom
(Odegard & Vereen, 2010). Odegard and Vereen suggest follow-up
27
Quantitative studies use surveys that incorporate any concepts found during their basic
theoretical research about college educators in counseling programs and the integration
of their social justice into their programs.
Many scholars around the world, both from the paramedic and teacher
professions, have noted the lack of infusion of social justice and advocacy into the core
curriculum of training programs for future practitioners, and concerns have been raised
about how well future educators and health care providers will be equipped to work
successfully with diverse and marginalized populations (Arar & Oplatka, 2016; Yusuf,
2011; Mills & Ballantyne, 2016; Rice et al., 2016). Empirical research of undergraduate
practitioners in the mental health counseling profession has also determined that students
in graduate counseling programs must receive an education in social justice advocacy if
they want to serve their future clients (Mallinckrodt et al., 2014; Malott & Knoper,
2012). Undergraduate practitioners have suggested that social justice and advocacy
practices will be an important addition to graduate programs to prepare future counselors
to serve their clients (Brubaker et al., 2010; Chang et al., 2010; Mallinckrodt et al., 2014;
Ratts, 2009; Ratts & Woods, 2011). However, a peer-reviewed literature search resulted
in a lack of research identifying social justice and advocacy practices in graduate mental
health counseling programs (Brubaker et al., 2010; Chang et al., 2010; Chung & Bemak,
2013; Malott & Knoper, 2012; Ratts & Wood, 2011). According to Ratts (2009) and
Ratts and Wood (2011), it is critical to start training students in graduate mental health
counseling programs on social justice and advocacy if they want to better serve a diverse
client population.
28
The discussion about including social justice training in the pedagogy of
prospective counselors is not new. McDowell and Shelton (2002) examined the debate
about including such training in marriage and family therapy and found that researchers
have conducted minimal research in this area to recognize the needs of affected
community members of social justice and advocacy deficits in their lives. Scholars have
conceptually added professional counseling literature on the importance of applying
social justice studies and advocacy in postgraduate mental health counseling programs
(Bemak et al., 2011; Brubaker et al., 2010; Chang et al., 2010; Mallinckrodt et al., 2014;
Malott & Knoper, 2012; Ratts & Wood, 2011).
Educators' pedagogical methods for including social justice advocacy in graduate
mental health counseling programs have provided considerable information about why
the theory is important (Bankston, 2010; Collins et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2009), but little
research has been conducted to include social justice advocacy in counseling programs
(Brubaker et al., 2010; Chung & Bemak, 2013; Glosoff & Durham, 2010; Steele, 2008).
A search by undergraduate practitioners for empirical research data on the inclusion of
social justice and advocacy studies in graduate mental health counseling programs has
yielded few results (Brubaker et al., 2010; Collins et al., 2015; Nilsson & Schmidt, 2005;
Odegard & Vereen, 2010; Smith et al., 2009). With little evidence to include the concepts
of social justice and advocacy in the classroom, although research shows the need, my
first step to begin identifying this impasse is to explore the attitudes and beliefs of CE
faculty regarding faculty taking action in social justice and advocacy initiatives in their
personal and professional lives. The last decade has seen discussions in peer-reviewed
journals about the importance of mental health counseling programs including
29
class studies of social justice and advocacy in their pedagogy (Malott & Knoper, 2012;
Ratts & Wood, 2011).
This impetus for discussion has changed cultural demographics in the United
States and concerns that students in graduate mental health counseling programs are not
trained to work with a changing society (Collins et al., 2015). Students' ability to
conceptualize the forces influencing culturally diverse ethnic groups will be an important
aspect of their ability to understand the concepts of social justice and advocacy as they
relate to their future clients (Chang, Hays, & Milliken, 2009; Collins et al., 2015). Along
with the conceptualization of social justice and advocacy, students need to understand
the history of oppression and inequality for disenfranchised groups in the United States
and how this affects the well-being of these groups (Collins et al., 2015).
With little evidence to incorporate the concepts of social justice and advocacy
into the core curriculum, although research suggests the need for it (Mallinckrodt et al.,
2014; Malott & Knoper, 2012), remains important to explore the relationship between
attitudes and beliefs and social justice actions of CE faculties. After a decade of
recognition but little action, the next step is to explore the barriers to the implementation
of the concept of social justice and advocacy. The faculty's professional and personal
attitudes and beliefs may hinder the infusion of the concepts of social justice and
advocacy into the counseling program. Despite a thorough literature review, I have
found no research that identifies the attitudes and beliefs of CE faculty regarding this
issue.
My research is based on research by undergraduate practitioners (e.g., Brubaker
et al., 2010; Chang et al., 2010; Ratts, 2009; Ratts & Wood, 2011) whose findings
support
30
The theory that social justice and advocacy studies should be an important standard
component in any mental health graduate counseling program. My studies have the
potential to increase awareness and knowledge about counselor educators' attitudes and
beliefs, and how that awareness and knowledge will facilitate faculty taking action in
social justice and advocacy initiatives in their personal and professional lives. This
knowledge can lead to strategies that can lead to a paradigm shift for the inclusion of
social justice pedagogy and advocacy in CE programs (Odegard & Vereen, 2010). In the
remainder of this chapter, I provide a discussion of my literature search strategy, the
theoretical basis for the research, and a literature review of the main variables and
concepts related to this research.
Literature Search Strategy
The literature search strategy is to find empirical data on the relationship between
the attitudes and actions of mental health counselor educators regarding social justice and
advocacy in their personal and professional lives. The use of databases such as
EBSCOhost, PsycINFO, Sage, ProQuest, PsycINFO, Academic Search Complete, and
PsycARTICLES played an important role in providing information for this study. The
use of Google Scholar is also an important factor in retrieving research information on
social justice and advocacy. The Walden Library is used extensively to search for
important information for this research, and the section titled "Find the Right Article" is
used extensively. The "Find the Right Articles" area on the library's website provides a
way for me to link to journals that are important for research and to search by article title
or digital object identifier (DOI).
31
Research sources that provide the most beneficial and valuable information are
directly related to peer-reviewed journals such as the Journal of College Counseling,
Journal of Counseling and Development, Counseling Psychologist, Counselor Education
and Supervision, and Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation. The
various journals I use provide a wealth of research conducted by counseling scholars,
mental health professionals, and psychologists, as well as rehabilitation practitioner
discussions on social justice theory and advocacy and the importance of incorporating
concepts as part of the CE program.
The search terms I use include social justice, advocacy, mental health
counseling, counselor educators, mental health counselors, and university counseling
administrators. I searched for research that addresses counselor educators' attitudes,
beliefs, and actions regarding social justice advocacy and how those concepts are
incorporated into their personal and professional lives. A peer-reviewed literature search
resulted in a lack of research identifying social justice and advocacy practices and the
attitudes, beliefs, and actions of counselor educators in counseling programs (Brubaker
et al., 2010; Chang et al., 2010; Ratts & Wood, 2011). In a further search of the
literature on social justice and advocacy, I found that the concepts go back to the 18th
century, as previously noted by Kiselica and Robinson (2001), and resurfaced in the
early 20th century when Clifford Beers, a psychiatric patient who had previously been
hospitalized, revealed the inhumane treatment of patients in his 1908 book, The Self-
Invented Mind: An Autobiography (Kiselica & Robinson, 2001, p. 79). For my study, I
searched the current literature from 1999 to the present from peer-reviewed journals and
selected a few seminal articles from the 1980s.
32
Theoretical Foundation: SCT Bandura
The theoretical framework I used for this research was SCT Bandura (1977) (also
known as social learning theory). Bandura (1989, 2001) described the theory as
emergent, which means that people are not without mistakes and contribute to what
happens to them in life. According to Bandura, a feature of social learning theory is that
humans cognitively make decisions through motivation, reinforcement of their behavior,
and whether the benefits derived from their behavior encourage them to retain the
concept or let it go. Bandura states that a theory has value when the theoretical method
ultimately shows a psychological change in the behavior that occurs; A theory must have
"predictive power" (p. 5) and be able to reliably recognize the reasons for changes in
human behavior and the processes that bring about the changes.
Bandura (1977) also reported that theoretical methods are best judged based on
their effectiveness in changing behavior. When a person understands his or her
motivation for behavior change, the likelihood of change becoming internalized is
greater than behavior change based on "self-discovery" (Bandura, 1977, p. 4).
Self-efficacy
One of the features of the social cognitive learning theory is self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1977; Dinther, Dochy, & Segers, 2011). When discussing the introduction of
social justice advocacy into student counseling curriculum, there is a possibility of self-
doubt related to whether faculty members have the self-efficacy and training to embed
the concepts of social justice and advocacy into the curriculum (Chung & Bemak, 2013;
Collins et al., 2015; Malott & Knoper, 2012). Mayhew and Fernández (2007) write that
according to SCT, a person who achieves self-efficacy (i.e., self-confidence) gains an
incremental level
33
changes in their behavior, and visible changes in behavior will increase a person's
chances of becoming a social justice advocate because his or her efficacy becomes
greater.
In addition, the faculty's lack of self-efficacy for social justice and advocacy can
translate into a lack of student self-efficacy. Mayhew and Fernández (2007) report that
students can gain self-efficacy if they are challenged, supported, and given the
opportunity to practice counseling skills, which can develop tangible behavioral changes
in their ability to understand the concepts of social justice and advocacy; This requires
interaction and feedback from faculty members. However, the interaction and feedback
described by Mayhew and Fernández requires a program with "rigor" (p. 56), which
means less lectures and the use of role-playing as students participate in interactive
exercises that show the suffering of the disenfranchised group. By participating in role-
playing and exercises that focus on disenfranchised groups in society, students can
develop cognitive skills that support retention and understanding of the need for social
justice and advocacy on behalf of student groups (Mayhew & Fernández, 2007). Lectures
and classroom presentations such as PowerPoint and research assignments do not replace
the immersion of actual students into the world of the disenfranchised group; immersion
more precisely develops the desired cognitive skills theorized by Bandura (Mayhew &
Fernández, 2007). However, if faculty are not involved in social justice and advocacy in
their own professional and personal lives, it may be unlikely that they will engage
students in this way in the classroom.
Counseling programs taught in the traditional way of teaching are necessary but not
effective in building the cognitive skills and self-efficacy needed by counseling students
to gain knowledge about social justice advocacy (Mayhew & Fernández, 2007).
34
Mayhew and Fernández report that there is a need to shape an education-learning
experience for students that provides opportunities to learn about social justice and at the
same time addresses their refusal to learn about cultural differences.
Human Agent
Bandura (2001) writes about the "agent perspective" (p. 1); the word agent is a
derivative of agency and "refers to an action done deliberately" (Bandura, 2001, p. 6).
The agent perspective basically refers to humans not only being products of their
environment, but also producers of "social systems" (Bandura, 2001, p. 1). A person's
cognition is necessary for him to understand his environment and recognize whether he
has the self-efficacy to be effective when it involves systems that affect his life (Bandura,
2001). If the CE program becomes intent on introducing social justice and advocacy into
its curriculum, the introduction will require answers on how to increase the level of
sensitivity and conscious awareness of students who lack the conceptualization of social
justice and advocacy for disenfranchised groups (Mayhew & Fernández, 2007).
Mayhew and Fernández (2007) stated that focus gives students the opportunity to
access their feelings giving them the opportunity to reflect on their views on race,
racism, and any stereotypical attitudes regarding any group or groups. Mayhew and
Fernández noted that the opportunity to access feelings is important, especially for white
students. According to Bandura (2001) and SCT, people are "agents" of what happens to
them, not just passively through experiences in their environment (p. 4).
35
The multicultural movement has had an influence on how universities and
colleges develop their pedagogy to include cultural diversity, introduce how cultures are
interrelated, and depend on each other to have democratic societies (Mayhew &
Fernández, 2007). The introduction of multiculturalism in education is intended to help
see the systematic teaching of discrimination in society, which promotes the cognition of
hatred against certain groups (Collins et al., 2015; Mayhew & Fernández, 2007).
Bandura (2001) notes that what people believe determines how they interact with their
world and the outcome (whatever it is) of that, interaction (belief system) can be a
desirable or undesirable outcome.
The concept of human agents is part of the agent perspective of social cognitive
theory and has three types of human agents, "personal, proxy, and collective" (Bandura,
2001, p. 13). Bandura (2001) describes personal agency as when a person thinks about
what actions to take about their life, where motivation comes from, where feelings are
experienced, and where the results of their cognition, motivation, and feelings manifest
themselves. Often even though people practice cognition and motivation, the results of
their efforts to influence their environment are beyond their control; this is when these
individuals seek out proxy agents (Bandura, 2001). The human agent proxy mode is
sought when people reach out to others who can lead them to resources and goods, and
services that they cannot obtain by their own efforts (Bandura, 2001). Students in
graduate counseling programs must understand the agency's perspective, and the
importance of social justice and advocacy.
36
Social Justice Research Using the Bandura Concept
Bandura's social cognitive theory (aka social learning theory) in the current study
is more recent than Mayhew and Fernandez's 2007 research. These researchers
investigated student and faculty attitudes regarding the inclusion of social justice and
advocacy concepts in the curriculum of university graduate mental health programs (i.e.,
classrooms) that prepare future counselors to work with clients. Research studies using
Banduras' social cognitive theory as a framework ranged from 2010 to 2014. Bandura's
theory has been found useful in assessing faculty attitudes (along with students) to add
social justice advocacy classes to graduate mental health counseling programs and
graduate counseling psychology programs.
Bandura's social cognitive theory is an important tool to use in my research.
Miller et al. (2009) note that over the past few years many scholars from various
fields of study, for example, law, social work, sociology, and education have shown
interest in social justice and advocacy. There are many perspectives/definitions of social
justice used by different fields of study, but almost always addressing the lack of equity,
reducing resource distribution gaps, and access to resources are examples (Miller et al.,
2009). Miller et al. include what the literature has written about social justice and
psychologists and state that psychologists have an ethical and philosophical responsibility
to engage in social justice, and to find ways to address social injustice by learning how to
advocate.
According to Miller et al. (2009) there is little written about the underlying
factors that might influence college students to become interested in social justice
advocacy. Because of the literature that discusses social justice, Miller et al. did
37
Theory-driven empirical studies in the social justice domain to study undergraduate
students' social justice interests and commitments. Miller et al. studied undergraduate
students using social-cognitive career theory (SCCT), based on Bandura's social
cognitive theory, to determine how students develop an interest in and commitment to
social justice issues. Since its inception in 1994, researchers have used SCCT in
empirical research, proving its ability to articulate self-efficacy, and to explain students'
career development in various professions (Miller et al., 2009).
The aim of Miller et al.'s study was to explore the psychological processes involved in
students' interest and commitment to, social justice.
Research begins at the large Northeastern University with undergraduate students
enrolled in four courses, two general education courses (for all students), career/life
planning for some students; and multicultural diversity. The other two undergraduate
programs are introductory-level courses in psychology and counseling (Miller et al.,
2009). The researchers distributed 374 packages to students interested in participating
that contained a cover letter, an informed consent form, and a confidential questionnaire.
However, only 315 (84%) of the packages were returned in the next period of students'
classes. Of the 315 packages, only 274 were complete and thus retained for analysis
(Miller et al., 2009). Participating students are compensated with a five-dollar gift card
(Miller et al., 2009).
Of the 274 respondent research packages saved for analysis, there were 191 women
(Miller et al., 2009). The average age of the respondents was 19.64 (SD = 3.08).
Respondents self-reported their racial group as, 81.8% (n = 224) European-American,
5.8% (n = 16) Latino/a, 4.7% (n = 13) African-American, 0.03% (n = 8) Asian
38
American, 0.7% (n =2) Native American Indians, 1.8% (n =5) as biracial, and 0.02% (n
=6) reported as "other" (Miller et al., 2009). Of the 274 participants, 101 were identified
as first-year students, 61 as second-year students, 59 as juniors, 52 as seniors, and one
participant did not mention their academic status (Miller et al., 2009). Respondents were
also asked to estimate their parents' combined annual income and/or their own income;
"17 reported annual revenue of $25,000, 58 reported $50,000, 54 reported $75,000, 74
reported
$100,000, 49 reported more than $150,000, and 22 reported "other" or did not provide this
information" (Miller et al., 2009, p. 499).
The study respondents completed a pencil and paper version of the Social Issues
Questionnaire (Miller et al., 2009). The Social Issues Questionnaire (SIQ) was developed
by study authors Miller et al. and is based on the social justice literature written by Vera
and Speight (2003) and others (Miller et al., 2009). Prior to its use in this study, SIQ was
reviewed by those considered experts in the field of social justice and SCCT (Miller et
al., 2009).
The purpose of Miller et al. (2009) in managing SIQ is for researchers to learn
about students' knowledge of social inequality and their involvement in social justice
activities (Miller et al., 2009). The questionnaire included measurements for "domain-
specific social justice self-efficacy, outcome expectations, interests, preferred goals, and
social support, and barriers associated with social justice engagement" (Miller et al.,
2009, p. 499). SIQ asks participants to answer questions using
The 10-point Likert scale ranges from 0-9, with zero meaning no confidence at all and nine
meaning full confidence for the question item.
39
The SIQ contains 20 questions in the self-efficacy section of social justice (Part
one). In social justice self-efficacy, high scores in the section show high confidence in
demonstrating social justice advocacy activities (Miller et al., 2009). The self-efficacy
section of social justice SIQ has an estimated internal consistency of 0.94 for the total
scale (Miller et al., 2009). The second part of the SIQ contains 10 questions that measure
involvement in social justice activities (expectation of outcomes) used on a 10-point
Likert scale ranging from zero – nine, with meanings of zero (strongly disagree) and nine
meanings (strongly agree). In the social justice activities/expectations section, higher
scores showed high expectations of participants to be involved in social justice advocacy
activities (Miller et al., 2009). The internal consistency for the social justice activity
section of this study was .81 (Miller et al., 2009).
The third part of the SIQ contains three sections, the first measures interest in
social justice, the second measures commitment, and the third measures support and
barriers to engagement in social justice (Miller et al., 2009). The first part of Part III
contains nine questions, also on a 10-point Likert scale, to measure interest ranging from
zero to nine, with zero meaning very low interest and nine meaning very high interest. In
the Interest section of Part III, high scores indicate a high level of interest in social justice
(Miller et al., 2009). The second part of Part III, social justice commitment, has four
questions using the same 10-point Likert scale to measure commitment, with zero
meanings (strongly disagree) and nine meanings (strongly agree). High scores in this
section indicate a high likelihood that participants are committed to future social justice
advocacy (Miller et al., 2009).
40
The third part of Part III deals with support and barriers to social justice
engagement/commitment. This section has a total of nine questions; five support-related
questions, and four resistance-related questions using the same 10-point Likert scale,
with meanings of zero (absolutely impossible) to nine meanings (very likely). The
questions in the third part of Part III were written to measure respondents' perceptions of
receiving support or facing negative barriers to social justice involvement from family,
friends, and others (Miller et al., 2009). A high score on the two scales in the third part of
Part III will indicate the perception of social support without barriers to engaging in
social justice advocacy activities (Miller et al., 2009). According to Miller et al. (2009)
"social support and social barriers (r = 0.40, p < 0.01)" is what emerges from a
consistent study of theoretical relationships (p. 500). Part of this study revealed the
estimated internal consistency for social support was 0.90 and the estimate was 0.79 for
social barriers (Miller et al., 2009).
Miller et al. (2009) aimed to assess whether social-cognitive career theory
(SCCT) can demonstrate how students can develop an interest in social justice and
commitment, and the role of self-efficacy and what outcome expectations will have in
developing an interest and commitment to social justice. Their study confirms that self-
efficacy when compared to outcome expectations has a strong influence on the
development of students' interest in social justice (Miller et al., 2009). Miller et al.'s
study also confirms that once interest in social justice is developed, that interest can then
lead to commitment in social justice advocacy. The results of this study illustrate a large
number of differences between "social justice interest (56%) of participants (56%) and
commitment to social justice (70%)" (Miller et al., 2009, p. 501). Miller et al.
41
concluded that the findings of this study support the variable value of the SCCT core
model to predict students' interest in social justice, which can then lead to commitment.
Miller et al. (2009) reported the limitations of this study, the first being the use
of a non-randomly selected college comfort sample, this choice prevents generalization
to students at other colleges in the country. Another limitation noted by Miller et al. is
the use of predominantly white middle-class women, which generalizing to other racial,
ethnic, and socioeconomic groups is not possible. This study did not cover the learning
experiences of the respondents and their learning experiences would be a factor in self-
efficacy and expectation of outcomes (Miller et al., 2009).
Other variables that were not included in this study were previous experiences of
social justice, personality dispositions, and experiences with injustice (Miller et al.,
2009). Miller et al. (2009) reported that abandoning variables may reduce the full
exploration of the model (SCCT), which may have prevented a complete understanding
of the importance and commitment of social justice. Miller et al. also mentioned that
using cross-sectional data does not allow for the examination of the influence of social-
cognitive variables, and how social justice and commitment will evolve over time. Miller
et al. recommend that future research may use longitudinal methods to investigate the
extent to which these variables predict true social justice advocacy behavior.
As a way to recognize scholars' calls to include social justice and advocacy in
counseling programs, many counseling psychology training programs are beginning to
include a social justice component in their programs, particularly in classes related to
supervisory training, professional development, and research (Miller &
42
Sendrowitz, 2011). According to Miller and Sendrowitz (2011), the long-term goal of
tailoring counselor training programs to include social justice is to stimulate students'
awareness of social justice issues and to develop the skills necessary to become
advocates. Miller and Sendrowitz decided to review and re-examine Miller et al. (2009)
the research they completed on social justice interest and commitment in relation to
undergraduate students.
The purpose of Miller and Sendrowitz (2011) to conduct a review was to test the
external validity of the study of Miller et al. (2009) which used social-cognitive career
theory (SCCT) to test self-efficacy (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011). Another goal of Miller
et al. is to define additional domains regarding social support, barriers, and outcome
expectations (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011). Based on previous research, Miller and
Sendrowitz acknowledge that counseling psychology programs have assimilated the
concept of social justice into their training models to develop awareness of social justice
among students. At the time of their study, Miller and Sendrowitz stated there was a lack
of empirical research examining outcomes related to training initiatives developed in
"counseling psychology programs" intended to encourage students to develop an interest
in social justice initiatives (p. 159).
Miller and Sendrowitz (2011) use existing models related to social cognition
because they are related to individual social justice interests and commitments. The
Miller and Sendrowitz study component also explores the students' educational
environment and moral perspectives held by the sample population because these two
components are not included in Miller and Sendrowitz's 2009 study. These researchers
consider that the educational environment will be important because it will include
attitudes
43
faculty on social justice and faculty modelling on social justice and advocacy (Miller &
Sendrowitz, 2011).
Another important reason for including an educational environment in research is
that an educational environment will give students the opportunity to discuss any
concerns or lack of knowledge they have about social justice (Miller & Sendrowitz,
2011). The moral perspective of this research will allow students to discover for
themselves the personal reasons they will be motivated to engage in social justice and
advocacy (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011). Miller and Sendrowitz (2011) report that prior to
starting the study, there were several empirical studies examining what causes
individuals to achieve interests and make commitments to social justice and advocacy.
The researchers took their samples from the student population. The method
Miller and Sendrowitz (2011) used for the study was the recruitment (over a two-year
period) of doctoral students in a counseling psychology program (Miller & Sendrowitz,
2011). Miller, the first author, recruited the sample population by contacting the training
directors of 67 American Psychological Association-accredited counseling psychology
programs in North America (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011). The sample population for this
study also came from several listservs of the Society of Counseling Psychology (Miller
& Sendrowitz, 2011). Miller and Sendrowitz's hypothesis is that if the educational
environment provides trainees with supervision, resources, and time, then interest in
social justice advocacy may increase among students.
The students were directed to an online survey, using a secure PsychData base,
where participants were instructed to fill out a confidential questionnaire and
44
informed consent (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011). Because of the method used to recruit
participants, Miller and Sendrowitz (2011) were unable to determine the response rate.
However, the online survey was viewed by 293 people, 280 participated, and of the 280
only 240 completed the online survey (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011). There were 11
participants who were not enrolled in the counseling program at the time of the survey,
11 were omitted from the analysis, leaving a sample size of 229 (Miller & Sendrowitz,
2011).
The sample size was (n = 226) in the doctoral program in philosophy, (n = 2)
doctor of psychology, and (n = 1) doctor of education, in the counseling psychology
program (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011). The participants reported themselves as 76%
female (n =174), 23% male (n =52), 0.5% gender-queer (n =1), 0.5% female androgenic
(n =1), and another 0.5% (n =1), for 229 (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011). The average age
of the sample population was reported as 28.86 (SD = 5.25). Miller and Sendrowitz
(2011) stated participants self-reported their ethnic and racial identification, 72% (n =
164) Caucasian/European/American/White, 10% (n = 24)
Asian/Asian-American/Pacific Islander, 6% (n = 13) Latino/a, 5% (n = 11) African-
American/Black, 3% (n = 6) Central
Eastern, 1% (n = 2) Native American/American Indian, and 4% (n = 9)
multiethnic/multiracial. The students were at various stages of their doctoral programs,
25% (n =58) reported being in their first year, 15% (n =35) in their second year, 16% (n
=36) in their third year, 18% (n =41). Furthermore, in the fourth year, 14% (n =33) in the
fifth year, 7% (n =15) in the sixth year, 2% (n =5) in the seventh year, and 3% (n =6) are
in other years (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011). To protect the confidentiality of participants,
each of the schools they attended was not identified, but most were present
45
schools identified as Midwest 17% (n =84), 21% (n =48) Northeast, 14% (n =32)
Southeast, 10% (n =24) West, 7% (n =15) South, and 5% (n= 12) Northwest (Miller &
Sendrowitz, 2011).
The measures completed by the participants were an online version of, Social
Justice Self-Efficacy, Social Justice Outcome Expectations, Social Justice Interests, and
Social Justice Commitments from the Social Issues Questionnaire (Miller & Sendrowitz,
2011). Miller and Sendrowitz (2011) reported that there are other scales developed and
used only for this study, the Social Justice Training Environmental Support scale, and
Barriers. After analyzing the survey results, Miller and Sendrowitz found that about 95%
of study participants reported that at least one course included issues related to social
justice; About 42% reported no specific courses that referred to social justice.
Around 67% of respondents admitted that they rarely read social justice literature;
details of 67% are 44.5% inconsistently, 20.5% very rarely, and 2.6% not at all (Miller &
Sendrowitz, 2011). Students' assessment of their educational environment (i.e., a training
environment that includes faculty and programs) for social justice showed about 32% of
respondents reported little opportunity to be exposed to social justice advocacy
information (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011). However, 50% reported that information about
social justice advocacy was available in their programs, while 18% had no knowledge of
the availability of social justice advocacy information in their programs (Miller &
Sendrowitz, 2011).
In addition, 42% of survey respondents believe that the majority of faculty in their
programs are not part of the pursuit of social justice, 43% feel that faculty
46
in programs they are involved in social justice activities, and 15% are unsure about
faculty involvement with social justice issues (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011). The majority
of respondents (58.1%) believe that students are encouraged to be active in social justice
and advocacy issues. However, only 30% responded that their programs provided them
with time or provided guidance and resources for students to engage in social justice
advocacy activities (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011).
The social justice importance hypothesis (SJI) tested by Miller and Sendrowitz for
the 2011 study was domain-specific social justice self-efficacy (SJSE) and social justice
outcome hypothesis (SJOE) (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011). SJSE has a total scale of
estimated internal consistency of 0.95 and a subscale estimate of 0.79 to
.92 (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011). SJOE yielded an estimated internal consistency of 0.88
(Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011). The hypothesis of the importance of social justice self-
efficacy (SJSE) does show direct and indirect effects on the importance of social justice
(Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011); The interest hypothesis predicts that the domain will
support interest in social justice (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011). A commitment hypothesis,
Social Justice Commitment (SJC) predicts that the interests of social justice will
determine the commitment to social justice; The estimated internal consistency for this
study is 0.90 (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011). SJC is supported by the interest hypothesis by
showing a direct correlation with commitment to social justice, suggesting that students
with a higher interest in social justice are more likely to commit to social justice later in
life (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011). Findings by Miller and Sendrowitz (2011) on belief in
self-efficacy and the relationship with social creation
47
The commitment to justice (SJC) contrasts with the findings of a 2009 study, which means
these researchers found a positive direct relational effect between self-efficacy and SJC.
The difference in findings from the two research studies may have something to
do with the type of respondents in each study (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011). In a 2009
study, undergraduate students were a sample population with counseling and psychology
courses; Meanwhile, in the 2011 study, the respondents were doctoral students in
counseling psychology. Doctoral students may have more experience and exposure to the
concept of social justice advocacy (Miller et al., 2009; Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011).
According to Miller and Sendrowitz (2011) a 2009 study, "the indirect effects
model of social justice interest and commitment accounted for a large amount of variance
in social justice interests (about 53%) and social justice commitments (about 72%), a
finding similar to the results of Miller et al. (2009) models, which accounted for about
56% of the variance in social justice interests and 70% of variance in social justice
commitments" (p. 165). Miller and Sendrowitz believe the findings for the 2011 and
2009 studies support "generalizations of social cognitive models of social justice interests
and commitments with counseling psychology trainees" (p. 165). The findings of the
educational environment or social justice training support that by providing faculty with
opportunities for students to learn about social justice and advocacy, it can increase
students' confidence in social justice self-efficacy, which in turn will translate into
interest and commitment to social justice advocacy (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011). The
personal moral perspective section of this study and how it affects social justice and
interest shows direct and indirect effects on SJC by enhancing the principle of self-
efficacy (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011). Miller and
48
Sendrowitz noted the methodological limitations of the study are that the respondents
were primarily Caucasian/European/Caucasian women who identified themselves in
doctoral programs and the ability to generalize across various counseling programs was
unknown. Another limitation noted is the use of social justice training environments
and personal moral imperative scales developed by the authors primarily for this study,
and whether the scales will be useful in other studies (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011).
It is also possible that the hypotheses and measurements used in the Miller and
Sendrowitz (2011) study did not capture all the relevant variables that need to be studied
and; as a result, it does not address possible relationships in the population (Miller &
Sendrowitz, 2011). For example, Miller and Sendrowitz's research did not include
personality variables that may influence the development of self-efficacy and its
relationship to outcome expectations associated with social justice advocacy (Miller &
Sendrowitz, 2011). The researchers also limited their research to using cross-sectional
data that did not consider how social cognitive variables might influence later social
justice interests and commitments (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011).
Future research may include alternative hypotheses regarding SCCT variables
and the use of longitudinal methods to see how the variables used predict the outcomes
of social justice advocacy (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011). Although the research by
Miller and Sendrowitz (2011) is dedicated to the study of doctoral counseling
psychology students, the implications of the importance of including social justice
advocacy in training programs are clear for both researchers. Among the suggestions
made by Miller and Sendrowitz to include social justice in education
49
environment, is to structure social justice-specific courses, provide social justice
outreach, and research opportunities. Another suggestion by Miller and Sendrowitz is for
educators to go beyond simply including social justice in multicultural curricula and to
provide other methods of inclusion such as using Prilleltensky's emancipatory
communitarian approach. Miller and Sendrowitz recognize that student learning about
social justice is important and best achieved in the social justice (psychology) counseling
paradigm (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011).
In summary, the theoretical framework for current research is based on Bandura's
theory of social learning (aka cognitive learning), that people cognitively make decisions
based on the information given to them (Bandura, 1977). Other concepts or features of
Bandura's theory represented in this study are the concept of self-efficacy (which is a
person's belief that he or she can achieve a goal or perform a skill) and an agent
perspective (i.e., the ability to act deliberately) (Bandura, 1977).
Literature Review Revisited
In this section, I review the research and literature on social justice and advocacy
related to my studies. I reviewed the history of the social justice and advocacy movement
and discussed current methods for training counselors in the concept of social justice and
advocacy. Next, I reviewed the research literature related to social justice and advocacy
and discussed the lack of infusion of social justice and advocacy concepts into counselor
education programs.
History of the Social Justice and Advocacy Movement
Coates (2007) theorizes that dialogue about social justice could be a panacea for
some, suggesting that discussion is not enough to address the need for social justice
50
among segments of the population without educating others about the issue. Coates refers to
John Rawls' theory and Rawls' belief that social structures must operate under the philosophy
of a fair distribution of goods and services to the least in society.
Coates points out a pedagogical paradigm in the study of social justice with instructions
aimed at social justice issues, as they exist today, along with knowledge of social
systems that are inaccessible to segments of society.
Bankston (2010) studied John Rawls' theory of social justice which Bankston is
credited with coining the term social justice. Bankston argued that improved education,
medical care, and other improvements after World War II did not increase the
redistribution of goods and services for many people in society depending on their social
class, a point attributed to Rawls. Bankston concluded that education is necessary to
understand the historical framework of social justice, advocacy, and other theories of
social justice.
My discussion about including social justice training in the pedagogy of potential
counselors is not a new idea. Mays (2000) notes the work of two well-known
moderators, the Rev. Jessie Jackson and psychologist Bonnie Strickland, and their
research based on exclusion-based historical factors or race, culture, gender, and other
discriminatory factors that affect a person's well-being. Jackson (2000), in his speech at
the American Psychological Association convention, reminded the participants that
although this nation has witnessed an increase in social justice, injustice continues to
manifest itself among disenfranchised groups in the country, and as counselors and
psychologists, social justice and advocacy should be part of their mission.
51
Strickland (2000) writes about coming from a "Eurocentric" background and
growing up in the South, and the unconsciousness and limited exposure to other cultures
that Strickland experienced after arriving at Ohio State University and how it brought
about the feeling of being in a foreign country. For the first time, Strickland experiences
a different feeling and becomes a minority in a foreign country. This feeling continued
for four years until Strickland got a job in the South and returned to a comfortable and
familiar place (Strickland, 2000). Mays (2000) reiterates how important it is for mental
health practitioners to start asking about social justice issues as part of their practice to
promote psychological well-being with clients and to look beyond just reported mental
health issues.
Kiselica and Robinson (2001) use the words "advocacy counseling" when
discussing and describing the role of incorporating social justice and advocacy in the
counseling process (p. 388). There is a history that confirms that during the early days of
mental health counseling, social justice and advocacy was no stranger to the profession.
As far back as the 18th century advocating for the mentally ill was considered a moral
imperative (Myers et al., 2002), but somewhere over the years the concepts of social
justice and advocacy were pushed into the background (Kiselica & Robinson, 2001).
Kiselica and Robinson (2001) write that advocacy has had different forms
throughout its history, ranging from social work, psychology, religion, sociopolitics,
sociology, and domestic issues that impact people of color (e.g., African-Americans and
Native Americans). Kiselica and Robinson state the history of the advocacy movement
goes back to the early 20th century, beginning with "Clifford Beers" (p. 79). The Beer
Mental Hygiene Movement (MHM), Gerstein's advocacy work, and more
52
followed by Albert Bandura's theoretical concept and his theory known as social learning
theory (Bandura, 1977).
Beers reveals the horrific and inhumane treatment he received as a patient in a
psychiatric facility and his experiences in his 1908 book, "A Mind That Found Itself: An
Autobiography" (Kiselica & Robinson, p. 79); his exposure was the impetus for what
became known as advocacy and social justice that led to Beers' campaign known as the
"Mental Hygiene Movement" (Kiselica & Robinson, 2001, p. 79). Beer became what
could be a celebrity. Beers' was invited to the homes of wealthy Americans including
Rockefeller and Fords to discuss his books and give personal testimony about the
negative treatment of mentally ill people in the United States (Kiselica & Robinson,
2001).
Books written by Beers and his subsequent visits to millionaires' homes brought
thousands of dollars to Beers and the Mental Hygiene Movement (Kiselica & Robinson,
2001). The Beers movement attracted the attention of world-renowned psychiatrists and
psychologists who supported and agreed with Beers' report on the treatment of the
mentally ill in the country. The attention Beers received from wealthy corporate leaders,
psychologists, and psychiatrists eventually attracted the nation's support (Kiselica &
Robinson, 2001).
Lawrence Gerstein is another advocacy champion for disenfranchised people
who advocates for the oppressed in Tibet; he was honored by the American Counselors
Association (ACA) in 1999 for his advocacy work on behalf of the Tibetan people
(Kiselica & Robinson, 2001). Kiselica and Robinson (2001) note many others who are
advocates for social justice; they include Du Bois (1905) a sociologist; Parsons
53
(1908), a vocational counselor; Horney (1930s), a psychologist, and Carl Rogers
(1940s), a counselor/psychologist.
Social Justice and Advocacy Training for Counselors and Multicultural
Competencies
Kiselica and Robinson (2001) note in their study that potential advocacy
counselors will need certain characteristics, that is, knowledge and understanding of the
suffering of others, and have a desire to advocate for them. Advocates can communicate
at all levels with identified groups and know how to access resource groups,
organizations, and use technology as an advocacy tool (Kiselica & Robinson, 2001).
McDowell and Shelton (2002) examined the debate about including training in marriage
and family therapy, noting a small amount of research in this area to recognize the needs
of affected community members of social justice and advocacy deficits in their lives.
Vera and Speight (2003) reviewed multicultural competencies and determined that the
guidelines do not suggest how counseling professionals can be agents of change, even
though they recognize oppression in how mental health services, and testing are
delivered.
In fact, Vera and Speight (2003) suggest competence is based on politics (e.g.,
perhaps, appeasement of the political agenda) without a foundation laid towards the
social justice agenda. Vera and Speight point out that institutions that train counselors
are complicit in their failure because they do not implement programs that address the
social justice component in competencies to uncover clients presenting problems but
only focus on expressing sensitivity to clients from a therapeutic framework.
54
Vera and Speight point out that institutions that train counselors are complicit in their
failure because they do not implement programs that address the social justice
component in competencies to uncover clients presenting problems but only focus on
expressing sensitivity to clients from a therapeutic framework. The idea of preparing
counselors in the arena of social justice and advocacy is seen by some counselors as
outside the realm of counseling practitioners, therefore giving counselors the flexibility
to stay within defined (or undefined) boundaries in multicultural competence (Vera &
Speight, 2003).
Arredondo and Perez (2003) differ from Vera and Speight (2003) in their
interpretation of competence. While Vera and Speight suggest that social justice is not
always a principle of multicultural competence, Arredondo and Perez (2003) refute that
interpretation by noting historical data stating otherwise. Arredondo and Perez refer to
Arredondo et al. (1996), which reflect the competence written by Sue and Sue's emphasis
on social justice by transforming education at universities/colleges, other schools, and
other mental health providers where counselors are educated or trained in rejecting the
accusations made by Vera and Speight. A statement made by Vera and Speight regarding
how minorities develop identities has no impact on these minority benefits from
counseling is disputed by Arredondo and Perez. Arredondo and Perez stated, how
minorities develop their identities is being researched with student and client counseling;
therefore, the statements by Vera and Speight are invalid.
According to Arredondo and Perez (2003), the competence of 1966 has a specific
strategy to achieve multiculturalism. Included in the competency is a mandate
55
that mentors are culturally different and attend multicultural conferences, which focus
on multicultural development. Arredondo and Perez further refute Vera and Speight's
notion that cultural diversity would be best understood from an intrappsychological or
personal perspective, and demonstrated the competencies of 1992 and 1996 that clearly
recognized oppression and its environmental influences and the historical factors that
created social injustice; competencies do not support the intrappsychological or personal
perspectives expressed by Vera and Speight. Arredondo and Perez concluded that social
scientists approaching social justice concerns and issues should reframe from relying on
textbooks and research theories to guide their knowledge of social justice and advocacy.
Hill (2003) acknowledged that counselor training programs do not meet the needs
of their culturally diverse students, nor do they acknowledge the increasing diversity in
the United States population; This must change if students want to graduate with the tools
to advise diverse populations. Hill calls the traditional Eurocentric way of doing things
"monocultural" (p. 39) and identifies the need to go beyond this perspective for counselor
education curricula to move to multicultural pedagogy. Hill reports that after the
Association of Multicultural Counseling, Development (AMCD) adopted the
Multicultural Counseling Competencies and Standards, the accepted standards
conceptualized the requirements for introducing multicultural training and sensitivity to
existing counselor and counselor trainees (Hill 2003).
After the counseling profession received the Multicultural Counseling
Competency and Standards standard by the American Counselors Association (ACA),
there was an increased interest in learning about multicultural and social concepts
56
the issue of fairness among faculty at the university. There are also increasing concerns
about ethical standards not being met; however, there is little empirical evidence to
support increased interest (Hill, 2003).
Although there has been a merger of multicultural classes in some institutions, the
reason is not for philosophical change, but for what these universities think they should
do (Hill, 2003). The incorporation of multicultural education within these institutions
has been hampered by a lack of training for counselor educators on the concepts of
multiculturalism, social justice, and rejection of change that is traditionally embedded
in today's philosophical thought (Hill, 2003).
Smith, Baluch, Bernabei, Robohm, and Sheehy (2003) recognize that counselors
have been faced with the task of researching how social injustice in society has played a
role in the mental health of clients. Forms of injustice can include racism, sexism, and
systematic oppression (Smith et al., 2003). Smith et al. noted college and university
counseling centers need to rethink their traditional ways of doing business and recognize
student populations should become more diverse, cultural, and ethnically for the
recognition of their educational needs as they relate to social justice and advocacy.
Counseling centers in different parts of the country have noted their staff have
needed training in multicultural knowledge because staff follow a pattern of traditional
Eurocentric treatment of people of non-European descent (Smith et al., 2003). Smith et
al. (2003) wrote that counselors cannot continue to ignore the transitions that occur in
society regarding cultural, social, and political issues, because these transitions relate to
minorities. After reviewing the work of other scholars, Smith et al.
57
Explain that unless effort is made to understand the client's external environment,
anything done in a therapeutic session with the client may be worthless. The
Importance of Social Justice and Advocacy
Goodman et al. (2004) reflected on a 2001 counseling psychology conference in
Houston, TX where the focus of the conference was research in social justice, social
justice practices, and the need for training in social justice. Conference participants
agreed more than 80% that counseling psychologists should return to social justice and
advocacy commitments in their ranks (Goodman et al., 2004). The commitment made in
2001, and again discussed in a psychology journal in 2003, proves nothing more than an
additional speech on social justice and advocacy in the counseling community, and a
commitment to move forward on social justice and advocacy has not been achieved
(Goodman et al., 2004). Goodman et al. concluded that for social justice and advocacy to
move to the forefront in practice, it must take place at the individual group, their
environment/community, and at the sociopolitical and philosophical level (e.g., no more
discussion but action is needed).
Another point made by Goodman et al. (2004) is that the mediation of counselors
regarding social justice and advocacy should be within a broader social framework, e.g.
at the micro level, working with individuals and families, at the meso level, working in
communities (e.g., schools and churches), and at the macro level that includes local and
national governments and policymakers, And it's not just the person, but the person is
inside, and part of the social framework. Because of multiculturalism, feminism is also at
the forefront of social justice issues; Goodman et al. noted that women scholars of
European descent have been criticized for not recognizing
58
The advantageous position held by these women in a power structure built on racial
privilege. If efforts to introduce the concept of social justice and advocacy in higher
education are to be successful, then counselors need to self-evaluate their attitudes
towards different racial and ethnic groups if efforts to introduce the concept of social
justice and advocacy in higher education will be successful (Goodman et al., 2004).
Nilsson and Schmidt (2005) recognize that the subject of social justice as a
priority has received attention in the counseling profession throughout the latter part of
the 20th century. During their counseling education programs, students become aware of
social justice issues and injustices experienced by disenfranchised groups during their
counseling education, but their awareness does not extend to action (Nilsson & Schmidt,
2005). Nilsson and Schmidt note that today's college students are not like students in the
60s and 70s who actively advocate for issues they believe are unfair.
Nilsson and Schmidt (2005) searched the empirical literature and found no data
that explicitly examined counseling, social justice, and advocacy; They found that the
social justice and advocacy issues discussed in the literature were based on the theory of
including social justice and advocacy in counseling programs. The research of Nilsson
and Schmidt has supported the findings of previous scholars such as Goodman et al.
(2004), Hill (2003), Smith et al. (2003), and Vera and Speight, (2003) in concluding that
the client's external environment should be brought into counseling sessions and
acknowledged and incorporated in order for the client to become strong enough to solve
their own mental health problems. Nilsson and Schmidt further concluded that the
solution to the problem
59
and expressing genuine empathy and concern for others may be the best skills for
students who want to work for social justice and advocate for disenfranchised
populations.
Research related to social justice and advocacy
In this section, I reviewed some of the research literature that was important for
the formation of my studies. I explain each study and state the researcher's hypothesis
and methods, and discuss the results and limitations of the research. Finally, I state why
research is important for, or informs, my studies.
Nilsson and Schmidt (2005) wanted to explore the predictors that lead students to
become advocates of social justice advocacy; The variables explored were the age of the
participants, how many courses students have taken, and the students' political curiosity.
The sample size consisted of 134 counseling and counseling psychology students from
Midwestern universities (Nilsson & Schmidt, 2005, p. 270). The average age of
participants was 31 years and the sample consisted primarily of white women (84%;
Nilsson & Schmidt, 2005). There were 112 females and 22 males, 10 (8%)
Participants were African-American, 5 (4%) Hispanic, 5 (4%) multicultural, and one
(1%) Asian-American (Nilsson & Schmidt, 2005). The stated sexual orientation of most
participants, 124 (92%) was heterosexual; there were 6 (4%) gay participants, and 4 (3%)
bisexual participants (Nilsson & Schmidt, 2005). For participants who reported religion,
88 were Christians (66%); 21 (16%) reported not being religious; 1 (2%) of the
reported to be Buddhists; 1 (1%) reported being Jewish, and 22 (16%) reported "other"
as their religious affiliation (Nilsson & Schmidt, 2005). The type of advanced degree
program reported by participants consisted of 107 (81%) master's degree
60
Student; 17 (13%) are doctoral students, and 9 (7%) are in educational specialist
programs (Nilsson & Schmidt, 2005). There are 77 (58%) who report their political
affiliation as Democrats, 29 (22%) Republicans, and 26 (19%) who declare no party
affiliation (Nilsson & Schmidt, 2005).
Nilsson and Schmidt (2005) used the Activity Scale (ACT) to measure social
justice advocacy; they chose the ACT because of the scarcity of available instruments to
measure social justice advocacy. The downside of using the ACT for this study is its age;
This instrument was developed in the 60s and measured the political and social problems
of that era. The ACT is also a "cumulative scale of 24 items" (Nilsson & Schmidt, 2005,
p. 270). Other scales are also used; these are (a) Problem Solving Inventory (PSI), which
is a 32-item Likert scale that measures values and characteristics; (b) The second Social
Interest Scale, which is a "15-item dichotomy scale" that measures a person's interest and
concern for others, and (c) the Scale for Assessing Worldview (SAWV), which is a 45-
item Likert scale, which measures a person's values, beliefs, and hypotheses about
"human nature, relationships, traits, time orientation, and activity orientation" (Nilsson &
Schmidt, 2005, p. 271). These five categories measure group and individual perceptions
of the world, using a scale ranging from one, (strongly disagree), to five, (strongly agree)
(Nilsson & Schmidt, 2005).
The results showed that the variables of age, number of courses, political interest,
concern for others, problem-solving skills, and worldview proved not to be strong
predictors of social justice advocacy (Nilsson & Schmidt, 2005). Nilsson and Schmidt
(2005) emphasized that a person's worldview is not necessarily a predictor of social
justice advocacy. "However, the low reliability at this scale highlights that these results
61
must be interpreted with caution" (Nilsson & Schmidt, 2005, p. 276). This study does
not provide evidence to suggest that having valuable problem-solving skills to solve
personal problems should be equated with being a social justice advocate (Nilsson &
Schmidt, 2005).
The results of this study show that the most significant predictor variable for
students' interest in engaging in social justice advocacy is interest in political and social
issues (Nilsson & Schmidt, 2005). When all variables were included in the results, social
justice, and advocacy accounted for 30% of the predicted value. Nilsson and Schmidt
(2005) concluded that political interest was the most important predictor of social justice
and advocacy for study participants than any other variable.
One of the drawbacks of this study is the use of the ACT. The ACT is designed to
measure the thoughts and activities of people who participate in a variety of political
activities that include controversial speakers, social issues, and those working in political
campaigns (Nilsson & Schmidt, 2005). The ACT also distinguishes between people who
are political activists and people who are not political activists (Nilsson & Schmidt,
2005). Using the ACT to measure the social justice advocacy of graduate students in this
study may not provide an accurate perspective on participants' views on social justice
advocacy. PSI, SIS, and SAWV provide information about values and characteristics,
interest and concern for others, and beliefs, values, and assumptions of others (Nilsson &
Schmidt, 2005).
Another weakness of this study is that the sample size is small for the Lesbian,
Gay and Bisexual (LGB) community, and people of color do not provide enough
measurable statistical information for this study (Nilsson & Schmidt, 2005). Therefore,
the findings
62
in this study it cannot be generalized to the non-white group, because most of the student
participants are white (Nilsson & Schmidt, 2005). This study is important for my
research because it explores hypothesized variables to motivate individual interest and
action towards social justice and advocacy.
Based on the increasing interest shown by counselors and psychologists
regarding social justice in counseling programs, Sandage, Crabtree, and Schweer (2014)
began a study of social justice. Sandage et al. refer to Ratts stating the need to add social
justice to the counseling curriculum is essential. The research by Sandage et al. is based
on a 2004 perspective espoused by Goodman et al. (2004), that only active interest in the
importance of social justice advocacy in measurable counseling training programs is
compared to just making theoretical statements about social justice advocacy.
After reviewing other people's research on social justice and commitment to
social justice, Sandage et al. (2014) decided to use Self-Differentiation (DoS) and social
justice as the research framework. Self-Differentiation (DoS), "is a developmental
construct that has also been positively associated with various indices of psychological
and relational well-being and includes both intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions"
(Sandage et al., 2014, p. 68). Self-differentiation is a construction that is based on a
cooperative and broad self-definition or vision (Sandage et al., 2014). The intrapersonal
dimension entails how a person reacts to (or handles) his or her own emotions and can
still relate to oneself and others (Sandage et al., 2014). The interpersonal dimension
examines whether a person can maintain his or her own identity after identifying with
others, and at the same time be able to balance emotions and
63
maintain distance in relationships with others (Sandage et al., 2014). Sandage et al.
advise the DoS, consistent with a healthy and sustainable sense of relating to oneself, to
work towards, and to make a commitment towards social justice. Sandage et al. brought
the idea of hope into the equation after reading the writings of Martin Luther King and
Cornel West who suggested that hope (in its various forms) could have moral
implications "related to adult self-esteem and a commitment to social justice" (p. 69).
Therefore, the aim of the study by Sandage et al. (2014) was to investigate Self-
Differentiation (DoS) as a developmental construct and test their theoretical model of
DoS, "predicting expectations-mediated social justice commitments in a sample of
graduate students in the assisting profession at Protestant-affiliated universities" (p. 70).
Sandage et al. stated that they could not find a theoretical or empirical relationship
between social justice and hope. Sandage et al. acknowledge investigations of social
justice commitments have been conducted on undergraduate and graduate students in
counseling psychology programs, but "could not find any previous studies that focused
on social justice commitments in a broader range of helping professions" (p. 70).
The participants in the Sandage et al. (2014) study included master's students
from Protestant-affiliated universities in the Midwestern United States. Graduate
programs include marriage and family therapy, counseling psychology, and divinity
programs; all programs require counseling skills training and an interest in social justice
to be part of the effect/outcome of students (Sandage et al., 2014). There were 202
students who participated in the research; their age ranges from 21 to 60 (M = 33.60; SD
= 10.23). There were 56.9% women and 43.1% men in the participant sample (Sandage
et al., 2014). Ninety-two percent of the sample identified as European-American, 3.0% of
whom
64
identified as Asian or Asian-American, 3.0% as African-American, 1.0% as Latina, 0.5%
as Native American, and 0.5% as multicultural (Sandage et al., 2014). Sandage et al.
stated that the percentage of participants would not amount to 100% because of
"rounding" (p. 70).
The method used for DoS is the 2003 Revision Self-Inventory Differentiation
(DSI-R), a 46-item self-reporting tool. At full scale, DSI-R has produced
Internal consistency score of .92 (Sandage et al., 2014). According to Sandage et al.
(2014) DSI-R has internal consistency in their study of "Cronbach alpha = .91" (p. 70).
The subscale used in the study resulted in internal consistency from 0.81 to 0.89; they
also correlate with many measures related to psychoadjustment, relational well-being
(Sandage et al., 2014). One of the subscales used to assess the intrapersonal dimension of
participants is the Position and Emotional Reactivity "I" scale (Sandage et al., 2014, p.
70).
The subscales used to assess the interpersonal dimensions of participants were the
Integration with Others and the Emotional Boundary scale, and the high findings on this
subscale showed high differentiation (Sandage et al., 2014). Subscales use "Likert-type
scales ranging from 1 (not at all true for me) to 6 (very true for me)" (Sandage et al.,
2014, p. 70). The tool used for the hope component of this study is The Hope Scale (HS),
a self-reported Likert-type scale of 12 items ranging from "1 (definitely wrong) to 4
(definitely true)" (Sandage et al., 2014, p. 70). Alfa Cronbach for HS in this study is
.78 (Sandage et al., 2014). Commitment to social justice is tested using the Horizontal
scale of the Faith Maturity Scale (Sandage et al., 2014). The Faith Maturity Scale –
Horizontal (FMS-H) was developed "to measure mature spiritual orientation as
evidenced by a commitment to altruism, justice, and helping others, and initially
65
norms among the Protestant sample in the United States" (Sandage et al., 2014, p. 70).
Sandage et al. (2014) used only three components of FMS-H, the item focusing
exclusively on social justice commitments. The words of all three items of FMS-H are
not purely spiritual (Sandage et al., 2014). FMS-H uses a Likert-type scale "ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (I strongly disagree)" (Sandage et al., 2014, p.
70). The three items on the FMS-H scale are:
(a) I am active in promoting social justice
(b) I speak for equality for women and people of color
(c) I care deeply about reducing poverty in the U.S. and around the world.
(Sandage et al., 2014, p. 70).
The three FMS-H items used in this study had an internal consistency of
Cronbach alpha = 0.71 (Sandage et al., 2014). After Sandage et al. (2014) obtained
permission from the institutional review board, appropriate school staff were sought to
recruit students for the study. The students were offered a ten-dollar bookstore
certificate to participate in the study (Sandage et al., 2014). The students who agreed to
participate in the study received a written explanation of informed consent and
completed a package containing a questionnaire (Sandage et al., 2014).
In the results section of the research Sandage et al. (2014) refer to Condition 1,
Condition 2, and Condition 3 as part of the results, these terms are never used in other
parts of the article. Therefore, it is unclear whether to use the word condition when
reporting the results of the study if the researcher refers to the three items on the FMS-H
scale listed above, which means items (a), (b), and (c) or some other research outcome.
Sandage et al. reported, Condition 1 results showed DoS was strongly associated with
high levels
66
expectation (R2 = 0.16, B = 0.04, p < 00), Condition 2 indicates that DoS is strongly
related to high SJC levels, and Condition 3 indicates that expectation is strongly related
to SJC (R2 = 0.06, B = 0.41, p = 0.00). In their discussion, Sandage et al. concluded that
the theoretical model they used with DoS predicting SJC with expectation mediation was
correct.
Self-Differentiation (DoS) is most certainly related to SJC and continues after hope is
added to the regression equation (Sandage et al., 2014). Sandage et al. believe that
the DoS variables and expectations, and the relationship with SJC are the first to be
tested empirically.
According to Sandage et al. (2014), the results of the study show that people with
low levels of DoS will have difficulty dealing with their internal anxiety that leads to
fusion (i.e., a tendency to salvage that is inconsistent with social justice advocacy). Low
DoS levels can lead to feelings of depletion, which means fatigue (Sandage et al., 2014).
In contrast, a high level of DoS indicates a person's ability to speak, speak up, and make a
commitment to social justice regardless of what others may say (e.g., family, friends, and
others) (Sandage et al., 2014). Sandage et al. suggest that hope is a partial mediating
influence on the DoS and SJC, supporting the belief of the historic figure, Martin Luther
King, Jr. Sandage et al. report that hope maintains a vision and ability to work toward a
greater future and can be linked to a commitment to social justice.
Sandage et al. (2014) believe that their research has contributed to rare empirical
research on SJC and its relationship to DoS, hope and social justice. Sandage et al. noted
the study was limited to predominantly European-American students at Protestant-
affiliated Midwestern universities in the United States, with many students
67
Pursue ministry studies. The results of this study are most likely not generalizable "to a
sample consisting only of professional therapy students or for a secular context"
(Sandage et al., 2014, p. 71).
Sandage et al. (2014) suggest the need for longitudinal design studies with the
same variables, but with more ethnically diverse groups that include different spiritual
and religious ideologies. An additional study is suggested to consider the causal effect,
meaning whether changes in self-differentiation or expectations will ultimately predict
changes in SJC (Sandage et al., 2014). Future researchers may also consider using
different measurements; The scale used for this study contains several items that
specifically mention advocacy because it is related to specific social justice issues,
meaning people of color, women, and socioeconomic (Sandage et al., 2014). Since some
students may have problems with social justice terminology, it is suggested future
research using general and specific measurements of social justice advocates' efforts
(Sandage et al., 2014).
Sandage et al. (2014) suggest this study shows several training opportunities in
relation to SJC for students "in the assisting profession" (p. 72). One training opportunity
is to use hope as a mediator to increase students' understanding and awareness of the
distressing oppression in certain community groups (Sandage et al., 2014). A second
opportunity for training is to help students develop skills in social justice advocacy so
that students can demonstrate hope (Sandage et al., 2014).
Sandage et al. (2014) also suggest students with low DoS or who are at risk of
depression may be at risk of not developing a commitment to social justice. Sandage et
al. also noted that students who did not have training on injustice may find
68
It is difficult to maintain expectations about their ability to become social justice
advocates. Because graduate studies often stress students, counseling and other support
systems may be necessary to ensure students maintain their own well-being while
trying to develop a commitment to social justice (Sandage et al., 2014).
Lack of Infusion into the Core Curriculum
Despite the evidence of the need for an infusion of the concept of social justice in
counsellor education programs and various suggestions such suggestions have resulted in
little progress in this area (Chung & Bemak, 2013; Coates, 2007; Malott & Knoper, 2012).
In fact, Coates (2007) suggests that educators rethink the educational paradigm and teach
the concept of social justice and how social justice practices can be manipulated to continue
the disenfranchisement of target groups while rewarding those who have privileges.
Suggested issues. Some of the problems suggested by Meyer et al. (2002) why
social justice and advocacy are not included in counseling are that (a) there is no clarity
about counselors and the counseling profession, (b) the public has little knowledge about
who professional counselors are and the role they play in the assisting profession, and (c)
the public has little knowledge regarding curriculum accreditation and counselor
credentials. Myers et al. noted that school, career, and community institutions accelerate
the counseling profession; The authors state that calling themselves professional
counselors was unheard of until about 28 years before their article was researched.
Zalaquett et al, (2008) found that the focus on advocacy and multiculturalism is
considered a political fashion and that these concepts are not taken seriously by
administrators in educational colleges and in counseling programs. Zalaquett et
69
Al. stated that administrators should develop counselor education programs that reflect
the components and concepts of social justice, multiculturalism, and the importance of
these concepts to society and the training of future counselors.
Suggestions for inclusion. Zalaquett et al. (2008) suggest educators can apply the
concepts of social justice and multiculturalism by (a) increasing the attendance of
students and faculty representing cultural diversity, (b) implementing social justice and
multicultural teaching into counseling programs, and (c) recognizing that these concepts
are not political fadities. Zalaquett et al. noted factors that require thought by educators
and educational administrators: (a) by the end of the next decade most children in public
schools will be from diverse ethnic groups, (b) current educational philosophies are based
on "European American norms" (p. 324), (c) institutions that provide accreditation of
educational programs require multicultural competence and advocacy among faculty.
Furthermore, (d) evidence-based researchers reporting social justice and advocacy should
be part of mental health counselor education training programs and (e) recognize
educators, education administrators, researchers, undergraduate practitioners, and
counselors are ethically bound to add social justice, advocacy, and multicultural
pedagogy to their educational counseling programs (Zalaquett et al., 2008).
Bradley, Lewis, Hendricks, and Crews (2008) and Zalaquett et al. (2008)
recognize the need for student counseling to learn while in training for students to
provide services to their future clients as part of their ethical obligations. Bradley et al.
concluded that advocacy training can be provided through supervision during student
internships. Advocacy supervision training during an internship will require a supervisor
who understands the concepts and needs to advocate for clients. If advocacy
70
training is provided during the internship, the concept of advocacy will shift from
advocacy theory to advocacy actions and practices (Bradley et al., 2008).
According to Bradley et al. advocacy should not be considered a client's privilege;
Advocacy is a "right" (para. 7). Bankston (2010) wrote about the same politics,
economics, and distribution of goods and services discussed by Vera and Speight (2003),
seven years earlier, noting that disenfranchised were equally insignificant to power
brokers a decade later and maintained the same attitude that has been maintained
regarding all citizens having equal access to goods and services enjoyed by the
privileged.
Given the long history of the counseling profession developing multicultural
competencies, social justice, and advocacy for counselors to be proficient in working
with diverse populations, it is surprising that so little has been done about embedding the
concepts of social justice and advocacy into the core curriculum of counseling education
programs (Mallinckrodt et al., 2014; Malott & Knoper, 2012). Therefore, it seems that an
important place to start the exploration of this impasse is with the attitudes, beliefs, and
actions of the counselor education faculty. If the need for social justice and advocacy
infusions into the core curriculum of counseling education programs has been identified
and validated through research, why are the professions not implementing them? After a
decade of recognition, but little action, the next step is to explore the barriers to
implementation. For example, are there differences in attitudes, beliefs, and actions of
faculty regarding the importance of embedding the concepts of social justice and
advocacy into the core curriculum that are leading to this impasse? From the research
literature, I can assume that the faculty believes that the infusion of those concepts into
the curriculum is important, but even complete
71
A literature review, no research was found that identified the attitudes, beliefs, and
actions of the faculty of counselor education regarding this issue. This is the impetus
for my studies.
The research I cover in this chapter covers a central theme and that is
conceptualization by faculty to embed the concept of social justice and advocacy into
their personal and professional lives. I also presented research by scholars urging the
inclusion of the concepts of social justice and advocacy into graduate mental health
counseling programs. Instead, programs have been left with the status quo, which is a
traditional philosophical idea of education that aligns with a Eurocentric-based
philosophy of what students should learn and how students should be educated. The
resistance of faculty, administrators, counselors, politicians, and corporate leaders
regarding social justice advocacy seems to be based on concerns that change will be
unacceptable and uncomfortable for dominant cultures (Coates, 2007).
Another area of concern highlighted by the scientific literature is whether
counselors with privileged backgrounds have the ability to empathize with
disenfranchised groups. Researchers have suggested that all people who work in
counseling should explore the privileges they automatically enjoy based on ethnicity or
other form of privilege (Constantine et al., 2007). Research by Constantine et al. (2007)
also confirms the conceptual literature suggesting that counselors have little knowledge
or understanding of social justice, advocacy, and historical factors if they are not
members of minority groups.
The gap is that I have not been able to find evidence-based research that
identifies a correlation between the attitudes, beliefs, and actions of counselor educators
regarding social justice and advocacy and the importance of this faculty placing
inclusion
72
the concept of social justice and advocacy in their personal and professional lives. Many
researchers emphasize the importance of social justice advocacy being part of student
education and the importance of faculty perspectives on social justice, and each uses
social cognitive theory. The results of the current study could potentially allow for a
better understanding of the refusal of universities and their faculty to add social justice
and advocacy to the graduate mental health counseling curriculum. Bandura's social
cognitive theory (aka social learning theory) has been used in several studies
investigating student and faculty attitudes regarding the inclusion of social justice and
advocacy concepts in the graduate mental health curriculum (i.e., classrooms) that
prepare future counselors to work with clients realizing clients bring more than just the
problems presented to therapy sessions. Bandura's social cognitive theory will be an
important tool to use in research used by researchers to assess the importance of
including social justice advocacy in the educational training of mental health counseling
practitioners in the future.
Summary
In chapter three, I discuss the objectives of my research, the design of the
research, and its relationship to the research question; Determine the target population,
sample size, and sampling strategy for the study. I provide information regarding data
collection and how informed consent is given to participants. In addition, I provide
information regarding the instrumentation and operationalization of my construction. I
included information relating to internal and external validity threats for this study. I
discussed and disclosed the ethical procedures that I did and performed for this research.
Finally, I conclude chapter three with a discussion of design and methodology.
73
Chapter 3: Research Methods
My goal for this quantitative survey study is to examine the relationship between
university faculty attitudes, beliefs, and actions regarding social justice and advocacy
concepts. The variables I am interested in in this study are the attitudes, beliefs, and
actions of faculty related to social justice and advocacy and how these attitudes and
beliefs relate to the actions taken in their personal and professional lives. In this chapter,
I discuss the design and rationale of my research, my methodology, and potential threats
to the validity of my study.
Design and Research Rationale
Given the lack of research I found in the literature, the initial descriptive study is
a necessary first logical step to advance research regarding faculty beliefs about the
importance of teaching advocacy and social justice and the importance of incorporating
advocacy and social justice in counselors' professional practice (Creswell, 2009, 2014).
This study is correlated and does not include interventions. The sustainable variables I
am interested in for this study include faculty attitudes, beliefs, and actions regarding
social justice and advocacy as measured by the Social Justice Scale (Torres-Harding et
al., 2012) and actions taken by faculty in their personal and professional lives as
measured by the Social Issues Advocacy Scale (Nilsson et al., 2011).
My research does not provide a conclusion about cause-and-effect regarding variable
relationships.
I started my research by sending a survey to participants through Survey
Monkey. The survey contains qualification questions, an informed consent form, a
demographic questionnaire, and both scales as outlined above. I acquired potential
contacts
74
responder using ACES CESNET listserv. This database includes all CE faculties that are
members of ACES, which is the main professional organization for educators and
supervisors of counselors (ACES, n.d.). The use of my CESNET ACES listing will
allow me to eliminate professionals who are not registered as members. After I did not
receive the expected response from CESNET, I had to request a change in procedures
from the Institutional Review Board (IRB). I discussed the IRB change request in detail
in Chapter 4. The statistical analysis I used to get the results was the moment correlation
coefficient of Pearson products. Thus, the current study does not contain any specific
moderation, mediation, or independent covariate variables.
Methodology
In this section, I discuss methods to obtain information related to the targeted
population. I included an explanation of how participants were selected for this study. I
also explained how the data for this study was collected and how I calculated my sample
size.
Population
The population I targeted for this study included all counselor educators included
in CESNET's ACES list for counselor educators and supervisory members represented on
listserv. There may be at least 3,000 counselors, educators, and administrators listed on
the CESNET listserv website (ACES, 2016). I contacted ACES by email about how I
could get access to and subscribe to the ACES list run by Kent University, which is free
for those who apply and comply with certain rules. Dr..
Wiggins responded to my request without delay and provided me with a link to process
my request to have access to the ACES listserv. The link Dr. Wiggins gave me
75
http://www.cesnet-1net/signup/signup.html; this web address took me to a website that
allowed me to make a request to use CES Listserv. I received permission to subscribe to
listserv on July 11, 2016 (see Appendix A).
Sampling and Sampling Procedures
My strategy for this study was to take an anonymous non-random sample of
comfort and include faculty of counselor education working in the counselor's academic
program. I collected a nonrandom convenience sample because I could only use surveys
returned through Survey Monkey. Volunteers choose themselves to be included in the
research.
Recruitment and Data Collection Procedures
I sent an invitation to participate in the research to listserv, which included the
names of the faculties in the ACES CESNET database (see Appendix B). Following the
guidance of Jaccard and Becker (2002), I had a conservative expectation of a survey
response rate of 10%. My process for selecting participants from the ACES database was
a non-random anonymous convenience sample based in part on the participant's location.
I did not extend participation in this study to other counseling professionals (e.g.,
counseling psychologists, licensed marriage and family counselors, and social workers)
or graduate students enrolled in a program. In the beginning, I set up Survey Monkey to
ask inclusive questions like "Are you a faculty member of a counselor's education
master's or doctoral program?" If participants answered "no," they automatically went to
an exit page thanking them for participating and explaining that they did not meet the
inclusion criteria for my study. If a participant answers "yes," they come to the informed
consent page, and after receiving the participation, they go to the demographic
76
questionnaire and then directed to the survey questions. If participants do not receive
informed consent, they are redirected to a "thank you" page. I only included surveys and
demographic data in this study. The demographic information I collected was as follows:
(a) the number of continuing education classes that participants attended as
postgraduates, (b) gender, (c) ethnicity, (d) socioeconomic data, and (e) age.
Information collected through demographic questionnaires can provide information
regarding whether respondents incorporate social justice and advocacy into their
personal and/or professional lives. My exclusion of professionals in related professions
makes my research results less generalizable to other mental health professionals.
After completing the research, I collected survey data from Survey Monkey from
a file that I downloaded into an Excel file. I analyze the data by calculating a Likert scale
score for each survey item. Participant debriefing is not required because this is a
descriptive study; however, I will make a summary of the results available to participants
who request it. My contact information is included in the informed consent. No follow-
up procedures are required, given that this is a one-contact research protocol.
Data Analysis
Pearson's product moment correlation coefficient is a statistical analysis that
researchers use to determine whether there is a significant relationship between
continuous variables (Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias, 2008). My research is not
intended to determine cause and effect. For the association test using Pearson product
moment correlation, the researchers considered a moderate correlation between the
variables to be meaningful (Boslaugh & Watters, 2008). I couldn't find a reported effect
measure from the study
77
I reviewed; therefore, I chose a moderate effect measure for the following G*Power
analysis (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009). I ran a G*Power analysis
with a medium effect size[r] = 0.30, α err prob = 0.05 (rate of difference), and 0.80
power (1- β err prob). For an analysis that requires specifications, I chose two tails, as I
don't specify the direction of the correlation, such as negative or positive. I performed
calculations for the sample size using G*Power for the moment correlation coefficient of
Pearson products. The results showed that the sample size I needed was 84 participants.
Instrumentation and Operationalization of Construction
In this section, I describe the instruments for this study. These include the Social
Issues Advocacy Scale and the Social Justice Scale. In addition, I discussed the
information that researchers have provided about the reliability and validity of the
instrument, followed by some examples of questions that indicate these steps.
Social Issue Advocacy Scale (SIAS; Nilsson et al., 2011). The stated authors'
goal was to develop a scale for assessing social justice advocacy attitudes and behaviors
that could be used in several professional and academic fields, after their extensive
literature search revealed that none of the instruments met the criteria. Nilsson et al.
developed SIAS after exploring and conducting two previous studies. In their scale
development, Nilsson et al. cover three versatile areas: (a) personal social justice
advocacy,
(b) professional advocacy, and (c) legislative advocacy (Fietzer & Ponterotto, 2015).
The first study conducted by this author to validate this scale involved 278
participants (78% women, 93% students). The researchers used the main components
78
analysis (PCA) to determine four factors: (a) Political and Social Attitudes, (b) Political
Awareness, (c) Awareness of Social Issues, and (d) Facing the subscale of
Discrimination. In a second confirmatory study, Nilsson used 509 undergraduate and
graduate students for evidence of the internal structure of the SIAC (Fietzer &
Ponterotto, 2015). The correlation between the subscales ranged from 0.14 to 0.63,
supporting the evidence that the relationship between SIACs and their subscales was
"strong" (Fietzer & Ponterotto, 2015, p. 27). There is strong evidence that there is
consistent internal reliability of SIAS (Fietzer & Ponterotto, 2015).
SIAS is a 5-point Likert scale that contains a total of 21 questions. The Social and
Political Advocacy subscale contains eight items. The Facing Discrimination subscale
contains three items. The Political Awareness subscale contains six items, and finally the
Social Issue Awareness subscale has four items. All 21 items for the scale were rated
from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. An example question for the Political
and Social Advocacy subscale is "I participate in a demonstration or rally on social
issues that are important to my profession." An example question for the Political
Awareness subscale is "I keep track of important bills/legislative issues being debated in
Congress that affect my profession." An example question for a subscale of awareness of
Social Issues is "Social forces (e.g., public policy, resource allocation, human rights)
affect the health and well-being of individuals." Finally, an example question for the
Confrontation of Discrimination subscale is "I am professionally responsible for dealing
with coworkers who show signs of discrimination against parents" (Nilsson et al., 2011).
The possible total score for this scale ranges from 21 to 105. Possible scores for the
subscale are as follows: Scores can range from 8 to 40 for Social and Political
79
Advocacy subscale; from 3 to 15 for the Face Discrimination subscale; from 6 to 30 for
the Political Awareness subscale; and from 4 to 20 for the Social Problem Awareness
subscale. A high score on the subscale indicates strong support for items in the subscale
(Nilsson et al., 2011).
The researchers have used the SIAS scale with men and women, with
participants between the ages of 18-60, and with those who identify as Caucasian,
African-American, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Latino/Hispanic, and multiethnic. As
part of the procedure in developing SIAS, Nilsson et al. (2011) "contacted instructors in
counseling, psychology, medicine, nursing and education at the graduate and
undergraduate levels at five different universities and colleges" for permission to recruit
participants for their surveys (Nilsson et al., 2011, p. 269). Nilsson et al. suggest that
SIAS may be suitable for use in the mental health profession and the education
profession as this is the intended use of this scale. However, the scale can be limited in
assessing some specific social justice skills and activities that are exclusive to the
mental health and education professions (Nilsson et al., 2011).
The research I conducted on SIAS showed that it has a reliability of θ = 0.93; The
subscale of Political and Social Advocacy (PSA) is θ =. 93; the subscale of Political
Consciousness is θ = .89; the Social Problem Awareness subscale is θ = .89; and the
Subscale of Facing Discrimination is θ = .89. The SIAS subscale correlation was also
found to be significant (α = 0.01) and had a moderate to large positive correlation
(Nilsson et al., 2011, p. 269). This means that all subscales and total scales are related
but measure different aspects of social justice and advocacy. I
80
received permission to use this scale from Johanna E. Nilsson by email (see Appendix
C).
I searched Academic Search Complete, Sage, Google, and PsycARTICLES
searched for research using SIAS and found articles by Landmark, Zhang, Ju, McVey,
and Ji (2017). The purpose of the research by Landmark et al. is to investigate the
advocacy experiences of people with disabilities and family dynamics in engaging in
advocacy efforts. However, Landmark et al. only use Nilsson et al. (2011) as citations
and references, suggesting that the questions for their study were designed from Nilsson
and other researchers (Landmark et al., 2017).
Social Justice Scale (SJS; Torres-Harding et al., 2012). SJS was developed to
assess attitudes regarding social justice, self-efficacy, willingness to support social
justice, and commitment to social justice efforts. Torres-Harding et al. note that "SJS
itself does not measure behavioral performance, but rather assesses the intention to
engage in social justice-related behaviors and can be used as a tool to relate attitudes and
behaviors related to social justice" (p. 86). SJS is a 7-point Likert scale that contains a
total of 24 questions and consists of four difference scales: Social Justice Attitudes (11
items), Social Justice Perceived Behavior Control (5 items), Social Justice Subjective
Norms (4 items), and Social Justice Behavior Intentions (4 items). SJS takes 20-30
minutes to complete (Torres-Harding et al., 2012). All 24 items were assessed on a scale
ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = neutral to 7 = strongly agree.
An example question for a subscale of Social Justice Attitudes is "I believe that it
is important to ensure that all individuals and groups have the opportunity to speak up
and be heard, especially those who come from traditionally marginalized groups."
Sample questions for
81
The Social Justice Perceived Behavior Control subscale is "I believe that I can have a
positive impact on the lives of others." An example of a question from the Social Justice
Subjective Norms subscale is "Others around me are involved in activities that address
social injustice." Finally, an example question for the Social Justice Behavioral Intent
subscale is "In the future, I will do my best to ensure that all individuals and groups have
the opportunity to speak and be heard" (Torres-Harding et al., 2012).
The interval score derived from these responses ranges from 1 to 7 points, with 7
points representing the strongest value for confidence per item. The possible total score
for this scale ranges from 24 to 168. Possible scores for the subscale are as follows: the
Social Justice Attitudes subscale can range from 11 to 77; the Social Justice Perceived
Behavior Control subscale can range from 5 to 35; the subscale of the Subjective Norm
of Social Justice can range from 4 to 28; and the Social Justice Behavioral Intent
subscale can range from 4 to 28. High scores on the subscale indicate strong support for
items in the subscale (Torres-Harding et al., 2012).
Researchers have used SJS with both men and women. Researchers have also
used it with students from undergraduate and graduate programs. In addition, researchers
have given SJS to individuals identified as European-American, African-American,
Latino, Asian-American, Middle Eastern, and multiethnic or multiracial (Torres-Harding
et al., 2012).
Researchers using SJS reported that the Cronbach alpha for the four subscales
was as follows: Attitude – 0.95, Subjective Norm – 0.82, Perceived Behavior Control
(self-efficacy) – 0.84, and Intention – 0.88. This score shows strong internal
consistency across four factors, which are related to my study of self-efficacy. I
82
received permission to use this scale from Susan R. Torres-Harding by email (see
Appendix D).
I searched Academic Search Complete, Sage, Google, and PsycARTICLES
looking for articles used by SJS researchers. Cirik (2015) conducted research using
"Turkish Forms of Social Justice Scale" (p. 23). The Turkish form of SJS has 24 items
with four factors: (a) attitudes towards social justice, (b) perceived behavioral control, (c)
subjective norms, and (d) behavioral intentions (Cirik, 2015). The consensus of the
researchers is that the form of Turkish SJS will help gauge future teachers' views on
social justice (Cirik, 2015). Cirik conducted a study at a university in Istanbul, Turkey,
using 515 participants (376 women and 139 men); It is unclear whether the participant is
an educator. Cirik states that the purpose of this study is to analyze the psychometric
characteristics of the Turkish form of SJS, and secondly, "to determine the effects of
social justice attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control on behavioral
intentions" (p. 23). However, later in the paper, Cirik stated his goal differently, claiming
that "the main purpose of this study is to analyze the equivalence, validity, and reliability
of SJS linguistics. The second goal is to test the Ajzen model (1991) on which the scale is
built" (p. 27). After reading this study, I found it difficult to learn the difference between
Torres- Harding et al. (2012) SJS and the Turkish SJS form; however, Cirik petitioned
Torres-Harding to change SJS and was received by email. The result of the Turkish SJS
form is difficult for me to determine based on the stated purpose and stated purpose of
this work.
83
Operationalization
I used correlation to analyze my research questions to determine if there was a
relationship between faculty attitudes and beliefs regarding the importance of social
justice and advocacy and faculty who took action on social justice initiatives in their
personal and professional lives. As measured by the Social Justice Scale (Torres-Harding
et al., 2012) or the Social Issues Advocacy Scale (Nilsson et al., 2011), it is unknown
whether there is a strong correlation coefficient of Pearson products (r > 0.80) between
faculties
attitudes and beliefs regarding the importance of social justice and advocacy. I correlate
Pearson product moments that answer and determine the correlation coefficient
between faculty attitudes and beliefs.
Data Analysis Plan
I used the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), Version 24 to
analyze the data for this study. Apart from my methods for collecting data (including
surveys), all methods should have a way of translating data for analysis (Fowler, 2014).
According to Fowler (2014), translating the research data into a method that I can
analyze the data requires four stages: (1) Creating a rule where the respondent's answers
will be assigned a value (code) (2) Providing a method to place the respondent's answers
into the correct data category. Third, (3) Place the data into a form that is adequate for
the computer and (4) engage in data cleaning and perform a final check of the data for
accuracy.
When a computer-aided self-interview (CASI) type of survey is used,
respondents input their responses directly into the computer, eliminating the possibility
of interviewer errors in translating respondents' answers to survey questions (Fowler,
2014). When and if the researcher does not find a data check
84
completed at the time of entering the data, the researcher checked the internal
consistency at the time of discovery (Fowler, 2014). I check the survey to make sure
participants answer all the questions and check the outliers. Boslaugh and Watters (2008)
state that an outlier is the recognition that one value is clearly different from another
value analyzed in the data set; Often when doing the correlation, the data show
differences in the two variables. Outliers are sometimes referenced as data that appear to
come from a population other than the variable being studied (Boslaugh & Watters,
2008). I downloaded the survey Excel data file to SPSS for survey calculations. A
researcher should check to make sure the population studied is the same (Boslaugh &
Watters, 2008). A researcher can detect an outline by using SPSS to perform scatterplots,
normal distributions (aka bell curves), or histograms (Boslaugh & Watters, 2008).
Research Questions and Hypotheses
RQ: Is there a statistically significant relationship between faculty attitudes and
beliefs regarding the value of social justice and advocacy, and faculty taking action on
social justice and advocacy initiatives in their personal and professional lives?
H0: There was no statistically significant relationship between faculty attitudes
and beliefs regarding the value of social justice and advocacy as measured by the Social
Justice Scale (Torres-Harding, Siers, & Olson, 2012) and faculty taking action in social
justice and advocacy initiatives in their personal and professional lives as measured by
the Social Issues Advocacy Scale (Nilsson, Marszalek, Linnemeyer, Bahner, & Misilek,
2011).
85
H1: There is a statistically significant relationship between faculty attitudes and
beliefs regarding the value of social justice and advocacy as measured by the Social
Justice Scale and faculty taking action in social justice and advocacy initiatives in their
personal and professional lives as measured by the Social Issues Advocacy Scale.
Analysis Plan
I calculated the moment correlation coefficient of Pearson products to analyze the
highest recommended power measure for this study. Regarding some statistical tests, I
don't use multiple statistical tests for each hypothesis; Also, the study did not use
confusing covariates or variables. I interpret the results of this study based on the Interval
scale score derived from the instruments that have been recorded. I did not use any other
measures noted in this topic (e.g., estimation of key parameters) given that, this study is
descriptive.
Threats to Validity
The term validity is a term used by psychologists and methodologies to describe
the relationship between responses and the actual score of responses to research
questions; The validity object is to make as few errors as possible because the response
reflects the correct score (Fowler, 2014). When errors are connected to random answers,
causing the answers to skew in one direction or another, there will be less confidence
that the research measures what it is intended to measure (Fowler, 2014). There are
various possible threats to external validity. These threats may include the inability to
generalize data to others who do not have the same demographic attributes and
experiences due to my reliance on non-probability sampling techniques (Creswell,
2014).
86
There are also many possible threats to internal validity. These threats include the
potential for self-selection of the respondents to whom the participants are (i.e. most
respondents have very positive attitudes about social justice and advocacy) leading to
limitations in the population of participants (Creswell, 2014). Boslaugh and Watters
(2008) reported that internal validity can only be determined if there is no bias that leads
to the identification of incorrect explanatory variables in the study. Internal validity can
be threatened through, methodological bias when choosing a study group, such as if the
researcher introduces a deliberate bias to build causal relationships, e.g. "selfish bias"
when including participants who ask to be included in the study, and "involves self-
assessment that makes the participant look good" (p. 99). In addition, questionnaire
responses may give false positive ratings if multiple participants try to answer the survey
in a direction they think the researcher prefers; this may be considered weighting the
response (Fowler, 2014). However, for this study I did not communicate with participants
or know the survey respondents.
Ethical Procedures
The study did not involve actual human contact; However, there may be a risk of
potential harm to the participants. For this study, the risk to participants was considered
low, but the risk could include participants who experienced feelings of discomfort when
answering questions. Some ways to reduce risk for participants may include that all
participants remain anonymous and that only me as the researcher will have access to the
data collected and submit statements, maintaining confidentiality and minimizing the
potential relationship between answers and identifiers (Fowler, 2014).
87
Only me and my committee have access to the research data. When accessing
Survey Monkey's website and my survey, respondents were first directed to informed
consent (See Appendix E). Informed consent includes: (a) a brief and accurate
description of the purpose of my research, (b) a description of how the participant's
information will be kept confidential, (c) known benefits and risks to participation,
(d) my contact information if participants have questions or want to know the results of
the study. The next section (e), information about free or reduced counseling via number
1-800 if the participant experiences any uncomfortable feelings they wish to explore
further and (f) that participation is voluntary and that the participant can withdraw from
the study at any time without penalty (Fowler, 2014). After providing an indication of
electronic consent, participants were directed to a demographic questionnaire and then to
a survey.
I do not collect any identifying information; therefore, respondents are not placed
at risk of any impact. Protecting the identity of research respondents is very important to
me as a researcher. There was no identifiable information that connected participants to
their survey such as email addresses or names (Fowler, 2014). At the end of my research,
the data files provided by Survey Monkey were not accessible to anyone except my
committee and I (Fowler, 2014). I protect research data by using a password that only I
know on a computer in a locked closet; I will keep the data for five years. According to
Survey Monkey (2016), survey collections enable Transport Layer Security (TLS) to
encrypt respondent traffic, encryption ensures that user data in transit is safe, secure, and
only available to the intended recipient.
88
I do not collect data before I receive permission to conduct research by the IRB
and I do not collect data from my workplace or from people I know professionally.
Although the risk of side effects is minimal with this study, if it occurs once, I will
immediately contact my chairman and the IRB to report it. After the five-year period for
data retention ends, I will delete the data from my computer, hard drive, and recycle bin
using the appropriate methods.
Summary
Scholars have concluded that the inclusion of social justice and advocacy into the
training of graduate counseling students will be valuable and important if a budding
counselor wants to benefit his or her future clients (Kiselica & Robinson, 2001; Myers et
al., 2002; Ratts, 2009; Ratts et al., 2016). My goal for this quantitative survey study is to
explore the relationship between the attitudes, beliefs, and actions of counselor education
faculty and the importance they place in the addition of social justice, advocacy concepts,
and practices in their personal and professional lives. I used a non-random comfort
sampling strategy to solicit participation for my study from counselor educators who had
worked in the counselor's academic program.
I use the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient as a valid description
to determine whether there is a statistically significant relationship between faculty
attitudes and beliefs regarding the value of social justice and advocacy, and faculty who
take action in social justice and advocacy initiatives in their personal and professional
lives. In Chapter 4, I discuss how I collected my data, my analysis procedure, and the
results of the research.
89
Chapter 4: Results
My goal for this quantitative survey research is to examine the attitudes, beliefs,
and actions of university counselor educators and the importance of them placing the
addition of social justice advocacy concepts and practices in their personal and
professional lives. I conducted an extensive search of the literature, and I found no
research showing that there was a relationship between the attitudes and beliefs of faculty
members compared to their actions regarding the inclusion of the concepts of social
justice and advocacy in their personal and professional lives. I created a research
hypothesis to answer this question:
RQ: Is there a statistically significant relationship between faculty attitudes and
beliefs regarding the value of social justice and advocacy, and faculty taking action on
social justice and advocacy initiatives in their personal and professional lives?
H0: There was no statistically significant relationship between faculty attitudes
and beliefs regarding the value of social justice and advocacy as measured by the Social
Justice Scale (Torres-Harding, Siers, & Olson, 2012) and faculty taking action in social
justice and advocacy initiatives in their personal and professional lives as measured by
the Social Issues Advocacy Scale (Nilsson, Marszalek, Linnemeyer, Bahner, & Misilek,
2011).
H1: There is a statistically significant relationship between faculty attitudes and
beliefs regarding the value of social justice and advocacy as measured by the Social
Justice Scale and faculty taking action in social justice and advocacy initiatives in their
personal and professional lives as measured by the Social Issues Advocacy Scale.
90
In this chapter, I discuss the demographic characteristics of my respondents, the
time frame for data collection, and the exclusion criteria for deletion from the dataset. I
noted the need to send a respondent request through the Advisor for Accreditation of
Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) and the ACA Connect forum
to meet the minimum sample size required based on statistical test strength level settings.
I also discussed the survey items, how I got them, and how I divided them into two parts
for my research hypothesis. I also discussed the results of the survey as well as the
correlation coefficient of Pearson's product moments and their statistical suitability for
analysis. In addition, I present the limitations of the survey items.
Data Collection
I received approval for the study from the IRB in October 2017 (Approval # 10-
04-17-0231765, expiring October 3, 2018). After I received approval, I created a survey
and posted it on Survey Monkey on October 16, 2017. I performed calculations for the
sample size using G*Power and the moment correlation coefficient of Pearson products
which required a sample size of 84 participants. I send an invitation to participate in
research to the faculty in the ACES CESNET database. I sent the first invitation letter to
participate in the research to the CESNET database on October 16, 2017. I send follow-
up posts every week until October and then through November to December 18, 2017.
There were 26 responses to the initial invitation to participate in the study through the
CESNET database. I submitted a request to the IRB on 7 November 2017 for
permission to send an invitation to the ACA's Connect-Call for Study Participants
website, which the IRB approved on 16 November 2017. I sent an invitation letter to the
ACA Connect website on the 17th. Above
91
On December 15, 2017, I submitted a procedure change form to the IRB because after 2
months, I had collected about 26 responses and most of those respondents had not
completed the survey. I request access to the Accreditation Council for Counseling and
Related Educational Programs (CACREP) directory, which is public and lists all
CACREP-approved universities and colleges in the United States, along with individual
faculty email addresses. The IRB approved the request to use the CACREP directory on
December 14, 2017. I sent the first direct email to the faculty who were registered as
licensed counselors on December 18, 2017. I emailed again on January 4, 2018, as
universities and colleges were closed for the Christmas and New Year holidays. I send a
minimum of 25 direct emails daily to faculty members in the CACREP directory for
universities and colleges until February 2, 2018. I sent 814 emails to faculty members
who met the criteria and whose email addresses were available.
There were 127 respondents to the survey, but only 84 respondents completed all
38 items of the Likert scale on February 7, 2018. I had to remove the other 43
respondents from the dataset because they didn't complete all 38 questions. Six of the
remaining 84 respondents missed one or more demographic items, so their removal from
the dataset was necessary. Thus, there were 78 respondents included in the statistical
analysis for this study out of 820 invitees, resulting in a response rate of 9.5%.
The survey had 48 questions, with the first 10 questions including qualifying
questions, informed consent, and an eight-item demographic questionnaire. There are 38
Likert scale survey questions. Twenty-four questions assessed counselor educators'
beliefs and attitudes regarding social justice and advocacy in their personal and
professional lives.
92
The other 14 questions assessed the action. I used all 24 confidence and attitude questions
from SJS. I obtained an action question from SIAS, which includes 21 items. I omitted
seven of those items because the content examines beliefs and attitudes and they are very
similar to the question about SJS and will cancel the correlation of Pearson product
moments for the two scales. Given the lack of population parameters regarding counselor
educators, I am unable to determine the generalization of this sample. It is reasonable to
assume that the actual respondents in this study are educators, counselors who are already
interested in the topic of social justice and advocacy.
Demographic Results
The respondents indicated that as graduates, they have a range of 0 to 100 hours
of continuing education on social justice and advocacy, with an average of 4.96 hours.
Forty-six percent (n = 36) indicated having a course on social justice and advocacy in
their own graduate program, and 54% (n = 42) denied having any course (i.e., an entire
class devoted to social justice and advocacy). Thirty-one percent (n = 24) of respondents
identified themselves as male, and 69% (n = 54) identified themselves as female. Four
percent (n = 3) chose not to answer questions about gender.
Seventy-four percent (n =58) of respondents identified themselves as heterosexual, 1%
(n =1) of respondents identified as lesbian, 5% (n =4) of respondents identified
themselves as gay, 8% (n =6) identified themselves as bisexual, 6% (n =5) identified
themselves as someone else, and 5% (n = 4) choose not to say it. Seventy-three percent
(n = 57) of respondents identified themselves as white, non-Hispanic; 13% (n = 10)
identify themselves as Black, non-Hispanic; 3% (n = 2) identify themselves as Asian; 1%
(n = 1) identify as Native American/Pacific Islander, 3% (n = 2) identify themselves as
93
Hispanics, and 8% (n = 6) identify themselves as multiethnic. Twelve percent (n = 9)
identified their childhood economic status as below $25,000 per year, 42% (n = 33)
identified their status as between $25,000 and $50,000 per year, 17% (n = 13) identified
their status as $50,000 to $75,000 per year, 15% (n = 12) identified their status as
$75,000 to $100,000 per year, and 14% (n = 11) identify their status as more than
$100,000 per year. Twenty-nine percent (n = 23) identified themselves as 25 to 35 years
old, 28% (n = 22) identified themselves as 36 to 45 years old, 19% (n = 15) identified
themselves as 46 years old
up to 55, 21% (n = 16) identify themselves as ages 56 to 65, and 3% (n = 2) identify
themselves as 66 or older.
I used a nonprobability convenience sample. Given the limitations inherent in the
comfort sample, there may be a low level of generalization (i.e., external validity in this
sample). Respondents who completed the survey were able to have positive thoughts and
feelings about including social justice and advocacy in their curriculum and in their
personal and professional practices. There is no way to get additional data on this issue,
given the anonymous nature of the survey.
Result
I collect data by emailing surveys regarding the attitudes and beliefs of faculty
members and their actions regarding the inclusion of social justice and advocacy
concepts in their personal and professional lives. One hundred and twenty-seven
respondents returned the survey. Eighty-four respondents completed all of the attitude
and behavior survey items. Six of the 84 respondents failed to complete all demographic
items. I included the remaining 78 respondents in the statistical analysis. I exported the
data to Microsoft Excel, where I started the data cleanup. I checked the exported data,
94
identify and then delete respondents who have missing data. After cleaning up the data,
which necessitated the removal of respondents due to incomplete responses, I exported
the data to IBM SPSS Statistics Version 24 to perform a Pearson product moment
correlation coefficient to measure the relationship between faculty members' attitudes
and beliefs and their actions regarding the inclusion of social justice and advocacy
concepts into their personal and professional lives. I also ran a scatterplot to illustrate the
relationship between the attitudes and beliefs of faculty members and their actions
regarding the inclusion of social justice and advocacy concepts in their personal and
professional lives.
I used the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient because my dataset
met all the fundamental assumptions necessary for the use of that statistical test (i.e.,
normality, homogeneity of variance, interval data, and independence). I obtained my
dataset from a population with a normal score distribution and a homogeneous variance
across those normal distributions. A dataset is interval data. These are repetitive actions,
but respondents respond to two different sets of behaviors: expressing attitudes and
beliefs and independent sets acting on those beliefs. Thus, I meet all the underlying
assumptions necessary for the use of a valid Pearson product moment correlation
coefficient.
95
Figure 1. Correlation of scatterplot of social justice advocacy attitudes/beliefs with
actions related to social justice and advocacy. X-axis = Average score of
attitudes/beliefs in Social Justice and Advocacy, as measured by the Likert Scale Items 1
to 24. Y-Axis = Average score of Social Justice and Advocacy actions, as measured by
Items 25 to 38 of the Likert scale.
I did not include any treatment interventions in my study, and their anonymous
nature precluded the measurement of possible side effects, although these side effects
were highly unlikely. None of the participants reported side effects in this study. I used
the moment correlation coefficient of Pearson products to test my alternative hypothesis
that there is a statistically significant relationship between faculty attitudes and beliefs
regarding the value of social justice and advocacy as measured by SJS (Torres-Harding
et al., 2012) and faculty who take action in social justice and advocacy initiatives in their
personal and professional lives as measured by SIAS (Nilsson et al., 2011). The
moment correlation coefficient of Pearson products that I used to test
76.86.66.46.265.8
0
1
2
Action 3
4
5
6
Attitude/Belief
96
The hypothesis results in a moderate correlation (r = 0.40, p < 0.001) between faculty
attitudes and beliefs regarding the value of social justice and advocacy and faculty taking
action in social justice and advocacy initiatives in their personal and professional lives.
Pearson's product-moment correlation is considered strong if it is more than 0.50,
medium if it is between 0.50 and 0.20, and weak if it is below 0.20 (Field, 2009, p. 57).
Given that the moment correlation coefficient of the Pearson product is moderate and p <
0.001, I reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. There was a
statistically significant association between counselor educators that revealed higher
levels of confidence and attitudes in support of social justice correlated with higher levels
of social justice actions. No other hypothesis emerged from the main hypothesis in this
study.
Table 1
Correlation
Action Attitude/Belief
Action Pearson Correlation 1 0.40*
Sig (2 tails) --- 0.00
N78 78
Attitude/Belief Pearson Correlation 0.40* 1
Sig (2-tail) 0.00 ---
N78 78
*P < .05, double-
tailed.
Comparison of differences based on race/ethnicity of participants is not possible
due to insufficient sample size to conduct such an analysis. Fifty-seven of the
97
Respondents were white, and 21 were in a non-white composite group. I performed a
Pearson product moment correlation coefficient on respondents (36) who had a class on
social justice and advocacy in their graduate program (r = 0.30, p = 0.07). I performed a
correlation coefficient of Pearson product moments on respondents (42) who did not
have social justice and advocacy classes in their graduate program (r = 0.15, p = 0.36).
The Fisher r to z test that I did resulted in a z score of 0.67 with a one-sided p value of
0.25. Importantly for this study, I concluded that there was no significant difference for
counselor educators who followed up with actions consistent with their beliefs and
attitudes regarding social justice and advocacy aligned with whether or not they had
social justice and advocacy classes in their graduate programs.
I performed the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient on 54 female
respondents and obtained a moderate correlation (r = 0.30, p = 0.02). I performed the
Pearson product moment correlation coefficient on 24 male respondents (r = 0.30, p =
.16). The Fisher r to z test I did resulted in a z-0.08 score and a one-sided p-value of
0.47. I concluded that there was no significant difference between male and female
respondents in terms of following up on actions consistent with their beliefs and attitudes
regarding social justice and advocacy.
Summary
The research question I explored was as follows: Is there a statistically significant
relationship between faculty attitudes and beliefs regarding the value of social justice and
advocacy and faculty taking action in social justice and advocacy in their personal and
professional lives? The final sample size for this study was 78, and I used Pearson
product moment correlation to analyze the results. I got significant results
98
showed a moderate correlation (r = 0.40, P < 0.001) between counselor educators'
attitudes and beliefs about the value of social justice and advocacy and counselor
educators taking action in social justice and advocacy initiatives in their personal and
professional lives. Therefore, I reject the null hypothesis and accept an alternative
hypothesis for this sample. Thus, counselor educators who express positive attitudes and
beliefs about social justice and advocacy tend to be more active in incorporating social
justice and advocacy in their personal and professional lives. I then conducted a post-hoc
analysis comparing the scores of 57 white and 21 non-white participants, 54 female
participants and 24 men, and 36 participants who had classes on social justice and
advocacy in their graduate programs versus 42 who did not. I didn't find any significant
difference to my comparison for this subgroup.
In Chapter 5, I discuss my interpretation of these findings, the limitations of this
study, and the limitations of the generalization of the research. I discussed the
implications of this study and recommendations for future research related to this
research. I conclude Chapter 5 with a summary of the findings and results of the
research.
99
Chapter 5: Discussion
My goal for this study was to examine the relationship between the attitudes,
beliefs, and actions of university counselor educators and the importance they place
social justice and advocacy in their personal and professional lives. I found that no
evidence-based studies identified correlations between the attitudes, beliefs, and actions
of counselor educators regarding social justice and advocacy and the importance this
faculty placed on the inclusion of the concept of social justice and advocacy in their
personal and professional lives. My research question is as follows: Is there a statistically
significant relationship between faculty attitudes and beliefs regarding the value of social
justice and advocacy, and faculty who take action in social justice and advocacy in their
personal and professional lives? I used the moment correlation coefficient of Pearson
products to test the hypothesis. The results resulted in a moderate correlation (r = 0.401,
p = 0.00) between faculty attitudes and beliefs regarding the value of social justice and
advocacy and faculty who took action in social justice and advocacy initiatives in their
personal and professional lives. Therefore, I reject the null hypothesis and point out a
valid alternative hypothesis for this sample. Thus, counselor educators who express
positive attitudes and beliefs about social justice and advocacy tend to be more active in
incorporating social justice and advocacy in their personal and professional lives.
I also examined the relationship between different ethnic groups, men and
women, and counselor educators who have or do not have social justice and advocacy
courses; This comparison did not result in significant differences between the members
of the subgroup. There is no significant difference between White and non-White
100
participants, between male and female participants, or between participants who have
social justice and advocacy courses in their graduate curriculum and those who do not.
In the remainder of this chapter, I discuss my interpretation of the findings, the
limitations of my study, and my recommendations for future research on this topic, and
ultimately the implications of my study on social change.
Interpretation of Findings
Cognitive transformation, whatever the means, occurs through universal or
familiar actions; this means that despite the split between theory and application, they are
united and reinforced by successful achievements (Bandura, 1977). Mayhew and
Fernández (2007) report that according to SCT, when people achieve self-efficacy (i.e.,
confidence in being able to complete tasks successfully), they gain a gradual rate of
change in their behavior, and this visible change in behavior increases their likelihood of
becoming advocates for social justice.
Comparison with Miller et al. (2009)
Miller et al. (2009) conducted a theory-driven empirical study in the social justice
domain to study the social justice interests and commitments of undergraduate students.
The aim of Miller et al.'s study was to explore the psychological processes involved in
students' interest and commitment to, social justice.
Miller et al. studied undergraduate students (n = 274) using social-cognitive career
theory (SCCT), based on SCT Bandura, to determine how students develop an interest in
and commitment to social justice issues. Since its inception in 1994, researchers have
used SCCT in empirical research, proving its ability to articulate self-efficacy (Miller et
al., 2009).
101
Miller et al. (2009) administered SIQ to study students' knowledge of social
inequality and their involvement in social justice activities (Miller et al., 2009). In the
social justice activities/expectation of outcomes section, higher scores indicate high
expectations of participants to engage in social justice advocacy activities (Miller et al.,
2009). Miller et al. aimed to assess whether the SCCT can demonstrate how students
can develop an interest in social justice and commitment, and what role self-efficacy
and outcome expectations have in developing an interest in and commitment to social
justice. Their study confirms that self-efficacy, when compared to outcome
expectations, has a strong influence on the development of students' interest in social
justice (Miller et al., 2009).
The study of Miller et al. (2009) also confirms that once interest in social justice
is developed, interest can then lead to commitment in social justice advocacy; "In
addition, self-efficacy has an indirect effect (through the expectation of results) on the
interests of social justice" (p. 501). Miller et al. explained, "the higher the expectation of
a person's specific outcomes for social justice activities, the more likely a person will be
interested in a specific social justice activity" (p. 501). The results of this study illustrate
a large number of differences between "social justice interest (56%) of participants
(56%) and commitment to social justice (70%)" (Miller et al., 2009, p. 501). Miller et al.
concluded that the findings of this study support the value of the SCCT core model
variables for predicting student interest in social justice, which can then lead to
commitment. Students who show interest in social justice advocacy activities based on
their self-efficacy may support the areas of attitudes and beliefs from my current research
and Bandura's theory of self-efficacy. However, I found a lack of significant differences
102
between educators, counselors who have social justice and advocacy courses and those
who don't. There was no significant difference between the two groups related to their
attitudes and beliefs and their actions regarding the inclusion of social justice concepts
and advocacy in their personal and professional lives.
Comparison with Miller and Sendrowitz (2011)
Miller and Sendrowitz (2011) began researching what may cause doctoral
counseling psychology students to maintain an interest in social justice since the
assimilation of the concept into the classroom. The 2011 study was a re-examination of a
study conducted by Miller et al. (2009) using undergraduate students (Miller &
Sendrowitz, 2011).
Miller and Sendrowitz decided that educational settings would be essential for social
justice advocacy because they would include faculty attitudes on social justice and
faculty modelling on social justice and advocacy.
The Miller and Sendrowitz (2011) study component also explores the students'
educational environment and moral perspectives held by the sample population (n = 229),
as these two components are not included in Miller and Sendrowitz's 2009 study.
Another important reason for including educational environments (which include faculty
attitudes) in research is that educational environments can provide students with
opportunities to discuss concerns or lack of knowledge they have about social justice
(Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011).
Miller and Sendrowitz (2011) use existing models related to social cognition
because they are related to individual social justice interests and commitments. Miller
and Sendrowitz tested the interest hypothesis that domain-specific social justice efficacy
would predict social justice importance. As they explain, "the importance of social
justice (SJI)
103
refers to patterns of likes, dislikes, and indifference regarding social justice advocacy
activities" (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011, p. 163). Miller and Sendrowitz's hypothesis is
that if the educational environment provides trainees with supervision, resources, and
time, then interest in social justice advocacy may increase among students.
The research of Miller and Sendrowitz (2011) based on the interest hypothesis of
Miller et al. (2009) on social justice self-efficacy (SJSE) does show direct and indirect
effects on the importance of social justice; The interest hypothesis predicts that the
domain will support interest in social justice (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011). The findings
of Miller and Sendrowitz (2011) on belief in self-efficacy and the relationship with
making social justice commitments (SJCs) contrast with the findings of a 2009 study.
Contrary to previous findings, these researchers found a positive direct relational effect
between self-efficacy and SJC. Although Miller and Sendrowitz's findings are related to
the student population and I examined the counseling faculty, my research results may
support Miller and Sendrowitz's findings. The respondents in my study supported the
idea that their attitudes and beliefs were linked to their interest in social justice and
advocacy as demonstrated through their actions in their personal and professional lives.
Comparison with Nilsson and Schmidt (2005)
Nilsson and Schmidt (2005) wanted to explore the predictors that lead students to
become advocates of social justice advocacy; The variables explored by these
researchers were the age of the participants, how many courses the students had taken,
and the students' political curiosity. The results of this study show that the most
significant predictor variable for students' interest in engaging in social justice
104
advocacy is an interest in political and social issues (Nilsson & Schmidt, 2005). Nilsson
and Schmidt concluded that political interest was the most important predictor of social
justice and advocacy for study participants compared to other variables. Respondents in
my current research answered political questions on the survey, such as questions about
participating in rallies and supporting the concept of social justice. Along with attitudes
and beliefs, the actions showed that social justice and advocacy were important to
respondents, but there was no indication that political interests were the most important
predictors.
The results showed that regardless of the ethnicity, gender, or age of the
participants, or participants who had social justice and advocacy classes in their graduate
programs, respondents were receptive regarding their attitudes, beliefs, and actions
related to social justice and advocacy concepts in their personal and professional lives.
Although my research did not involve students, but rather counselor educators, these
findings support previous research suggesting that counselor educators' attitudes/beliefs
(self-efficacy) support their actions to incorporate social justice and advocacy in their
personal and professional lives (see Miller et al. [2009] and Miller & Sendrowitz
[2011]). There is no evidence in my research or the research mentioned above that age
or gender is associated with being active in social justice and advocacy activities.
Interpretation of Findings through SCT Bandura
Through SCT, Bandura emphasizes the reciprocity between self-efficacy,
expectation of results, and goal setting. Self-efficacy may affect a person's cognitive
ability to process information and become motivated to try new and different actions
(Bandura, 1989, 1993). Bandura (1977) reported that a researcher can
105
assess theoretical methods based on their effectiveness in changing behavior. Bandura
(1977) stated that if a theory does not consider that how a person thinks can influence or
determine the actions of that person in relation to a construction, then the theory does not
consider the complexity of human behavior. When a person understands his or her
motivation for behavior change, the person is more likely to internalize the change than
the behavior change based on "self-discovery" (Bandura, 1977, p. 4).
Bandura argues that people maintain theories that have predictive power and
explain the reasons underlying behavior change (Bandura, 1977, 1989, 2001). When
people determine that they have the ability to achieve a phenomenon, the basis of their
belief is their self-perception of efficacy (Bandura, 1982, 1993). The perception of self-
efficacy, whether right or wrong, can determine the choice to participate in an activity
(Bandura, 1982, 1993).
The results of my current research support Bandura's theory of self-efficacy as
shown by the confirmation that attitudes and beliefs support participatory actions in the
concept of social justice and advocacy by respondents. The perception of self-efficacy
determines how much effort a person will put in pursuing or not pursuing an activity or
idea regardless of the obstacles they need to overcome (Bandura, 1982, 1993). Self-
perception of efficacy is not a stand-alone belief, but involves the personal components
of cognition, social skills, and behavioral skills before any action or performance can be
demonstrated by the individual (Bandura, 1982, 1993). People with perceived self-
efficacy can imagine or visualize that they will be successful in any perceived endeavor,
without the ability to imagine or visualize that
106
the opposite would be true (Bandura, 1977, 1989). The results of my study showed that
participants who had positive attitudes and beliefs about social justice and advocacy
concepts were more likely to engage in social justice and advocacy actions in their
professional and personal lives. Likely because they have strong beliefs and positive
attitudes towards social justice and advocacy, these participants have greater confidence
to engage in social justice and advocacy actions. Bandura found that an individual's
perception of self-efficacy determines how much effort the person will put in pursuing or
not pursuing an activity or idea regardless of the obstacles he or she needs to overcome
(Bandura, 1982, 1993). Therefore, the results of my research seem to support the
Bandura theory.
However, it is reasonable to assume that the actual respondents, who chose
themselves to participate in the study, were counselor educators who were already
interested in the topic of social justice and advocacy. The respondents indicated that as
graduates, they have a range of 0 to 100 hours of continuing education on social justice
and advocacy, with an average of 4.96 hours. Forty-six percent (n = 36) indicated having
a course on social justice and advocacy in their own graduate program, and 54% (n = 42)
denied having such a course. There is no indication that social justice and advocacy
courses influenced the findings in this study. Counselor educators who express positive
attitudes and beliefs about social justice and advocacy tend to be more active in
incorporating social justice and advocacy into their personal and professional lives.
107
Study Limitations
In this section, I discuss the limitations of my studies. One of the limitations of
this study is that I did not use a random sample. I used the comfort example for this
study. My participants chose themselves for this study. It is very likely that the
participants who chose to be included in my study already had positive ideas and
feelings about social justice and advocacy issues, whereas many who may disagree or
have negative ideas about the concept did not become respondents. I can't follow up on
any questions on this issue due to the anonymous nature of the survey.
The findings of this study cannot be generalized to other mental health disciplines
such as social workers, psychologists, or marriage and family therapists because I limited
my research to mental health counselor educators and did not include participants from
other disciplines. I cannot generalize the results to counselor educators in rehabilitation
or other types of counseling programs because of the different structure of their
programs. I only included counselor educators in my sample.
Finally, correlation does not address the cause-and-effect relationship; they
simply measured the relationship between the two variables, which for my research were
attitudes and behaviors associated with including social justice and advocacy issues in
the graduate counseling curriculum and acting for social justice and advocacy in a
person's personal and professional life (Boslaugh & Watters, 2008). Thus, the limitations
mentioned in Chapter 1 remain.
Recommendations
Future research can expand and improve my research design by making the
following improvements or changes. My data was collected from participants using
anonymous surveys. Most likely, the participants who responded were those who
108
already has a positive attitude regarding social justice and advocacy. Because survey
research is an indirect measurement of behavior, future research may involve participants
who have positive and negative views or those who have ambiguous views about social
justice and advocacy.
The counseling profession should only contain prospective participants who have
positive ideas related to social justice and advocacy. I would recommend a cause-and-
effect study that measures faculty members' self-efficacy to include social justice and
advocacy in their personal and professional lives, the level of administrative support
counselors have for incorporating social justice and advocacy concepts in the classroom,
and student ratings of their own understanding of those concepts. Ideally, longitudinal
follow-up of students' commitment to social justice and advocacy in their counseling
work can demonstrate the real-life effects of different levels of educator support for
social justice and advocacy concepts.
In addition, classroom research and surveys can include other mental health
disciplines and their educators. Furthermore, researchers can format the survey structure
and demographic questionnaire so that participants do not use words and only numbers
are needed. The reason for not using words and only using numbers was to prevent the
elimination of respondents from the final statistical analysis. For example, in the current
study, there were 84 respondents for the survey. There were six deletions of respondents
because the demographic questionnaire allowed writing and the participants chose not to
write their information. Future researchers may be interested in exploring whether
educators, counselors, who have positive attitudes and
109
Beliefs about social justice and advocacy instill concepts in their classrooms.
Implication
It is possible that the results of my research may help raise awareness
regarding possible attitudes, beliefs, and faculty actions that may facilitate or hinder
the infusion of social justice and advocacy concepts into the curriculum.
Understanding the relationship between faculty attitudes, beliefs, and actions, and how
they can shape support or barriers, can lead to the first step toward a change in the CE
curriculum that will include the concepts of social justice and advocacy. Thus, acquiring
knowledge of faculty attitudes, beliefs, and actions can help educators develop an
understanding of what is needed to contribute to a paradigm shift in how faculty
conceptualizes such potential practices in counselor education programs (Odegard &
Vereen, 2010).
The inclusion of this paradigm in the educational curriculum and supervision of
counseling and counsellors can lead to social change by helping researchers and
educators to understand the relationship between faculty attitudes and beliefs regarding
social justice concepts and practices, and faculty taking action in social justice and
advocacy initiatives in their personal and professional lives. The concept and action of
social justice advocacy is part of the competencies developed by the American
Counseling Association (Ratts, Toporek, & Lewis, 2010). This knowledge can lead to
helping faculty develop a greater understanding of the need for the inclusion of social
justice and advocacy concepts taught in the curriculum of counsellor education and
supervision. The concept of social justice advocacy, combined with multiculturalism, is
110
It is intended for educators to impart concepts to their students, so that students will
develop a greater understanding of how injustice, injustice, and oppression, based on
factors such as race and culture, can affect the mental well-being of their potential clients
(Glosoff & Durham, 2010).
The potential impact for social change with the inclusion of social justice and
advocacy in counseling programs, and counseling practices could broaden the
perspective of counselor educators to become more sensitive to, and inclusive, the needs
of ethnic minority and disenfranchised counseling clients. This can help counselors
improve their services with individuals and families (Brubaker et al., 2010; Chang et al.,
2010; Lewis et al., 2011; Ratts et al., 2016). Educators, counselors who have negative
opinions about social justice advocacy may become open to positive dialogue and
research on the concepts of social justice and advocacy. The results of the current study
could potentially allow for a better understanding of the refusal of universities and their
faculty to add social justice and advocacy to the graduate mental health counseling
curriculum.
The main implication of my study is that counselor educators who support high-
level positive attitudes and beliefs in support of social justice and advocacy also
demonstrate actions to support social justice and advocacy, such as political activism,
using social justice and advocacy in their professional practice, and supporting a
curriculum that includes social justice and advocacy courses.
Conclusion
I completed a quantitative study to examine whether there is a correlation between
counselor educators' attitudes and beliefs regarding social justice and advocacy, and
111
their actions in their personal and professional lives. I included only mental health
counselors who teach in graduate mental health counseling programs for this study. I
excluded other mental health professionals from this study, for example, master's-level
social workers, marriage and family counselors, rehabilitation counselors, and substance
abuse counselors who all teach in various college and university graduate programs.
When this research began, I wasn't sure what to expect after not finding empirical
research on counselor educators and their attitudes, beliefs, and actions regarding the
concepts of social justice and advocacy. The only relevant research is how important it is
for educators, counselors, and their administrators to apply social justice and advocacy
into graduate mental health counseling programs (Brubaker et al., 2010; Chang et al.,
2010; Mills & Ballantyne, 2016; Ratts et al., 2010; Ratts et al., 2016). The results of my
study showed that there was a significant relationship between faculty who had positive
attitudes and beliefs about social change and advocacy and actions taken by university
counselor educators regarding social justice and advocacy in their personal and
professional lives. These faculties may be more likely, and willing, to apply the concepts
of social justice and advocacy into their curriculum. This could potentially help meet the
American Counseling Association's Counselor Education and Supervision and Advocacy
Competency to support the inclusion of the concept of social justice and advocacy into
counselor education programs; Thus, better preparing counselors to meet the diverse
needs of clients.
112
Reference
Ajzen, I. (1991). Planned behavior theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50(2), 179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Arar, K. H., & Oplatka, I. (2016). Understanding social justice in education: The
perspectives of Jewish and Arab leaders in Israel. Management in Education,
30(2), 66-73. doi:10. 1177/08922020616631409
Arredondo, P., & Perez, P. (2003). Expanding multicultural competencies through social
justice leadership. Counseling Psychologist, 31(3), 282-289.
doi:10.1177/0011000003031003003
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanisms in human agents. American psychologist,
37(2), 22-147.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agents in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist,
44(9), 1175-1184.
Bandura, A. (1993). Self-efficacy felt in cognitive development and function.
Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agent's perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 1-26.
Bankton, C.L. (2010). Social justice: Cultural origins from perspective and theory.
Independent Review, 15(2), 165-178.
Bemak, F., Chung, CY, Talleyrand, RM, Jones, H., & Daquin, J. (2011).
Implementing multicultural social justice strategies in counsellor education
113
training programs. Journal of Social Action in Counseling and Psychology, 3(1),
29-43.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, LV, Higgins, JPT, & Rothstein, HR (2009). Pengantar meta-
analisis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Boslaugh, S., & Watters, P.A. (2008). Statistics at a glance: Desktop quick reference.
Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media.
Bradley, L.J., Lewis, J., Hendricks, B., & Crews, C.R. (2008). Advocacy: Implications
for surveillance training (ACAPCD–13). Alexandra, VA: American
Counseling Association.
Brubaker, M.D., Puig, A., Reese, R. F., & Young, J. (2010). Integrating social justice
into the pedagogy of counseling theory: Case examples. Counselor Education &
Supervision, 50(2), 88-102.
Chang, CY, Crethar, HC, & Ratts, MJ (2010). Social justice: A national imperative for
counsellor education and supervision. Counselor Education & Supervision,
50(2), 82-87.
Chang, C. Y., Hays, D. G., & Milliken, T. F. (2009). Addressing social justice issues in
oversight: A call for client and professional advocacy. Clinical Supervisor, 28(1), 28-
35.
Chung, R. C., & Bemak, F. (2013). The use of ethnographic fiction in the training of
counselors for social justice graduates. Counselor Education & Supervision,
52(1), 56-69. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978. 2013. 0002x.x
114
Cirik, L. (2015). Psychometric characteristics of the Turkish form of the Social Justice
Scale and modeling of structural equations. Eurasian Journal of Educational
Research, 61, 23-44. doi:10.14689/ejer.2015.61.2
Coates, M. (2007). Social justice and pedagogy. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(4),
579-591.
Coe, R. (2002). It's a stupid measure of effect: What is an effect measure and why it matters.
Diakses dari http://www.leeds.acuk/educa/documents/00002182.htm
Collins, S., Arthur, N., Brown, C., & Kennedy, B. (2015). Perspektif siswa:
Facilitation of postgraduate education, multicultural counseling and social justice
competencies. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 9(2), 153-160.
dx.doi.org/10.1037/tep0000070
Constantine, M. G., Hage, S. M., Kindaichi, M. M., & Bryant, R. (2007). Social justice
and multicultural issues: Implications for the practice and training of
counsellors and counseling psychologists. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 85(1), 24- 29.
Creswell, JW (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method
approaches (4th edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Crethar, H.C., & Ratts, M.J. (2008). Why is social justice a counseling problem?
Counseling Today, 50(12), 24-25.
Dinther, M. V., Dochy, F., & Segers, M. (2011). Factors that affect students' self-
efficacy in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 6(2), 95-108.
Field, A. (2009). Find statistics using SPSS (3rd edition). A Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
115
Fietzer, A.W., & Ponterotto, J. (2015). Review of psychometric instruments for social justice
and advocacy attitudes. Journal of Social Action in Counseling and Psychology, 7(1),
19-40.
Fowler, FJ (2014). Survey research methods (5th edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Frankfort-Nachmias, C., & Nachmias, D. (2008). Research methods in the social sciences
(7th edition). New York, NY: Worth it.
Ginns, P., Loughland, A., Tierney, R. J., Fryer, L., Amazan, R., & McCormick, A.
(2015). Evaluation of teaching and learning for the social-belief justice scale in
the Australian context. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(2), 311-
323. dx.doi.org/10. 1080/07294360.2014.956701
Glosoff, H.L., & Durham, J.C. (2010). Use supervision to prepare social justice
counseling advocates. Counselor Education & Supervision, 50(2), 116-129.
Goodman, L.A., Laing, B., Helms, J.E., Latta, R.E., Sparks, E., & Weintraub, S.R.
(2004). Training counseling psychologists as agents of social justice: Feminist
and multicultural principles in action. Counseling Psychologist, 32(6), 793-836.
doi:10. 1177/0011000004268802
G* Power 3.1 Manual. (2014, January 31). Accessed from http://www.psycho.uni-
duesseldorf.de/abteilungen/aap/gpower3
Bukit, NR (2003). Promote and celebrate multicultural competencies in counselling
trainees. Counselor Education & Supervision, 43, 39-51.
Jackson, J. (2000). What should psychology do? American Psychologist, 55(3), 328-
338.
116
Jaccard, J., & Becker, M. A. (2002). Statistics for behavioral sciences, (4th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.
Kiselica, M. S., & Robinson, M. (2001). Bring advocacy counseling to life: The history,
issues, and humanitarian drama of social justice work in counseling. Journal of
Counseling & Development, 79(4), 387-397.
Landmark, L.J., Zhang, D., Ju, S., McVey, T.C., & Ji, U.S. (2017). Experience of
disability advocates and self-advocates in Texas. Journal of Disability Policy
Studies, 27(4), 203-211. doi:10. 1177/1044207316657802
Lee, C. C. (2007). Social justice: A moral imperative for counselors (ACAPCD – 7).
Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
Lee, C. C., & Rogers, R. A. (2009). Counsellor advocacy: Influencing systemic change
in the public arena. Journal of Counseling & Development, 87(3), 284-287.
Lewis, J.A., Ratts, M.J., Paladino, D.A., & Toporek, R.L. (2011). Social justice
counseling and advocacy: Developing new leadership roles and competencies.
Journal of Social Action in Counseling and Psychology, 3(1), 5-16.
McDowell, T., & Shelton, D. (2002). Appreciate the idea of social justice in the MFT
curriculum.
Contemporary Family Therapy, 24(2), 313-331.
Mallinckrodt, B., Miles, J.R., & Levy, J.J. (2014). The scientist-practitioner-advocate
model: Addressing the need for contemporary training for social justice
advocacy.
Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 8(40), 303-311.
dx.doi.org/10.1037/tep0000045
117
Malott, K. M., & Knoper, T. (2012). Social justice in application: Training of counselors
in a legal context. Journal of Social Action in Counseling and Psychology, 4(2),
23- 40.
Mayhew, M. J., & Fernández, S. D. (2007). Pedagogical practices that contribute to
social justice outcomes. Higher Education Review, 31(1), 55-80.
Meis, V. M. (2000). Social justice agenda. American Psychologist, 55(3), 326-327.
doi:10. 1037//0003-066X.53.3.326
Miller, MJ, Sendrowitz, K., Blanco, S., Muñz de la Peña, C., Bernadi, S., & Morere, L.
(2009). Students' interest and commitment to social justice: A social-cognitive
perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology , 56(4), 495-507. doi:10.
1037/a0017220
Miller, M. J., & Sendrowitz, K. (2011). Interest and commitment to social justice of
counseling psychology trainees. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(2), 159-
169. doi:10.1037/a002663
Mills, C., & Ballantyne, J. (2016). Social justice and teacher education: A systematic
review of empirical work in the field. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(4), 263-
276.doi:10.1177/0022487116660152
Murray, C. E., Pope, A. L., & Rowell, P. C. (2010). Promote student counseling
advocacy competencies through service learning. Journal of Social Action in
Counseling and Psychology, 2(2), 39-47.
118
Myers, J. E., Sweeney, T. J., & White, V. (2002). Advocacy for counseling and
counsellors: A professional imperative. Journal of Counseling & Development,
80(4), 394-402.
Nilsson, J.E., Marszalek, J.M., Linnemeyer, R.M., Bahner, A.D., & Misilek, L.H.
(2011). Development and assessment of the Social Issue Advocacy Scale.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71(1), 258-275.
doi:10.1177/0013164410391581
Nilsson, J. E., & Schmidt, C. C. (2005). Social justice advocacy among graduate students
in counseling: An early exploration. Journal of Student Development, 46(3), 267-
279.
Odegard, M.A., & Vereen, L.G. (2010). A basic theory about counselor educators who
integrate social justice into their pedagogy. Counselor Education & Supervision,
50(2), 130-149.
Pack-Brown, S. P., Thomas, T.L., & Seymour, J.M. (2008). Instilling professional ethics
into counselor education programs: A multicultural/social justice perspective.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 86(3), 296-302.
Pohan, C.A., & Aguilar, T.E. (2001). Measure educators' beliefs about diversity in both
personal and professional contexts. American Journal of Educational Research,
38(1), 159-182.
Ratts, MJ (2009). Social justice counseling: Towards the development of a fifth force
among the counseling paradigm. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education,
and Development, 48(2), 160-172.
119
Ratts, M.J., & Hutchins, A.M. (2009). ACA advocacy competence: Social justice
advocacy at the client/student level. Journal of Counseling and Development,
87(3), 269-275.
Ratts, M.J., Singh, A.A., Nassar-McMillian, S., Butler, S.K., & McCullough, J.R.
(2016). Multicultural counseling competence and social justice: Guidelines for
the counseling profession. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development,
44, 28-48. doi:10.1002/jmcd. 12035
Ratts, M.J., Toporek, R.L., & Lewis, J.A. (2010). ACA advocacy competencies: A social
justice framework for counsellors. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling
Association.
Ratts, M.J., & Wood, C. (2011). The fierce urgency of the moment: The diffusion of
innovation as a mechanism for integrating social justice in counselor education.
Counselor Education & Supervision, 50(3), 207-223.
Rice, K., Girvin, H., Frank, J., & Foels, L. (2016). Learning institutions: Promote social
justice advocacy in continuing education programs. Journal of Teaching in
Social Work, 36(4), 380-389. dx.doi:10.
1080/08841233.2016.1200704
Sandage, S. L., Crabtree, S., & Schweer, M. (2014). Self-differentiation and
commitment to social justice mediated by hope. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 92, 67-74. doi:10. 1002/J. 1556-6676.2014.00131.x
Smith, L., Baluch, S., Bernabei, S., Robohm, J., & Sheehy, J. (2003). Applying a social
justice framework to the practice of college counseling centers. Journal of Higher
Education Counseling, 6(1), 3-13.
120
Smith, S.D., Reynolds, C.A., & Rovnak, A. (2009). A critical analysis of the social
advocacy movement in counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 87(4),
483-491.
Steele, JM (2008). Preparing counselors to advocate for social justice: The liberation
model. Counselor Education & Supervision, 48(2), 74-85.
Strickland, BR (2000). Assumptions, misfortunes, and psychological abuses.
American Psychologist, 55(3), 331-338.
Toporek, R.L., Lewis, J.A., & Crethar, H.C. (2009). Promote systemic change through
ACA advocacy competencies. Journal of Counseling & Development, 87(3), 260-
268.
Torres-Harding, S. R., Siers, B., & Olson, B. D. (2012). Development and evaluation of
psychometrics on the Social Justice Scale (SJS). American Journal of
Psychology, 50, 77-88. doi:10.1007/s10464-011-9478-2
Vera, E.M., & Speight, S.L. (2003). Multicultural competence, social justice, and
counseling psychology: Expanding our roles. Counseling Psychologist, 31(3),
253-272. doi:10. 1177/0011000003031003001
Barat-Olatunji, C. (2010). If not now, when? Advocacy, social justice, and counselor
education. Counseling and Human Development, 42(8), 10-12.
Zalaquett, CP, Foley, PF, Tillotson, K., Dinsmore, JA, & Hof, D. (2008).
Multicultural and social justice training for counselor education programs and
colleges of education: Rewards and challenges. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 86, 323-329.
