INTERSECTIONS OF DIVERSITY AND TRAINEE COMPETENCE PROBLEMS:
FACULTY PERSPECTIVES FROM CONTEXT
TO "COLORBLINDNESS"
by
DAVID SCOTT MILLER
A DISSERTATION
Presented to the Department of Counseling Psychology
and Human Services
and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
September 2008
11
University of Oregon Graduate School
Confirmation of Approval and Acceptance of Dissertation prepared by:
David Miller
Title:
"Intersections of Diversity and Trainee Competence Problems: Faculty Perspectives from
Context to "Colorblindness""
This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Counseling Psychology and Human
Services by:
Linda Forrest, Chairperson, Counseling Psychology and Human Services
Benedict McWhirter, Member, Counseling Psychology and Human Services
Deborah Olson, Member, Special Education and Clinical Sciences
Mia Tuan, Outside Member, Teacher Education
and Richard Linton, Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies/Dean of the Graduate
School for the University of Oregon.
September 6, 2008
Original approval signatures are on file with the Graduate School and the University of Oregon
Libraries.
© 2008 David Scott Miller
111
IV
An Abstract of the Dissertation of
David Scott Miller for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the Department of Counseling Psychology and Human Services
To be taken September 2008
Title: INTERSECTIONS OF DIVERSITY AND TRAINEE COMPETENCE
PROBLEMS: FACULTY PERSPECTIVES FROM CONTEXT TO
"COLORBLINDNESS"
Approved:
Dr. Linda Forrest, Ph.D.
The dual roles of educators and gatekeepers (Laliotis & Grayson, 1985; Vacha-
Haase, Davenport, & Kerewsky, 2004) require faculty to identify and work with students
who are identified as having problems ofprofessional competence (TIPPC). Although a
number of researchers (e.g., Forrest, Elman, Gizara & Vacha-Haase, 1999; Huprich &
Rudd, 2004; Vacha-Haase et a1.) have found that on average, at least one student per
program is identified as having professional competence problems every three to five
years, few have explored trainers' experiences working with colleagues and TIPPCs on
trainee remediation or dismissa1. Even fewer have explored trainers' processes for working
at intersections of diversity with TIPPC, leading some researchers (Forrest et a1., 1999) to
vsuggest that programs' mechanisms for identifying and remediating problems of
professional competence in training have not adequately addressed intersections with
diversity. The omission of these variables is particularly troubling as it may pose threats to
the retention of diverse cohorts. Using a Grounded Theory approach, interviews with 22
training directors (TDs) and faculty members were analyzed to explore processes for
conceptualizing and addressing intersections of diversity with TIPPC. A model emerged in
which participants described dilemmas, examined apparent problems, reached decisions
and acted on what they had learned. Processes for conceptualizing and addressing these
intersections were embedded in contexts of (a) espoused ideologies and (b) program
variables that impacted conversations about intersections of diversity with TIPPC.
Participants who espoused a context-attentive approach demonstrated less consistency
than participants who espoused a colorblind approach, sometimes losing or discontinuing
attention to context during their analyses. Possible reasons for this discrepancy, as well as
training, research, and political implications are discussed.
VI
CURRICULUM VITAE
NAME OF AUTHOR: David Scott Miller
GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED:
University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon
University of Texas, Austin, Texas
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts
DEGREES AWARDED:
Doctor of Philosophy, Counseling Psychology, 2008, University of Oregon
Master of Science in Social Work, 2002, University of Texas
Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology, 1994, University of Massachusetts
Bachelor of Arts in Social Thought and Political Economy, 1994, University of
Massachusetts
AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST:
Multiculturalism in Supervision, Training, and Education
Psychology Study of Men and Masculinity
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Predoctoral Psychology Intern, University Counseling Service, University of
Iowa, 2007-2008
Director, University of Oregon Men's Center, Eugene, OR, 2003-2006
Psychology Practicum Student, Eugene Veteran's Administration, 2004-2005
Psychology Practicum Student, Child and Family Center, Eugene, OR 2003-2004
Social Work Intern, University of Texas Counseling and Mental Health Center,
Austin, TX, 2001-2002
Social Work Intern, North Austin Medical Center, Austin, TX, 2000-2001
Vll
GRANTS, AWARDS AND HONORS:
Dissertation Research Award, College of Education, University of Oregon, 2007
Datatel Scholars Foundation Scholarship, 2006
Thomas W. Vollmer Scholarship, College ofEducation, University of Oregon,
2006
University Scholarship, University of Oregon, 2006
Loren Frankel Scholarship, American Men's Studies Association, 2006
Student Travel Award, American Psychological Association, 2006
Travel Grant, Center for the Study of Women in Society, University of Oregon,
2005
Student of the Year, APA Division 51, Society for the Psychological Study of
Men and Masculinity, 2004
Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse Scholarship, 2001, 2002
PUBLICATIONS:
Miller, D. S. S., Forrest, L., & Elman, N. S. (in press). Training directors'
conceptualizations of diversity in trainee remediation: A preliminary investigation.
The Counseling Psychologist.
Forrest, L., Elman, N. S., & Miller, D. S. Shen. (in press). Psychology trainees with
competence problems: From individual to ecological conceptualizations. Training
and Education in Professional Psychology.
Loschiavo, C. J., Miller, D. S., & Davies, 1. A. (2007). Engaging men in difficult
dialogues about privilege and social justice. College Student Affairs Journal, 26,
193-200.
Kaslow, N. J., Rubin, N. J., Forrest, L., Elman, N. S., Van Home, B. A., Jacobs, S. C., et
al. (2007). Recognizing, assessing and intervening with problems ofprofessional
competence. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 479-492.
Vlll
Miller, D. S., & McWhirter, E. H. (2006). The history of career counseling: From Frank
Parsons to 21 st century challenges. In M. Stauffer & D. Capuzzi, (Eds.). Career
and life style planning: Theory and application. (pp. 3-39). Boston, MA: Allyn and
Bacon
IX
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to express sincere appreciation to Dr. Linda Forrest for her assistance and
support throughout the preparation of this manuscript. In addition, I extend sincere
appreciation and thanks to Michelle Burt and Dr. Forrest for their excellent work as
members of the grounded theory research team. I also extend sincere thanks to Drs.
Benedict McWhirter, Deborah Olson, and Mia Tuan, for your dedication and work as
members of my dissertation committee. I would also like to thank those Training
Directors and faculty members who participated in this study for their candor in our
interviews and their feedback and comments on the results. Finally, most heartfelt thanks
to my wonderful wife Seraphine, and my entire family for your help, support, and
encouragement throughout this process and the course of my graduate training.
xTABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Diversity in Psychology .. 1
The Importance of a Pipeline................................................................... 2
Recruiting Successes and Challenges 3
Challenges to Recruitment: Training Interactions 5
Definitions and Terms 7
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 10
Intersections of Diversity with Problems of Professional Competence 10
Overview of the TIPPC Literature 10
Empirical Attention to Intersections of Diversity with TIPPC.. 13
The Practical Impact of a Sparse Literature Base......... 17
Summary 19
Race/Ethnicity and Gender in the Supervision Literature 20
Cross-Cultural Supervision: Conceptual Literature 21
Supervisor Attention to Race/Ethnicity and Culture 22
Supervisor Attention to Sex/Gender 24
Minority Supervisor-Majority Supervisee 24
RE and Gender Biases in Evaluation 25
Process and Outcomes: Empirical Literature on Race/Ethnicity 26
Expectation and Sources of Conflict 27
Addressing Culture in Supervision 29
Trust, Liking, and Satisfaction in Supervision 34
Evaluation of Supervisees 36
Supervisory Relationship Processes: Empirical Literature on Sex and
Gender 37
Xl
Chapter Page
Satisfaction with the Supervisory Relationship 37
Sex Differences in Supervision Process and Content 39
Evaluation 43
Conclusion 44
Expectations............................................................................................. 45
Differential Treatment 46
Addressing Culture 46
Evaluation 48
Summary 48
Overview of the Study 49
Focusing on Counseling Psychology Faculty.......................................... 49
Research Questions 51
Chapter Summary....... 51
III. METHODS 53
Researchers-as-Instruments 53
Principal Investigator as Instrument 53
Research Team Members as Instruments 55
Power Differences among Researchers 56
Philosophical and Paradigmatic Assumptions 57
Research Design 59
Participants '" 60
Data Collection Procedures 65
Data Analysis 72
Trustworthiness 79
IV. RESULTS 82
Program Variables that Affect Conversations About Diversity and
TIPPC 82
Demonstrating MC Commitments Through Critical Mass Recruitment
Efforts 84
Philosophical Commitments to Establishing and Maintaining
Diversity Conversations 87
xu
Chapter Page
Tensions Among Faculty Around MC Issues 94
Summary.. 104
Espoused Ideologies: "Colorblindness" to Context 105
Describing Dilemmas . 110
Fearing to "Lower" Standards 110
Enforcing Culturally Circumscribed Standards 110
Examining the Problem 113
Role of Culture in Professional Standards............................................. 113
Distal Aspects of TIPPC's Training Ecology........................................ liS
Proximal Aspects of TIPPC's Training Ecology................................... 125
TIPPC's Cultural Identity 133
Summary 137
Reaching a Decision 138
"Both/And" and "Either/Or" Frameworks 138
Sustaining Integration of Culture and Standards 142
Weighing Responsibility as Trainer 144
Client Safety .. 146
Assuming Universality 147
Summary ISO
Learning 150
Responding 152
Making Changes to the Training Ecology........ 153
Initiating Dialogues 154
Focusing Mentorship to Address Contextual Difficulties ISS
Using Limitations of Ecology to Educate Students About Social
Justice 158
Modifying Remediation 158
Chapter Summary 160
V. DISCUSSION 163
Strengths of the Study 164
Different Results Between the Current and Previous Studies 165
Consistency of Espoused Ideologies 166
X111
Chapter Page
Variability in Applying Context-Attentive Approaches 167
Losing and/or Discontinuing Attention to Context .. 168
Summary '" 176
Transferability..... 176
Limitations of the Study 177
Phone Interviews 178
Researcher Social Address 178
Participant Disclosure and Self-Report 179
Selection Bias 180
Social Constructionist Considerations.......................................................... 181
Training Implications . 183
Existing Program Variables 183
Environmental Threats to Trainee Well Being 184
Processes, Interactions, and Assumptions within the Training
Ecology................................................................................................. 184
Taking Action, Challenging the System, and Supporting Trainees 186
Research Implications 187
Summary, Conclusions, and Political Implications 189
APPENDICES 192
A. INTERVIEW GUIDE (INITIAL ITERATION) 192
B. INTERVIEW GUIDE (FINAL ITERATION) 196
C. CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH 200
D. RECRUITMENT LETTER 202
E. INFORMATIONAL LETTER FROM DR. FORREST 204
F. FOLLOW UP RECRUITMENT EMAIL 205
G. UPDATED INFORMED CONSENT TO EXPAND RESEARCH
TEAM 206
H. EMAIL ASKING PARTICIPANTS TO REVIEW AND COMMENT ON
RESULTS 207
Chapter
XIV
Page
1. LIST OF INITIAL CODES, CATEGORIES, AND QUESTIONS 208
J. RESEARCHER JOURNAL 229
REFERENCES 267
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Program variables that affect conversations about diversity and TIPPC 83
2. Decision-making processes about intersections of diversity and TIPPC 109
-----------------_._---
XVi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Participants' Demographics 63
2. Range and Median Percentages of Programs' Demographics 64
1CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Diversity in Psychology
Calls for inclusiveness and greater diversity in psychology originated more than
40 years ago (Maton, Kohout, Wicherski, Leary & Vinokurov, 2006). Numerous authors
(e.g., Hall, 1997; Moradi & Neimeyer, 2005) have cited rapid increases in the diversity
of the U.S. population as incentives for diversifying psychological services including
practice, research, and training. Psychology organizations have responded through such
efforts as the National Conference on Graduate Education in Psychology, the
Conference of National Councils of Schools of Professional Psychology (Stricker et aI.,
1990), the first National Multicultural Conference and Summit in 1999 (Chung, Marshall
& Gordon, 2001), and highlighting "ethnic minorities" as a major presidential theme
within the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1999. The APA has developed
internal structures to address issues of race and racism (e.g., Committee on Ethnic
Minority Affairs, Commission on Ethnic Minority Recruitment, Retention and Training
within Psychology), and organizations and Divisions (e.g., Division 45 on Ethnic
Minority Affairs, Division 44 on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues) dedicated to the
concerns of psychologists from diverse backgrounds. Journals with similar commitments
(e.g., Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, Journal ofMulticultural
Counseling and Development) have developed and been successful (Neville & Carter,
2005). Additional efforts have included the development of the Suinn Minority
2Achievement Award to recognize exemplary academic programs for their efforts in the
recruitment, retention and graduation of ethnic minority students, the development of the
APA Minority Fellowship Program, and the unanimous endorsement by the APA of the
Guidelines for Multicultural Education and Training, Research, Practice and
Organizational Change (Vasquez & Jones, 2006).
The Importance ofa Pipeline
Organizational commitments have also been enacted through education and
training efforts (e.g., Stricker eta1., 1990; Sue et a1., 1999; Vasquez & Jones, 2006;
Vasquez et aI., 2006) to recruit students and faculty of color (Hammond & Yung, 1993;
Moradi & Neimeyer, 2005; Munoz-Dunbar & Stanton, 1999). Researchers have
examined and recommended (a) successful techniques used in the recruitment of
students of color (Hammond & Yung; Rogers & Molina, 2006), and (b) criteria by
which to evaluate the success of institutions' rates of recruitment and retention of
students of color (Munoz-Dunbar & Stanton). Maton and colleagues (2006) emphasized
the importance of a pipeline of students and faculty of color, suggesting that increasing
the number of students of color receiving undergraduate degrees would expand the pool
of graduate school applicants, leading to increased numbers ofraciallethnic minority
students in graduate programs, and resulting in greater numbers of faculty of color.
Maton and colleagues observed that increased numbers of people of color at all stages of
higher education translated into greater opportunities for critical mass, support, and
visibility, which all facilitate recruitment and retention efforts for people of color.
3Retaining people of color as graduate students and faculty members is essential
to efforts to diversifY psychology. Atkinson, Brown, Casas, and Zane (1996) theorized
that having more faculty of color could help advance a multicultural competency agenda
by incorporating different sociocultural perspectives into research, scholarship, and
training. Similarly, Bernal and Castro (1994) found that programs with more faculty of
color tended to be more involved with competence around minority issues in terms of
coursework, research, and clinical training.
Recruiting Successes and Challenges
Programmatic and departmental attention to recruiting and retaining students of
color has accompanied these organizational commitments and efforts. In 1994, 98% of
clinical doctoral programs affirmed efforts to recruit students of color and offered
admission to students of color at rates (25%) that were more than double those
represented (12%) in the applicant pool (Munoz-Dunbar & Stanton, 1999). Yet despite
these efforts, the overall growth in numbers of students entering psychology programs
remains less than representative of the U.S. population, especially at the upper level of
the pipeline. Maton et al. (2006) found that although the rates at which racial/ethnic
minority students entered programs and received undergraduate and master's degrees had
grown from 1989-2003, the overall rates were still less than each group's U.S. population
representation. Rates at the upper end of the pipeline (i.e., doctoral degrees) were even
lower, had remained stagnant for racial/ethnic minorities since 1999, and had not grown
for African American and Latinalo students since 1997. Similarly, Maton and colleagues
noted that racial/ethnic minority faculty representation was roughly 40% of the
4representation ofraciallethnic minorities in the overall population of the u.s. Such
stagnation is particularly troubling, considering that more than 15 years ago Hammond
and Yung (1993) predicted that achieving rates of raciallethnic minority students in
psychology that would be equal to each group's percentage of U.S. population would
require tripling graduation rates ofraciallethnic minority students. The lack of growth
for people of color entering the pipeline highlights the importance of recruitment and
retention ofraciallethnic minority students, particularly in graduate programs
(Hammond & Yung; Maton et aI.; Molina & Rogers, 2006; Stricker et aI., 1990;
Vasquez et aI., 2006).
The profession's commitment to increasing sex diversity in psychology through
recruitment of females into student and faculty positions (Kite, Russon, Brehm, Fouad,
Hall, Hyde, et aI., 2001) has met with somewhat similar results. Despite increases in the
percentage of female students in doctoral programs from 1980 (56%) to 1992 (67%;
Norcross, Kohout, & Wicherski, 2005), in 2003 the number of females in faculty
positions did not reflect these higher percentages of female graduates from doctoral
programs (Kite et a1.; National Center for Educational Statistics, 2005).
Considering these and other data, researchers have concluded biases and
institutional barriers continue to exist for women (e.g., APA, 2000; Kite et aI., 2001) and
people of color (e.g., Dovidio & Gaertner, 2005; Dovidio, Gaertner, Kawakami &
Hodson, 2002) in university settings. Such biases and barriers can occur during graduate
education and training in areas such as supervision, clinical training, and evaluation. For
example, researchers have found evidence of different treatment of supervisees based on
5race/ethnicity (e.g., Cook & Helms, 1988; Kleintjes & Swartz, 1996; McRoy, Freeman,
Logan, & Blackmon, 1986) and sex (e.g., Granello, 2003; Granello, Beamish, & Davis,
1997; Nelson & Holloway, 1990).
Challenges to Recruitment: Training Interactions
Efforts at recruiting students from diverse backgrounds will not translate into
successful retention if the standards by which students are evaluated are not culturally
inclusive (Sue et aL, 1999). Several authors have asserted that a lack of explicit attention
to multicultural competence in curriculum, educational, and ethical guidelines is likely to
perpetuate the structural inequality and cultural hegemony that have existed in the
concepts and traditions of psychology (e.g., APA, 2003, Arredondo et al., 1996; Hall,
1997, Sue, 2005). Sue commented that "educational curricula that pathologize the
lifestyles and cultural values of minority groups are responsible for greater harm than
overt, direct forms of prejudice and racism" (p. 108). As such, students may face a
choice between their individual and group culture and that of the status quo (Maneolas &
Carrillo, 1991; Vasquez et al., 2006).
A lack of attention to cultural inclusiveness among trainers and professional
standards may have negative consequences for trainees whose approaches to the
profession do not match conventional expectations and standards. Some researchers
(e.g., Cook, 1994; Vasquez, 1999) have speculated that imbalances of power in the
training hierarchy might exacerbate culturally rooted misunderstandings in trainee-
trainer interactions, which could develop into problems in training. Forrest and
colleagues (1999) theorized that one outcome of not examining issues of diversity such
6as race/ethnicity and gender would be divergence between cultural and professional
norms for students from minority backgrounds, which could lead to trainers identifying
students from minority backgrounds as having problems of professional competence.
Trainers who do not examine diversity in training can also be at risk for under-
identifying problematic students, due to either inverted positional power (e.g., a minority
supervisor, working in a program with a lack of demonstrated commitment to diversity,
harboring doubts about the competence of a majority supervisee), or a fear among
faculty of appearing biased (e.g., sexist or racist) (Forrest et a1.; Norton & Coleman,
2003; Steward & Phelps, 2004).
Such difficulties can also complicate remediation and dismissal processes.
Supervisors reported to Gizara (1997) that cultural differences exacerbated conflicts
among supervisors involved in remediation and dismissal decisions, a phenomenon that
Vacha-Haase also observed in her (1995) research. Miller, Forrest, and Elman (in press)
found that many training directors (TDs) experienced strong emotions associated with
race/ethnicity in trainee remediation. Participants who expressed confusion, discomfort
around acting inappropriately, or fear of being perceived as biased tended to assign
responsibility for problems to trainees without examining other aspects of the training
system that might be contributing to the trainee's identified competence problems.
Tedesco (1982) speculated that concerns about legal ramifications of affirmative action
might cause internship faculty to be hesitant to dismiss racial/ethnic minority and female
interns. Swann (2003) echoed these concerns, speculating that faculty might be
concerned about how students' grievances would be construed. Swann added that
7programs might have a strong desire to keep those students from diverse backgrounds
that they were able to recruit, which could further complicate processes of TIPPC
identification, remediation, and dismissal.
Understanding intersections of diversity with trainees with professional
competence problems is thus germane to the advancement of a multicultural agenda in
psychology. Because cultural differences are a potential source of misunderstanding, and
power in the training milieu is hierarchical (Vasquez, 1999), psychology educators and
trainers need to deepen our understanding of potential intersections of diversity with
trainees with professional competence problems, to increase the sophistication and
intentionality with which we conceptualize and address instances in which students from
all backgrounds are perceived as struggling to develop professional competence. Such a
responsibility is required by the APA Code of Ethics, which requires trainers to attend to
power imbalances in clinical and professional relationships, and take "precautions to
ensure that their potential biases, the boundaries of their competence, and the limitations
of their expertise do not lead to or condone unjust practices" (APA, 2002, pp. 3-4).
Psychology trainers in particular need to understand whether or how such intersections
pose threats to student retention and to multicultural competence.
Definitions and Terms
In the following pages, I will use the term race/ethnicity (RE) instead of race due
to suggestions in the literature (e.g., Helms, Hernigan, & Mascher, 2005; Yee, Fairchild,
Weizmann, & Wyatt, 1993) that the term race perpetuates a false sense of biological
difference and reinforces a hierarchy based on skin tone among groups of people. Using
8that same rationale, I refer to all Whites/Caucasians as Euro-Americans (EA). I use
Multicultural (MC) when discussing groups of trainees from diverse racial/ethnic and
gender backgrounds. Sue, Bingham, Porche-Burke and Vasquez (1999) pointed out that
although multiculturalism as an umbrella term has been critiqued as potentially diluting
attention to significant cultural differences among diverse groups and diverting attention
away from some discussions in favor of other, less uncomfortable ones (e.g., switching
from a discussion ofrace to one of social class), the term also represents a commitment
to embracing multiple perspectives and worldviews, and is used to embody the concepts
of social justice.
Although literature on trainees with problems of professional competence
traditionally has used the term impairment, I employ the newer term professional
competence problems to avoid definitional confusion (e.g., merging cause and
expression of behavior, uncertainty whether a trainee has reached and regressed vs.
never reached competence), and legal risks (i.e., overlap with definitions used in the
Americans with Disabilities Act) that have accompanied the use of the term impairment
(Elman and Forrest, 2007; Falendar, Collins, & Shafranske, 2005; Forrest, Elman,
Gizara & Vacha-Haase, 1999). Recently, Forrest, Elman, and Miller (in press)
recommended that trainers use Bronfenbrenner's (1979) ecological model when working
with students who are struggling with professional competence problems, as the
framework is ideal for "keeping track of the complex, interconnected, interacting, and
evolving individual and environmental influences" that can contribute to a trainee's
competence problems (p. 7). Such an approach recognizes that problems of professional
9competence may stem not only from individual character or personality but also from
challenges or difficulties across multiple systems in the training ecology. In accordance
with these recommendations, I use the term trainees identified as having problems of
professional competence (TIPPC) throughout this paper.
Finally, throughout this paper I use the term "colorblind" to capture an
ideological framework used by some participants to conceptualize and address
intersections of diversity with TIPPC. This approach was used to describe intentional
lack of attention to diversity variables when considering a problem of professional
competence in training. Although the term "colorblind" has been used to capture
ideological approaches that include stated intentions to ignore race/ethnicity, based on
participant usage I am applying it to approaches that include stated intentions to ignore
any and all aspects of diversity. I introduce the term in quotations to convey to readers
that it captures direct participant expression. I also use the term with awareness that
researchers (e.g., Bonilla-Silva, 2000; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2005; Dovidio et al., 2002;
Ryan, Hunt, Weible, Peterson, & Casas, 2007) have found that individuals who indicate
that they do not consider diversity variables in situations often demonstrate through their
behavior that they are aware of, and attending to, such variables. I have found that this
phenomenon similarly exists in the data used in this study. Readers are encouraged to
consider these comments as they encounter the term throughout this study.
10
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Intersections ofDiversity with Problems ofProfessional Competence
Overview ofthe TIPPC Literature
Student difficulties that are grounds for remediation and/or dismissal are not rare,
isolated occurrences. Across programs (e.g., counselor education, clinical, counseling,
and school psychology), levels of graduate training (i.e., master's, doctoral) and settings
(i.e., academic programs, internships), researchers (e.g., Biaggio, Gasparikova-Krasnec,
& Bauer, 1983; Boxley et aI., 1986; Bradey & Post, 1991; Forrest et aI., 1999; Huprich
& Rudd, 2004; Olkin & Gaughen, 1991; Vacha-Haase, 1995; Vacha-Haase et aI., 2004)
have found consistently that at least one student per program is identified as having
professional competence problems, remediated, and/or dismissed every three to five
years. Studies have concentrated on identifying prevalence rates and types of
professional competence problems (e.g., Boxley et al; Huprich & Rudd, 2004;
Procidano, Busch-Rossnagel, Reznikoff, & Geisinger, 1995; Russell & Peterson, 2003;
Tedesco, 1982; Vacha-Haase et aI.), forms of remediation (e.g., Elman & Forrest, 2004;
Vacha-Haase et aI.) faculty or program communication about evaluation criteria to
students (e.g., Oliver, Bernstein, Anderson, Blashfield, & Roberts, 2004; Vacha-Haase et
aI.), gatekeeping practices (e.g., Elman & Forrest; Gaubatz & Vera, 2002), student
perspectives (Gaubatz & Vera, 2006; Mearns & Allen, 1991; Oliver et al.; Rosenberg,
Getzelman, Arcinue, & Oren, 2005; Swann, 2003), and/or organizational and legal
11
issues (Busseri et aI., 2005; Forrest et aI., 1999; Gilfoyle, in press; Gizara & Forrest,
2004; Knoff & Prout, 1985).
Most of the empirical studies in this area have been critiqued by several authors
(Forrest et aI.; Vacha-Haase et aI., 2004) as having limited generalizability due to
sampling problems, low response rates, and simplistic designs and analyses. Of
additional concern is the fact that few researchers have explored trainers' experiences of
working with colleagues and TIPPCs on trainee remediation or dismissal.
Although a number of authors (e.g., Baldo, Softas-Nall, & Shaw, 1997; Bemak et
aI., 1999; Frame & Stevens-Smith, 1995; Hahn & Molnar, 1991; Knoff & Prout, 1985;
Lamb, Presser, Pfost, Baum, Jackson, & Jarvis, 1987; Lumadue & Duffy, 1999; Wester,
Fowell, Fouad, & Santiago-Rivera, in press) have proposed models for identifying,
remediating and/or dismissing students, only one (Baldo et aI., 1997) model directly
addresses the personal difficulties involved in trainer processes. In addition, none have
been empirically tested, and none include explicit attention to intersections of TIPPC
with diversity. Additionally, researchers have found that many programs continue to
operate without written or formal guidelines (Huprich & Rudd, 2004; Vacha-Haase et
aI., 2004), and operate in relative isolation. Vacha-Haase and her colleagues (2004)
found that for programs working with students who needed remediation, 53% operated
without written guidelines. In addition, 83% ofprogram directors did not consult with
other programs, and 92% did not consult with APA. Similarly, Huprich and Rudd's
(2004) survey of 199 clinical, counseling, and school psychology doctoral programs and
internships, found that 42% of academic programs operated without written guidelines.
12
As a result, although some research exists about types of problems and
remediation options, little is known about trainer processes when working with TIPPCs.
A similar lack exists in terms of communication among programs and the availability of
empirically tested models. In addition to the potential difficulties posed by (a) the lack of
empirically tested models, and (b) the sparse amount of empirical literature on trainer
processes, a number of authors have described theoretical and anecdotal challenges to
working with TIPPCs, including: Accurate knowledge of litigation issues (Gilfoyle, in
press; Knoff & Prout, 1985; Tedesco, 1982), systemic problems and a lack of
administrative support (Baldo, et ai., 1997; Bemak, Epp & Keys, 1999; Elman et ai.,
1999; Gaubatz & Vera, 2002; Lamb, 1999), individual difficulty (Laliotis & Grayson,
1985; Lamb, Cochran, & Jackson, 1991; Vasquez, 1999), and a desire for positive
relationships with students (Bemak et aI., 1999; Gaubatz & Vera, 2002; Oliver et aI.,
2004; Schoener, 1999; Vasquez, 1999).
Individual difficulty. For example, Bemak and colleagues (1999) speculated that
faculty and clinical supervisors' awareness of students' investments of time, effort, and
money in their graduate program could lead to reluctance to remediate or dismiss a
TIPPC. Other factors that might increase faculty reluctance include students struggling
with less quantifiable types of difficulty (e.g., inadequate clinical work; Bemak et aI.;
Hensley, Smith, & Thompson, 2003), the amount of time demanded by TIPPC
remediation (Olkin & Gaughen, 1991), personal stress of working with a TIPPC (Lamb
et aI., 1991; Vacha-Haase et aI., 2004) and fear that one will be challenged or sued by
colleagues and/or trainees (Baldo et ai., 1997; Gizara & Forrest, 2004; Tedesco, 1982).
13
In addition, trainer preferences for positive interactions with students and a self-image as
a student advocate may underscore faculty difficulty negotiating the roles of gatekeeper
and educator, and increase their challenges identifYing and addressing TIPPCs (Vasquez,
1999). Systemic issues such as conflict among faculty (Gizara & Forrest), a lack of
program accreditation status, high numbers of adjunct faculty, high student-faculty
ratios, and faculty concern about negative teaching evaluations also make identifYing
and following through with a TIPPC much less likely (Gaubatz & Vera, 2002),
highlighting the impact of a lack of organizational support on trainers' ability to fulfill
gatekeeping responsibilities.
Challenges related to diversity. Instances in which diversity intersects with
TIPPC may be even more complex and challenging, including obstacles to infusing
multiculturalism in education articulated by Sue and colleagues (1999). These authors
described obstacles such as strong emotional reactions, cultural norms that restrict and
constrain difficult discussions, and a lack of preparation and expertise among trainers
and educators to engage in such dialogues and actions. These and other obstacles may
heighten faculty discomfort and stress associated with general trainee remediation and
dismissal when intersections with diversity are present, and may make faculty processes
and decisions even more complex and difficult as a result.
Empirical Attention to Intersections ofDiversity with TIPPC
The above assertions are speculative, due to sparse literature on identifYing,
remediating, and dismissing students at intersections of diversity with TIPPC. None of
the proposed (and in use) models for student remediation and dismissal include explicit
14
attention to diversity into their procedures. As Gizara (1997) noted, most studies on
TIPPC "keep the focus of inquiry on the competence issues of the impaired clinician or
trainee. These efforts contextually strip the issue of impairment before a knowledge base
about the context has been established" (p. 4).
To date, only six studies (Boxley et aI., 1986; Gizara & Forrest, 2004; Miller et
aI., in press; Swann, 2003; Tedesco, 1982; Vacha-Haase, 1995) have attended to
intersections of diversity with TIPPC. Three of these studies focused on internship
settings, and three on academic settings; five of these studies focused on trainer
perspectives, and one on trainee perspectives. Two studies (Boxley et aI., 1986; Tedesco,
1982) examined RE and sex prevalence rates at internship sites. Boxley et aI. compared
sex and RE prevalence rates between rates of enrollment and rates of TIPPC, finding no
discrepancies based on either variable. Tedesco found rates of dismissal for trainees to
be "disproportionately higher" for males than females, and higher for EA trainees than
RE minority trainees (p. 696). Several problems arise when considering the
contradictory findings from these studies. First, both authors visually examined the data
and formed conclusions without conducting more advanced statistical analyses. In
addition, Boxley and colleagues obtained their data through asking programs to select
one representative case of TIPPC, and thus did not gather data on all TIPPCs for each
program. As such, their prevalence rates are not based on a full examination of existing
data from those programs. Finally, the findings from the two studies are more than 20
years old. Because demographics in psychology training have changed in the last 20
years (Maton et aI., 2006), such rates may not reflect current realities. Such limitations
15
caused Forrest and her colleagues (1999) to caution that conclusions about rates ofRE
and gender among TIPPC might be hasty.
In the only study to date of trainees' perspectives of intersections of diversity
with TIPPC, Swann (2003) examined trainees' perceptions of (a) due process, (b) their
ability to take action when concerned about themselves or a peer, (c) the impact of their
knowledge of due process on their perceived ability to take action, and (d) program
environment. Swann included specific attention to the impact ofgender and RE across
these areas, but did not find significant relationships between trainees' RE or gender and
their actions addressing a problem with a peer.
Although she did not find significant differences based on RE or gender in
trainees' perceptions of faculty sensitivity to RE and gender generally, Swann (2003)
found that RE minority trainees perceived faculty to be less supportive when considering
trainee problems regarding race than did EA trainees. In addition, Swann commented
that EA peers appeared to be more satisfied with their actions addressing a peer of a
different race or gender than were RE minority trainees, although those differences did
not reach significance. The study adds to the literature in its examination of trainee
perspectives, as well as the author's attention to influences ofRE and gender on trainees'
perceptions of actions (student and faculty) taken to address intersections of diversity
with TIPPC. However, the study also has limitations, such as a low (17.4%) response
rate. In addition, because the author asked participants to rank-order their perceptions of
faculty support, her findings did not provide information about specific faculty actions,
attitudes, or behaviors that may have contributed to trainees' perceptions.
16
The remaining three studies (Gizara & Forrest, 2004; Miller et a1., in press;
Vacha-Haase, 1995) examined data on general processes of remediation and dismissal.
In the course of their investigations, each set of researchers uncovered information about
trainer awareness of diversity factors that impacted evaluative decisions. In every study,
the researchers found that trainers believed that cultural differences complicated
decisions about TIPPC. Through qualitative interviews, internship supervisors reported
to Gizara and Forrest (2004) that cultural differences among themselves and between
students and supervisors increased their difficulty identifying and working with
problematic trainees. In a survey of academic programs' rates and processes for
identifying, remediating, and dismissing TIPPCs, 11 % of TDs similarly reported to
Vacha-Haase (1995) that RE differences complicated decisions about TIPPCs.
Miller and colleagues (in press) conducted the first focused examination of the
extent to which training directors (TDs) identified and included RE and gender in their
discussions of TIPPC remediation. The authors found that TDs who stated that RE and
gender was important to consider in trainee remediation did not maintain consistent
attention to RE and/or gender in their discussions of specific cases and general aspects of
remediation. In addition, the authors found that TDs exhibited differences between their
discussions of gender and RE, demonstrating (a) more definitional clarity and conceptual
sophistication about gender than RE, and (b) strong emotions associated with RE but not
gender.
Although the findings from these three studies are important, existing limitations
impact the extent to which conclusions may be drawn. First, data for these studies were
17
not explicitly focused on intersections of diversity with TIPPC. The studies conducted
by Gizara and Forrest (2004) and Vacha-Haase (1995) were both designed to examine
broad processes related to trainer perspectives on remediation and dismissal. Although
Miller and colleagues (in press) directly examined TDs' perspectives on intersections of
RE and gender with TIPPC, their data were gathered through interviews focused on the
use of psychotherapy in remediation (c.f. Elman & Forrest, 2004). No one has yet
explored such intersections explicitly and in depth. As a result, little is known about the
processes involved at intersections ofRE, gender, and/or other diversity variables with
TIPPC.
The Practical Impact ofa Sparse Literature Base
The lack of empirically tested procedures for remediation and dismissal, coupled
with sparse literature exploring intersections of diversity with TIPPC likely mean that
program faculty have less guidance when working at such intersections. Considering
findings by Vacha-Haase and colleagues (2004) that 83% of trainers did not consult with
other programs, and 92% did not consult with APA for instances involving remediation,
the likelihood of less guidance around intersections of diversity with TIPPC is
particularly sobering. The lack of conceptual and empirical literature may also leave
trainers under-prepared to examine potential bias in their expectations of diverse
trainees, and ill equipped to consider culture, context, and socialization in planning
effective remediation (Forrest et aI, 1999; Swann, 2003).
For example, a lack of guidance may increase programs' risk of over-
representing RE minority students among those needing remediation, and/or reinforcing
-------
18
institutionalized biases and discrimination. Such a lack of guidance may be particularly
salient for trainers who (a) hold differential competency standards for different groups
based on conscious or unconscious bias, and/or (b) have fewer tools to examine,
identity, and intervene with problematic behaviors that intersect with cultural, gendered
or religious experiences such as "hostility to members of other races ... gendered
behavior that severely restricts possible interventions or is harmful to clients ... (or) views
about homosexuality as pathology" (Forrest et aI., 1999, p. 670). Similarly, in her review
of the literature, Swann (2003) speculated that different cultural norms about (a) seeking
help and (b) privacy about sharing struggles with outsiders could each provoke
additional strain for the trainee, and lead to a lack of identification by trainers that a
problem may exist. In addition, Swann noted that both trainers and trainees hold gender
role expectations (e.g., emotional expression) for male and female trainees, speculating
that trainers might tolerate a stereotypically female behavior (e.g., tears) more than a
stereotypically male behavior (e.g., arrogance) stemming from a trainee's struggle.
In contrast, although the authors did not directly address multicultural issues,
Gaubatz and Vera's concept of "gateslipping" (p. 299) may apply to various scenarios
envisioned by Forrest et al. (1999). For example, faculty who are afraid of appearing
racist, classist or sexist may not identify a student with a deficiency in professional
competence. Alternatively, MC faculty may believe and/or have the experience that their
colleagues will not validate, support, or act on their concerns about a student, and thus
do not identify a student who is struggling (Cook, 1994; Norton & Coleman, 2003;
Steward & Phelps, 2004).
19
All of the above processes can include missed opportunities for training and
possibly gatekeeping, and might increase a program's vulnerability to express or
perpetuate institutionalized racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination in
remediation and dismissal decisions. Such actions may reinforce the silence of minority
faculty members who observe trainee incompetence within programs that do not
emphasize the importance of culture and diversity. Elman et al. (1999) suggested that a
lack of examination into the ways in which dominant cultural values are embedded into
disciplinary norms increases the risk for discrimination during training.
Summary
As Gizara and Forrest (2004) suggested, the sparse amount of empirical
investigation into how programs handle TIPPC is alarming when considering the overall
rates of such occurrences. The even smaller amount of empirical and conceptual
literature on intersections of diversity with TIPPC should be cause for even greater
alarm. Without investigations into such intersections, professionals will lack knowledge
about the ways in which obstacles that have been found to impact trainers' actions and
processes in all instances of TIPPC (e.g., fear of litigation, lack of departmental support,
macro-level power issues) intersect with those obstacles that have been conceptually
articulated and tentatively supported as impacting intersections of diversity with TIPPC
(e.g., discomfort, embarrassment, and unease around issues of differences, fear of being
identified as a racist). The lack of such knowledge may leave trainers without guidance
when considering such intersections, heightening the risk of obscuring individual and
group differences among trainees as they make decisions about identifying, remediating
20
and dismissing students. Such actions may cause trainers to inadvertently reinforce
systemic inequalities within the profession.
An examination of the supervision literature may provide (a) tentative empirical
grounding for some of the above speculations, as well as (b) directions for inquiry. The
literature on diversity (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity) in supervision is somewhat larger and
includes more empirical investigation. This body of literature provides a relevant
comparison source because supervision functions as (a) a primary pathway to evaluate
competencies as they develop in training, (b) one of the most common areas oftraining
in which TIPPCs are identified, and (c) a frequent component of remediation plans
(Procidano et aI., 1995; Vacha-Haase et aI., 2004).
Race/Ethnicity and Gender in the Supervision Literature
In this section, I focus on conceptual and empirical literature that examines how
cross-cultural differences in supervision can include challenges to the supervisory
relationship. Such challenges are relevant to intersections of diversity with TIPPC for
several reasons. First, supervision is a primary mechanism through which supervisees
develop the clinical tools needed for competent practice as psychologists (Goodyear &
Guzzardo, 2000; Holloway & Neufeldt, 1995). Conflict or detachment in the supervisory
relationship can impede skill development (Ladany, Brittan-Powell & Pannu, 1997;
McRoy et aI., 1986), provoking immediate and/or long-term problems.
Second, clinical work is one of the most common areas of training in which a
trainee's problems may be identified and addressed (McRoy et aI., 1986; Olkin &
Gaughen, 1991; Vacha-Haase, et aI., 2004). Supervisors playa key role in identifying
21
difficulty as well as providing support for trainees (Mano1eas & Carrillo, 1991). Some
authors (e.g., Forrest et aI., 1999; Vasquez, 1999) have suggested that a lack of attention
to cultural issues and/or conscious or unconscious biases could lead supervisors in cross-
cultural supervisory dyads to misattribute supervisees' behaviors in supervision and
possibly over- or under-identify supervisees as struggling. Third, the fact that many
programs assign additional supervision as part of remediation plans (Olkin & Gaughen,
1991; Vacha-Haase et aI., 2004) could potentially create an ironic repetition of the
difficulties that precipitated a supervisee's remediation plan. For example, if a supervisee
was identified as a TIPPC due to supervisor inattention to cultural issues, requiring that
supervisee to undergo additional supervision as part of remediation may recapitulate the
original conflict, reinforcing the possibility for Type I error that problems of professional
competence exist.
Cross-Cultural Supervision: Conceptual Literature
The relatively recent emphasis on multicultural counseling competencies means
that some supervisees will be more multiculturally knowledgeable than their trainers
(Bernard, 1994; Bernard & Goodyear, 1998; D'Andrea & Daniels, 1997; Gatmon et aI.,
2001; Priest, 1994), raising questions about who will train the trainers to incorporate
multicultural discussions in supervision (Priest; Vasquez & McKinley, 1982). Several
theorists (Cook, 1994; Fong & Lease, 1997; Priest) have proposed that supervisors at
different stages of RE identity development will differ in how they address RE in
supervision, ranging from ignoring the RE of the client, supervisee and supervisor (i.e., a
"colorblind" approach) through integrating awareness of RE as an essential aspect of
22
clients', supervisees', and supervisors' identities (Cook; Ladany et aI., 1997).
Supervisors who are earlier in their RE or gender identity development may be less
likely to (a) initiate or deepen discussions on these topics (Fong & Lease; Ladany et aI.),
and/or (b) conceptualize supervisee problems within a framework that includes attention
to diversity. In addition, Constantine (2001) suggested that supervisees will often look to
their supervisor to set the tone for supervision, and that inattention to cultural issues
could limit the usefulness of supervisors' feedback about different clients. Cook
emphasized that unspoken assumptions about RE and culture affect every aspect of
supervision, "including establishment of the relationship and expectations, assignment of
clients, conceptualization of clients and treatment planning... referrals, and evaluation of
supervisees" (p. 137).
Supervisor Attention to RacelEthnicity and Culture
A lack of attention to cultural variables in supervision and evaluation can impact
the overall performance of both supervisor and supervisee. Supervisors who attend to RE
and cultural topics can provide MC trainees with information about what is expected of
them in cross-cultural environments (Cook & Helms, 1988), and help RE minority
supervisees overcome some of the challenges posed by graduate school training such as
integrating ethnic and professional identities, maintaining traditional familial roles and
responsibilities, over-identifying with same-RE clients' situations (Manoleas & Carrillo,
1991), or addressing prejudice from a client, supervisor, or supervisee (Ali et aI., 2005).
Conversely, a lack of attention to culture in the supervisory relationship may lead to the
use of White cultural norms as the standard of reference, encouraging indoctrination of
23
trainees from all RE backgrounds into the norms of the profession without challenging
or discussing possibilities for integrating or changing those norms (Fong & Lease, 1997;
Norton & Coleman, 2003).
Inattention to RE may cause supervisors to overlook the impact of variables such
as historical and current trauma related to racism and prejudice (Bryant-Davis &
Ocampo, 2005; Carter, 2007) on supervisees' functioning, development, and skill
acquisition. Supervisors who do not attend explicitly to RE may also (a) make ignorant,
racist, or assumptive comments about RE differences, (b) overly match clients to
supervisees based on RE, or (c) rely on the MC supervisee as a de facto expert on all MC
clients (Ali et al., 2005; McNeill, Hom & Perez, 1995). Any of these actions may
generate or exacerbate conflict in the supervisory relationship and be detrimental to the
supervisee's development and satisfaction with supervision (e.g., Cook, 1994; Priest,
1994; Ryan & Hendricks, 1989).
Consequently, Cook (1994) and Norton and Coleman (2003) suggested that those
with the least power in supervision (i.e., supervisees) may suffer the most when RE is
ignored, through difficulty acquiring clinical skills and developing personal and
professional identity. The impact of supervisor power on the extent to which issues of
culture are discussed in supervision has led many authors (e.g., Constantine, 1997;
Cook; Holloway, 1992; Nelson & Holloway, 1990; Sue et al., 1998; Wester & Archer,
2002) to assert that supervisors have an ethical obligation to raise issues of culture and
examine their biases, attitudes and assumptions about cultural differences.
24
Supervisor Attention to Sex/Gender
Similarly, a lack of attention to gender based assumptions and behaviors can
perpetuate social inequalities for female supervisees (Ault-Richie, 1988; Munson, 1987),
and threaten skill acquisition for male (Wester & Vogel, 2002) and female (Bernard &
Goodyear, 1998) supervisees. Wester and Vogel suggested that males with high
adherence to traditional male role norms could feel uncomfortable expressing emotions
as a means to build relationships in psychotherapy and supervision. Bernard and
Goodyear (1998) described "fairly predictable" (p. 46) gender biases in cross-sex
supervisory relationships, including (a) female supervisees not being taken seriously, (b)
female supervisors being expected to provide high levels of support to their supervisees,
(c) female supervisees dealing with assumptions from male peers that praise from a male
supervisor is the result of sexual attraction, and (d) male supervisees being unwilling to
tolerate critical feedback from a female supervisor. Supervisors who do not attend to
potential biases and assumptions based on gender differences may perpetuate such
conflicts and difficulties in supervision.
Minority Supervisor-Majority Supervisee
Several authors (e.g., Ali et al., 2005; Norton & Coleman, 2003) have offered
critiques that the majority of research and writing on cross-cultural supervision assumes
supervisory dyads of majority supervisor-minority supervisee. However, dyads in which
a minority supervisor is paired with a majority supervisee exist (as do other, complex
intersections among RE, gender, sexual orientation, social class, etc.), and contain
unique stressors and conflict potential. In addition, Ali et al. pointed out that minority
25
graduate students can be simultaneously supervisors and supervisees in multiple cross-
cultural configurations. Priest (1994) commented on such pairings, suggesting that
historical mistrust between different RE groups may make it more difficult for
supervisors of color to want to share personal insights with majority trainees. Similarly,
Steward and Phelps (2004) commented that minority supervisors with majority
supervisees may have less power in the relationship, despite assumptions among
majority colleagues that the hierarchy of supervisor-supervisee remains unchanged.
Some authors (e.g., Ali et al.; Bradshaw, 1982; Norton & Coleman; Priest) have
described challenges of such configurations that include racist and prejudiced remarks
from supervisees, and challenges to one's competence and authority as a supervisor.
RE and Gender Biases in Evaluation
Evaluation of trainee performance is another aspect of supervision that can be
negatively impacted by a lack of attention to cultural variables. Bernard (1994)
suggested that "it is possible and far too probable that, within supervision, culture is
honored in the relationship and dismissed in evaluation" (p. 169). Various authors have
speculated that supervisors may hold different biases towards male and female
supervisees (Bernard & Goodyear, 1998; Granello, 2003; Wester & Vogel, 2002) and
towards RE minority supervisees (Brown & Landrum-Brown, 1995; Fong & Lease,
1997). Such biases may be particularly dangerous for supervisees especially if
supervisors are members of a dominant culture or group (Cook, 1994). Brown and
Landrum-Brown suggested that "cultural and racial differences in supervision might
pose problems that exceed those encountered in counseling because the supervisee may
26
not be as free to escape the hierarchical and, possibly, oppressive environment of the
supervisory relationship, whereas clients can quit counseling altogether" (p. 279).
Positive bias may also exist and be problematic. McNeill and colleagues (1995)
envisioned how White professors who are uncomfortable with RE differences may
provide "excessive praise and (avoid) criticism" (p. 250) ofRE minority trainees,
potentially setting up negative consequences for those trainees within their peer group,
and damaging the self-esteem, self-efficacy and self-concept of those trainees.
Process and Outcomes: Empirical Literature on Race/Ethnicity
The empirical literature on cross-cultural supervision contains equivocal findings
and has been critiqued for a general lack of rigor in research design and statistical
analysis procedures (Ellis & Ladany, 1997). Chung et al. (2001) agreed, describing a
"collective ignorance of the science and practice of multicultural supervision" (p. 100).
Most of the existing qualitative and quantitative research is based on data gathered
through self-report and/or retrospective accounts. Although several researchers have
conducted gender-focused content analyses of recorded supervision sessions (Granello,
2003; Granello et a1., 1997; Nelson & Holloway, 1990; Sells, Goodyear, Lichtenberg, &
Polkinghorne, 1997), only one study (Hilton, Russell, & Salmi, 1995) examined RE
issues in cross-cultural supervision. Unfortunately, that study has been criticized for its
use of analog design, all White supervisees, and for focusing on race, rather than the
more complex variable of racial identity (Ellis & Ladany). Thus, knowledge about the
extent to which RE is discussed in the supervisory relationship is limited. Researchers
who have conducted investigations on cross-cultural supervision have focused on (a)
27
supervisees' and supervisors' expectations of conflict, (b) addressing culture in
supervision, and (c) evaluation.
Expectation and Sources ofConflict
Evidence exists that supervisees and supervisors anticipate problems in cross-
cultural supervision in ways that differ by RE. Vander Kolk (1974) compared Black and
White rehabilitation counseling supervisees' expectations of supervision with a White
supervisor, finding that Black supervisees expected less empathy, respect, and
congruence in the supervisory relationship than did White students. Although the author
examined possible relationships between expectations for supervision and personality,
values, and race, significant differences between groups with high vs. low expectations
were based on racial differences only. Based on these findings, Vander Kolk suggested
that previous negative experiences with racism in educational institutions and
professions may have generated negative expectations among Black supervisees.
Although these findings are compelling, the study was limited by its lack of attention to
White students' expectations of cross-racial supervision, and did not include follow up
examinations of whether differences in expectations impacted the supervisory
relationship.
McRoy et al. (1996) surveyed social work supervisees and supervisors for
expected and actual rates of conflict within minority supervisor-majority supervisee and
majority supervisor-minority supervisee dyads. The authors found that both majority and
minority supervisors expected communication problems and differences in language and
life experiences to be sources of conflict. White supervisors also expected that prejudice,
28
bigotry, lack of knowledge about cultural differences, and failure to recognize student
strengths could be problematic in their supervisory relationships, whereas Black and
Hispanic supervisors expected problems such as being challenged on their authority,
knowledge, and power by White students.
McRoy and colleagues (1986) also found that supervisees' expectations varied
by RE. Black supervisees expected conflicts around the (mis)use of power and authority,
and the tendency for White supervisors to minimize the effects ofRE differences,
whereas White supervisees expected negative outcomes and less overall learning.
Despite large lists of potential conflicts, supervisees and supervisors reported actual
instances of conflict at relatively moderate rates (16% and 27%, respectively). However,
McRoy and colleagues found that a majority of students who had problems either in
cross-cultural supervision (71 %) or in cross-cultural clinical work (60%) did not discuss
them with their supervisors. In contrast, 75% of supervisors stated that they had
discussed problems with their supervisees. Unfortunately, the study has significant
limitations: The authors did not report data analysis or information about the
significance of their results beyond percentages, and did not examine perceptions within
supervisory dyads of how such conversations and conflicts occurred. However, the study
included a comparatively even number of supervisory dyads that included RE majority
and minority supervisors, which provided a strong basis for the authors' comparisons of
differences across supervisory configurations. In addition, the study had a very high
response rate (84%), diminishing the possibility of a sampling bias.
29
Addressing Culture in Supervision
Evidence exists that addressing culture in supervision can enhance supervisee
satisfaction with the supervisory relationship. Gatmon et al. (2001) examined the
initiation, frequency, and quality of culture-focused discussions in cross-race, -gender,
and -sexual orientation supervision on perceptions of the supervisory working alliance.
Using a chi-square analysis, the authors found that supervisees and supervisors who
discussed RE similarities and differences had significantly higher overall satisfaction
with the supervisory working alliance. The authors also found that supervisees who
discussed gender or sexual orientation reported significantly higher levels of overall
satisfaction with supervision (but not with the working alliance). Using correlation
analyses, the authors found that the quality of the discussions (i.e., frequency, depth,
safety, satisfaction and interaction with training) of similarities and differences was
correlated with supervisees' satisfaction of supervision and with the working alliance.
Similarly, in a pilot study of former predoctoral interns' retrospective accounts of critical
incidents involving RE in supervision, Fukuyama (1994) found that including culture in
discussions, openness and support around cultural issues, and opportunities to participate
in multicultural activities led to more positive experiences of supervision.
Although these studies underline the relationship between discussing cultural
variables in supervision and supervisee comfort, the findings may be limited. Gatmon
and colleagues (2001) had low numbers ofRE minority, sexual orientation minority, and
male participants, and did not examine differences between types of supervisor-
supervisee configurations or within group differences. However, their study is
30
significant in that the authors explored the contributions of different aspects (e.g., depth,
safety) of culture-focused conversations,. The authors also differentiated among
discussions that focused on different aspects of diversity, in terms of how these
discussions might differ in their (a) rates of occurrence, and (b) influence on supervisor
and supervisee satisfaction of the supervisory relationship. Fukuyama's (1994) study did
not include a description of her data analysis procedures, and was further limited by the
exclusive focus on majority supervisor-minority supervisee dyads, use of retrospective
accounts, and focus on supervisee perspectives without supervisor perspectives.
However, Fukuyama's focus on the existence and relevance of specific critical incidents
in supervision provided insight into the salience of events that can catalyze supervisees'
professional development. In addition, a significant strength of the study was the focus
on the experiences of RE minority supervisees, which provided information on specific
challenges and support opportunities encountered by RE minority supervisees working
in cross-cultural supervision.
Ladany, Brittan-Powell and Pannu (1997) examined counseling supervisees'
perceptions of RE identity interactions with their supervisors in same- and cross-cultural
supervisory dyads. Using a factorial MANGVA, the authors found that RE identity
interactions were significantly and positively related to (a) goal/task orientation, (b)
emotional bonding within the working alliance, and (c) multicultural competence. The
more advanced the RE identity of the supervisor, the greater the satisfaction reported by
the supervisee regarding the supervisory relationship, regardless ofRE. Conversely, the
less advanced the RE identity of the supervisor, the lower the level of satisfaction
31
reported by the supervisee, regardless of the supervisee's RE identity. The authors found
that regressive interactions (i.e., occurring when the supervisor's RE identity
development is less advanced than the supervisee's) had the lowest levels of supervisory
alliance. Ladany et al. envisioned scenarios in which a supervisee would raise issues of
culture, only to have them ignored by the supervisor. Further, Ladany and colleagues
found that although racial matching was significantly related to self-assessed
multicultural competency, it was not significantly related to the working alliance,
prompting the authors to emphasize that the RE identity development of the individual
supervisor was much more salient than her/his RE in terms of the quality and
productivity (and supervisee satisfaction) of the overall relationship. The study is an
important contribution to the literature because of the authors' use of the complex
variable of raciaVethnic identity as opposed to variables that measured race or racial-
matching; using this variable allowed the researchers to examine and understand
additional reasons for supervision dynamics that may have influenced within group
differences in supervisee's experiences in cross-cultural dyads. Several limitations of the
study exist, including the reliance on self-report, the exclusive focus on supervisees'
perspectives, and the lack of examination into the direction of causality between the
supervisory relationship and discussions of race/ethnicity.
Gatmon et al. (200 I) found that the extent to which supervisory dyads discussed
cultural similarities and differences varied by topic, with gender (38%) discussed most
frequently, followed by RE (32%) and sexual orientation (13%). Similarly, supervisors
initiated conversations about gender 55% of the time, RE 48% and sexual orientation
32
33% of the time. Thus, the authors suggested that differences in supervisor knowledge
and/or comfort may impact the frequency with which diversity topics are discussed.
A lack of supervisor attention to culture in supervision may be associated with
lower levels of supervisee satisfaction. Former interns reported to Fukuyama (1994) that
supervisors' lack of awareness and attention to culture, and questioning supervisee
abilities led to more negative experiences in supervision. Burkard and colleagues (2006)
used consensual qualitative research to examine both RE minority and EA female
supervisees' perceptions of culturally responsive (e,g., exploring the effects of a client's
cultural background on presenting concern, exploring the effects of supervisee's
background on perceptions of client) and unresponsive (e.g., avoiding discussing the
effects of culture on treatment, dismissing cultural concerns about a client) events in
cross-cultural supervision. The authors asked questions about the impact of such events
on supervisees' perceptions of the supervision relationship and satisfaction with
supervision, and found that both EA and RE minority supervisees reported positive
effects, including an improvement of the supervision relationship and increased
satisfaction with supervision following a culturally responsive event. Conversely, both
EA and RE minority supervisees reported that culturally unresponsive events had a
negative effect on the supervision relationship, decreasing (for EA supervisees) or
eradicating (for RE minority supervisees) their satisfaction with the relationship. EA and
RE minority supervisees described having negative feelings such as disappointment and
anger towards their supervisors, and RE minority supervisees reported feelings of being
offended, hurt, and distressed following such events, which led to less disclosure of
33
information by the supervisee in supervision. Although these findings provided
additional evidence of the impact of supervisor inclusion of culture in cross-cultural
supervision, Burkard and colleagues' study was limited by their focus on supervisee
recall (vs. examination of audio- or videotaped sessions) and the exclusion of supervisor
perceptions and experiences. In addition, the researchers included the interview protocol
in the informed consent materials, so participants may have responded in ways that were
more socially desirable than would have occurred had they been unaware of the
interview questions. Finally, because the sample did not include male participants, cross-
sex comparisons of supervisees' experiences were not available; nor were intersections
of gender and RE dynamics in supervision explored. However, the relatively large
number of participants for this qualitative study (n =26) and the inclusion of even
numbers of majority-minority and minority-majority supervisory dyads provided
excellent opportunities for comparison. In addition, the authors' attention to pre- and
post-measures of the quality of the supervision relationship as measures for the impacts
of responsive/unresponsive events provided a wealth of information about contextual
conditions for such events, as well as the sequence of such impacts over time.
In their survey of 60 cross-cultural supervisory dyads, Duan and Roehlke (2001)
found that supervisors' actions to address cross-cultural topics were perceived
significantly differently by supervisors and supervisees. For example, although 93% of
supervisors reported that they disclosed a lack of experience working in cross-cultural
supervisory dyads, only 50% of supervisees reported that such disclosures had occurred.
Similarly, although 93% of supervisors reported efforts to understand their supervisees'
34
cultural backgrounds, a significantly lower 73% of supervisees agreed with this
assessment.
Supervisee difficulty raising RE and culture in supervision. Evidence exists that
supervisees may struggle to raise attention to RE and culture in supervision for various
reasons, including discomfort with cultural differences, fear of repercussions, and a lack
of a supportive supervisory environment. In an analog study of EA counselor trainees'
reactions to provocative racial material in supervision, Utsey, Gemat and Hammar
(2005) found evidence of discomfort, anxiety, denial, avoidance and general resistance
to discussions ofRE. Similarly, although their current and historical contexts are
different from those in the U.S., supervisees in cross-cultural supervisory dyads in other
countries similarly struggle to raise cultural issues. In interviews with current and former
Black psychology trainees at a historically White university in South Africa, Kleintjes
and Swartz (1996) found that supervisees perceived obstacles to raising culture in
supervision that included (a) "colorblind" attitudes adopted by the university that did not
address the "person" of the trainee, (b) fear of being seen by others as using their RE
minority status to excuse unsatisfactory performance, and (c) not wanting to be
categorized as "pathologically preoccupied with issues of colour and discrimination" (p.
94).
Trust, Liking, and Satisfaction in SuperVision
Cook and Helms (1988) compared between group differences among 225 RE
minority supervisees' perceptions of the supervisory relationship. The authors found
differences between groups of supervisees from different RE backgrounds in terms of
35
perceptions of supervisors' liking and comfort with them, and feelings that the
supervisory relationship violated cultural norms. Black, Latino and Native American
supervisees described feeling less well liked by their supervisors than did Asian
Americans, and Native Americans perceived their supervisors to be more emotionally
uncomfortable during supervision interactions than did any other group. However, Black
and Native American supervisees described feeling unconditionally liked by their
supervisors more than did any other group. The authors concluded that differences in
degrees of acculturation and/or similarities across cultures could account for differences
between groups of different RE minority supervisees in their perceptions of supervision.
Several limitations to the study exist, including the lack of an EA control group and the
low number of Native American participants (Leong & Wagner, 1994). In addition, the
authors used measures that targeted supervisee perceptions of supervisor attitudes, and
as such did not provide information about supervisors' behaviors or interactions that
might have contributed to the supervisees' perceptions. Nor did the authors examine
supervisors' perceptions, which might have provided information about the extent to
which supervisors and supervisees shared views about their relationships and
interactions, and levels of comfort and liking. In addition, the researchers used tools
designed to assess satisfaction with counseling, not supervision; these measures may
have missed nuances or needs specific to supervisees' experiences in supervision.
However, the study is significant for its attention to between group differences among
RE minority supervisees; these findings provide evidence that cross-cultural dyad
dynamics can vary along numerous dimensions.
36
Evaluation ofSupervisees
Findings from the few studies that have examined whether supervisors'
evaluations of supervisees differ based on the RE of the supervisee are equivocal. In an
analog study, Chung et al. (2001) asked 76 supervisors to provide feedback on a
hypothetical trainee's case conceptualization. The authors manipulated the RE (Black or
White) and sex (male or female) of this hypothetical trainee, and found no significant
relationship between supervisors' evaluations and the race of the hypothetical
supervisee. In addition, the authors did not find significant effects related to pairings of
supervisors' and supervisees' RE on the evaluations. Although the authors concluded
that these findings indicated no evidence for bias based on RE, the relatively small
number ofRE minority supervisors (n = 17) may have decreased the statistical power of
between group differences. In addition, the authors did not differentiate among
participants from different RE backgrounds, and their focus on race instead of the more
complex variable of racial identity may have caused them to miss more dynamic
processes in the supervisory relationship (Helms, 1990; Ladany et aI., 1997).
In contrast, Helms (1982, discussed in Cook & Helms, 1988) found that a sample
of predominantly White supervisors differentially and unfavorably compared RE
minority trainees with White trainees in how they received feedback, examined
themselves, and kept appointments. Helms noted that greater discrepancy existed
between self- and trainers' assessments for RE minority trainees than for White trainees.
Helms speculated that cross-racial supervisory dyads are more conflictual than same-
racial dyads.
37
Supervisory Relationship Processes: Empirical Literature on Sex and Gender
The empirical study of sex and gender in supervision has overlapped with some
of the foci described above. Both RE and sex/gender studies have focused on supervisor-
supervisee relationships. However, whereas the empirical literature on cross-racial
supervision has tended to focus on addressing culture in supervision, expectations of
supervision, and supervisee evaluation, studies of sex/gender in supervision have
focused on the implications of sex-matching on satisfaction with the supervisory
relationship, and gender differences in (a) supervision processes, (b) encouragement of
power, personal, and professional development, and (c) evaluation.
Satisfaction with the Supervisory Relationship
Worthington and Stem (1985) surveyed supervisors and supervisees in same- and
mixed-sex supervision dyads, finding significant differences in how supervisors and
supervisees rated the strength of the supervisory relationship; male supervisees rated
their relationships with supervisors of either sex more positively than did female
supervisees, and both male and female supervisors rated their relationships as stronger
with male than with female supervisees. In addition, although supervisors of either sex
did not rate the closeness of the relationship significantly different for same- or opposite-
sex matched supervision dyads, supervisees rated same-sex dyads significantly closer
than opposite-sex dyads (Worthington & Stem). Ellis and Ladany (1997) pointed out
several important limitations of this study, including the lack of examination of within
group differences for opposite-sex dyads. These authors noted other findings that
supervisor behaviors differ significantly within opposite-sex dyads (e.g., Granello, 2003;
38
Nelson & Holloway, 1990) to suggest that such differences should have been explored.
In addition, Ellis and Ladany critiqued the design of this study for not resolving extreme
risks for Type I and Type II errors, incorrect statistical analyses, and the use of single-
item measures, asserting that "no conclusions from the results are merited" (p. 468).
However, the authors of this study explored intersections of different variables (i.e.,
supervisee degree level, supervisor experience, supervisor and supervisee gender, and
gender matches) on perceptions of the supervisory relationship, and included the
perceptions of both supervisors and supervisees.
Similar to Worthington and Stern's (1985) findings, Wester and colleagues
(2004) discovered that male supervisees' ratings of the supervisory relationship differed
across same- and opposite-sex matched dyads. In a study examining the effects of
restrictive emotionality (a component of gender role conflict; O'Neil, Helms, Gable,
David, & Wrightsman, 1986) on male psychology interns' ratings of supervision dyads,
the authors found that supervisees working with male supervisors rated their supervisory
working alliance significantly lower than supervisees working with female supervisors.
In addition, the authors found that supervisees with higher levels of restrictive
emotionality responded to supervision in ways that were significantly different from
supervisees with lower levels of restrictive emotionality. The authors suggested that
adherence to gender role expectations, combined with a lack of power or perceived
competence in supervision, could have caused supervisees with higher levels of
restrictive emotionality to internalize their feelings and develop lower counseling self-
efficacy. The study is an important contribution to the literature because of its use of the
39
complex variable of gender role conflict, which provided a more nuanced view of
gender-based dynamics in supervision experiences of male trainees than do variables
focused solely on gender or gender-matching. However, the study is limited by its lack
of inclusion of female supervisees, and its lack of attention to supervisor perceptions of
the relationship.
Sex Differences in Supervision Process and Content
Studies of sex and gender in supervision have found sex differences present in
the focus of supervision interactions. In a study of supervision sessions of 44 same- and
cross-sex supervision dyads, Sells and colleagues (1997) found that female supervisor-
male supervisee dyads included significantly greater proportions of relational
discussions and fewer proportions of task-oriented discussions than did male supervisor-
male supervisee dyads. The authors proposed several different hypotheses for such
differences, including (a) unintentional gender role behaviors elicited in the female
supervisor-male supervisee dyads, and/or (b) female supervisors intentionally modeling
behaviors for their male supervisees to use in clinical work. The strengths of this study
included transcript analyses of actual, audiotaped supervision sessions, the inclusion of
fairly experienced supervisees and supervisors with established supervisory relationships
(averaging roughly 20 supervision sessions prior to the study) and examinations of
multiple communication dimensions (i.e., structure, content) within the supervisory
relationship.
However, the study was not without limitations. Although they examined the
dynamics and structure of the supervisory relationship, and differences between
40
supervisors' and supervisees' evaluations of supervisees' skills, Sells and colleagues
(1997) did not examine possible correlations or interactions between these relationship
dynamics and evaluation differences. In addition, the authors examined sex-matching,
rather than more a complex variable such as gender role orientation. Further, the system
with which the authors coded the audiotapes was theoretically but not empirically
supported, which limits the veracity of the findings, as do the small sample size and low
response rate. Finally, the focus on cross-sections of supervisory relationships did not
provide information about the impact of such dynamics and structural interactions within
supervision over time.
Other researchers have found evidence for negative relational experiences in
supervision based on sex differences. In a qualitative study of 13 supervisees'
retrospective accounts of conflictual supervisory relationships, Nelson and Friedlander
(2001) found that some female interns had problems in cross-sex supervision including
male supervisors who (a) overly disclosed about their sex lives, (b) flirted with female
interns, and (c) minimized ongoing harassment from clients. Similar to findings by
McRoy et al. (1986), Nelson and Friedlander found that supervisees did not raise
concerns with their supervisors due to fears of repercussion. The findings from this study
are limited by the mostly White (11 of 13) and female (9 of 13) participant pool,
selection biases, the use of retrospective accounts, and the lack of information about
supervisors' experiences. However, the study had a number of strengths, including the
use of a semi-structured interview guide, multiple coders, a fairly well articulated data
analysis strategy, and the authors' empirical attention to supervisees' perceptions of (a)
41
supervisor reactions, (b) supervisees' own internal reactions, (c) positive and negative
outcomes of negative events, and (d) coping strategies following conflictual events.
In a mixed method study of female doctoral level supervisees' perceptions of
gender related events in same- and mixed-sex supervision, Walker, Ladany and Pate-
Carolan (2007) found that supervisees described supportive and unsupportive events.
Supportive events included supervisors using theoretical, gender inclusive
conceptualizations of clients, processing gender-related countertransference and
transference issues, and integrating gender into professional development conversations.
Unsupportive events included supervisors making gender-based stereotypic assumptions
about a supervisee or a client, dismissing a trainee's attempts to raise gender issues in
supervision, or inappropriate behavior towards a supervisee or client. The authors found
that supportive gender related events were positively and significantly related to the
working alliance, whereas unsupportive events were negatively and significantly related
to the working alliance. In addition, supervisees who experienced supportive gender
related events in supervision reported these events to their supervisors significantly more
often than supervisees who experienced unsupportive events. Some limitations of the
study include the predominantly White and self-selected sample, no discussion of biases
within the research team, no auditor, and no member checks. In addition, data were
collected through online or mail surveys, rather than through interviews or observations;
such methods may have negatively impacted data collection by limiting participants'
range of responses. In addition, a flexible or in-person interview protocol would have
allowed interviewers to explore new, emerging themes in the moment as well as later in
42
the data collection process, and provided opportunities to include nonverbal infonnation
(e.g., body language, vocal tone) in the data analysis. However, similar to Fukuyama's
attention to RE-related critical incidents in supervision, Walker and colleagues'
investigation provided insight into the impact of individual and specific gender-related
events on supervisees' experiences in supervision. The focus of the study similarly
provided information about the perceived impact of such events on supervisees'
subsequent skill development.
Encouraging personal andprofessional development. Nelson and Holloway
(1990) content analyzed supervisee assertions of power and involvement in audiotaped
supervision sessions from 40 master's-level same- and mixed-sex supervisory dyads, and
found that supervisors of both sexes were less likely to support or encourage female
trainees when they asserted power in the supervisory relationship than they were to
support or encourage male trainees for the same behaviors. In addition, female
supervisees tended to relinquish power in supervision more frequently than their male
peers. Although the study was limited in its representation of supervisees and
supervisors from multiple RE backgrounds and its exploration into intersections of RE
with gender, the authors used actual content from supervision sessions, and a well-
articulated and empirically investigated classification scheme to code the transcripts. An
additional strength of the study was that the authors examined possible differences
within mixed-sex supervisory dyads.
Similarly, in a content analysis of audiotaped supervision sessions, Granello and
colleagues (1997) found that supervisors of either sex asked for twice as many opinions
43
and suggestions from male than female supervisees, and that over time male supervisees
were granted and exercised more autonomy than their female peers. In a replication
study, Granello (2003) found the results from the earlier study (Granello et aI., 1997) to
be magnified by age: Male supervisees who were older than their supervisors of either
sex were asked for their opinion twice as often as supervisees who were younger than
their supervisors of either sex, and more than six times as often as female supervisees
who were older than their supervisors. In addition, Granello found that male supervisees
who were older than their supervisors of either sex gave suggestions more than four
times as often as supervisees of any sex who were younger than their supervisors, and
more than ten times as frequently as female supervisees who were older than their
supervisors. Although the Granello et al. study was limited by a small sample size (20
dyads), self-selection, and for focusing on sex, rather than more complex variables of
gender role identification and!or socialization, Granello' s replication study (2003)
included 42 supervision dyads. Both studies were limited by self-selection and low
response rates. A strength of the replication study is the examination of intersections of
age with gender, although Granello did not examine intersections between RE and
gender in supervisory dyads.
Evaluation
Findings of sex differences in supervisors' evaluation of supervisees are
equivocal. As noted earlier, Chung et al. (2001) asked participants to provide feedback
on a hypothetical trainee's case conceptualization. The authors manipulated the race and
gender of the trainee, and found that male supervisors gave significantly lower
44
evaluations and less positive feedback when the supervisee was depicted as female than
when the supervisee was depicted as male. Female supervisors did not produce
significant differences in evaluations and feedback when the gender of the supervisee
was manipulated. In contrast, Goodyear (1990) and Sells et al. (1997) found that
evaluations of supervisees' skills (by supervisees and supervisors) did not differ
significantly based on the sex of either supervisors or supervisees.
Important differences exist among these three studies. Goodyear (1990) and
Chung and colleagues (2001) both used analogue studies, and asked supervisors to
provide written feedback and ratings. Although the studies used analogue conditions, the
authors might have asked participants to provide this feedback through live interaction
with a researcher or a confederate supervisee; such a process would have enabled the
researchers to observe personal dynamics that might have influenced participants'
ratings. In contrast, Sells and colleagues (1990) analyzed audiotapes of actual
supervision sessions that involved interactions between supervisors and supervisees.
Also, the supervisory dyads studied by Sells et al. had seen each other for an average of
almost 20 sessions; this amount of time spent together in supervision and amount of
clinical experience among supervisees may be important factors to consider when
comparing the results from observed supervision sessions with results from the studies
involving hypothetical cases.
Conclusion
Researchers of cross-cultural supervision dyads have found that RE and gender
differences influence the experiences of both supervisees and supervisors. Supervisors
45
and supervisees from different RE backgrounds may hold different expectations prior to
the onset of supervision. Sex differences may differentially influence supervisors'
treatment and evaluation of supervisees, as well as supervisors' and supervisees'
perceptions of the closeness of the supervisory relationship. In addition, supervisors may
differ in whether and how they address RE, gender, and other cultural issues in
supervision, which can impact supervisors' and supervisees' satisfaction with the
supervisory relationship. Finally, supervisors who differ in terms of RE and sex may
evaluate trainees differently on the basis of sex and RE. The fact that all of these
differences exist in cross-cultural supervision raises the question as to whether and how
such differences exist in trainer approaches to intersections of diversity with TIPPC.
Expectations
Prior to the onset of cross-cultural supervision, supervisors and supervisees from
different RE frequently expected that conflict would exist in the relationship.
Expectations of conflict that precede cross-cultural supervision may similarly exist for
trainers and trainees engaged in other domains of cross-cultural training, as well as
trainers and trainees operating at intersections of diversity with TIPPC (e.g., designing a
remediation plan). Expectations of conflict in these situations may influence the
dynamics of trainer-trainee interactions, possibly priming the relationship towards
interpersonal conflict, and/or influencing how TIPPCs are identified, remediated, and
evaluated.
46
Differential Treatment
In addition, evidence exists that supervisors treated supervisees of different sexes
differently in supervision, in tenns of (a) providing support and encouragement for
supervisee efforts to assert power in supervision, and (b) asking for supervisees'
opinions. Often these differences appeared to intersect with assumptions and
expectations of "traditional" gender role behaviors. At intersections of diversity with
TIPPC, such unintentional or unexamined gender role expectations might lead to over-
identifying as TIPPCs those supervisees who do not confonn to expected gender roles;
these expectations may also influence the design, implementation, and evaluation of
remediation plans.
Addressing Culture
Researchers have found that the quality and frequency of supervisor-directed
discussions of culture, and their responses to supervisee-initiated discussions of culture,
impact supervisees' experiences of supervision. Whereas heightened attention or
responsiveness to cultural topics in supervision have been found to deepen satisfaction
with the supervisory relationship, diminished or negative attention to cultural issues has
been shown to impede supervisees' satisfaction and comfort. Differences in comfort and
satisfaction can influence whether and how supervisees raise cultural topics, and the
extent to which they disclose and take risks in supervision. As a result, these differences
can ultimately impact supervisees' professional identity development, and their clinical
and multicultural counseling self-efficacy and competence.
47
Supervisors' willingness and ability to attend to issues of culture in supervision
may depend on factors that include their RE, gender, and other cultural identity
development (e.g., sexual orientation). Differences in identity development among
supervisors are likely also present for faculty and other trainers. Differences in identity
development that influenced supervisors' attention to cultural issues in supervision may
similarly influence faculty's attention to contextual factors that contribute to trainees'
perceived difficulties, and/or may cause faculty to over- or under-identify culturally
appropriate trainee behaviors as problematic (Forrest et al., 1999). In addition, given that
some supervisors do not initiate or respond to supervisee-initiated discussions of culture
in supervision, the possibility exists that faculty and trainers will similarly not raise or
respond to cultural topics at intersections of diversity with TIPPC.
For example, majority supervisees may not be identified as TIPPCs due to a lack
of (a) ability among majority supervisors to identify problems due to the invisibility of
dominant culture and status quo, and/or internalized racism, sexism, and other biases
(Miller et al., in press), and (b) confidence among minority supervisors that their
concerns will be considered by their colleagues (Forrest et al., 1999; Norton & Coleman,
2003; Steward & Phelps, 2004). In addition, some supervisee problems (e.g., disregard
for the supervisor's ability and/or feedback on the basis of her/his RE or gender) may
occur more frequently in supervisory dyads with minority supervisors (e.g., Ali et al.,
2005; McRoy et al., 1986; Priest, 1994).
Programs in which there is little support and/or high degrees of perceived bias
within the faculty also may foster an environment in which it is less likely for a minority
48
supervisor to raise concerns about a student (Forrest et aI., 1999; Norton & Coleman,
2003; Steward & Phelps, 2004). Supervisors told Hoffman et al. (2005) that it was more
difficult to give feedback to an intern when there was a perceived lack of collegial
support. Such difficulties might include additional variables for a supervisor from a
minority group working with a minority supervisee who is struggling, especially ifhigh
degrees of perceived racial bias exist within the program faculty. Supervisors from RE
minority backgrounds may not identify trainees of color due to protective feelings,
shared knowledge of institutional racism, a lack of faith in collegial reaction (Gizara &
Forrest, 2004), and/or fear of being labeled as a troublemaker (Norton & Coleman).
Evaluation
Finally, the fact that researchers have found equivocal findings as to whether
supervisors evaluate supervisees differently on the basis of either RE or sex differences
raises questions about whether similar biases exist and will impact trainers evaluations
of trainees' performance at intersections of diversity with TIPPC. Bernard's (1994)
comments that supervisors might honor culture in supervision but dismiss it in
evaluation could be extended to intersections of diversity with TIPPC; trainers might
similarly honor culture in education and training, yet dismiss, miss, or ignore culture in
evaluation of TIPPCs.
Summary
This overview of the conceptual and empirical literature concerning RE and
gender in TIPPC and supervision highlights a number of unanswered questions.
Although the literature addressing either category is sparse, conceptual and empirical
49
writers have pointed to the influence of RE, gender, and cultural differences in conflicts
and tensions in both areas. Unfortunately, the relatively small body of literature is
unlikely to provide sufficient guidance for supervisors, trainers and educators who are
struggling to address intersections of diversity with TIPPC. Very little is known about
processes that faculty use to conceptualize, explore, and act at the intersections of
diversity with TIPPC.
Overview ofthe Study
The study described below explored counseling psychology Training Directors'
(TDs') and faculty members' processes for conceptualizing and addressing intersections
of diversity with TIPPC. Considering the lack of empirical investigation into these
intersections, I wondered whether and how the discomfort and stress associated with (a)
general trainee remediation and (b) multicultural variables would contribute to and
heighten the difficulty of decisions at such intersections. I was curious to learn about the
experiences and conceptual thinking of faculty who had engaged in such work.
Focusing on Counseling Psychology Faculty
Counseling psychology has a long history of leadership in multiculturalism and
diversity efforts within psychology, beginning with its organizing principles that
emphasized the importance of understanding developmental contexts for individuals,
groups, and organizations (Gelso & Fretz, 1992; Super, 1955). Over time, counseling
psychologists have consistently operationalized these commitments through (a)
designing and delivering clinical interventions and empirical investigations that have
targeted the environmental impacts of racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression
50
(Quintana & Bernal, 1995), (b) sponsoring organizational initiatives (APA 2003; Moradi
& Neimeyer, 2005; Sue et aI., 1999), (c) focusing on the importance of multicultural
training (e.g., Atkinson et aI., 1996; LaRoche & Maxie, 2003; Sue, 1998; Sue & Sue,
2003; Sue et aI., 1998; Utsey, Gernat & Hammar, 2005) and research (e.g., Delgado-
Romero, Galvan, Maschino, & Rowland, 2005; Graham, 1992; Ponterotto, 1988), and
(d) recruiting and retaining students and faculty of color (Moradi & Neimeyer).
Across counseling psychology programs, such efforts have resulted in rates of
RE minority faculty that are above the mean within psychology. Moradi and Neimeyer
(2005) found that the overall representation of ethnic minorities in counseling
psychology faculty positions (26%) were close to percentages reflected in the general
population, although this statistic varied by raciaVethnic group. The Council of
Counseling Psychology Training Programs annual survey included similar figures at 25-
33% for 2003-2004 (CCPTP, 2006a).
These historical and current commitments to multiculturalism and diversity
position the discipline as a natural starting point for studying faculty perspectives on
intersections of diversity with TIPPC. Higher numbers of faculty of color in counseling
psychology programs may translate to a sample that is more attentive to issues of
multiculturalism and the impact of individual and group differences on training. As such,
interviews with faculty and TDs from this population are perhaps likely to yield greater
amounts of reflection than interviews conducted with individuals across the breadth of
professional psychology.
51
Research Questions
The following questions guided the study:
1. How do programs and faculty conceptualize and address intersections of
diversity with TIPPC?
2. What are the contextual factors that influence processes and actions at
intersections of diversity with TIPPC?
3. What processes facilitate or hinder reaching decisions about how to act?
4. What are the outcomes of TD and faculty examinations and actions?
Chapter Summary
In this chapter, I reviewed the existing literature on TIPPC and literature that
addressed intersections of diversity with TIPPC. Because each area of the literature is
sparse, I also examined the conceptual and empirical literature on cross-cultural
supervision, discussing challenges and conflicts in cross-cultural supervisory
relationships that might lead to and/or exist at intersections of diversity with TIPPC.
When discussing empirical findings of difference within the cross-cultural supervisory
relationship (e.g., different treatment and evaluation of supervisees based on RE and sex
differences), I speculated on how such conflicts and challenges might be similarly
represented at intersections of diversity with TIPPC. Finally, I discussed my rationale for
choosing counseling psychology faculty as a sample with which to begin these
investigations, and articulated four research questions that guided my inquiry.
In the chapters that follow, I discuss the methods I used to pursue this inquiry,
including the rationale that guided data collection and analysis. I follow with a
52
presentation of the results of the study. In the final chapter, I discuss the results,
including attention to the (a) limitations of the study, (b) research, training, and political
implications of the findings, and (c) concluding remarks.
53
CHAPTER III
METHODS
I pursued the research questions for this study through qualitative methods for
several reasons. First, a number of authors (e.g., Morrow, Rakhsha, & Castaneda, 2001;
Sue, 1999) have critiqued traditional, positivist research for not acknowledging multiple
perspectives and have identified qualitative research as better suited to this purpose. In
addition, methods that can (a) capture the richness and contexts of participants'
experiences in their own voices and (b) allow for flexibility of design and analysis
(Richie, Fassinger, Linn, Johnson, Prosser, & Robinson, 1997) are better suited to
explore the complexity associated with intersections of diversity with TIPPC. Finally,
my ontological and epistemological philosophies (discussed below) were congruent with
the use of qualitative means to answer these questions.
To contextualize the data analysis, this methods section includes information
about (a) the researcher, the research team, and our relationship to the investigation, (b)
the philosophical and paradigmatic foundations that underlie the study, and (c) the
research design (i.e., power differences among researchers, participants, sources of data,
data analysis, trustworthiness).
Researchers-as-instruments
Principal Investigator as Instrument
Insider and outsider perspectives. Morrow and Smith (2000) suggested that the
"investigator's positioning as either an insider or an outsider affects the research design,
54
what the researcher notices or fails to notice in the setting, the kinds of questions asked
in interview, what data are accessible and how they are interpreted, and, consequently,
the coherence of the eventual account" (p. 209). As a counseling psychology (CPSY)
doctoral student, I was both an insider and an outsider to counseling psychology faculty
perspectives on intersections of diversity with TIPPC. As a counseling-psychologist-in-
training (insider), I shared common grounding in the philosophy of CPSY that likely
facilitated understanding and rapport with participants, yet also included shared and thus
overlooked assumptions with participants (Morrow & Smith). As a student interviewing
faculty members (outsider), I was likely unaware of some assumptions faculty hold.
Both statuses likely impacted my credibility and ease in terms of recruiting participants,
as well as comfort levels and depth of conversation during our interviews for my
participants and myself (Morrow & Smith). In addition, my status as a Jewish, Euro-
American, heterosexual, male student with commitment to deepening my understanding
of multiculturalism and diversity impacted my relationship to this research.
Personal connection to the study. I had personal and professional interests for
pursuing this study. First, in my work as a graduate teaching fellow at the University of
Oregon, I worked with a number of students in the master's in Family and Human
Services program (MFHS) who were on remediation. Several of these students were
diverse in terms of race/ethnicity, gender, age and disability. In my work as an
instructor, advocate and evaluator, I struggled personally and professionally to
understand intersections of diversity with the process of trainee remediation, and
consulted with faculty members and my doctoral student colleagues. At the time, we did
55
not consult with colleagues nationally, and were unable to find any conceptual or
empirical scholarship to guide our thinking or actions. Although we brought our best
thinking, values, and experiences to these discussions, our decision-making process felt
incomplete, limited, and less than satisfying.
In another area of my training, near the end of my master's program I was placed
on informal remediation. Although never explicit in discussions with my supervisors, I
believe that issues of RE and gender were directly related to the remediation. With
hindsight, I believe that a well articulated philosophy and examination of the role of RE
and gender would have enabled a more healthy and productive process. For these
reasons, I pursued this inquiry to generate more knowledge in this area, and as part of an
unfinished debt to myself, former supervisors, and future colleagues and students.
Research Team Members as Instrnments
Two additional research team members (an advanced doctoral student and a
faculty member) joined the project as data analysts, diversifying the team in terms of
RE, gender, religion, age, position in the training hierarchy (faculty or student), and era
of training. The advanced doctoral student identified as an African-American female,
and the faculty member identified as a Euro-American female. Both identified as
heterosexual. Our varied positions in the training trajectory provided multiple personal
and professional perspectives. Whereas two of us had experience working with trainees
on remediation, one of us (the faculty member) had produced a body of scholarship on
trainee competence problems. I had been working in this area of scholarship for several
years, whereas the advanced graduate student was new to this area of research. All of us
56
share deep commitment to attending to diversity in training and supervision as part of
our professional identities.
Power Differences Among Researchers
We attended to two kinds of power differences throughout this study: Power
differences (a) between the principal investigator (PI) and participants, and (b) among
the researchers. During team meetings, we discussed how power differences between the
PI and participants may have impacted data collection. To protect participant
confidentiality in relationship to the second doctoral student's addition to the research
team, we referenced an earlier consultation with an expert in qualitative research ethics
and University of Oregon's Office for Protection of Human Subjects (Miller et aI., in
press), and made these changes: (a) participants' identities were not revealed to the
student, and (b) the PI contacted participants and received permission to amend the
original informed consent to include the addition of the doctoral student to the research
team.
We held discussions about power differences among team members throughout
the research process. Our commitment to feminist and multicultural approaches to
research provided a framework to handle our differences in race, gender, student/faculty
status, age, and era of training. The PI maintained a researcher journal that included
attention to power differences. We drew on the differences in our various perspectives to
understand the data and guard against researcher bias.
57
Philosophical and Paradigmatic Assumptions
To acknowledge the role of investigator subjectivity and bias as these influence
an inquiry, investigations should be grounded in researchers' underlying philosophical
and paradigmatic assumptions (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Morrow, 2005; Morrow &
Smith, 2000; Peshkin, 1988). Such grounding must include discussion of the ontological,
epistemological, axiological and methodological approaches of the researchers (Morrow
& Smith). As Fassinger (2005) suggested, the ontological, epistemological and
axiological approaches that determine one's approach are often in dynamic interplay with
one's chosen empirical methods.
The research team reached consensus about our philosophical and paradigmatic
underpinnings through ongoing discussions. From an ontological perspective, we
believed that reality is multiply, socially, and contextually constructed. In our
epistemological framework, we assumed that meanings and knowledge are mutually
constructed in transactional, subjectivist interactions between interviewer and participant
(Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Morrow & Smith, 2000; Rubin & Rubin, 2005) and that
differences and similarities of identity (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender, status, age) within
the interview dyad (Seidman, 2006) and research team influence the co-construction of
knowledge. The belief that reality and knowledge are co-constructed is consistent with
existing statements in the literature about the social and relational nature of constructs of
(a) race, ethnicity, gender and class (e.g., Comas-Diaz, 1994; Constantine, 2001; Gloria,
2001; Sternberg et al., 2005) and (b) concerns about problematic professional
competence (Elman & Forrest, 2007; Miller et al., in press).
58
The research was further grounded in assumptions that trainers in counseling
psychology are deeply committed to both quality professional training and cultural
competency, and that significant pain, discomfort and distress are generated from trainee
difficulty (Elman & Forrest, 2004; Forrest et aI., 1999; Gizara & Forrest, 2004; Miller et
aI., in press) and from struggles pertaining to cultural competence (e.g., Bonilla-Silva,
2000; Sue et aI., 1999; Vasquez et aI., 2006). As such, we assumed that the memory and
emotional impact of the intersection of diversity with trainees with competence problems
would be strong and long-lasting for faculty.
The research was additionally grounded in assumptions that trainers who agreed
to be interviewed about intersections of diversity with TIPPC would share curiosity
about the topic and be invested in learning about the results. Participants in an earlier
study on trainee remediation and dismissal described primary reasons for volunteering as
motivated by (a) the stress associated with identifying and remediating trainees with
problems developing professional competence, and (b) yearning for more knowledge
about these processes (L. Forrest, personal communication, 28 November, 2005).
Our axiology was guided by the following value systems: (a) Jewish concepts of
mitzvot (i.e., fulfilling divine commandments to make a contribution to society), (b)
liberation psychology (Martin-Baro, 1994), (c) emancipatory communitarianism
(Prilleltensky, 1997), (d) feminism (Brown, 1994), and (e) multiculturalism (e.g., APA,
2003; Leong, 1996; Leong & Lee, 2006; Sue & Sue, 2003; Sue et aI., 1998). This
axiological framework includes the implicit assumption that the goal of research is to
achieve equity, share power, and eliminate mechanisms of disenfranchisement. This
59
axiology also supports a choice of research methods that include an explicit examination
and description of the expectations and biases of the researcher. As the PI, I chose
methods that included attention to tracking researcher decisions about data collection,
analysis, and specifically about the process of working to understand and contextualize
phenomena in terms of participants' meanings and experiences (Erickson, 1986;
Fassinger, 2005).
This inquiry focused on understanding the processes by which counseling
psychology training directors and faculty examine and manage intersections of diversity
with TIPPC. Specific goals included: (a) identifying counseling psychology faculty's
conceptualizations, definitions, and examinations of this intersection; (b) examining
methods that programs use to address this intersection; (c) uncovering contexts and
conditions that influence faculty's examination of this intersection; and (d) identifying
the ecological impact of faculty examinations of this intersection.
Research Design
Research was conducted in accordance with the methods of grounded theory
(GT) (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990) because of the
model's philosophical grounding in interpretivist theory (Behrens & Smith, 1996;
Morrow & Smith, 2000). Although Glaser and Strauss (1967) originally emphasized that
GT was solely for sociologists, other theorists and researchers (e.g., Fassinger, 2005;
Fine, 2007; Morrow, Rakhsha, & Castaneda, 2001; Morrow & Smith; Yeh & Inman,
2007) have suggested that qualitative research such as GT fits well with the principles
and goals of counseling psychology. Fassinger (2005) pointed out that more than 20 GT
60
articles have been published in the major journals of counseling psychology, with many
articles focusing on issues of diversity.
Participants
Recruitment and selection. The target sample included Training Directors and a
subset of their faculty from all active, accredited, non-probationary, non-combined
counseling psychology programs in the U.S. (N = 65), with the exception of the
university in which I am matriculating, for a total possible sample of 64 programs. To
identify programs, I searched the Council of Counseling Psychology Training Programs
(CCPTP) (http://www.ccptp.org/instmembers.html) and the American Psychological
Association's (APA) websites (http://www.apa.orgled/accreditalion/counspy.html) for
programs that matched the above criteria at the time of recruitment (October 2006).
These 64 programs had a total of 72 TDs, as several programs had multiple TDs
identified in their contact information. I contacted the 72 TDs of all 64 programs, a
minimum of one and a maximum of three times, depending on the timing of their
response. Initially, I mailed each a recruitment packet including a cover letter describing
the study, an informational letter from Dr. Linda Forrest, and informed consent materials
(Appendices C, D, and E). I sent a follow up email, followed by another (as needed)
over the next two months to each TD who did not respond (Appendix F).
In addition to asking for their participation, I asked TDs to identify and/or recruit
two additional faculty with prior experience with students on remediation, giving
preference to those with the most direct and/or most recent experiences. My goal was to
interview three participants (TD and two faculty) per site at a total of 10 different sites
61
for a total of 30 participants, in line with guidelines for sample size in grounded theory
(Morse, 1994). I hoped that interviewing multiple faculty at the same site would provide
an opportunity to triangulate multiple data sources and gather different perspectives on
relevant issues such as faculty/student interactions, power, and enactment of policies
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Patton, 2002). For example, through triangulation, Gizara and
Forrest (2004) found at least one instance of discrepancy between a supervisor's and
TD's understanding of their site's approach to remediation.
A total of 26 TDs responded to my contact for a response rate of (36%); twelve
of those (17% of the total population and 46% of the responders) declined to participate.
Of those twelve, six stated reasons of time, work overload, and not wanting to bother
their faculty. One declined to participate because their program did not have any
students on remediation, and five did not provide a reason. Fourteen TDs (19% of the
total population and 54% of the responders) initially agreed to participate. Of those
fourteen, twelve responded to attempts to schedule a phone interview, and two did not,
resulting in a sample of 12 TDs (17% of the total population). Six of the twelve TDs
who participated identified and recruited additional faculty (range: 1 to 3 additional
faculty) from their programs to participate in this study, for a total of 6 programs that
yielded two or more participants (total range from a university: 1 to 4 faculty, including
TD). All TDs and additional faculty members who agreed to participate were included in
the study.
Sample size and composition. A total of22 TDs and faculty members from 12
different programs participated in the study. Participants included 12 (55%) TDs and 10
62
(45%) non-TD faculty members. Twelve participants (55%) were male and ten (45%)
were female. Fifteen (68%) were Euro-American and seven (32%) were Racial/Ethnic
Minorities. Two (9%) identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual, and one (5%) identified as
having a disability. Counseling psychology programs from the Midwestern (N = 5),
Eastern (N = 2), and Southern (N = 5) regions were represented. No TDs from programs
in the Western region agreed to participate. The sample is comparable to CCPTP data for
overall CPSY faculty in terms ofrace/ethnicity and gender as of data collected in 2003-
2004 (CCPTP, 2006a) and an informal review of survey results from 2006-2007 (1.
Dagley via L. Forrest, personal communication, February 6,2008) (Table 1). However,
rates vary based on the type of faculty position (e.g., fewer faculty of color in full
professor positions) and are based on a low response rate (i.e., the 2006-2007 survey
results were based on a 28% response rate of 21 programs, 8 of which did not include
completed surveys). As such, claims that this sample is representative ofCPSY
programs are tentative.
TDs from 8 of the 12 participating programs also provided demographic
information about their students and faculty in terms of gender and RE. Although all
participants who responded to this question included information about demographic
intersections of RE and gender among faculty (e.g., numbers of women of color), 4 of
the 8 did not include such demographic intersections as these occurred in students. Not
all programs included information about international students, and not all were clear
about whether they differentiated between international and domestic students or faculty
from RE minority backgrounds. As such, I collapsed data (when it was offered) on
63
international students and faculty into the "racial/ethnic minority" category. In addition,
because most participants did not include sexual orientation or social class information
for students or faculty, such data were not included in the final table. Accordingly,
conclusions about the degree to which participating programs are representative of the
general population should be made with caution. Such caution extends to the data used
for comparison, drawn from CCPTP surveys. Reasons for caution related to using these
data for comparison are noted above.
Table 1. Participants' Demographics
Demographics
Sex
Female
Male
Race/Ethnicity
Ethnic
Minorities
Euro-American
Total
Training
Directors
(TDs)
6 (50%)
6 (50%)
4 (33%)
8 (67%)
12 TDs
Faculty
4 (40%)
6 (60%)
3 (30%)
7 (70%)
10 faculty
Total
10 (45%)
12 (55%)
7 (32%)
15 (68%)
22
participants
Program Faculty
(TDs and faculty not
differentiated)
44%
57%
31%
69%
Note: Percentages are in reference to "total" row at bottom of table.
Note: Data from CCPTP were averaged in terms of percentages from assistant to full.
Data from CCPTP included rounded percentages. As a result, some columns add up to
more than100%.
Program demographics are presented in terms of the range from lowest to highest
percentages across programs, followed in parentheses by the median average (Table 2).
For example, the cell that contains data on female students in participating programs
presents information that programs ranged from the lowest (67%) to the highest reported
percentages (89%) of female students. In that cell, the median percentage of female
64
students across participating programs (79%) is presented parenthetically. Because
median averages were not available from CCPTP, national averages are presented as
means for comparison.
Table 2. Range and Median Percentages of Programs' Demographics
Demographics Students National Mean Faculty
for Students in
CPSY Programs
Sex
Female 67-89% 69% 33-80%
(79%) (55%)
Male 11-33% 23% 20-67%
(22%) (45%)
Race/Ethnicity
Ethnic 17-50% 29% 0-40% (27%)
Minority (27%)
Euro-American 50-83% 71% 60-100%
(73%) (80%)
National Mean
for Faculty in
CPSY Programs
44%
57%
31%
69%
Intersection REG
EM Males
EM Females
0-3% (3%)
17-47%
(21%)
Not available
Not available
0-20% (0%)
0-40% (19%)
Not available
Not available
Note: Student demographic rates for programs based on CCPTP data from 2003-2004, as
student demographics were not included in CCPTP data from 2006-2007. Percentages
from CCPTP included rounded percentages. As such, some columns add up to more than
100%.
Enhancing recruitment. Seidman (2006) suggested that in-person contact is
usually the most effective for recruitment. Prior to mailing recruitment packages, I
focused on in-person meetings with TDs through participation at CCPTP and APA
conferences. During the 2006 CCPTP conference I attended and participated in a
workshop on trainees struggling to develop professional competence and discussed my
research with a number ofTDs, many of whom expressed interest in participating in this
study. I also relied on Dr. Linda Forrest, an insider in the target community ofTDs and a
65
well-known researcher in the area of trainees with professional competence problems, to
facilitate my introduction into this population. Similar to the process used by Gizara
(1997), I included in my recruitment materials a letter from Dr. Forrest in which she
attested to my ethical and research acumen. During interviews with participants, several
referenced having met me previously at CCPTP and/or knowing Dr. Forrest as
underlying their comfort with participating in the research.
I also alerted participants through informed consent documents that only my
advisor and I would have access to these data. However, as I continued to think about
the data analysis process, I decided to expand and diversify the analysis team in terms of
race, and invited an advanced (fourth year) doctoral student who is African American to
participate on the research team. Following this change, I contacted each participant via
email with an explanation and rationale for the change, and requested that each agree to
amend her/his consent to participate to include the additional researcher (Appendix G).
No participant expressed concerns over this change, nor did any withdraw their consent
or asked to be removed from the study.
Data Collection Procedures
Data collection. Data were collected through telephone interviews ranging from
45 to 120 minutes. I recorded all interviews on a digital recorder and transcribed each
within one month of the interview. Transcripts varied in length from 21 to 51 pages, with
a mean of 29 pages. We reviewed and analyzed a total of 634 pages of transcripts for
this study. I kept notes of my observations of interviews in a researcher journal
(Appendix J). Availability issues impacted several aspects of data collection. First,
66
although interviewing all participants from each site within the same week might have
decreased within-site discussion, participants' availability relative to each other made
this goal generally not feasible. Second, issues related to periods of heightened activity
during the academic calendar (e.g., midterms, finals) meant that many participants were
available at similar times during the semester or term.
Consequently, I gathered data when possible and relied on an ongoing, informal,
and individual analysis process to guide decisions about focusing the interview protocol
during data collection to include emerging ideas, codes and categories. Typically in GT,
data collection (and sampling) is guided by emerging categories, codes and ideas, and
moves from an initially broad to an increasingly selective inquiry to consolidate the
theory by (a) developing the breadth of experiences of a given phenomenon (Morse,
1995), and (b) addressing gaps in emerging codes, categories, hypotheses and theories
(Charmaz, 2003; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Although data collection was moving more
quickly than the analysis, I engaged in informal analysis of the data through (a)
conversations with my dissertation chair, (b) the transcription process, and (c) frequent
reading and musing over the transcripts. Such actions generated ideas about themes and
the direction of the research (Erickson, 1986; Lincoln & Guba, 1985) and enabled me to
focus subsequent interviews towards emerging categories that in turn yielded data for
theoretical coding as described below. This process also enabled me to continue
gathering data in a timely fashion and to be flexible with the limited availability of my
participants. I conducted interviews beginning in December 2006 and ending in
November 2007.
67
I obtained informed consent from participants to conduct follow up interviews if
I had additional questions following the analysis. However, during the course of our
analysis, we were able to conduct theoretical sampling and achieve saturation of
categories without conducting follow up interviews. Following Fassinger's (2005)
suggestion, in the later stages of analysis we returned to existing data to examine and
explore emerging concepts and hypotheses as an alternative to additional sampling.
Interview protocol. Many grounded theory studies include interviews as the
primary method of data collection (Fassinger, 2005). Kvale (1996) suggested that some
initial knowledge of the field of interest is useful for structuring questions and
developing some explicit content areas prior to initial interviews. Having explicit ideas
about content areas does not preclude exploration of participants' meanings; rather, such
ideas provide a starting point that can be altered during the process of data collection
(Kvale, 1996). To develop an initial protocol, I used a review of the TIPPC literature and
had conversations with my advisor, a research colleague, and various TDs. I then vetted
and refined this protocol with my committee during the dissertation proposal meeting. I
also worked to deepen my conceptual sophistication of this topic area by co-designing
and conducting a pilot study on TD perspectives intersections of diversity with TIPPC.
This study involved examining an existing set of interviews with TDs on the subject of
trainee remediation (Elman & Forrest, 2004) to examine whether and how TDs included
race and gender in their conceptualization and remediation efforts (Miller et aI., in
press). Such efforts enhanced my ability to further develop questions that could target
the complexity and nuances of the phenomenon of interest.
68
Originally, I intended to pilot my questions using a sub-sample of those who
volunteered to participate. However, the number of volunteers from the target population
was much smaller than I had anticipated, which limited the sample size. As such, I
needed every volunteer's participation in the actual study. Considering the size of the
existing sample, in consultation with my advisor, we decided to forego piloting and
include all volunteers in the actual study.
I used the steps described above to develop a semi-structured interview guide for
the current study, to allow flexibility and pursuit of information about emerging themes
throughout data collection (Morrow & Smith, 2000; Patton, 2002). For example, during
the analysis, a theme emerged in which faculty described trying to identify a limit
beyond which discussions of culture would no longer be appropriate or relevant. In later
interviews I began asking focused questions about such a limit. Interviews included a
structured series of questions designed to uncover participants' demographics, their
perceived importance of their multiple and/or intersecting identities (e.g., race, ethnicity,
gender, sexual orientation), their length of time in their profession and position, and their
history and experience working with trainees on remediation. Finally, I used a mix of
focused and broad questions to avoid inadvertently providing answers or directions for
participants, and to acknowledge a range of participant comfort levels (Appendices A
and B). The initial interview protocol included questions that covered the following
areas: Overview of definitions and program history around remediation, specifics about
race/ethnicity and gender in remediation, contextual and ecological issues related to
remediation (e.g., faculty hesitance to raise issues of diversity, students struggling to
69
reveal culturally related parts of themselves, university environment), salient aspects of
personal identity for the participant in their daily life and work, and participants' level of
comfort in the interview. The final iteration of the interview protocol also included
questions about differentiating between cultural and professional standards and
expectations, the impact of remediation and/or dismissal on other students in the
program, challenges to the program related to diversity, and advice participants might
give to other programs struggling with these issues.
Member checking. I transcribed each interview and sent a copy to the participant,
inviting her/him to review the transcript and make corrections and comments relevant to
concerns about accuracy and self-, student-, and program anonymity. Although intended
to ensure that participants' realities were reflected (Morrow, 2005) in the research, this
process also provided a chance to gain additional data. In response to my invitation,
participants (a) identified information that would have compromised their or their
programs' anonymity, (b) made minor edits and word clarifications, and (c) contacted
me with thoughts about the interview process. I made changes to transcripts to respond
to participants' concerns and maintained a record of such changes, concerns, and
comments. All comments were considered as data.
Similarly, after the analysis team fmished with the results section, I sent a copy
of the results to each participant to check on accuracy, fit with experiences, and
confidentiality. In this process I included the general structure and each individual's
quotes (if any were used). This step was in response to concerns voiced by several
participants that the write-up of the results might inadvertently identify them when
70
combined with a quote. Fifteen participants responded to my request for feedback during
this stage of analysis. In their responses, no participant recommended changes or
concerns, all those who provided comments (11 of 15) affIrmed the usefulness of the
study.
Additional sources ofdata. Additional sources of data included a researcher
journal and participant and program demographics. The researcher journal served to
track researchers' perspectives on the data as they changed and flexed over time to
reflect deepening understanding (Erickson, 1986), and maintain a record of design and
analysis decisions (Strauss & Corbin, 1967), including "ideas, assumptions, hunches,
uncertainties, insights, feelings, and choices the researcher makes as a study is
implemented and as a theory is developed, providing means for making transparent the
interpretive, constructive processes of the researcher" (Fassinger, 2005, p. 163). For
example, I recorded reflections on the interviews (e.g., "I realized that I was not asking
Ps to focus on REG or other aspects of diversity until about 25-30 minutes into our hour
interview, and wondered at my willingness to address the issue"-from 12/19/06).
I collected participant demographics during interviews, and program
demographics through interviews and an initial email to TDs that asked the following
questions:
• What is the demographic composition ofthe faculty in terms of racelethnicity,
class and gender?
• What is the demographic composition of the students in terms ofracelethnicity,
class and gender?
71
• How would you (the TD) rate your program's level of consideration of
race/ethnicity, class, and gender in student remediation and dismissal decisions
on a scale from 1 (not considered) to 5 (considered as essential)?
Eight of the 12 participating TDs included this information in a return email.
Two other TDs who did not participate also included this information, although data
from those TDs were not analyzed. In addition, most participants referenced the
demographics of the program (faculty and/or students) in the course of their interviews
as they answered specific questions. I was primarily interested in the impact of program
demographics on participant perceptions and conceptualizations of the processes and
contexts related to intersections of diversity with TIPPC. As such, I decided to focus on
participants' references to program demographics in the context of their answers, rather
than make inferences from their answers to these decontextualized survey questions.
Similarly, although in my proposal I stated that I would examine program
policies on remediation and diversity as part of the data analysis, I was considerably
more interested in TDs' and faculty members' perceptions, attitudes, beliefs in, and
reactions to, these policies. The richness and wealth of information from interviews in
which participants discussed these perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, and reactions
substantiated this focus. For example, a number of participants described their policies,
and then discussed the significance of discrepancies between policies as written and
policies as followed. As a result, I chose to focus on the meanings that participants
attributed to these policies related to intersections of diversity with TIPPC, rather than
the policies themselves.
72
Data management. I assigned each participant with a number immediately
following the interview. All data were kept in a locked filing cabinet in my home office,
with the assigned numbers kept separate from the interviews. Interviews were expunged
of identifying information prior to our analysis of the data.
Data Analysis
Choice ofGTframework. Charmaz recommended grounded theory (GT) for
beginning qualitative researchers, in part because of its rigor, including: "(a) strategies
that guide the researcher step by step through an analytic process, (b) the self-correcting
nature of the data collection process, (c) the methods' inherent bent toward theory and
the simultaneous turning away from acontextual description, and (d) the emphasis on
comparative methods" (Charmaz, 2003, pp. 270-271).
Originally, I intended to use Strauss and Corbin's (1990) approach to data
analysis. Following the proposal meeting, however, I continued to examine GT
approaches and related critiques (e.g., Charmaz, 2003a, 2003b, 2006; Cutcliffe, 2000,
2005; Glaser, 1978, 1992,2002; Melia, 1996), and co-developed a GT discussion group
with several faculty members, including committee member Dr. Deborah Olson and
faculty member Dr. Mary Fechner. This group met several times to discuss coding
strategies and readings on GT. After some consideration and consultation with my
dissertation chair, I decided to change the form of GT that I would use for this study for
a number of reasons.
First, a number of GT methodologists and researchers (e.g., Charmaz, 2006;
Cutcliffe, 2000; Glaser, 1992, Melia, 1996) have levied critiques that Strauss and
73
Corbin's (1990) model is overly reliant on a predetermined method of inquiry at all
stages of inquiry. This predetermined method includes the use of preexisting research
questions (vs. generating these during data collection) and a preexisting "paradigm" for
ordering relationships among categories. In their critiques, these methodologists and
researchers have suggested that such predeterminism prohibits the natural emergence of
theory from the data. Further, Glaser argued that such a method led to conceptual
description rather than theory generation, and Cutcliffe argued that Glaser's approach
remained closer to the data than did Strauss and Corbin's. Although I appreciated
Strauss and Corbin's paradigm in terms of ease of facilitating theory development, I
agreed with these critiques and felt confident in our ability to order relationships among
emerging categories without relying exclusively on the paradigm. This confidence was
based on research team meetings, and bolstered by examining Glaser's (1978) in-depth
coding guide of "coding families." This coding guide provided a springboard for
thinking about different approaches to coding and ordering relationships.
However, as Charmaz (2003a, 2003b, 2006) indicated, both Glaser's (1978,
1992) and Strauss and Corbin's (1990) approaches were grounded in a objectivist
premise. In her work, Charmaz distinguished between an objectivist approach to GT in
which the researchers' job is to "discover" the theory as it inheres in the data, and a
constructivist approach, in which the researcher acknowledges that the process of the
research (including defining the processes that one is seeing in the data) is a one of
mutuality and co-construction. In a recent methods text, Charmaz (2006), emphasized
that data be collected, analyzed, sampled in an ongoing fashion through mutually
74
constructed explorations between researchers and participants, all of which include
attention to the location in time, place, culture, and context of all involved.
I settled on Charmaz's (2006) approach for several reasons. First, her approach
appeared to have significant overlap with Glaser's (1978, 1992), focusing on emergence
without using a preexisting paradigm. In contrast to Glaser's emphasis on objectivity and
positivism, however, Charmaz's constructivist approach to GT was a stronger
ideological fit. Further, Charmaz (2003a, 2003b, 2006) provided examples of actual
analytic techniques for line-by-line coding, transforming codes to categories, and
moving through multiple stages of the coding process.
Research team preparation. I prepared materials on GT, including an overview
of the literature on GT and specific examples ofCharmaz's analytic techniques, for both
members of the research team. We discussed our approach to coding, agreed to approach
analysis from a social constructionist perspective, and discussed how our different life
experiences and perspectives would enhance our analysis of the data. We believed that
using a line-by-line and incident-by-incident coding process would provide a clear, easy
to follow, traceable analytic process.
Initial coding. Our three-person research team analyzed the data by hand using
line-by-line and incident-by-incident coding schemes as recommended by Glaser (1992)
and Charmaz (2003a, 2003b, 2006). In our coding procedure, we focused on broad
concepts as well as individual incidents, and were oriented towards content and process
as we interpreted the data. Our procedure included individual coding by two members of
the three-person analysis team, with the third member serving as auditor. I coded all
75
transcripts, and the other team members alternated between coding and auditing. We
examined the data by asking as many questions as we could generate about what we
saw, inferred, and questioned (i.e., did not see happening or discussed) in participants'
content, processes, and apparent assumptions. We made comparisons among the data to
parse sentences and incidents into the smallest units possible. This process enabled us to
generate preliminary codes and tentative categories, illuminating them in terms of
nuance and dimension (Charmaz, 2003a, 2003b, 2006; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss
& Corbin, 1990).
We held weekly coding meetings in which we clarified and refined codes and
categories as we saw them in the data by asking questions, comparing new data with
those in existing codes and categories and elsewhere in a given transcript, and examining
relationships within and among categories. The coders for the transcript under study led
the discussion, and the auditor listened, commented, challenged and confirmed findings.
For each transcript, we discussed each incident in order. We found that some codes (e.g.,
considering client safety as a means for drawing a limit on flexibility in standards) were
represented in a number of places throughout some transcripts, whereas others were
represented more narrowly. When a code or specific concept was multiply represented,
we discussed other incidences of the code or concept in that transcript before returning
to a linear progression through the transcript. When we did not agree on a code or
category, we discussed our rationale for specific points of contention until the team
reached consensus. We followed this bidirectional and sequential process of analysis
through each stage of the inquiry. Immersion in later stages of the inquiry yielded
76
insights about categories that we had defined and developed in the earlier analyses,
which enabled us to clarify and refine categories throughout the inquiry.
I used the notes from our discussions and transcripts to record the codes and
categories that we had identified. I assembled these into a coding summary for each
participant and asked the team members to review the results. Our use of the constant
comparison method meant that each coding summary had the potential to contain some
categories and codes that were similar to those in other summaries, as well as codes and
categories that were unique to that participant. I maintained a record of our decision
making for each summary by including specific lines from each transcript from which a
code was drawn, and using illustrative quotes from the participant. Each summary also
included a brief description of the participant, including disclosed aspects of diversity
(e.g., race, sex, sexual orientation), number ofyears as a faculty member, number of
students advised (lifetime) and number of students (lifetime) on remediation.
Focused coding. Following our analysis of the first six transcripts, we began to
incorporate focused coding into our discussions (Charmaz, 2006) by grouping data into
configurations to form categories. We also began discussing relationships within and
among those categories. Strauss and Corbin (1990) suggested that this includes linking
categories at subcategory and dimensional levels, which meant that we were engaged in
a blend of initial and focused coding. We examined and discussed groupings of codes
from the coding summaries, developing a list of codes and tentative categories to use in
our analysis of the next transcripts. We discussed the risk and possibility that we could
delimit the remaining data by fitting it into these categories, and decided to guard against
77
this by checking (a) whether we had new categories at the end of the next 5 participants,
and (b) whether and how our tentative categories had changed. We repeated this process
for the next 10 transcripts, stopping after 16 transcripts had been coded to reexamine the
codes and categories and examine the content and relationships among categories and
subcategories in depth. We found that our categories continued to change and evolve
over the next 10 transcripts. After coding 16 transcripts, we began to discuss a potential
model to capture relationships among categories. We began examining the remaining
transcripts for discrepant or confirming material for our existing categories, making
revisions and clarifications to our categories. For example, during the review of the 17th
transcript, we added the subcategory of "mentor vs. cohort" model of doctoral student
selection to the "factors that affect ease or difficulty of raising issues of diversity"
category and then returned to other transcripts to examine how well that fit other
participants' experiences.
In the final stages of focused coding, we examined coding summaries from the
first 16 transcripts that we coded (i.e., Ps 1-5,9, 10, 12, 15-22) to develop a tentative
model. I began with the most recent coding summaries, reasoning that because our
analysis had deepened and become more nuanced over time through the constant
comparison process, we could then review earlier transcripts for confirming and
disconfirming data. We then reviewed small groups of3-5 coding summaries at a time as
a means to compare codes and categories across participants (e.g., combining PI 0, 14,
20,22 in one group, P15, 16, 17 in another). With one exception, I kept summaries from
••
•
78
all participants from the same university together in each small group. Questions that
guided this process included:
• What helps make the decision about where to locate the problem?
What are some of the questions that are asked?
What processes and ideologies underlie how these questions are generated and
pursued?
What are some of the answers to those questions (i.e., what have participants
concluded)?
• How do participants respond to their findings?
A list of some of the codes and categories that emerged and guided our examinations
and conversations throughout the analysis process is provided in Appendix 1.
Theoretical coding. In the third stage of analysis, theoretical coding, we
organized the categories into relationships on the basis of theoretical links, drawing on
Glaser's (1978) suggested range of theoretical "coding families" (e.g., the process
family, the degree family, the strategy family) as guides through which to frame the
relationships (pp. 73-82). During this stage, I took the lead on creating the model, and
sent it to the team members for review. We discussed the model and reached consensus,
then examined the final remaining transcripts (n = 3) for discrepant case analysis to
further refine and nuance the theory (Erickson, 1986; Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
Following this step, we sent the model to participants to solicit feedback in terms of (a)
how accurately and completely it captured their experiences, and (b) whether any
additional concerns about confidentiality persisted.
79
Saturation. We examined the data until our categories were saturated. Strauss
and Corbin (1990) defined theoretical saturation as occurring when: "(1) no new or
relevant data emerge for a category, (2) category development is dense (including
variables such as context, conditions, variation and process), and (3) the relationships
between categories are well established and validated" (p. 188).
Trustworthiness
A number of the research methods detailed above (i.e., research team, peer
debriefing, checking with participants, discrepant case analysis) were intentionally
designed to increase the rigor of this study in terms of its trustworthiness (c.f. Erickson,
1986; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Morrow, 2005; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Within
qualitative research, some theorists (e.g., Fassinger, 2005; Lincoln & Guba) have
compared the issues of credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability
(described as trustworthiness-Morrow) to quantitative standards of internal validity,
external validity, reliability and objectivity. Credibility refers to the degree to which the
results accurately represent participant perspectives, and transferability refers to the
degree to which the findings may be externalized or generalized to additional contexts
(Lincoln & Guba). Lincoln and Guba suggested that triangulation, peer debriefing, use
of a research team, examining discrepant cases, and member checking (i.e., asking
participants to examine transcripts for accuracy) be used to establish credibility. Beyond
the steps described above, I engaged in triangulation (i.e., gathering multiple viewpoints
to further elucidate how a phenomenon is perceived and addressed in a setting) by
interviewing multiple participants at one-half of all sites represented in the study.
80
Researcher subjectivity/reflexivity. We also engaged in ongoing analysis of our
influence as researchers on the analysis process. This reflection fits with Erickson's
(1986) recommendations that researchers provide sufficient information to enable
readers to participate as co-analysts by (a) tracking the perspective of the investigator(s)
over the course of the research, and (b) contextualizing the findings in terms of
researcher impact. Morrow (2005) similarly emphasized the need to articulate how
subjectivity influences (a) data analysis, (b) the extent to which meaning is co-
constructed between researcher and participants, and (c) the extent to which participant
meaning is understood. She suggested that researchers be explicit about their
assumptions and biases in their writing. I have discussed our process and our
conclusions from that process in this methods section and in the researcher journal
(Appendix 1).
Transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Qualitative researchers
generally focus on localizing results in a context-dependent reality and leave decisions
about transferability to readers. We used "thick description" to provide sufficient
contextual information for reader decisions about the criterion of transferability (Geertz,
1973; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In addition, our inclusion of multiple perspectives from
different programs may provide more information about the degree to which results may
be transferable. The criterion of dependability is akin to the quantitative criterion of
reliability and addresses the degree to which the design adequately accounted for
changes to the design necessitated by phenomenological events, and confirmability
refers to the objectivity of the study. Lincoln and Guba suggested that auditing could be
81
used for concerns of dependability and confirrnability (p. 219). We engaged in auditing,
as noted above, and offer the researcher journal as an additional means to assess the
design and objectivity of the study. The journal (Appendix .1) is accompanied by lists of
initial and subsequent categories (Appendix I) to provide further evidence for evaluating
the quality of the study. In addition, our analytic decisions can be seen in the original
transcripts and coding summaries, as I maintained a record of our line-by-line and
incident-by-incident coding discussions. Readers are invited to review the journal and
compare the original lists of categories against the final categories for this study as a
means to assess these aspects of trustworthiness.
82
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Using Charmaz's (2006) grounded theory approach as the analytical framework,
I describe the themes that emerged in participants' processes for examining intersections
of diversity with trainees identified as having professional competence problems. These
core themes and the subsequent model reflect responses from the entire group of
participants. Two core themes capture contextual factors that impacted participants'
processes for examining the intersection: (a) program variables that affected
conversations about diversity and TIPPC (e.g., tension among faculty around diversity
issues), and (b) espoused ideologies through which participants understood specific
intersections of diversity with TIPPC (from colorblind to context-sensitive approaches).
These two core themes provide contexts in which the other core themes are situated.
Other core themes include: (c) describing dilemmas, (d) examining the problem, (e)
reaching a decision, (f) learning, and (g) responding to examinations and decisions. I
present these core themes together in a theoretical model that captures these processes,
interwoven with a narrative that describes theoretical links among the core themes.
Program Variables that Affect Conversations about Diversity and TlPPC
Participants described a range of contextual factors that impacted conversations
about intersections of diversity with TIPPC (Figure 1). These included multicultural
commitments as evidenced in recruitment practices for faculty and students, the presence
Critical mass
recruitment
efforts for
students/faculty
Philosophical
commitment to
establishing and
maintaining
diversity
conversations
--
Tension among
faculty around
diversity issues
Foundation for diversity and TIPPC interactions
Figure 1. Program variables that affect conversations about diversity and TIPPC.
Diversity and TIPPC interactions
00
lJ.)
84
or absence of a critical mass based on student and faculty demographics, and diversity
focus in faculty members' and students' research. Other factors included establishing and
maintaining regular conversations and awareness of diversity in the program, preexisting
tension around diversity issues among faculty and students, and tensions generated at
intersections of diversity with TIPPC.
Demonstrating MC Commitments Through Critical Mass Recruitment Efforts
Many participants described their commitments to multiculturalism and diversity
as evidenced through recruitment efforts, including pursuit of (a) faculty and students of
color, and (b) faculty and students committed to examining cultural expectations and
social justice issues. As they discussed successful efforts to recruit and retain students of
color, participants described being thoughtful about diversity when creating the
composition of incoming cohorts. Most participants who discussed program
demographics focused on race, stating that their program had a high or the highest
percentage of RE minority students in their university; many described a goal of
developing a critical mass of RE minority students in their program.
Beliefs about critical mass. Although all participants described critical mass as
positive evidence of their multicultural commitments, they varied in how they described
the effects of a critical mass on the program. Some described assumptions of racial
harmony, whereas others stated that a critical mass was connected to the visibility and/or
emergence of conflict among students and between students and faculty. For example,
several participants discussed the benefits of diversity among their students as it led to
mutual learning without discussing possible or actual instances of conflict. Conversely,
85
others described the inevitability of struggles throughout the training ecology (e.g., in
regressive supervisory relationships, among students, between students and faculty) as an
outcome of (a) their critical mass of diverse students, (b) strong focus within the training
program on diversity and social justice, and (c) frequent conversations about diversity.
One participant noted that other programs that had less diversity in his department
seemed to have fewer diversity related conflicts.
. . .we have a lot of diversity among our students and faculty, which then allows
more conflict to happen ... (in) our school psychology program, there's zero
diversity in the faculty, well, there's gender diversity, but they're all White, and
we have-the only diversity in the student body is some Asian American
students. And the clinical psych program is all White, and all their students are
White. And they don't have diversity problems (laughs)---or none that surface.
This and other participants suggested that the presence of a critical mass made it easier
for students to raise issues. Another participant commented,
... [having] a significant concentration of students of color. ..makes it much easier
for students to bring things out that in other places where there are fewer students
of color, they're not bound to bring them out.
In contrast with descriptions of their students, not all participants described
having a critical mass among their faculty. Although several described having a critical
mass, others noted a lack ofRE or LGBTQ critical mass among their faculty, which
impacted the frequency and quality with which RE or LGBTQ issues were addressed in
faculty discussions and with students. One participant commented on the impact of the
86
size of her faculty, noting that due to the small size of their program faculty and the lack
of a critical mass of faculty of color, her colleagues were less likely to be direct when
talking about diversity issues. This participant noted that only when issues concerned
international students was diversity raised overtly among faculty .
...because we're such a small group, people are going to not be blatant about
stuff. I would say again the only time these types of issues come up would just be
around international issues.
In addition to the impact of critical mass, some participants talked about the
importance of having a significant number of faculty members doing diversity-related
research as a powerful recruiting tool. The presence of multiculturally focused
researchers served as a powerful lure for like-minded prospective students and faculty
members. Several participants described a bidirectional process in which they were able
to recruit students who were interested in diversity issues because their program had long
standing commitments to specific areas of diversity:
Many students were drawn to our program because [faculty name] and... I were
here as feminist psychologists ... [providing] a feminist training opportunity. And
that. ..brings students who are interested in social justice ... and diversity issues.
And we've had that program... at least 20 years ... [faculty name] has a specialty in
lesbian and gay issues that further increased attraction of students who were
interested in diversity issues, and so what happened over the last 15 to 25
years ... was that a preponderance of the students were interested in some aspect of
diversity.
87
Some participants similarly stated that the presence of faculty and students with
commitments to multicultural scholarship and action impacted the program by generating
frequent conversations and consultations about diversity among the faculty, and created
subgroups of faculty who were highly attentive to issues of diversity in faculty meetings.
Conversely, one participant speculated that the lack of research on LGBTQ issues among
her colleagues resulted in less focus on LGBTQ issues and students' experiences.
Philosophical Commitments to Establishing and Maintaining Diversity Conversations
Some participants described a program culture of frequently discussing diversity
among faculty generally and as a standard part of student evaluations. Participants
worked to include issues of diversity in all aspects of evaluation, starting with interviews
and continuing throughout training. Discussing diversity as part of student and program
evaluations included assessing multicultural competence in student-client interactions and
among practicum supervisors during practicum supervision, and intervening when
observing a lack of competence.
I think that one of the issues when we moved to a social justice focus ... is, that if
we're attracting students interested in social justice, there's going to be an even
stronger expectation on their part that supervisors... are aware of diversity issues.
We've talked about that in the faculty some about how we go about ensuring that
or increasing it.
Several participants noted that they had recently changed their evaluation policies to
include explicit attention to diversity, and another had recently revised the program
philosophy to include attention to social justice activities.
88
Searching for blind spots. Many participants discussed the importance of
engaging each other in challenging conversations about the role of culture, examining
potential blind spots around diversity issues within themselves and among their
colleagues.
. . .we had a lot of meetings about this particular situation and this particular
student ... frankly we argued a lot about it. Not in a completely negative way, but
certainly in a vehement way, because we ... challenged each other quite a bit on
you know, 'well wait a minute now, where is that coming from and how come'
... so there was a lot of that level of discussion and concern and worry ... some of it
was just us deciding that we were going to be able to put those concerns out there.
Which was good for the department, it was good for the faculty I think to have
(those) conversations but was also quite difficult as those things are.
Several participants voiced beliefs that their responsibilities as trainers included having
such conversations, as well as developing knowledge of students' specific cultures. Some
read and met with colleagues outside of their academic program to focus on their social
identities and privileges as part of their commitments to becoming multiculturally
competent. Several participants invited a TIPPC to join their conversations about relevant
issues of diversity, as these might be intersecting with a perceived difficulty.
Rather than make assumptions that this is a cultural issue, or this is the result of
cultural difference, we have that discussion. With the student, or with each other,
or both? Well, it starts with us (the faculty), as a group, and then it brings on
board the student typically.
89
Participants who examined themselves critically asked questions about their
multicultural competence, relied on colleagues' expertise, and sought consultation to
better understand the role of culture in their interactions with and expectations of
students. Some also relied on their previous experiences working with students from a
specific cultural background. These participants used diversity among their colleagues as
a resource, asking questions about cultural and professional behavior, and identifying
cultural biases among themselves. Some acknowledged potential bias within themselves
and among faculty as a rationale for seeking multiple perspectives and supervision for
their work with a particular student. Some acknowledged the importance of having
different perspectives on student development to evaluate student difficulties, and valued
the chance to consult and gain challenges and support from their colleagues to consider
the issues and develop remediation plans.
...(I gathered) all the-the (ethical) vignettes she responded to, her response, my
response to her, her response back... along with her journal, which showed again
very rudimentary multicultural awareness and [took] it into my colleagues and
[said], "help me, cause I don't want to make this decision by myself. Something's
bugging me."
Searching for blind spots included multiple foci across the training ecology. As they used
consultation with their peers to identify their blind spots and cultural lenses, some
participants focused on differentiating whether their blind spots missed cultural issues
unique to the TIPPC or reflected inattention to cultural factors elsewhere in the TIPPC's
ecology:
90
.. ,The faculty had to really do some critical analysis of, 'are we failing to see
something here because we're not connecting to--I mean, are we failing to see
something here that's a cultural issue, are we missing something. Is the student's
peer group, in this particular situation the peer group and the student had a lot of
conflict. So are we, you know, is the peer group being closed off to the student
because of these cultural differences.'
As part of their examination and ongoing dialogues, participants relied on their
colleagues' expertise in specific content areas of diversity to understand the extent to
which problems may have been developmental and related to cultural or gender identity
development. Participants described a collegial approach that integrated critical mass,
openness to diversity and feedback, and peer research interests and expertise.
.. .We try to cover for each other's blind spots .. .in the sense that because of my
areas of study [having to do with gender] I may see, you know, certain trainees'
issues as developmental, where somebody else sees them as problematic ...we
cover for each other that way, you know, and they'll point out that, is it really
developmental, could it be this, and I counter with the reverse, and we have that
discussion.
Such examinations and consultations often involved examining the context of a
problem and considering issues of culture raised by the TIPPC. Attention to their blind
spots and examinations of context did not universally result in conclusions among faculty
that inattention to culture was the primary concern, however. For example, one
participant and her colleagues considered a TIPPC's allegations that they did not
91
understand his/her cultural differences by turning to their previous experiences with
students from diverse backgrounds.
.. .The student said 'you don't understand my cultural differences' .. ,we tried
again ... to take that to heart and say 'ok, are, is that what we're doing? Are we
simply being closed off to this person's experience?' We decided ultimately, and
this may have been self-serving, but I think it was accurate, that we weren't,
based on our experience...we worked with a lot of multicultural students and
based on the various experiences that we had, we just didn't see that as being the
most salient thing ... the cultural differences would not have accounted for the
behaviors that were problematic.
Using outside consultants. In addition to colleagues within their programs,
participants consulted with individuals on their own campuses and nationally to access
their expertise on a particular issue, to gain an outsider's perspective on their system, or
to facilitate dialogues on diversity. When describing cases in which they recruited an
outside consultant from within the university, all participants described cases involving
race, whereas none involved other aspects of diversity. In addition, those participants all
described the importance of involving RE minority faculty and trainers as consultants
who could bring specific perspectives to their discussions; no one mentioned the
expertise or perspectives that EA faculty might bring to such discussions as a consultant.
Participants who consulted with colleagues nationally identified emerging issues of
concern that they believed were affecting the discipline as a whole, such as intersections
between religious students and LGBTQ clients and colleagues.
92
Articulating the value ofdiversity conversations. Some participants referenced the
regularity of discussions about diversity, and multiple experiences with decision-making
about the role of culture in professional behaviors as increasing their comfort when
conceptualizing intersections of diversity with TIPPC. One participant talked about the
degree to which factors such as previous experiences, regular conversations, and mistakes
in the past all enabled him and his colleagues to attend sooner to such intersections and to
their blind spots.
It's one of the hallmarks of our program, that we're known as a multiculturally
focused program, and that's not an area that we were overly afraid of discussing,
so it's pretty common that it comes up pretty quickly, based on experience we've
had in other cases where, things have gotten brushed under: "Ok, we'll allow that,
we'll allow that, no, we're not going to allow that one," and that's led us to have
discussions of diversity issues sooner, it's led us to be more reflective with
regards to types of clients our students work with. We push the education and the
experiential side of things harder, and frankly we're a little bit more open I like to
think, and it doesn't always happen 100%, but we're a little more open to looking
at our own blind spots with regard to trainees.
Others mentioned the impact of program norms around consulting with relevant
colleagues to inform their work with students from different RE, sexual orientation, and
gender backgrounds.
The presence of ongoing diversity conversations did not guarantee more
confidence or swifter action, however, nor was it without challenges when working at
93
intersections of diversity with TIPPC. Although some participants saw their faculty as
cohesive and at similar levels of awareness around self- and privilege-examinations,
others observed that conflict around issues of diversity arose fairly frequently as a result
of differences in multicultural training, awareness, and/or experience. Similarly, some
participants noted that differences among program faculty in multicultural training,
expertise, and self-examination were reflected in differences in faculty comfort and
willingness to discuss issues of diversity. For example, one participant commented on
conflict among his colleagues around unexamined biases and different beliefs about
affirmative action. Another participant commented on the impact of faculty differences in
their ongoing discussions ofTIPPCs:
... To what extent do you think faculty members in your program hesitate to raise
issues around race/ethnicity, class, gender, religion, when they're talking about
students who are struggling or who are on remediation? ..I think that varies
across the department... [in our] core faculty .. .I think there are 3 or 4 of us for
whom there's very little hesitation, because we see it as-this is simply part of the
overall identity of the trainee and each part of that identity is impacting how
they're developing. Now, that aside, it's the people, frankly, who have had the
most and the strongest multicultural training ...And I think there are [several]
other people who are a lot more cautious about it because they don't feel secure
enough in their own understanding of diversity and are still kind of in that process
themselves a little bit. . .I think it's actually a product primarily ofwhere we've
94
come from in terms of our various training experiences and our opportunities to
really have authentic interactions around various diversity issues.
Tensions Among Faculty Around Me Issues
Other contextual factors concerned existing tension among faculty around
diversity issues and new tensions generated by intersections of diversity with TIPPC.
Existing tensions included historical interactions and conflicts around diversity issues
such as "old wounds" among faculty, the impact of events in the university environment
(e.g., ongoing racism), and feelings that they were working in a "toxic environment."
New tensions involved faculty reactions to TIPPCs, including disagreements about how
to approach potential intersections, differences of opinion about the role that diversity
might play in a potential problem, working with colleagues who seemed to fear raising
diversity issues, and faculty reactions to feeling as though their multicultural competence
was being challenged by students or colleagues. Participants described interactions
among these factors and the impact of these factors on their work with TIPPCs.
"Old wounds" and existing tensions. Participants discussed the impact of
personal and program norms and histories related to diversity issues. Several participants
described histories of bias in their programs, observing that existing stereotypes and
expectations about students of color contributed to toxic work environments and
impacted their work with TIPPCs. One EM participant noted,
I was on a faculty in which they basically felt that anyone who got in there who
was a person of color was an Affirmative Action hire who therefore really didn't
deserve to be there and was only there because of technicalities and whatever.
------------------
95
And so that, that definitely spilled over to the students as well, so kind of the
entire environment was one oftokenism and marginalization.
This same participant noted that in his program RE minority faculty were often recruited
by EA faculty into discussions of TIPPCs of color to legitimize the process of giving
negative feedback to those students. In a conversation with a colleague, this RE minority
participant learned that his involvement in a student of color's remediation effectively
validated stopping additional examinations of the issue (e.g., systemic racism, faculty
bias).
A faculty member told me, 'You know, as long as you're involved in this, it can't
be racist.' And I just looked at him, and said, 'What?' You know, so obviously I
was being used to justify this person's viewpoint. ..because ifI'm-obviously if
I'm in on it, it can't be racist.
Other participants noted frustrations with colleagues who seemed reluctant to engage in
conversations about diversity. Several participants described how tensions and
disagreements could create difficulties that lasted far beyond the initial conflict and
generated anticipations of future struggles. One EA participant noted:
I think [an African American colleague and 1] get along fairly well and yet there's
some times when the tension is much more uncomfortable than it is at other times,
and when we get to talking about students, and who's protecting students the best,
you know, then sometimes it's hard to discuss .. .I don't think that she would feel
comfortable saying to me--or maybe to anybody else, but certainly to me, 'you
know, I think that I've been wrong and you've been right. .. '
96
Similarly, several participants assessed that their colleagues used TIPPC events as
catalysts for action around issues of race. In these instances, participants described beliefs
that although their colleagues may have disagreed with a student's assessment that racism
played a role in a TIPPC situation, they used the event as an opportunity to address the
general racial climate of the department. One participant described the impact of existing
tension on what she saw as the reopening of "old wounds" among the faculty that
intersected with their handling of a current situation:
... for some of the faculty it was an opportunity to get back at some faculty that
they didn't like ... they at least perceive [themselves as] being treated by some
faculty perhaps as diminished value or you know, whatever-I mean, I can't
speak on their behalf, I don't. ..know what it was they were feeling, but there was
some old wounds that had occurred, through the years between and among faculty
that some of the faculty had not taken care ofperhaps properly.
Such old wounds and existing tensions could impact participants' and their
colleagues' willingness to raise concerns about potential TIPPCs. Some participants
stated that based on their previous experiences, they or their colleagues were reluctant to
broach topics related to diversity or EM students because they feared the resulting
conflict. These fears included awareness that they would likely argue with colleagues
about whether they should approach the issue from a "pure" (i.e., "colorblind") training
perspective or should include attention to diversity, hesitation to raise training issues
because they might be seen as "race" issues or activate existing struggles and conflicts
around diversity, and/or a fear of being perceived as unfair to RE minority students.
97
Other participants talked about the impact of continued pain from previous struggles
around diversity.
There are some faculty who will say, 'I'm not bringing any .. .I'm not, I'm not
opening this can of worms again' ... [not wanting to beJperceived as being unfair
to students of color, or whatever, whatever variation on that that might look like.
Similarly, some participants saw their colleagues as less eager to identify students
of color, despite clear (to the participant) evidence that a student was struggling because
of fears of outcomes across multiple RE configurations of faculty-student dyads. In this
discussion, several participants talked about not seeing heterosexual students identified as
TIPPCs, although no one provided an example involving gender. One RE minority
participant discussed a possible reason for RE minority faculty's reluctance to give
feedback to RE minority students, noting that such interactions were multiply layered,
involving aspects of one's identity as a person of color working in an environment that
could contain oppression:
.. .it's much harder too for a faculty of color to tum around and give feedback to a
student of color because there's this expectation that somehow we should all be
pretty cool with things, and that you know we shouldn't participate in oppression,
which kind of ties everybody up. Urn, because now all of a sudden it's not about
giving feedback, it's about you know, not wanting to oppress another person of
color. Which makes it just very, very difficult.
New tensions: Disagreement about approaches. When considering current
instances involving intersections of diversity with TIPPC, a number of participants
98
described how disagreements over whether to adopt a "colorblind" or context-attentive
approach generated conflict among faculty and increased the complexity of the situation.
Several participants described conflicts between colleagues who wanted to focus on
standards and skill evaluations without attention to context and others who wanted to
integrate cultural influences into their evaluations of student performance. Although
several talked about consistency within their program faculty in terms of approach, most
participants who discussed this issue described disagreement among their colleagues as a
major source of conflict. One participant discussed approaches among his colleagues
ranging from "colorblindness" to context attentive:
... [We have] faculty who will say, 'It's not a racial thing, it's not an ethnicity
thing ... I'm looking at skill level, and I don't care.' And then ... other faculty that
will say, 'No, it's more than that because there are cultural characteristics that go
with the skills.'
This participant later described this argument as containing intersections of RE with
existing tensions, describing the impact on his colleagues' willingness to raise their
concerns.
One of our faculty of color. .. would see just about every problem that a faculty
member brings to the faculty related to a student of color as a race/ethnicity
issue....and then we have a-several White faculty who would say, 'No, it's not
because of color, it's because of skill,' and so, there would be some hesitancy to
bring [concerns about a TlPPC] in, because, as I said, we have a couple of faculty
99
who will just uh, 'Can we just talk about this in terms of training, not in terms of
diversity?' ...The answer is "No, it's just part of everything that we do."
This faculty described his own commitment to including a contextual analysis amid
conflicts in his faculty. Not only did such conflicts impact colleagues' willingness to raise
issues, but they also generated disagreements and tensions over questions about (a) which
approach was best for students, (b) whether an approach involved discrimination or
penalized students for having different values from faculty, and (c) whether some
approaches to working with students were insufficiently or overly protective of students.
Another RE minority participant described differences of opinion among faculty about
the point at which they could decide that culture was no longer the most salient variable.
For this participant, his colleagues' commitment to diversity became an ideological
liability that overrode judgment in what he felt were situations that particularly clearly
involved lack of competence among trainees:
.. .I [could] see them wanting to give the student the benefit of the doubt, but I
think it's a place where culturally, some of my colleagues are from [the same
cultural] background, some of my colleagues have a very strong affiliation with
[students from that culture] and seem to recruit a high number of [students from
that culture], so again what I talked about earlier, about over-identification,
protectiveness, really strong attachment to students that adversely affects their
perception and their judgment. .. from where I was sitting, and what I was hearing
my colleagues say, clearly to me I think some colleagues weren't really dealing
with the reality of the magnitude, the severity of this student's functioning. And I
100
applaud them for looking at cultural issues but I think they still were trying to
give too much benefit of the doubt [to the student].
Another participant described a contentious situation involving a student of color on
remediation who left the program. This situation, which involved disagreement among
faculty and conflict between faculty and students, created new wounds, which then
became existing tensions among faculty and students in the program. This program
initiated dialogues in response to these tensions around diversity, linking the events to a
commitment to maintain and learn from diversity conversations.
New tensions: Challenges to their multicultural competence. Most participants
referenced the multicultural focus, values, and strength of their program as an asset when
discussing intersections of TIPPC with diversity. Participants' beliefs about their
multicultural competence were embedded in the rationales for their approaches, from
"colorblindness" to attention to context. They described specific actions that
demonstrated their commitment to multicultural competence, including training and
consultation around multicultural and diversity topics, receiving grants related to
diversity work, working and researching in the multicultural arena, and classifYing
multicultural competence as a professional training competence. Other actions included
being acknowledged by the university for their successful efforts to recruit and retain
diverse faculty and students.
Participants stated that these factors contributed to images of themselves as
successful and sincere in their efforts at building and attending to diversity.
Consequently, allegations that they were discriminating against students or were
101
otherwise not multiculturally competent seemed in direct opposition to their efforts and
recognition in this area. Perhaps because of their strong focus and commitment to
multiculturalism, many participants observed in themselves and/or their colleagues
feelings of confusion, anger and disconnection when facing such allegations:
[when] issues of racism, or-you know, not being racially sensitive, or not being
sensitive to the ethnicity issues that students bring-are brought up, oftentimes
you see the faculty going, 'What? What are you talking about? We're the best in
the university ... How can this be happening that we work so hard to create
diversity, and then we get into conflict?
Challenges to their multicultural competence could also come from within. Some
participants noted that student- or colleague-raised allegations could unearth underlying
disagreement about the multicultural competence of their colleagues and programs. One
participant discussed a conversation with a colleague who challenged the program's self-
described multicultural focus. Several participants observed that different opinions about
the multicultural competence of the program and/or their colleagues generated conflict
when faculty reacted to RE minority students' concerns about discrimination. One
participant observed that his EA colleagues often felt unfairly targeted and saw students
who raised such issues as ungrateful. This reaction often led to "hurt" feelings among
African American and Euro-American colleagues due to different reactions and
understandings about student concerns:
... You have a White faculty member says, 'I work so hard at this, I'm supporting,
1bring in assistantships, and then, then we have problems,' that you know,
102
students will say, like this one female student will say, 'well, you're not
supporting me enough,' So then the White faculty will get hurt, and then turn to--
the African American faculty [who] will be hurt because the White faculty didn't
understand fully what the issue was.
Unexamined assumptions related to diversity also may have contributed to this
feeling of confusion, anger or disconnection. One participant stated that she assumed that
the recruitment and retention of RE minority students in the program was an indicator of
racial harmony and satisfaction among RE minority students, and described surprise
when seeing race-related conflict among students.
.. .this (race-related conflict) was happening in a context of huge (program)
commitment to diversity. Successful recruitment and retention of students of
color... and so I think part of (our surprise) perhaps reflected our assumption that
ifpeople are here, they're happy. Which obviously doesn't mean that's true, but I
mean that we may not have been recognizing that people can come here and, and
want to be here for whatever reason and still see us as a flawed place.
Several other participants talked about the thoughtfulness and care with which they
screened incoming students and determined the composition of incoming cohorts,
without discussing how power differences among the students based on diversity might
generate conflict. Other participants described instances in which they uncovered student
biases, which led to feelings of being "naive" about their assumptions about what
students were learning, student attitudes about diversity, and how students interacted and
supported each other.
103
Consequences a/tension "spilling over to students. " Some participants observed
that faculty struggles around diversity were mirrored in student conversations and
interactions. Participants described parallels between faculty attitudes and conflicts
around diversity among themselves and towards students, and several participants stated
that students were aware of conflict around diversity and standards among faculty.
Several participants described seeing such conflicts and attitudes reflected in interactions
among students.
Other participants saw these conflicts impact faculty assessment of student
competence. Some noted that it was easier to displace faculty struggles around diversity
onto students, as it was safer and less conflictual to talk about problems in students. Some
stated that umesolved conflicts among faculty around issues of diversity had a way of
trickling out into faculty-student and student-student interactions and was in some cases
emblematic of similar problems among faculty. One participant noted,
... [diversity] impacts faculty who represent diverse populations who have to give
that feedback, or who are used by other faculty to justify unfair decisions ... how
does it impact identifying people? I think, you know, I've seen both. I've seen
Euro-American students, or straight students or whatever, be not confronted as
well, and then I've also seen people not confront the students of color, for fear of
what might happen.
This participant later continued,
You can't focus on the work with students if you haven't done the work yourself.
If faculty don't have some of these issues worked out amongst themselves, if you
104
know ethnic minority faculty are either not hired or marginalized, if they're not
promoted and tenured, if they're not mentored and all that, I mean I, it's just to
them basically students are just little mascots, I mean, even if they do well,
they're just being-I just think it's a lot easier to focus on the students in terms of
someone to focus on, because their investment is a couple of years as opposed to
your colleagues, which is, you know, potentially the rest of your professional life.
So, I guess I would say it's misleading to always focus on the student as the kind
of the identified patient, that sometimes it really is a symptom of problems among
the faculty that are unaddressed.
Summary
Participants described a range of program variables that affected conversations
about intersections of diversity with TIPPC. Although most participants demonstrated
commitments to diversity through successful efforts at recruiting diverse faculty and
students, they differed in their views about the impact of critical mass on dialogues
within their programs. Whereas some participants anticipated that critical mass could lead
to conflict or tension around diversity issues, others seemed surprised by this
phenomenon. These differences extended through ongoing conversations about diversity
within the programs; in some instances such conversations led to conflict and tensions
about diversity, whereas in other instances such conversations helped participants gain
clarity about whether and how to raise issues of context at the intersection.
Old wounds and existing tensions about diversity may have imbued instances of
TIPPC with additional contextual meaning. New instances at the intersection may have
105
exacerbated old wounds, and thus impacted the tenor of discussions about future
occurrences, as well as the overall existing level of tension around diversity. Increased
tension within the program may have heightened perceptions that more ongoing
conversations about diversity were needed, yet the content and tension of those
conversations may have heightened levels of existing tension rather than alleviating them.
Finally, disagreement among faculty and perceived challenges to their multicultural
competence or commitments may have made work at intersections of diversity with
TIPPC more complex and challenging.
Espoused Ideologies: "Colorblindness" to Context
Participants described their approaches to conceptualizing intersections of
diversity with TIPPC along a continuum from a "colorblind" approach (i.e., not
considering culture or differences among individuals or groups) to a context-attentive
approach (i.e., always considering cultural and contextual variables). Towards the
"colorblind" end of the continuum, several participants stated that they never included
diversity variables in relationship to ppc. One participant referenced a belief that
attending to diversity could be viewed as discriminatory:
I think we are as a program and as a department, strongly committed to ... ensuring
that diversity doesn't get in the way...we value that whole effort so strongly that
we don't. ..make differences among our students and among our program faculty.
Could you give me an example ofhow you've seen them get in the way? Get in the
way is, 'oh geez, my value system says that I can't talk to that person.'
He later continued,
106
.. .it is our monthly practice to talk about doctoral students and how they're
doing ... and we don't seem to worry about any of their diverse attributes ... [we]
meet biweekly and discuss program issues and student issues and if a student who
happens to be X comes up, we try to answer and the best way of handling the
situation.
Most participants described their commitment to multiculturalism as including
attention to context, and attended to context at points along the continuum. Participants
described various strategies and conditions for examining context that included
intentionally identifying in their decision-making processes points at which they would
no longer consider context. Generally those points involved some combination of:
Standards of the profession they considered to be universal, extreme trainee difficulties or
behaviors, value on applying the same standards for all students, their responsibilities as
gatekeepers of the profession, and/or client safety. Participants frequently described
events in ways that embodied multiple points along the continuum. For example,
although one participant emphasized the importance of attending to diversity when
selecting students for admission (classified as context-attentive), he referenced the value
of being "colorblind" when considering standards (classified as towards the colorblind
end of the continuum):
... of the 2 students, one is from a minority group, and the other is not. You know,
I would like to believe that-that we're going to hold the same standard for every
student and say, you know, you've got to be passing-you've got to be
competent. ..before we move you on ...There are times when it's appropriate to be
107
colorblind and times when it's not, and I think around competence issues it would
seem to me like that would be a good time to be colorblind and say, 'You know,
we're going to expect every one of our students to be competent.'
Although this participant mentioned the importance of diversity in terms of
recruitment, he was intentional about not considering diversity in certain circumstances.
Consistent with this espoused ideology, he described several cases involving TIPPCs
without mentioning how diversity might have played a role in either case. One case
involved a student whose religious beliefs prompted her/him to not see LGBTQ clients,
and the other involved students in conflict around gender issues. Also close to the
colorblind end of the continuum, several participants referenced the demographics of
TIPPCs without discussing or exploring how those cultural components of their identity
might be related to a problem. Others stated that they had not seen aspects of a TIPPC's
demographics be the "defining factor" of a problem. Still others speculated how
intersections of diversity with TIPPC might occur, but stated that they had not seen such
intersections occur. Although these participants did not advocate an explicitly
"colorblind" approach, the fact that their discussion did not include extended attention to
diversity variables suggests less or limited attention to context. Other participants
advocated attention to context and demonstrated integrated and complex analyses of
intersections of diversity with TIPPC. For example, one participant answered a question
about such intersections as follows:
Are some there are some types ofstudent problems that are more difficult to
conceptualize in terms of issues ofdiversity? Yes and no, in terms of issues of
108
diversity ... the better way to answer that is, it's always hard to intervene with
students and it's particularly hard to intervene with students from diverse,
different backgrounds, because the power becomes more salient. All right, I try
not to be resistant here, I don't see it as diversity per se; I see it more as an issue
ofpower...it's harder to label someone's interpersonal behaviors as problematic,
as reflective of insufficient competence, when issues of diversity are present, and
I think that's more because of-less about diversity per se and more about the
power that underlies those types of discussions, because power is salient between
students and faculty in general, and then when you make the faculty a certain race
or a certain gender, and then you make the student different, the power escalates,
the differential becomes ... much more clear, and much more salient for the
student, and you have to be very, very careful that you don't exploit that.
Most participants advocated always considering context, yet varied in terms of the
amount of attention paid to context over the course of the interview. Some articulated a
complex interplay of multiple diversity and related variables (e.g., power) when
describing a specific situation or TIPPC's identity, but as their analysis continued they
changed to a focus on one variable without retaining the same degree of complexity.
Many participants described a number of processes of decision-making that included
conscious or unconscious shifts from attention to context to a focus on one most salient
variable, and/or a loss of complexity in their analysis. In the core themes that follow, I
present specific processes that participants used as they examined intersections of
diversity with TIPPC (Figure 2). Participants described dilemmas, examined the problem,
PROGRAM VARIABLES THAT AFFECT
CONVERSAnONS ABOUT DIVERSITY AND TIPPC
Context
Attentive
DESCRIBING
DILEMMAS
EXAMINING
THE PROBLEM REACHING A DECISION
.....-
o
1.0
Figure 2. Decision-making processes about intersections of diversity and TIPPC
!I Integrating H Role of culture in N Sustainingculture and professional integration ofprofessional standards culture andstandards professional0 standards
U
il Training ecology(e.g., trainerEnforcing competence, IW Weighing responsibility asculturally program processes, trainer (to TIPPC,circumscribed environment) profession, peers, etc.)
professional
I I standards
D TIPPC's Respondinginterpersonal • ChangingE Worrying ecology the systemabout0
"lowering" • Focusing
L professional mentoring
0 standards Assuming • InitiatingTIPPC's cultural universality dialoguesG identity (problems and Determining
y approaches) no evidence • EducatingEnforcing of culture studentsprofessional
about socialstandards
without Not examining justice
dilemma professional
• Modifyingstandards or
Colorblind ecology remediation
110
reached decisions, learned about themselves, their colleagues and their programs, and
responded to their examinations and decisions.
Describing Dilemmas
Most participants described dilemmas as they considered intersections of diversity
with problems ofprofessional competence. Participants articulated a range of dilemmas
involving the standards of the profession, ranging from not wanting to enforce standards
without considering diversity variables, to wanting to integrate culture with standards. As
noted in espoused ideologies, several participants did not voice a dilemma in how they
considered standards. Most participants considered the challenges involved with using a
universal and/or flexible approach to applying standards. Dilemmas included (a) fearing
to "lower" standards, (b) enforcing culturally circumscribed professional standards,
and/or (c) integrating culture into standards.
Fearing to "Lower" Standards
Some participants voiced concerns about whether they might lower standards by
examining and being flexible with standards. Some articulated the issue as an absolute,
suggesting that treating students differently was inappropriate and would lower standards.
In such instances they discussed the issue dichotomously as one of attending to either
diversity or competence, and did so both directly and indirectly.
Enforcing Culturally Circumscribed Standards
Other participants voiced concern about whether enforcing standards conveyed to
students from diverse backgrounds a message that assimilation into the status quo was
necessary. One articulated the issue and then referenced his responsibilities as a trainer as
111
he made the decision about whether to enforce a particular standard. Although he began
by discussing issues of fairness and bi- or multiculturalism when examining the role of
culture in standards, he soon shifted his primary focus to his responsibility as a trainer to
prepare students academically. This participant discussed the role of cultural assumptions
in the standard of concern, and voiced frustration at its seeming universality before he
described his duty to the student to enforce the standard.
"You get down to the point of, 'are we negotiating a cultural rapprochement, are
we trying to establish a mutual culture here, or do I have to get across that ifyou
want this degree, you're going to have to learn to survive and to operate and to
accept a different culture.' And is that fair, I mean that's the part that gets me-
and this gets to this whole thing about my struggle, my view that different
cultures offer different things, and they're not wrong or right, they're just
different. ..but when you're going to write a dissertation, the graduate school's
going to look at it and the outside reader is going to look at it, they're going to
say, 'No, this is wrong.' And I'm going to have to say to you-I mean, you either
get it from me or you get it from somebody else down the line, and my job is to
protect you to some degree from getting to the point where it's going to be worse
than it needs to be .. ."
Integrating culture and standards. Although some participants resolved their
dilemmas by advocating a universal application of standards, most raised questions of
degree as they sought to attend to diversity. Some voiced concern that attending to
diversity variables might impact the extent to which they enforced professional standards:
112
How much variance can you allow, so think about a regression line, and how
much can you have points varying from that slope if you're trying to get up to
competence? ..You have to allow for dimensions of diversity ... to affect students'
ability to see and perhaps grow at different rates, but there's still a certain
tolerance you have for variance in that slope ... [so] how do you hold the standards
of the field, allow for differences in patterns in growth across all those
competency levels and allow for differences in the way students learn, and keep
clients safe? That's the struggle.
Other participants articulated the dilemma with similarly complexity, including attention
to context and examining the standards for points at which they could be flexible. For
example, one participant identified a point at which she felt confident to integrate culture
by clarifYing the essence of a standard.
Now, for my international students ... their reports and performance may not be at
the same level of proficiency (as students born in the U.S.), but I think as long as
they are competent and you know, do no harm, can grade their things correctly,
then I tend to be ok with it. . .I kind of struggle with that, because I wonder, am I
saying I'm going to have a lower standard for these students? And that's not what
I'm trying to do, but I do understand that sometimes the students won't perform
as well, and not because they're not as skilled, or not as smart but it's just because
of you know, differences with language, and writing ability ... there are different
standards that I have.
113
For this participant, the issue was nuanced and varied for different students, based
on an examination of context. She described an ongoing struggle about whether being
flexible meant "lowering" standards. Other participants also considered the role of culture
in professional standards, raising questions with their colleagues about potential conflicts
between cultural values, and faculty and professional expectations.
Examining the Problem
Participants who espoused a context-attentive approach to conceptualizing the
intersection turned to different areas of the TIPPC's ecology as they considered
contextual elements that might be intersecting with a perceived problem. Participants
examined (a) the role of culture in professional standards, (b) distal aspects of the
TIPPC's training ecology (e.g., interactions among trainers, events in the university
environment), (c) proximal aspects of the trainee's training ecology (i.e., interpersonal
interactions), and (d) the TIPPC's cultural identity. Participants varied in how they
discussed different areas of the ecology. Some focused on one area (e.g., TIPPC's
cultural identity), whereas others described intersections among multiple areas (e.g.,
TIPPC's cultural identity, events in university environment, role of peers). Consistent
with their descriptions of other processes, participants considered these different areas on
a continuum from "colorblindness" to context-attentiveness.
Role ofCulture in Professional Standards
Participants worked to unearth the extent to which cultural assumptions played a
role in professional standards as a means to guide decisions about being flexible when
applying standards. Participants pursued this examination through conversations with
114
colleagues, consulting with others outside the program, and relying on their knowledge of
the MC literature, and knowledge and experiences as trainers and MC researchers in
terms of the limits and expectations about student behavior. Many discussed the
importance of recognizing and examining culturally rooted assumptions in their personal
expectations for professional behavior, acknowledging social address influences on their
expectations of students and student development. One participant described such a
cultural self-examination:
I'll use myself as an example. I grew up in a very ... traditional middle class
Caucasian environment, and... that influenced ...how I [carry] myself
professionally, and how I see the role of a psychologist in a relationship ...but I
recognize that [those expectations are from] me... as a somewhat traditional
Caucasian male who happens to be heterosexual, ok, so I recognize that while I
might encourage my students that way, while I might set an example for my
students, variation is allowed, all right, based on culture, race, ethnicity, the
gender of the not only the student, but their client, all right, and certain levels of
expectation on the part of the student and on the part of the client, all right, so I
allow some level of variation, but I may-and I disclose that to the students from
the get-go, but I make it very clear that there are certain things that you don't do.
This participant examined how intersecting aspects of his identity were integrated
into his perceptions and notions of professional behavior. Understanding the role of his
social address influences enabled him to determine points at which he could be flexible in
his expectations.
115
Distal Aspects o/the TIPPC's Training Ecology
In addition to examining the role of cultural in the standards of the profession,
participants also examined distal aspects of the TIPPC's training ecology, such as (a)
supervisors' general and multicultural competence, (b), faculty biases and assumptions,
(c) program processes (e.g., comprehensive examinations), and (d) university and
regional norms and realities.
Supervisors' competence. Several participants stated that a lack of general and/or
multicultural competence among supervisors could potentially lead to a student being
identified as having competence problems. These participants acknowledged that they
assumed competence in their off site supervisors, and often did not evaluate their general
or multicultural competence except through student report. These and other participants
noted that without investigation into supervisor or student complaints, they remained
unaware of site supervisors' potential for errors in evaluation and abuse of power, which
could lead to potentially over- or under-identifying problems in trainees. One participant
commented, "depending on the insight of the onsite supervisor, the problems get reflected
in the student's evaluation rather than the site's evaluation." Some participants stated that
such possibilities reflected systemic realities, that (a) their programs relied on site
supervisors to evaluate clinical competence, and (b) they had not assessed the
multicultural competence of those supervisors:
.. .it's a problem everybody has, which is that we're relying a lot on our partners
in the field. We don't have an in house clinic, so ...we're putting a lot of trust in
116
the evaluation of our partners, our clinical partners, and we don't evaluate their
multicultural competence at all.
This acknowledged lack of evaluation of their field trainers' competence was
mirrored in some participants' comments about their lack of knowledge of students'
previous training environments. For many programs that accepted students with masters'
degrees, faculty remained unaware of the quality of trainees' previous clinical and
multicultural training. Several trainers voiced a dilemma of wanting to respect previous
trainers' judgments, yet feeling uneasy because they did not know the level or quality of
students' previous training and were similarly unaware of previous trainers' competence.
.. .if [students] come to you from a masters program and having worked in the
field, then they're coming in with background and work you want to respect, and
yet how do you assess that baseline [clinical] competency? ..All that stuff that is
hard to evaluate-ability to self-assess... ability to be open to supervision, ability
to urn to look at yourself as a cultural being, ability to look at worldview, ability
to know that, and to know your stimulus value walking in the world ...we're
trying to select on that, but you also don't want to be unfair to a candidate ...
Faculty biases and assumptions. Whereas some participants focused on
conflictual faculty-student interactions, others focused on processes and interactions
among faculty that could contribute to intersections of diversity with TIPPC. Some
participants described seeing biases and assumptions at work in their colleagues'
interactions with and evaluations of students, including TIPPCs. These observations
included seeing colleagues (a) "racialize" difficulties among RE minority students but not
117
among EA students or students from other diverse backgrounds, (b) "go after" RE
minority students by identifying RE minority students as TIPPCs at comparatively higher
prevalence rates, (c) hold lower expectations for RE minority students, and (d) hesitate to
identify RE minority students as having problems. All discussions in this area focused on
race/ethnicity; although a few included sexual orientation, no other aspects of diversity
were discussed.
Some participants discussed seeing colleagues automatically assume that diversity
was connected to observed difficulties when a TIPPC was from a RE minority
background. Several participants saw EA colleagues identify RE minority students as not
being honest and reflective enough around MC issues, and/or "racialize" the problems of
RE minority students. Participants saw their colleagues raise issues of diversity when
considering students of color or international students, but not with LGBTQ or EA
students. One participant contrasted her colleagues' analyses of RE minority students
with their analyses of EA students, noting that some of her colleagues took an
individualized, deracialized approach if the TIPPC was a student from a majority
background, whereas they focused on diversity when considering RE minority students:
.. .if it's a person of color, issues of diversity are raised. I've never seen it where if
the person's gay or lesbian, the issues are raised. If it' s a person of color or it's an
international student I've seen it raised. I've never seen it where it's a White
person where they say, "Do-does this person's Whiteness, do we think this has
anything to do with issues," .. .if it's somebody White, it's never .. .it's
communicated very differently than if it's a person of color, and that. . .if it's a
118
person of colorit' s a problem. If it's a White person it's not. It's just very
interesting how, how things get coded in those ways ... the discussions there are
typically is that "Oh my goodness, these racial minority students have problems,
there are deficits in these and these ways," and just teaching... there's a ton of
people who have problems with writing ... and that's never, really, racialized. It's
called something else ....But it's not like "Oh, look at these White males who
can't write." It's called something else: 'Johnny can't write.' Then the notion of
race comes into play if the person happens to be a person of color and I think that
perpetuates this notion that racial minority students are defici[en]t in some way."
Other participants similarly described differences in their colleagues' treatment of
EA and RE minority students, seeing some colleagues over- or under-identify RE
minority students as having problems. Several participants identified a process by which
underlying stereotypes and assumptions about RE minority students' intelligence and
right to be in the program (e.g., beliefs about Affirmative Action) biased colleagues'
assessment of RE minority students' skill/competence. One RE minority participant
noted,
... in the research area, there's always the association ... the equation of people of
color with not having the intelligence... or the natural ability that other people
have .. .I think sometimes faculty are much quicker to question the intelligence of
students of color ... [due to] preexisting stereotypes and expectations, and maybe
even association with how people got in, you know, one group gets in on their
merits and the other group gets in because of some program (implying
119
Affirmative Action) or something, and when I've seen those dynamics at work
it's just pretty toxic, and it just makes it hard to address the intelligence issue
when one group has already been anointed as the intelligent group, and the other
one is suspect from the beginning.·
This participant continued by describing a pattern among certain faculty who
seemed predisposed to "go after" RE minority students, or be unwilling to pass students
of color.
... sometimes there's some faculty who will just seem to always go after students
of color. And always seem to, you know, predictably year after year, they're
going to get into it with a student ofcolor. .. there's some folks who are just, you
can just sense it's coming, and you know after a while you can just see a pattern.
Several participants examined their own biases and assumptions, questioning how
the TIPPC's culture or RE might be impacting their understanding of the problem. One
participant described feelings of uneasiness around possible faculty bias when faculty
noticed a demographic trend among the students that they identified as needing
remediation. Considering this trend led this participant to develop a set of ongoing
questions to examine the impact of the TIPPCs' cultural identity on faculty approaches to
the case, and consider how others could perceive each situation.
I just am very aware of who are we focusing on, why are we focusing on them,
what's the perception of how we're handling this situation, how are we thinking,
you know, how does the fact that this person has this background influence how
we talk about them.
120
Program processes. In addition to their examinations of evaluators of students,
participants also examined processes within their programs as possibly contributing to
trainee difficulty. Several participants talked generally about the question of whether their
programs inadvertently "de-skilled" students as they went through practicum.
All of our students here come with a master's degree ... and [one TIPPC] had A's
in clinical practicum at the master's level. In fact, so did the [other TIPPC] I
mentioned, so, that's-people have had good grades before and I've often
wondered, does that mean that their master's program didn't adequately prepare
them?".or does that mean that there's something about our program that deskills a
student. .. and I'm not sure. I think it's not us, but we've examined, tried to
examine that.
Although these comments did not explicitly address issues related to multicultural or
diversity topics, the focus on possibly "de-skilling" students intersected with concerns
about sites and site supervisors, and could intersect with micro-aggressions or other
challenges in the clinical setting related to diversity that students might face.
Other participants examined potential diversity-related biases in program
processes (e.g., comprehensive exams). Several discussed how their examination of their
program's process for qualifying exams led to conclusions that the process privileged
some students and unfairly disadvantaged others due to differences involving language
and social class. Following these conclusions, they raised questions about whether and
how to modify the process. One participant described her faculty's process of targeting
121
the essential skills necessary for competence while not assuming that the problem resided
in the TIPPC (or the TIPPC's diversity):
.. .let's say someone does not do well on qualifying examinations. We then begin
to say, 'Ok, is it the qualifying exam process that seems to be an issue here? Can
we modify this process [so it] might better suit the needs of this student in terms
of their learning or their ability to demonstrate their knowledge and integration of
knowledge in certain areas?'
University and regional norms and realities. When asked to consider the extent to
which the university environment impacted students in the program, participants ranged
from stating that the university environment had little to no direct impact on students, to
stating that it had a large impact.
To what extent do you think that the university climate impacts the students in
your program? Somewhere but not very far from zero. So it's not too much ofa
factor? The university is a very large X, and we are 30 or 40 people in a very
small X. So how you can get us to be influenced is not very big.
Among those who described little impact of the university environment, some
participants acknowledged the potential for impact, but stated that they had not seen such
happen. Others who asserted that the university environment had little impact located the
impact indirectly, stating that university events would impact faculty or the entire
department, followed by a delayed, diffused, or moderated effect on students.
In contrast, participants who described a greater impact of the university
environment on students referenced the impact of a general climate of Whiteness and a
122
lack ofRE diversity, as well as a lack ofRE, gender, and/or REG diversity in positions of
power. Most participants focused on RE, although several focused on gender and/or
sexual orientation. Many described the area surrounding the university as predominantly
Euro-American, and noted challenges and survival strategies specific to the context of
being an RE minority student on a White campus.
The presence of. . .issues of race and racism on campus. I think in terms of-for
racial and ethnic minority students, you know the broader campus culture at any
predominantly White campus is going to be-it shapes their experiences and it's
frustrating and it's trying to build, trying to have networks, trying to find people
who understand what you are dealing with. Trying to navigate a small community
where there's very few racial and ethnic minorities, so in terms of not just campus
culture, but it's kind of more the town culture as well that structures our students'
learning experience.
Several participants discussed having predominantly male leadership and little support
for women's initiatives on campus. One participant described intersections of
race/ethnicity, gender, and social class as she described the impact on students of the lack
of diversity in positions of leadership and power in the university environment:
To what extent do you think that the university climate impacts the students in
your program? There are no tenured women of color on this campus... there are
very few men of color too that are tenured, I think that impacts, the absence of
people of color I think has an impact as an absence ... there's no image, there's no
model for students that people of color could possibly be as well educated
123
(laughs) as the majority White men and the minority White women you know, as
faculty. The disparities in this region are just alarming in that way.
This participant, a woman of color, situated the lack of diversity in the university
environment in the larger, similarly White, region. She described the impact of this lack
of faculty and regional diversity on her interactions with students, connecting the lack of
educated people of color in the region with EA TIPPC's struggles around issues of
diversity and multicultural competence.
My very presence here I think is provocative (laughs) ... the students are mostly
from this region and I don't think they've seen very many people of color. Ever.
In the kind of position that I'm in. You mean as a/acuity member, and as
someone with an advanced degree? Yep. With power over them ... and I am very
vocal and I am very ...willing to be confrontational if that's what it takes.
Many participants stated that the climate of Whiteness generated feelings of
isolation and a lack of safety among students of color and international students. Several
described frequent racist incidents or ongoing events that extended across campus into
the surrounding town. These events included actions from high-level university
administrators, faculty, graduate and undergraduate students, and members of the
surrounding community and region. Several participants assessed these events as
emblematic of existing institutional, cultural, and individual racism on campus and in the
community, noting that the occurrence of such events and the university's lack of clear,
direct and effective action to denounce or stop such events perpetuated painful
relationships between RE minority students and the university.
124
Participants noted that for students of color and for international students, such
events led to decreased feelings of comfort and safety and increased levels of stress.
Some identified instances in which race-related tension and events across campus
intersected with students' multiple professional identities (e.g., teaching assistants, people
of color, students), and noted the impact of racism on students' learning experiences and
emotional well-being. One participant noted that some students were sufficiently affected
by racially charged events in the university environment that they needed time to process
their reactions during class:
.. .in my prac class I've noticed that sometimes we're spending the first 45
minutes with the students really wanting to process some of the racist incidents on
campus, or things that came up when they were teaching undergrads in courses
the day before, or something, and they want to process it, they want to get-it's,
it's kind of like an open consultation.
Impact on EA students. Several participants also discussed the impact on White
students of studying in a diverse program nested within a predominantly White
environment. Participants described the impact of this environment on White students'
learning opportunities related to Me competence and risk taking around diversity,
including specific challenges related to examining racial privilege. Several participants
described seeing EA students struggle to raise issues of race/ethnicity due to feelings of
guilt and internal conflict.
... for White students ...being in an environment that reinforces ... their comfort
level with Whiteness and what that means .. .I think they benefit from that in some
125
ways. But also, I think it's hard for them to be in a diverse program setting, cause
it brings up these uncomfortable questions of privilege and other issues that need
to be considered. I think it's a disadvantage though, to many of the White students
that most of their programs-and the campus is overwhelmingly White, or
predominantly White, so I think that can be problematic.
No participant discussed challenges specific to sex or gender, unless it was included in an
intersection with racelethnicity; similarly, no participant discussed struggles for male or
heterosexual students.
Proximal Aspects ofthe TIPPC's Training Ecology
Many participants also examined more immediate factors in the TIPPC's training
ecology such as interactions (a) between the TIPPC and others in the training
environment (e.g., clients, supervisors, and client-TIPPC-supervisor triads), (b) at
practicum and externship sites, and (c) with student peers. Participants considered
interactions in the training milieu that could create stress and difficulty for trainees and
lead to problems of professional competence, as well as how such interactions might
increase the complexity of interventions with those trainees. Several participants
discussed microaggressions as they compared challenges in clinical work facing RE
minority students with those facing EA students. One participant drew a clear contrast
between the types of practicum experiences that EA and RE minority students might
have, and how those differences could translate into skill acquisition and a potential lack
of fairness in evaluation.
126
... what makes this difficult is depending on what type of environment in terms of
clinical population the students can see, if they can-if [the students of color are]
expected mostly to see Euro-American populations, then it might be more
difficult then to evaluate skills. If there's a diverse (client) population,
then... everyone can maybe be evaluated a little more fairly ... the lack of diversity
in practicum also makes it difficult to truly evaluate skill ...you have a group that
. might be getting constant microaggressions directed at them, or having to deal
with you know, a lot of transference from the clients, depending on you
conceptualize it, but you know, it's not like they're neutral stimuli. And so, they
have to deal with that, where the other students don't have to deal with, or have to
deal with in a different sense.
This RE minority participant focused on differences in the frequency of cross-cultural
clinical pairings as these affected comparisons of trainees from different backgrounds,
and how cross-cultural pairings might not be acknowledged in assessments of students'
skill development. He also addressed issues of cross-cultural competence, and the fact
that stressors in clinical work such as microaggressions could be unevenly distributed
across trainees of different RE, a fact that may similarly go unnoticed in trainee
evaluations. This participant and others discussed how such challenges that were related
to differences in RE and other aspects of diversity could arise in clinical work and
consequently impact the work and well being of trainees of color.
Another participant reflected on the complexity of the supervisory triad and
potential conflicts within her multiple roles. Although in her role as a trainer she felt
127
responsible to respect the trainee's responses to a challenging clinical situation (e.g., that
involved microaggressions directed at the therapist-trainee) and offer protection, she also
needed to address client safety:
I think it becomes harder when you're talking about the ways that culture might
play into someone's treatment or potential mistreatment of somebody to whom
they are uh responsible whether it be as a teacher or as a clinician... there's a
responsibility on the trainee to be able to work with those differences in a way
that doesn't harm the person that they're serving... it becomes a more difficult
kind of conversation because the trainee is simultaneously feeling perhaps
disrespected but also not needing to share that with the person that they're
serving... .It's when you start talking about the client being vulnerable, or the
students in the class being vulnerable ... then the trainee potentially not being able
to see how his or her own development you know might have a cultural
component to it. That's where it gets to be more difficult.
This EA participant identified a complex interweaving of variables, including client and
student safety, job performance, and cultural identity development, all intertwined with
her responsibility as a trainer. Others identified possible sources of conflict within
interactions in the TIPPC's ecology, including the impact of differences in social class,
racially different communication styles, and power differences in cross-sex and cross-
cultural situations.
Interactions in practicum and externship sites. Other participants described the
potential for difficult interactions to happen at practicum or extemship sites, prompting
128
one participant to remark that, "the appropriateness of the site is often overlooked" as an
issue that could impact a trainee's struggles. Several participants described instances in
which a lack of cultural competence at a site created problems for a trainee. One
described an example of the challenges facing an LGBTQ student who was working at a
practicum site in which staff members were struggling with issues of competence around
sexual orientation:
[the student was] working with ...professionals who are allowing kids to say
things like "you faggot" ... and really struggling with the environment that her
colleagues are creating and yet having to work with them.
Another participant discussed challenges for students in regressive supervisory
relationships, in which they had more MC competence than their supervisors. This
participant noted that students not only faced the possibility of negative evaluations, but
also struggled to find productive learning experiences in supervision around MC issues.
What I have seen is that the student is aware of diversity issues, maybe more so
because they're a student who has one or more identities in an oppressed
category, and they then have clients who also-of the definition you gave of
diversity-have one or more identities in diverse status, and a supervisor who
doesn't want to look at context at alL .. the students then will come to a faculty
member and say, 'I'm really struggling with this supervisor because essentially
they're telling me that all of my looking at contextual factors is not ok with them,
and how do I handle this?' So they get a piece of a low rating or something like
that on an overall practicum they're smart enough to know they've got to
129
conform to the supervisor so it doesn't actually end up in their ending ratings as
being they're a problem to the program, but ... the experience is not a positive one
for the student in practicum.
Several participants focused on the potential for problems at sites arising from
supervisors incorrectly locating problems of competence in the student. One participant
described conflict among trainers that arose due to different expectations between an
academic program and a clinical training site (and the student and the site) around
different perceptions of ethical or appropriate student behavior. This participant noted
that such differences sometimes translated into discrepancies between academic
programs and clinical sites around opinions of a student's skills, which heightened the
importance of faculty investigation into such complaints.
A change of site sometimes is the entire remediation. Sometimes it's a really bad
fit for some reason and [we] test that assumption by changing the student to
another site, trying to figure out you know if they can excel in another
environment. .. that recently happened with one of our students [who we knew] to
be a highly skilled therapist, but at this site she looked as though she wasn't
willing to engage in the type of practice that they wanted her to engage in, and in
fact she wasn't, because it wasn't-it wasn't appropriate for the clientele and she
knew enough not to step into that situation and kind of go against good practice.
So if we did not you know, look into it deeper, it could have been, 'Oh, So and
So's not doing what she needs to be doing, for whatever reason, maybe she's not
130
competent to do that.' And in fact, it was more the site making some poor choices
and kind of ushering our student down a bad path.
Although this participant did not discuss how such differences could impact intersections
of diversity with TIPPC, comments made by other participants (e.g., referencing
regressive supervisory matches) could be similarly present in such a situation.
Considering the role ofpeers. Another area that participants considered was the
role of peers. Participants commented on the impact of both supportive and conflictual
relationships among peers; several described students as a protective factor for a TIPPC,
having seen peers help each other when one was struggling. One encouraged students
who were struggling to keep in contact with their peers as a means to seek help.
Conversely, other participants noted that events in the program and conflict among
students related to diversity issues could generate more stress for students. Several
participants noted that such conflicts often intersected with existing diversity issues
within the program, stating that a critical mass among students had the potential to
fracture or consolidate students on an issue, and cause some students to lose or gain peer
support.
We have a pretty critical mass at [university] in terms of like some of our cohorts
are 60 to 50% [the same RE minority]. And so I think that when there's a problem
with a student, it's got the potential to either rally people together or fracture them
about what the issue is, so I really have seen it have both. Especially in kind of the
smaller communities that-where you know, the issue is a concern that there's
some kind of oppression or discrimination going on.
131
In addition to the impact ofdiversity related conflict within the program on a
student's (or TIPPC's) distress, some participants noted the potential for active
discrimination within the peer group. In addition, several noted the power that peers held
to withhold support for a TIPPC to improve, stating that peer support is often necessary
to complete remediation activities (e.g., through increased or specifically focused risk
taking in group supervision). This awareness led one participant and her colleagues to
examine supports, sources of bias, and obstacles to remediation for a TIPPC that existed
within the peer group. This participant and her colleagues wondered:
... is the peer group being closed off to the student because of these cultural
differences?...We were concerned that. .. there wasn't going to be enough room for
the student to improve and that [the peers] were contributing to that... that they
were potentially not going to allow the student to improve... we knew that the
student was very isolated in their peer group. And so, part of our concern was, is
this one of those instances where a group doesn't like somebody... and because
they don't like somebody, there is no chance for [the student] to grow and
develop ... [the student doesn't] have the support that they need, they can't take the
risks they need to in supervision...because it's not safe, and how much of that is a
function of a person's cultural differences.
She and her colleagues examined the potential that possible bias or racism existed among
students and in student interactions. They attended to this possibility through
observations of student interactions as well as considering how it might occur in student
disclosures of concern about a peer.
132
" .[we] paid attention to where were we getting the negative feedback from other
students from? And so that if only, for example, students who were White were
having concerns about this student. ..well, that would have been very different
from you know peers who were-shared the same ethnic background for example
having some concerns about this student. So we were paying attention to those
kinds of dynamics in terms of you know, 'are there potentially some clusters of
support and alienation emerging that we weren't seeing before and those kinds of
things.'
Other participants similarly focused on discrimination in the peer group as a source of
conflict that could generate difficulties for the TIPpe, her/his peers, faculty, or all
involved. One participant described feedback from female students about gender
discriminatory behavior from a male student. This participant described the process that
he and his colleagues used to consider the potential for gender dynamics to playa role in
the conflict:
... a male student, may have been the only one in his class, was not getting along
with some of the female students in his cohort. ..And as we looked at the
situation... it was pretty clear to us that... some of it wasn't his fault. At the same
time, some of it was his fault, he was kind of rigid in how he was trying to deal
with them, and they were saying that he was kind of being chauvinistic about
some stuff, and some of that was probably true, and some of it was they were just
kind of ganging up on him.
133
TIPPC's Cultural Identity
Many participants considered the salience of the TIPPC's cultural identity as it
related to the identified problem. In their analyses, participants ranged from mentioning
single or multiple demographic variables in isolation (i.e., without offering an analysis of
how those variables might be connected to the problem), to focusing on the impact of
multiple, intersecting aspects of the trainee's RE, gender, and/or other dimensions of
identity (e.g., sexual orientation) development on the problem. At one end of the
continuum, participants mentioned demographics specific to a TIPPC without any
examination of context. Others examined the implications of a single aspect of identity,
such as messages of racism in the student's upbringing based on where in the country the
TIPPC was raised, or how a TIPPC's religious identity impacted his/her attitudes about
LGBTQ clients. One participant described the impact of social class on a trainee's
capacity to know how to act in professional contexts.
Can you talk a little bit about [a specific TIPPC case]? I'm very curious about
the intersection between social class and ethics. It was a situation where [the
student] violated client confidentiality, and I think [the student] just-it was less a
breach of ethics than a-"I'm scared, I know I need to do this, I know
something's-I know that something needs to be disclosed here but uh .. .I have a
feeling that there's some behavior that ought to happen but I don't know how to
do it so I'm just going to do it." But I'm making it sound like a personality urn
impulsive personality, and it really wasn't. It was more that there was a way of
acting in this environment that came from the way you are a professional, that he
134
didn't know. That there was a way of being as a professional that he was scared of
not knowing. That's how I would conceptualize it. And I think that comes from a
social class background. In terms oflike how to act when you have a concern
about a client? Yeah, well, how to dress, how to comport himself.
Other participants focused on multiple aspects of a trainee's identity, including
the influence of identity on value systems and communication norms. Some focused on
how trainees' multiple, intersecting identities could create more complexity in identifying
problems and designing interventions. For example, one participant described how
multiple aspects of identity with differing levels of privilege and power increased the
complexity for trainers to address problems that were nested within those multiple
identities:
I guess the problem [is when] you have someone who is part of an oppressed
group who then is willing to, to have unexamined prejudices. For example,
someone who is very-a person of color who is very religious and then is
oppressing people who are you know, gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered and
then legitimizes that through ... religious means .. .I think that that's where it gets
really complicated in terms of trying to help people move past that kind of stuff
Other participants focused on the importance of identity development in their discussions,
as they considered the impact ofRE, gender, religious, and/or other aspects of a trainee's
cultural identity development on a specific issue (e.g., a TIPPC struggling in MC class).
For example, one participant contextualized a TIPPC's problem within an identity
135
development continuum that included intersections of multiple aspects of cultural
identity:
... part of the reason that we thought that a student had gotten into trouble was
potentially related to that student's own identity development as a person of color.
And also interestingly, there was a... religious component mixed up with that as
well that played into the original incident that created what emerged, what ended
up being the indicator of a significant problem.
Similarly, one participant used identity development to understand a TIPPC's
struggles in a multicultural counseling competency class and as an outcome indicator for
assessing the student's change. This participant used concepts from her multicultural
counseling course in her intervention, asking a student to assess how hislher RE identity
development (REID) might be contributing to the problematic behavior. This participant
worked to identify the TIPPC's REID by considering class assignments and listening to
the student's disclosures during class. She used it as a marker to assess whether the
student was developing skills for working with clients from different backgrounds, as
well as whether the student was able to develop awareness of (a) self, (b) institutional
racism, and (c) White privilege. Understanding the student's position on a REID
developmental trajectory enabled that participant and others to set reasonable
expectations for the student's growth, and contextualize decisions about whether and how
to enforce the standard of concern.
Considering the TIPPC's perspective. Some participants included students in their
examinations about the role that culture or diversity variables might be playing in the
136
identified problem. For most of the participants who included students in this process,
this involved informing identified TIPPCs of faculty concern and/or asking TIPPCs to
identify how RE and/or other aspects of identity were involved in her/his difficulties. For
example, one participant asked a student directly about the degree to which the student
thought that issues of REG were involved:
... [be]cause I'm a woman of color I always have to be asking, 'Is this person
being, you know, defensive and rude to me right now because I'm a woman, or
because I'm a woman of color?' .. .I definitely experienced extreme amounts of
resistance, defensiveness in one male student in particular and when I asked him,
you know, 'to what extent might this have something to do with being a woman,
hearing this input or feedback from a woman' and after some struggle he said
'yeah' and then when I said 'to what extent might this have something to do with
being a woman of color' and he didn't give me a definitive answer on that... .I
suspect it had a role though...my sense is that he denied it but there was some
struggle in his nonverbals um, that gave me the indication that perhaps being a
woman of color on top of being a woman it was really hard for him to hear
feedback as an authority figure over him.
Some participants informed students of their concerns and then invited TIPPC
feedback on the role of culture, whereas for other participants the process was initiated by
TIPPCs who raised issues of diversity and/or discrimination when informed that they
were struggling.
137
The person before that (TIPPC), things with the person-that person happened
not to be White-yeah, that student felt pretty free to bring [RE] up as part of the
issue, too. And the [international student], she felt pretty free to bring [diversity]
up as well.
Several participants stressed the importance of hearing student concerns about the
ecology as well as their responses to feedback from faculty, and worked to create space
for students to express concerns about the program or about the identified problem.
Summary
Participants who attended to context examined the problem by considering
possible contributions of multiple ecological factors, including the role of culture, distal
and proximal aspects of the training ecology, and the TIPPC's cultural identity. Their
examinations included the influences of factors such as supervisors who struggled with
multicultural competence, faculty who held biases and assumptions, and conflicts in
TIPPCs' direct interactions with peers and trainers. Some participants examined program
processes (e.g., comprehensive exams) for hidden biases, whereas others examined
factors that could impact students' long term emotional well being and the subsequent
impact on their skill development or interpersonal interactions, such as a lack of feelings
of safety or comfort in the university or program environment.
Consistent with their descriptions of other processes, participants considered these
different areas along a continuum from "colorblindness" to context-attentiveness. Some
examined aspects of the ecology (e.g., cultural identity) in isolation, whereas others
138
described complex interactions of multiple aspects of the ecology on the identified
TIPPC's struggle.
Reaching a Decision
Participants who examined the problem integrated their fmdings into processes
for reaching a decision about how to proceed with their work as trainers (e.g., placing a
TIPPC on remediation, changing part of the system, intervening with a supervisor).
Processes through which they reached decisions included (a) sustaining an integration of
culture and standards, (b) weighing their responsibilities as trainers, (c) considering client
safety, (d) assuming universality and determining no evidence of culture, or (e) not
examining standards. As they worked to reach decisions, participants factored these
processes into "either/or" (culture or standards) or "both/and" (culture and standards)
frameworks.
"Both/And" and "Either/Or" Frameworks
Most participants examined the interplay between cultural and professional
expectations and the impact of cultural differences on competencies such as interpersonal
interactions and demonstrations of professional skills. Some described an either/or
decision-making framework as part of their examinations, in which they reached a
decision about whether intersections of diversity with TIPPC involved either diversity or
problems of professional competence. Others described a both/and framework as they
considered an integration of diversity with professional competence. Some participants
described clear examples of a both/and approach that included attention to intersections
of diversity with professional competencies by providing specific examples of how they
139
would intervene with students struggling to maintain a balance of cultural identity when
facing a challenging overlap with professional competencies. One participant speculated:
I would guess we talk about [cultural and professional expectations] as closely
intertwined and try to figure out how we can tweak their professional behavior
and professional expectations in such a way that the students can be effective.
Participants frequently described decision-making processes that moved from a
both/and to an either/or framework. One participant demonstrated such movement as he
considered the impact of acculturation and cultural differences on an international
student's struggles in clinical work. Although he began by describing the intertwined
nature of professional and cultural expectations and examined of the role of culture, this
participant ultimately decided that problems of social awkwardness and interpersonal
discomfort were more salient than cultural issues in terms of the faculty's concerns about
the student's performance.
[this TIPPC was] an international student, speaks English very well by my
estimation, but is struggling in connecting with clients. Now, he's more socially
awkward than he is struggling with more of the cultural aspects of
communication, you know, it's more of his discomfort around you know, highly
verbal people and attractive people, in my estimation than his-the cultural issues
that come to bear ... but we're considering, of course ... our first thought was ok,
what cultural issues are here that might need to be discussed on the part of the site
and on the part of the student? We're discussing those, but it's coming down to
some more basic interpersonal exchange complexities, you know? .. So it's
140
certainly the cultural issues are there on the table for examination in this case, but
this particular situation seems-you know the bigger issue does seem to be you
know his social awkwardness. I'm wondering how you go about differentiating
between the cultural andprofessional expectations? .. .! don't know if we
differentiate between the two, more so than see how they're intertwined, you
know, and then just unravel them as best we can.
Another participant provided an example of moving between either/or and both/and in
his description of a student who was struggling with clinical work. This participant stated
that although the student saw her problem as a RE issue, the faculty saw personality, not
RE, as related to her problem (either/or). Midway through his discussion of the example,
this participant acknowledged the RE component of the student's problem (both/and),
and then returned to his assertion that the larger problem was not being present with
client problems (either/or). In his discussion, he did not discuss the potential impact of
RE or cross-cultural interactions with clients or supervisors on the problem:
You talked about the student ofcolor having problems with clinical skills. To what
extent do you think that ... either her gender or her race/ethnicity or other aspects
ofher factored into the problems that you all were observing? Uh, none (laughs).
I mean, I think it was more a personality characteristic .. .I think race/ethnicity had
little or nothing to do with it. And the problems were based on the interaction
within supervision, or on skill acquisition? Skill acquisition .. .it became very clear
and uh, she just could not develop the ability to do assessments, and the clinical
component with doing counseling/therapy-well, I guess I take back what I said.
141
Because one of the agenda themes that she had...was that race/ethnicity became a
topic of discussion with almost every client, whether .. .I guess there was some
influence on that. But really it was much more on not being present with the
clients' problem.
Although most participants advocated always considering context (both/and), in
their interviews they varied in terms of the extent to which they did so. Some articulated
a complex interplay of multiple diversity and related variables (e.g., power) when
describing a specific situation or TIPPC's identity, but as their analysis continued they
changed to a focus on one variable without retaining the same degree of complexity. For
example, one participant discussed the role of power and hierarchy in a situation
involving allegations of racism from multiple students of color. Although her description
of the situation involved attention to racial dynamics, educational hierarchy, and power,
she did not address the complexity of interactions among those variables in her analysis
of student behavior. Another participant discussed how faculty interactions with students
from diverse backgrounds could become more complex due to intersections of multiple
aspects of identity and status, but then shifted the conversation to focus exclusively on
power. In his analysis, this participant did not acknowledge that some faculty-student
interactions include an inversion of power in certain configurations and/or situations
(e.g., a Euro-American TIPPC and a faculty member of color).
It's always hard to intervene with students and it's particularly hard to intervene
with students from diverse, different backgrounds, because the power becomes
more salient. (I think there is) a reluctance to intervene because [you] might
142
inadvertently or on purpose I suppose, abuse your power in that sense.. .How
would that differ say if the faculty is a person ofcolor dealing with a Euro-
American student, or afemale faculty with a male student? ..I don't think it is
necessarily any different. . .I don't think it's any different in process, I think it
might be different in content. . .it's not any different in process in that I don't think
it has any different effects, but I think it occurs differently ... so myself as a
Caucasian faculty .. .it's my responsibility to bring up these types of issues and
discuss [them] with my students and be aware of them and monitor them, because
I'm the person with the power in the relationship and I'm very aware of that, and
so I take responsibility for that and I move forward with that and a faculty of color
working with a Caucasian student, that's not any different. .. How they do that will
differ, but you know, the fact that they need to do it-I don't believe that changes.
Although this participant began his analysis by describing a complex portrait of multiple,
contextually interacting variables (portions of this quote are discussed earlier on p. 108),
he eventually reduced his analysis to what he described as the most salient variable,
discontinuing his attention to the interplay.
Sustaining Integration ofCulture and Standards
Some participants continued attending to context when reaching a decision by
working to identify aspects of culture in standards of competence, and determine whether
and how they could sustain an integration of both. Several participants identified core
aspects of a competency that they felt were non-negotiable, and focused clearly on those
aspects as they considered how to conceptualize cultural differences in student struggles
143
with that competency. One participant described an internal dialogue in which she (a)
maintained a holistic conceptualization of her students, (b) identified cultural
assumptions embedded in a specific standard, and (c) considered what trainees needed to
be proficient in an area of competence. She described her strategy as evaluating the
essential skills in psychological assessment that students needed to learn.
I want students to get to the point where they are proficient.. .[if they have] the
basic concepts, and are proficient with administering, interpreting, and writing
reports, then I'm ok with that. Now, for my international students ... their reports
and performance may not be at the same level of proficiency (as students born in
the U.S.), but I think as long as they are competent and you know, do no harm,
can grade their things correctly, then I tend to be ok with it .. .I kind of struggle
with that, because I wonder, am I saying I'm going to have a lower standard for
these students? And that's not what I'm trying to do, but I do understand that
sometimes the students won't perform as well, and not because they're not as
skilled, or not as smart but it's just because of. .. differences with language, and
writing ability ... there are different standards that I have, and so I mean, I struggle
with that every semester, how do you help these students ... who aren't performing
as well. ..just where do you draw the line with what's considered proficient and
professional but still taking into consideration... the extra barriers that these
students have.
This participant identified essential, non-negotiable components of the competency of
interest, including client welfare, test administration and interpretation. She assessed the
144
degree to which cultural differences (e.g., English as a second language) affected
students' ability to achieve the central and essential aspects of the competency in terms of
demonstrations of proficiency and competence (e.g., written performance). As she
considered the context of students' language barriers, she was able to identify other
aspects of the competency that she felt were more flexible, including the extent to which
a trainee was proficient in language and report writing.
Other participants conceptualized trainee struggles in terms of cultural identity
and cultural identity development, as they considered how to integrate culture and
professional standards. Acknowledging variance in professional behavior based on these
variables provided a framework for some participants to make similar decisions about
when to be flexible and how to consider providing feedback to TIPPCs along dimensions
of culture, cultural, and/or professional competence.
Weighing Responsibility as Trainer
Regardless of their position along the continuum from "colorblind" to context-
attentive approaches, most participants described points at which they did not or were no
longer able to continue considering both context and the standards of the profession. As
they examined the standards to find flexibility and or cultural bias, most considered their
responsibilities as trainers to help make decisions about whether to continue integrating
culture with standards, or whether culture was no longer a salient or relevant (or the most
salient or relevant) factor in the TIPPC situation. As they considered their responsibilities
as trainers, some participants relied on the standards and codes of the profession (i.e.,
145
APA ethics code, Multicultural Guidelines, national standards of practice, APA
publications manual) to guide their decisions.
.. .frankly, the APA ethics code helped me make that distinction it's pretty clear
in there what types of behaviors you're not allowed to engage in up until that
point [the student's behavior] had been... culturally understandable, but when
certain types of boundary violations occurred, ok, that was enough, we're done,
it's pretty clear in [the ethics code] the types of----dua1 relationships ...when they
can and can't be exploited, when it can and can't be allowed, and it went beyond
culture at that point, and it's like ... on this particular aspect of the ethics code,
we're done.
This participant described how his process of sustaining an integration of culture and
standards shifted to an either/or position as a result of violations of the ethics code, and,
presumably, his responsibilities as a gatekeeper of the profession and/or a protector of
client safety. Another participant, when describing an example in which he felt forced to
make a choice between attention to context and enforcing a standard universally, focused
on his responsibility to help the student attain writing skills that were in accordance to
status quo professional standards. As he focused on his responsibility, he adhered to the
standards as they were (an either/or approach), without describing a possibility for
integration. He similarly did not describe methods for challenging or changing the system
(e.g., having conversations with students about how or when they might later change the
standards, raising questions about the standards), seeing ultimately his responsibilities to
the student and the profession as the same: Prepare the student to succeed according to
146
the existing expectations of the profession (a quote from this participant that
demonstrates this point is found on p. 111).
Client Safety
As part of their responsibilities as trainers, another process that participants used
to reach a decision involved considering client safety. Some participants referenced client
safety as sine qua non to their dilemmas and examinations (e.g., considering the role of
culture in professional standards), embedding their concern about this responsibility in
questions such as, "how do you hold the standards of the field, allow for differences in
patterns in growth across all those competency levels and allow for differences in the way
students learn, and keep clients safe?" Others similarly included the importance of client
safety in their criteria: "I think as long as [students] are competent and you know, do no
harm ... then I tend to be ok with it." Participants also referenced client safety as the
central theme of clinical competence as they considered the level or intensity of the
T1PPC's problem and drew a baseline for behavior expectations. Although considerations
of client safety did not preclude considerations of the role of culture, for many
participants, client safety was a clear, final, decision point.
... [the student] clearly was very afraid of African Americans and... our concern
was the potential harm she could be doing by her lack of multicultural
competence, even basic awareness and doing damage to clients, so we talked a lot
about what her culture may bring but the bottom line was she had some problems
of incompetence and we could not let her be in a clinical setting.
147
Assuming Universality
In their processes for reaching a decision, some participants described situations
in which students from both majority and minority backgrounds struggled with a problem
or aspect of the program. When discussing these instances, some participants simplified
their analysis from considerations of multiple contextual variables (a both/and approach)
to a singular focus on standards (an either/or approach), citing their observation that a
phenomenon or problem affected all students. For some, this observation was
accompanied by an assumption that a phenomenon was universal, and thus issues of
diversity or context were not involved or relevant. Others stopped discussing context
(e.g., how underlying dynamics of diversity might contribute to overrepresentation of a
problem in some groups of students). One participant stated that his/her program faculty
noticed that they had placed what seemed to them to be a disproportionately high number
of RE minority students on remediation. This participant described relief among the
faculty when they placed a EA student on remediation, as this action appeared to be
evidence that bias was not guiding their actions: ''When the next student came along
and... happened to be White, we were ecstatic, and we talked about, 'thank God,' you
know?"
Another participant and her colleagues considered a RE minority student's
allegations that faculty bias was present in a mandated remediation. The faculty in this
program examined their treatment of other "multicultural" students who were not on
remediation for evidence that they might be similarly ignoring culture. Not seeing
evidence of this, this participant and her colleagues concluded that they were not ignoring
148
culture. Examining quotes from one participant's descriptions of two different events
exemplifies this phenomenon. In her first example, she described an explicit, contextually
rich examination of how she saw culture interacting with professional standards around
plagiarism. She finished her discussion ofthis event by emphasizing the importance of
attending to context. Immediately following this description, she provided an example of
a problem that happened to all students. In this example, she considered the role of
diversity but then simplified her analysis by referencing assumptions of universality. Her
first example:
.. .I could say to a class, 'There's no plagiarizing in this class, and ifyou
plagiarize, x, y and z is going to happen to you and here's the university's
definition of what plagiarizing means,' ok, and what I have learned over time is
that if! don't do some additional pieces ofmentoring and feedback, that some
students will know what that means because of the educational experiences and
mentoring they've had, and some students will be foggier about what that means,
and the student who's foggier may trip over that line and not mean to ... J have
seen a couple of students who fall into that diversity category that have crossed
the line inadvertently... it' s important to [consider the] contextual background of
their educational experiences, etc., and I would much rather turn it into a learning
opportunity where they can redo something, rather than seeing it as ... an
intentional, major faux pas .... [which would be the] imposition of a rule without
looking at the context of the situation.
149
In her second example, this participant appeared less certain about the role of context
when describing a problem that affected students from all backgrounds, and eventually
stopped her analysis:
... there's a category of remediation that's ... the strongest or the most frequent in
our department, which is a student not staying on track with progress, and I've
seen that happen to all kinds of students. So that one's a really hard one to look at
what role may diversity be playing there .. .I mean, it involves students who would
be in a diversity category, but it also involves students who are not, so I don't
know how to .. .look and tease that thread out for you...potentially, it's related to
not-to insufficient mentoring for everyone of those students, if you want to put
the focus back on faculty and probably a joint responsibility ... ok, I'm just going
to leave it there, cause I can't figure that one out.
In her discussion of the second example, this participant had difficulty identifying
how diversity might intersect with the identified problem. This phenomenon of feeling
that it is overly difficult to understand how diversity might intersect with a problem that
affects all students may provide an explanation for another participant's comments
(discussed on p. 117-118) that some colleagues focus on the TIPPC's diversity when
considering RE minority students, but take an individualized and deracialized approach if
the TIPPC is from a majority background. Assuming universality may provide a third
alternative: Losing attention to diversity when a problem affects all students.
150
Summary
In many of their processes for reaching decisions, participants used both
integrative and dichotomous frameworks for conceptualizing their examinations of
trainee difficulties and determining the role of diversity and professional standards in a
given situation. Participants engaged in intentional and seemingly unintentional shifts
from attending to individual and multiple contexts to focusing on one most salient
variable, depending on the severity and clarity of the identified problem, and other issues
such as client safety and their responsibilities as trainers.
Losing or discontinuing attention to context was not a static process. Some
participants saw their process for addressing intersections of diversity with TIPPC grow
and develop over time, intersecting with factors such as increasing their multicultural
training and competence, having conversations about diversity, and gaining familiarity
through experience with similar situations. These intersections enabled participants to
modify or nuance their approaches, and increase the complexity with which they
addressed such intersections. For example, several participants described learning from
past experiences and treating new students with similar struggles (e.g., plagiarism)
differently. Such changes were reflected in how participants worked with new TIPPCs
and developed preventive measures (e.g., refocusing mentoring).
Learning
Through their processes of inquiry and decision-making, participants unearthed
and reexamined understandings about themselves and their colleagues in terms of
approaches, underlying beliefs, and assumptions about diversity and training. Some
151
described feelings such as surprise, disappointment, and frustration at seeing colleagues
respond to situations with inaction, fear, avoidance, confusion, and anger. One participant
stated that after repeatedly and unsuccessfully trying to change the system, he faced
internal dilemmas about his responsibilities to incoming students, and frustration at his
inability to change the system. That participant ultimately made a decision to seek a
faculty position at another university. Although most participants did not talk about this
directly, a few described how the learning and new awareness about their colleagues and
themselves impacted their feelings towards their colleagues in the program as well as
their perceptions of safety, trust, and hope for future conversations about diversity and
TIPPC. Such learning likely impacted existing tensions within programs and among
students and faculty about diversity, and may have influenced how participants
individually and as a group responded to the intersection of diversity and TIPPC.
Other participants integrated their experiences at intersections of diversity with
TIPPC into dialogues about diversity among the faculty, reflecting on instances in which
they had not examined the role that diversity might be playing. One participant described
the faculty's process of reflection as they considered what they might have missed in
their first instance of working with a student on a particular issue:
.. .I think as we began to understand [a situation with an international student
dismissed due to plagiarism] more, we have a different understanding of how
students in that country may have learned English.. .like their concept of
plagiarism might be different; it might not be that they totally understand it the
same way. I think we didn't quite understand with this person... struggling with
152
writing and English, how the toll it took on this individual to always be last in
[the] class ...Andjust didn't understand how hard it was on the student. ..That, we
didn't have an appreciation of what it might be like for some internationaL ..
students, and how that might lead them to engage in behavior which we don't find
acceptable. So I think for sure that entered into that situation... Was that
something that you all talked about as a faculty, or was that something that came
up afterwards? Actually came up more so afterwards. As we began to understand
it berter.
This participant described how reflection, examination of the event, and subsequent
learning among her colleagues changed existing dialogues within the program. These
dialogues provided a base for the faculty on which to rely when they had similar
instances with TIPPCs in the future:
To what extent do you think the first instance influenced [other incidents]? Was it
pretty direct or pretty indirect? Oh it was tremendously direct (laughs). We would
say, 'well with So-and-so we didn't blah, blah, blah,' you know. I think all of the
ways in which we have approached international students were influenced by the
first situation.
Responding
Participants responded to the results of their examinations and decision making
processes by: (a) making changes to the training ecology, (b) initiating dialogues with
colleagues and students, (c) focusing mentoring to address contextual difficulties, (d)
using existing discrepancies or evidence of discrimination in their environments as
153
teaching opportunities for social justice and advocacy work, and (e) modifying student
remediation plans. Not all participants took action; some recognized problems without
discussing actions or strategies to change or challenge the system.
Making Changes to the Training Ecology
After their investigations, some participants changed multiple aspects of their
training ecologies, such as altering comprehensive exam formats and discontinuing
certain practicum sites or supervisors. A number of participants offered alternative
practicum sites based on students' perceptions of safety. These participants helped
students pick diversity-sensitive sites and/or directly intervened with site supervisors
when necessary. One participant talked about using students' evaluations in her
program's decision-making process:
...What we have tried to do with [information that a supervisor is not
multiculturally competent] is have supervisors rated by supervisees, so we get
some feedback about that ... and trying to not use those supervisors ... ifwe can
help it in the future.
Other participants bolstered their ethics training to meet identified needs within the
system, or addressed concerns raised by students from multiple backgrounds by
examining aspects of the program that potentially contained bias. Other participants
identified their blind spots in terms of culture and/or interactions among students and
faculty, and heightened their personal and programmatic attention to that area.
Other participants described attention to program policies. Most participants
stated that their policies on remediation had changed over time by becoming (a) more
154
concrete and formal and (b) available to students at or prior to the onset of training.
Several were specific about the faculty changing their remediation policies to include
aspects of diversity following an incident involving an intersection of diversity with
TIPPC. Several participants referenced specific events involving religion and LGBTQ
issues as stimulus for examination and change of policies. As several participants'
programs considered instances with TIPPCs that involved intersections of religion with
LGBTQ issues, they and their colleagues enhanced their policy and conveyed clear
messages to students about the importance of the issue, informing incoming students
about the program's commitment to social justice. The faculty in several programs used
the model diversity statement from the Council of Counseling Psychology Training
Programs (CCPTP) to form their policy and guide actions on responding to the issue of a
student not wanting to work with LGBTQ clients. One participant successfully lobbied
the university to broaden its range of responses on plagiarism policies to reflect
sensitivity to students' lack of educational opportunities and experiences.
Initiating Dialogues
Several participants talked about engaging and challenging each other in active
dialogues about diversity. Some faculty members initiated dialogues, whereas other
dialogues were in response to feedback from APA accreditation site visitors. Some of
these dialogues involved focused, facilitated discussions, whereas others included reading
and discussing books as a faculty. Some of these conversations were facilitated by the
faculty, whereas others included an outside facilitator; all were aimed at helping faculty
become more knowledgeable about diversity issues, uncover their blind spots, and/or
155
develop greater awareness of themselves as cultural beings. Although all participants who
described initiating dialogues considered them as productive responses to their
examinations, the dialogues were not unequivocally positive experiences; several
participants described feelings of disappointment and regret at how their colleagues chose
to engage, including levels of disclosure and general participation. Several participants
emphasized the importance of these dialogues, stating that it was necessary for faculty to
understand the impact of bias, discrimination, and cross-cultural interactions in their
work supporting and training students.
We've done a lot of soul searching on this front. We've met basically for 3 years,
examining our values, issues, concepts related to race and ethnicity here, and how
we support them and how we're still blind... and so some of the faculty ...
sometimes will go, 'I'm just tired of this. Can, can I just teach, and can I just, just
do my research, and just not have to, to deal with this anymore?' And the
answer's no, of course we can't.
Focusing Mentorship to Address Contextual Difficulties
Some participants used their deepened awareness of the role that culture might
play in a trainee's struggles to change their mentoring strategies with students. Several
targeted mentoring efforts towards content areas in which they typically saw students
from diverse backgrounds struggle, such as understanding academic expectations.
.. .I could say to a class, "There's no plagiarizing in this class, and if you
plagiarize, x, y and z is going to happen to you according to the university, and
here's the university's definition of what plagiarizing means," ok...what I have
156
learned over time is that if I don't do some additional pieces of mentoring and
feedback, that some students will know what that means because of the
educational experiences and mentoring they've had, and some students will be
foggier about what that means, and the student who's foggier may trip over that
line and not mean to.
Some discussed the importance of mentorship as it related to efforts to recruit and
retain diverse faculty, emphasizing the importance of matching students and faculty on
issues of RE or gender diversity. These participants cited lived experience and depth of
understanding (e.g., impact of daily, systemic oppression) as necessary to successful
mentoring, which could include transmitting survival strategies to students during
training (e.g., how to handle microaggressions in clinical work). One participant
described an example from her life that included gender issues, lived experience, and
mentorship.
I'm going to give you an example... that's personal and way oversimplified. Two
of my mentors in my academic career... one is a male and one is a female. And
have been very important mentors to me. But it was the female who could really
understand the role conflicts around being a professional and being a wife and a
mother. .. and even though the male could try to understand that, that's not what he
had lived. And I think that same thing applies to race/ethnicity definitely.
Similarly, some participants mentored students who were in challenging
supervisory relationships, providing students with specific strategies to survive and work
within the system, and framing those opportunities to students as essential aspects of
157
professional development. Some participants described the need for students to learn
nuanced approaches to raising multicultural concerns with trainers, peers, and other
professionals, and identified the skill as an informal competency.
[One LGBTQ student] is struggling with being a professional in an
interdisciplinary setting working with ...professionals who are allowing kids to
say things like 'you faggot' you know, stuff like that, and really struggling with
the environment that her colleagues are creating and yet having to work with them
and struggle how to work with them. This is a professional development
competency that she's openly working on. It sounds more like with this ...student
that you're talking about now, it's much more about how to-how to strategize
and how to ...Yeah. How to help her develop her competence ... ofbeing a
professional, working in an interdisciplinary consultation, respecting other
people's opinions, being able to assert yourself, and how she does that
respectfully. I mean, it's not ok to let the kids in a group call each other "faggot."
That's just not ok... how do you, how do you struggle with it, how do you deal
with it, you know, those sorts of things, I think she's developing those
competencies and very open to doing it.
These trainers also worked to normalize difficulties for students involved in social justice
work, and transmitted messages about the importance of picking one's battles, choosing
allies, and preparing for lifelong efforts battling the system.
For some participants, focused mentorship also included explicit conversations
with students about the role of culture in professional standards. Several participants held
158
informed consent discussions with students about points at which the standards of
professional behavior were flexible, and helped students find a balance between
professional and cultural expectations. In this process, several participants acknowledged
that focusing on professional behavior could be seen as encouraging assimilation or
asking a student to change her/his cultural makeup. One participant talked about how he
acknowledged this possibility and communicated his thoughts about this issue to
students.
I would guess we talk about [cultural and professional expectations] as closely
intertwined and try to figure out how we can tweak their professional behavior
and professional expectations in such a way that the students can be effective.
Using Limitations ofEcology to Educate Students about Social Justice
Similarly, a few participants used examples of discrimination, racism, and sexism
in their university environment to teach students about social justice, presenting students
with local instances of racism or race and gender inequality as opportunities for social
justice activism.
We use some of our larger university's deficits as learning tools ... [saying] 'here's
the things that are not supported around here. Here are the ways in which
psychologists can be empowered to make change.' So we use some of our larger
university's deficits as learning tools (laughs).
Modifying Remediation
Some participants talked about taking more time when diversity was potentially
an issue in a TIPPC situation, and having a slower process when placing a TIPPC on
159
remediation due to their attention to social address factors in their conceptualization of
the situation. Other participants similarly extended remediation, taking time to ensure a
focus on the student's culture.
. . .we kept saying, 'well let' s just try it you know for this much longer and if, if
maybe this will emerge," and, and ultimately it didn't and ultimately we had to
decide that it was about a person's inability rather than anything else.
As they considered modifying remediation, participants raised different questions,
including whether a problem was developmental, a skill deficit arising from
environmental or contextual challenges, a deeply rooted, intractable issue, or a
combination thereof. A number of participants considered that some types of problem
(e.g., clinical, resistance in supervision, interpersonal, lack ofprogress in a program) that
trainees were having were easier to conceptualize in terms of diversity. Several
participants stated that a contextual analysis enabled them to see the students' struggles
as developmental, and/or not necessarily intentional. One used such insight to frame
some problems as opportunities for teaching and learning. Others used the findings from
their examinations to provide flexible options for working with the student, such as
flexibility in their timeline for progress. Others incorporated aspects of diversity into
trainee remediation, working from the student's context to develop a strategy for
successful remediation.
I try to be respectful in terms of knowing, you know what are the student values,
what are the norms, what's important for that student, and then try to work from
within that student's context to help them come up with urn a strategy to succeed.
160
So you know, be it modifying their course schedule, be it trying to hook them up
with our Asian student union on campus so that they can meet other people...
Another participant described a similar outcome:
... looking at the context in which the [student] is emerging and living allowed
us ... [to allow] her to keep progressing through the program even though she
really wasn't meeting the level of competency you would expect as a student that
far along.
Chapter Summary
Participants described a range of program variables that affected faculty
conversations about how to conceptualize and take action at intersections of diversity
with TIPPC. Although most participants demonstrated commitments to diversity through
efforts to recruit diverse faculty and students, some anticipated that critical mass could
lead to conflict or tension with the program, whereas others seemed surprised by such
outcomes. Differences in understanding how diversity could impact program dynamics
were mirrored in ongoing conversations about diversity within programs. In some
instances, such conversations led to conflict and tensions, whereas in others such
conversations helped participants gain clarity about whether and how to address context
in their examinations. Within programs, old wounds and existing tensions about diversity
imbued intersections of diversity with TIPPC with additional contextual meaning. New
instances exacerbated old wounds and impacted overall existing tensions around diversity
issues among faculty. A prominent example of such tensions included disagreement
among faculty about the MC competence of their program, and perceived challenges to
161
faculty's multicultural competence or commitment. The quality and depth of
conversations about diversity impacted how tensions were managed and whether they
overlapped into a TIPPC case.
When describing their approaches to intersections of diversity with TIPPC,
participants advocated approaches ranging from "colorblind" (i.e., not paying attention to
contextual variables) to context-attentive. Participants who advocated context-attentive
approaches varied in the amount of attention paid to context; some articulated complex
conceptualizations of multiple diversity variables when describing a specific situation,
but shifted their focus to one variable as their analysis continued. Although some
participants described intentional decisions about shifting from complex contextual
conceptualizations to focusing on one variable, others did not describe such intentions
and may have done so unintentionally.
In their examinations of diversity with TIPPC, participants described dilemmas,
examined problems, reached decisions, learned about themselves, their colleagues and
their programs, and responded to their examinations and decisions. Participants examined
problems by considering possible contributions of multiple ecological factors, including
the role of culture, distal (e.g., interactions among trainers) and proximal (e.g.,
interactions among trainees) aspects of the training ecology, and TIPPCs' cultural
identities. Their examinations included investigations into supervisors and faculty
colleagues who struggled with MC competence, biases and assumptions, and conflicts in
TIPPCs' interactions with peers and trainers. Participants also examined program
processes (e.g., comprehensive exams) for possible culturally based biases, as well as
162
environmental factors such as racism, sexism, or homophobia that could impact students'
long-term emotional well-being, skill development, and/or interpersonal interactions.
Throughout their examinations and processes for reaching decisions and taking
action, participants operated along a continuum from "colorblindness" to context-
attentiveness. Some examined aspects of the ecology (e.g., cultural identity) in isolation,
whereas others described complex interactions among multiple aspects of the ecology
(e.g., cultural identity intersecting with peer interactions) on a TIPPC's struggle.
Participants used integrative and dichotomous frameworks to conceptualize and guide
their examinations, decisions, and actions about trainee difficulties. Participants engaged
in intentional and seemingly unintentional shifts from attending to context to focusing on
one variable, depending on the severity and clarity of the identified problem, and other
factors including client safety and training responsibilities.
Participants responded to the results of their examinations and decision-making
processes in a number of ways, including changing aspects of the system and their
interactions and work with students and colleagues. Some participants engaged in
activities that may have helped them to redefine aspects of their roles as trainers (e.g.,
modifying the content of their mentorship with students) and change agents. As with the
learning that many participants described, their responses to their examinations may have
intersected with existing tension in the program around diversity, or generated new
tensions that could affect future conversations about the intersection of diversity with
TIPPC.
163
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
In this study, my research team and I examined processes with which TDs and
faculty members conceptualized and addressed intersections of diversity with TIPPC.
Participants engaged in processes of describing dilemmas, examining identified
problems, and reaching decisions as they worked at these intersections. These processes
occurred within contexts of espoused ideologies ("colorblind" to context-attentive) about
how to approach such intersections, and program variables (e.g, critical mass,
philosophical commitments to establishing and maintaining diversity conversations).
Participants described existing tensions around diversity issues that led to reluctance,
willingness, and/or eagerness to include diversity when discussing competence standards
with their colleagues, and noted that intersections of diversity with TIPPC often
generated new tensions among their colleagues, leading to (a) flares in existing tensions,
(b) new discoveries, frustrations, and disappointments with colleagues, and (c)
disagreements about how to approach a situation.
As they engaged in these processes, participants learned about themselves and
their colleagues, students, and programs. Based on their decisions and what they had
learned in their processes, many participants responded with actions that impacted trainee
remediation and generated changes in relationships and interactions across their training
ecologies.
164
Strengths ofthe Study
Several methodological facts provide confidence in the results. As noted, only one
previous study (Miller et ai., in press) exists that examined Training Directors' (TDs')
conceptualizations of intersections of diversity with TIPPC. A serious limitation of the
previous study was that data were gathered through interviews on the broader topic of
trainee remediation with only one question at the end of the interview dedicated to
intersections ofRE and gender with TIPPC. In contrast, the hour-long interviews for the
current study focused extensively on intersections of diversity with TIPPC, used a
broader definition of diversity (i.e., including categories in addition to RE and/or gender),
and included questions specifically targeting participants' conceptualization and decision-
making processes. The explicit focus of this study likely recruited participants who had
thought in depth about such intersections, whereas the previous study may have included
participants who had thought a lot about remediation generally, but perhaps not
specifically about intersections of diversity with TIPPC. These differences provided
participants for this study opportunities to explore and express in greater depth and with
greater complexity their ideologies, actions, interactions, and personal and program
contexts and experiences.
A second limitation of the previous study was the limited (2 of 12) racial/ethnic
diversity among its participants. The current study included greater racial/ethnic diversity
among participants, and reflects the racial/ethnic diversity of the population of faculty in
counseling psychology at the time of data collection, including four TDs of color and
three faculty of color, for a total of 7 (32%) of 22 participants. In addition, whereas the
165
previous study focused on TDs' perspectives, the current study included perspectives of
both TDs and faculty members, thus broadening the range of perspectives and positions
within the training milieu. These factors may provide greater breadth of experiences and
perspectives among trainers than were found in the previous study.
Finally, participants for this study had a broad range of experiences in terms of
the number ofTIPPCs with whom each had worked. One participant had had one TIPPC
in his eight years as a trainer, whereas another estimated that roughly 10 percent of his
students had been on remediation over his more than 20-year career. This range of
experience represents program and personal variation (e.g., different program approaches
to identifying students, handling remediation, selecting students, definitions of TIPPC,
change over time), which may increase the degree to which the results capture the range
of trainers' experiences across the discipline.
Different Results Between the Current and Previous Studies
Several differences exist between the results of these studies. In the previous
study, Miller et al. (in press) found that participants focused exclusively on RE minority
students when describing intersections of race and TIPPC, whereas in the current study
some participants included EA students in their definitions and discussions. Several
participants focused on both EA and RE minority students who struggled to achieve
multicultural competence in the classroom and interpersonal interactions, and thus
appeared to be using broader definitions of intersections of diversity with TIPPC than
participants from the previous study. This difference reflects a difference not only in who
is identified at such intersections, but also where potential problems might be located.
166
Searching for links between a TIPPC's social address and an identified problem may
reflect an assumption that intersections of diversity with problematic behavior are rooted
in diversity variables. In contrast, identifying multicultural skill as a competence problem
may stem from assumptions that intersections of diversity with TIPPC included problems
developing multicultural competence, and were not limited to RE minority students or
students from other marginalized groups. Definitions of those intersections to include
possible struggles developing multicultural competence are substantiated by empirical
evidence that some students from EA backgrounds struggle with understanding racism
and developing overall multicultural competence (e.g., Ancis & Szymanski, 2001; Ottavi
et aI., 1994; Spanierman et aI., in press; Utsey & Gemat, 2002; Utsey et aI., 2005).
Other differences exist between the two studies. In the current study, several
participants referenced conceptual frameworks when talking about RE, and used these
when working with students. These participants also referenced empirical and conceptual
literature on RE in their interviews, and in their conversations with colleagues and
students. In contrast, participants in the previous study did not use conceptual
frameworks or reference professional literature when discussing RE.
Other notable findings in the current study included (a) differences in the
consistency of espoused ideologies, and (b) variability in applying context-attentive
approaches. These are discussed in greater detail below.
Consistency ofEspoused Ideologies
All participants espoused an ideology for their approach to intersections of
diversity with TIPPC. A few participants described or labeled their approach as
167
"colorblind," whereas most described context-attentive ideologies. Participants who
espoused a "colorblind" approach demonstrated consistency between their ideology and
their approach by (a) describing dilemmas about intersections of culture with enforcing
professional standards, and then transitioning to enforcing standards without articulating
connections between their dilemmas and actions, or (b) not describing such dilemmas.
Participants who espoused a context-attentive approach demonstrated greater variability,
sometimes losing or discontinuing attention to context during their analyses. This finding,
that participants who advocated a "colorblind" approach demonstrated greater
consistency between their espoused and enacted ideology than participants who
advocated context-attentive, mirrors findings of the previous study (Miller et aI., in
press). In that study, we found that TDs who stated that it was not important to consider
RE and gender (REG) when conceptualizing TIPPC were consistent in their approaches
and did not reference REG in 7 of 8 described cases. In contrast, TDs who stated that
REG issues are critical were less consistent, and did not integrate either RE or gender into
their descriptions in more than 50% of their case discussions.
Variability in Applying Context-Attentive Approaches
Many participants lost or discontinued attention to context at various stages in
their descriptions of processes for examining intersections of diversity with TIPPC. All
participants who espoused a context-attentive ideology described dilemmas related to
attending to context (e.g., wondering how to integrate culture and professional standards,
wanting to avoid enforcing culturally circumscribed professional standards). Although
most participants continued to attend to context directly after describing a dilemma (i.e.,
168
while examining the problem), a few lost attention to context during this stage of the
process, and moved to enforcing standards without further discussion of context.
Reaching a decision was the process in which participants most frequently lost or
discontinued attention to context. As they reached decisions about how to conceptualize
and act on intersections of diversity with TIPPC, participants described either/or
outcomes, in which they separated context from a standard or competency, or both/and
outcomes, in which they assessed that both culture and professional standards were
relevant to a trainee's difficulties. In our analysis, we did not consider participants who
reached both/and outcomes as losing attention to context, because their final conclusions
included an articulation of how they integrated and/or considered context with standards.
Reaching an either/or decision did not automatically indicate that a participant had lost
attention to context. In some instances participants described processes in which they
intentionally discontinued their attention. Both phenomena are examined below.
Losing and/or Discontinuing Attention to Context
Several affective and cognitive reasons might underlie discrepancies between
espoused and enacted ideologies. First, several researchers have captured similar
discrepancies in their studies of aversive (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2005; Dovidio, Gaertner,
Kawakami, & Hodson, 2002; Hodson, Dovidio, & Gaertner, 2002) and "colorblind"
(Bonilla-Silva, 2002) racism. These authors found differences between participants'
espoused ideologies (liberal, non-discriminatory) and their actions and language, and
concluded that differences can and do exist between individuals' conscious and
unconscious beliefs and actions.
169
Second, researchers (e.g., Ancis & Szymanski, 2001; Kiselica, 1998; Lark & Paul,
1998; Spanierman et aI., in press; Utsey & Gernat, 2002; Utsey et aI., 2005) have found
that EA counseling trainees often experience confusion, embarrassment and/or
discomfort when engaging in conversations about RE or privilege. Such feelings may
also exist among faculty, particularly among those with less multicultural training; in a
study of internship supervisory dyads, Constantine (1997) noted that 30% of interns
reported not having had a multicultural or cross-cultural course during training, compared
with 70% of their supervisors. The convergence of (a) challenging affective responses,
and (b) differences in the extent to which they were trained may have contributed to
difficulty maintaining attention to diversity throughout their deliberations.
Considering responsibilities as trainers. One additional reason why participants
may have lost or discontinued attention to context during this process is the reality that
their positions as trainers require them to serve as gatekeepers of the profession. As such,
their decision-making processes demanded that they reach decisions and take action. A
number of researchers (e.g., Gaubatz & Vera, 2002,2006; Laliotis & Grayson, 1985)
have found evidence that trainers often feel tension between these roles. Gaubatz and
Vera (2002) additionally found that trainers struggle to act on their gatekeeping
responsibilities when overwhelmed with work, and do not have sufficient administrative
or systemic support. Existing tension between their gatekeeping and educating
responsibilities may have been exacerbated by their commitments to multicultural
competence; additionally, some participants may have felt less flexibility or support to
continue extending observations prior to placing a trainee on remediation and/or
170
extending remediation prior to making a decision. As a result, some may have reached
either/or decisions due to time or systemic pressures, despite desire to continue their
examinations.
Participants' perceived options to take their time and be flexible in their decisions
and actions depended on variables such as client safety, the severity of an identified
problem, ethical violations, and/or their perceptions of themselves as trainers. Some
problems and responsibilities (e.g., a trainee who is actively using sexist language in
sessions with clients) may have necessitated reaching a decision quickly, whereas other
types of problems (e.g., writing difficulty) may have been less immediate and allowed for
more reflection and time. Such differences may have guided processes for reaching
either/or as opposed to both/and decisions. Layers of complexity in their responsibilities
(e.g., balancing trainee protection and support while attending to client safety) may have
left trainers feeling tom between their responsibilities to (a) the trainee's current and
future clients, (b) the trainee who was identified as struggling, (c) present and future
trainees, and (d) the public and the profession, which may have impacted their ability to
sustain attention to context while reaching their decisions.
Assuming universality. One process through which participants moved to an
either/or decision included assuming universality. Such assumptions and conclusions of
universality might stem from beliefs that diversity and discrimination are not relevant or
salient in events experienced by students from all backgrounds. When assuming
universality, participants did not examine the frequency with which a particular problem
occurred with students from a different group (e.g., male students, RE minority students),
171
nor did they compare prevalence rates of TIPPCs from different groups on remediation
with overall percentages of students from those groups in the program. As such,
participants might have missed opportunities to examine differences in trends among
faculty identification of students from different groups as TIPPCs.
Ironically, participants' willingness to assume universality may have been rooted
in their beliefs about the multicultural competence of themselves, their program, and their
colleagues. In the previous study (Miller et aI., in press), we found that a TIPPC's
allegations that a TD was not sensitive to cultural issues intersected with that TD's self-
image as deeply committed to multicultural issues. Faculty responses of confusion,
distress and/or anger could foreshorten an examination into the context of identified
problems, and/or increase trainers' distress about such a possibility, inadvertently biasing
their self-examination and leading faculty members to assume universality. One
dangerous outcome of such processes could include erroneously or prematurely (or both)
locating the problem in a TIPPC. In the previous study, we observed a similar
phenomenon, and commented:
Training Directors who mentioned a fear of actual or perceived allegations of
discrimination, felt personally attacked, or expressed discomfort because of fears
of inappropriateness tended to assign responsibility for problems to trainees (p.
27).
Similarly, in their synopsis of the hazards of colorblind ideologies, Ryan and colleagues
(Ryan et aI., 2007) wrote:
... endorsement of a color-blind ideology may sometimes serve to justify a lack of
172
awareness or unwillingness to address issues of prejudice and discrimination...
believing that differences between ethnic and racial groups can and should be
ignored may enable Whites to believe that they are behaving fairly-treating
everyone the same-so that action to alleviate inequalities is ... unnecessary (p.
619).
Trainers may have assumed universality as a means to resolve internal doubts about
whether biases existed in their actions or processes for identifying and evaluating
students. Participants whose research and training is located in the multicultural arena,
and who care deeply about multiculturalism, diversity, and social justice, may have had
both (a) stronger commitments to conduct self-examinations, and (b) investment in
discovering that diversity and/or bias was not a factor. Participants' discussions of
surprise and confusion among their colleagues when diversity-related conflicts emerged
in programs with deep commitments to diversity provide evidence of the power of such
beliefs.
A third possibility is that trainers may hold biases, assumptions and attitudes that
trainees from different backgrounds have different ability levels. For example, beliefs
that RE minority students have limited ability to conduct research could lead trainers to
very different approaches to conceptualizing and working with EA and RE minority
students in identification and remediation, causing those trainers to miss (a) alternative
reasons why the same problem is affecting students from multiple backgrounds, and (b)
differences in how students from different backgrounds manage, approach, or resolve
their struggles with a given problem. Such biases and assumptions could cause trainers to
173
racialize problems or be overly eager or hesitant to identify concerns when talking about
RE minority students. These tendencies could have a host of negative consequences,
including (a) perpetuating negative stereotypes about RE minority students and their
abilities to achieve competence, and/or (b) generating and/or reinforcing tensions among
faculty about diversity. Perceptions about their colleagues' preconceived notions about
students from diverse backgrounds could create challenges and decisions among faculty
about whether and how to confront their colleagues, create change, raise concerns, and
protect students.
Struggling to attend to intersecting contexts. Other participants who did not
assume universality decreased their attention to context through describing multiple
intersections of diversity, followed by shifting attention to one area (e.g., power) that
seemed most salient. Similarly, although most participants included multiple aspects of
social address (e.g., RE, gender, age) in conceptual and personal definitions of diversity,
when they described specific examples of intersections of diversity with TIPPC, most
participants focused on one or two aspects. This result parallels findings from the
previous study (Miller et al., in press), in which participants focused on either RE or
gender, but did not integrate both in their case discussions. In that study, only one out of
more than 40 case descriptions included an integrated discussion involving multiple
aspects of a TIPPC's identity.
One possible explanation for losing attention to multiple, intersecting contextual
elements may be that the complexity involved in such intersections may have outpaced
available conceptual frameworks for understanding such phenomena. Maintaining a
174
context-attentive approach at various intersections of diversity with TIPPC might
necessitate negotiating among combinations of the following: (a) understanding culture
as it exists in professional standards, (b) intersections among multiple aspects (e.g., RE
and sexual orientation) of a trainee's identity, (c) interactions among majority and
minority aspects of identity (e.g., an international trainee with strong traditionally
religious beliefs struggling to work with a gay client), or (d) interactions among
trainer/gatekeeper roles for faculty (e.g., a majority faculty member supervising a
minority trainee who is struggling to respond to microaggressions from a client). Shifting
to one or several aspects of context may have been preferable to becoming overwhelmed
by multiple intersecting contexts and subsequently abdicating attention to context
altogether. I wonder whether such an approach may have been necessary for trainers to
continue their explorations.
Alternatively, some participants may have felt more comfortable addressing some
areas of diversity than others, due to strengths and weaknesses in their conceptual
knowledge, research or teaching, personal experiences, or combinations among these.
Participants may have inadvertently steered conversations towards such areas, moving
either towards or away from other areas about which they felt less comfortable or
knowledgeable (Sue et aI., 1999). In the previous study (Miller et aI., in press), we found
that TDs discussed gender and RE differently, demonstrating (a) more definitional clarity
and conceptual sophistication for gender than RE, and (b) strong emotions (i.e.,
confusion, fear of being perceived as biased, or discomfort around acting inappropriately)
associated with RE but not gender.
175
The lack of attention to intersecting contexts could have negative consequences
for trainees. Conceptual and empirical researchers (e.g., APA, in press; Comas-Diaz,
1994; Lazur & Majors, 1995; O'Neil, 2008; Sue & Sue, 2003) have asserted that
intersecting aspects of identity generate unique expressions, experiences, and challenges
that may not be as responsive to methods shown to be useful with other populations. As
Helms and Richardson (1997) pointed out, although race, ethnicity, and culture are
different constructs, all have been treated with the same recommended counseling
competencies, despite the fact that different groups from different racial, ethnic, and
cultural backgrounds have different histories and needs. As such, focusing on one
variable among many may obscure important overlaps and differences in a given
intersection and influence the success of remediation.
Finally, as they continued analyses of multiple, intersecting contexts, some
trainers may have found that some aspects were not relevant in a given situation. For
example, considering a trainee who was responding to racial identity development
content in a multicultural counseling course with behavior that was assessed as defensive,
trainers could examine intersections among the region where the trainee was raised,
sex/gender, RE, social class, and other aspects of identity, as well as program and peer
dynamics around diversity. Upon examination, the trainers may have determined that the
most salient variables were RE and region of origin, and might have discontinued
actively examining other variables as they explored remediation options.
176
Summary
Although the processes for examining intersections of diversity with TIPPC
varied along dimensions from "colorblindness" to context-attentive, their outcomes often
seemed similar. Concepts of multifinality and equifinality from systems theory provide a
useful framework with which to consider this phenomenon. Equifinality, in which
different initial conditions lead to similar results or effects, captures the process by which
different (in this case, ideological) approaches moved towards similar outcomes (e.g.,
using either a "colorblind" or a context-attentive approach to arrive at an either/or
decision; Beauchaine, 2003; Cicchetti & Rogosch, 1996). Conversely, some participants
who espoused context-attentive approaches lost, discontinued, or intentionally decided to
stop considering context as they reached a decision about an intersection, whereas others
maintained attention to context throughout. Multifinality, in which similar initial
conditions resulting in different effects or outcomes, captures this process (Beauchaine;
Cicchetti & Rogosch).
Transferability
The results of this study are not intended to generalize or transfer to all faculty
members who are considering, conceptualizing and reaching decisions concerning
intersections of diversity with TIPPC. These results capture a reality that no two
programs approach these intersections in precisely the same way. The information
provided throughout the document is intended to provide readers with data sufficient to
make a decision about the extent to which the results may be applicable or relevant for
themselves and their programs. My hope is that such data will be additionally useful for
177
faculty and trainers working in other settings (e.g., internship sites) and disciplines (e.g.,
clinical psychology).
Limitations ofthe Study
Several limitations warrant merit. First, although TDs and faculty described their
program and colleagues' approaches to the intersection, their comments may not have
been representative of the views of all of their colleagues. Second, the order in which we
analyzed the transcripts determined our initial categories, which may have prematurely
delimited the possibility for other categories to emerge during subsequent transcript
analyses. Although we safeguarded against this by conducting theoretical coding and
searching for discrepant case analyses, readers should consider this possibility. Third, the
interview questions themselves may have delimited the scope of participants'
discussions. To address this possibility, I used a semi-structured interview that included a
mix of focused and broad open-ended questions, to moderate the extent to which I
inadvertently provided answers or directions for participants. In addition, in accordance
with grounded theory methods, I modified the interview protocol to attend to themes that
emerged during data collection (Appendices A and B); the fact that themes emerged
sufficiently to necessitate altering the interview protocol suggests that participants were
not bound by my questions. Other limitations, including (a) the use ofphone interviews
for data collection, (b) researcher social address, (c) participant disclosure and self-report,
and (d) selection bias exist and are discussed below in greater detail.
178
Phone Interviews
The use of phone interviews for data collection was both a strength and limitation
of the research design. First, collecting data through phone interviews limited my ability
to observe or comment on participants' nonverbal language as additional sources of data,
a limitation noted by Creswell (2007). However, the lack of ability to see participants'
body language enabled me to attend explicitly to changes in vocal tone, verbal
underlining, pauses, and other forms of nonverbal communication essential to successful
interviewing (Patton, 2002). Second, the relative anonymity of being interviewed on the
telephone may have impacted participants' feelings of comfort in ways that were
different than face-to-face interviews. For example, not being interviewed face-to-face
meant that participants who had not previously met me did not know my RE, which may
have influenced their (a) comfort with disclosing, (b) associations vis-a.-vis the interview
questions, and (c) assumptions about how I might be responding to their statements.
Despite these considerations, mode comparisons of data collected through phone and
face-to-face interviews have yielded no appreciable differences in terms of the nature,
depth, and duration of participants , responses (Fenig, Levav, Kohn, & Yelin, 1993;
Sturges and Hanrahan, 2004).
Researcher Social Address
One limitation includes the impact that my and the other members of the research
team's social address identities (e.g., racial/ethnic, cultural, gender, level of training) may
have had on data collection and analysis. Differences and similarities between
interviewer and participants likely impacted data collection in terms of participant and
179
interviewer comfort (Seidman, 2006) and participant's levels of trust, professional duty,
and power differences in their approach to the interview (Le., image management, extent
of disclosure, decisions about level of participation). Although my social address
influenced the data collection, to mediate the impact of my social address on data
analysis, I expanded the analysis team to include members who were diverse in
faculty/student status, RE, gender, age, social class, and era of training. Our personal
histories, experiences with diversity in training and remediation, and work as instructors
and faculty members enabled us to understand the data from a variety of perspectives. In
addition, I served as a student representative to faculty meetings in my program for 18
months to increase my awareness of faculty concerns specific to counseling psychology.
Expanding the research team allowed us to transcend but not completely resolve
the social address limitations noted above. Although the team included a broad range of
social addresses greater than the sum of our individual identities and differences, we
represented only a fraction of possible social addresses within the diversity of my
program, university, and the discipline of counseling psychology. As such, another team
might have seen, explored, and discovered other themes in interviews and from the
transcripts.
Participant Disclosure and Self-Report
I assessed the impact of differences in our social address identities on participant
comfort, disclosure, and self-report through a broad question at the end of the interview
(Appendices A and B). In their answers, participants expressed varying degrees of
concern about confidentiality and anonymity. For example, one participant asked that I
180
not share her transcript with Dr. Forrest (a member of the analysis team). As a new
faculty member in counseling psychology, this participant was concerned that her
responses might influence her future career path. Other participants informed me that
knowing Dr. Forrest increased their comfort with participating and trust in how their
transcripts would be handled.
Even when comfortable, participants did not necessarily disclose with unbridled
abandon, as the sensitive nature of intersections of diversity with TIPPC may have played
a role in our interviews. One participant informed Dr. Forrest in an informal conversation
that she would have disclosed more if I had been a faculty member. Several participants
communicated struggles to provide context without compromising student, program, or
personal anonymity. Several participants obliquely mentioned concerns about litigation
(Busseri et al., 2005; Gilfoyle, in press), which may have meant that they monitored their
levels of disclosure due to awareness that all documents can be subpoenaed when legal
cases occur. Additionally, some participants may have volunteered because they care
deeply about training and remediation and/or multiculturalism and diversity, but found
themselves surprised by, and struggling with the difficulty of, answering questions about
intersections of the two subject areas.
Selection Bias
Another limitation concerns the sample: Whether potential differences exist
between individuals who volunteered to participate and those who did not. Training
Directors and faculty who chose to participate may have had more direct, intense, and/or
personal experiences with remediation and/or dismissal at intersections of diversity with
181
TIPPC. As such, their level of thinking about these issues may be different from the
larger population. Unfortunately, most TDs who did not participate did not respond to
repeated requests for recruitment, nor provide reasons for not participating. In addition,
although I asked TDs to recruit participants from their programs, I did not discuss their
selection criteria. Accordingly, I do not know whether TDs sought or avoided faculty
with views divergent from their own.
Social Constructionist Considerations
Several potential limitations stem from a social constructionist perspective. I
conceptualized and designed this study from an ecological approach, developing and
using a semi-structured interview protocol that addressed various areas of the training
ecology (Appendices A and B). Whereas participants generated some data (without direct
prompting from me as interviewer) that captured aspects of the training ecology (e.g.,
bias in site supervisors), my interview protocol may have guided them to explore other
areas (e.g., impact of the university environment). However, the range of participants'
responses to these questions, and the fact that the interview changed over time to reflect
participants' questions, are evidence that the interview protocol did not entirely dictate
the direction of the model.
Second, in the course of conducting this study, I realized that investigating these
questions conveyed to some participants the idea that I was making automatic
connections between individuals from diverse backgrounds and problems of professional
competence. Some participants commented on how they understood my questions, and
articulated the potential for problems they saw with combining these two areas. Other
182
participants did not comment on my questions; consequently I am unsure as to whether
they were unconcerned about potential problems, or had additional concerns. Differences
in the ways in which participants interpreted the questions likely stemmed from
differences in their social constructions of both diversity and TIPPC; these differences
may have led some to inadvertently pathologize students from minority backgrounds
(e.g., "racializing" problems), which could have impacted the direction of the study and
subsequent results. Several participants communicated concerns about this issue, and
about how the findings might be conveyed and interpreted. One participant stated,
... remediation to me signifies significant deficiencies, and so the way in which
we started the conversation had to do with multicultural stuff, and so to me then
it's like, [the focus of your study is] dealing with racial and ethnic minorities with
deficiencies.
Although some participants articulated these concerns, many others may have had them
but remained silent. These concerns are of great significance and importance in terms of
how the results of the study might be interpreted and applied, and I share them. In
addition, I believe that not examining these intersections has harmful consequences for
the profession. Not exploring intersections of diversity with TIPPC means that
discriminatory and prejudicial assumptions that may be influencing trainers'
conceptualizations and actions will remain unexamined. These unexamined assumptions
and actions may have significant consequences for who is trained, how they are trained,
and by extension, how we can become a more multiculturally competent profession.
183
Training Implications
The results from this study have direct implications for trainers by providing
information about processes for working with intersections of TIPPC with diversity. In
light of findings that trainers sometimes lost or discontinued their context-attentive
approaches during their examinations, trainers could examine contextual factors that
might threaten such consistency in their conversations and processes, including (a)
existing program variables, (b) environmental threats to trainee well-being that could lead
to a TIPPC situation, and (c) processes and interactions within the training ecology that
increase the potential for over- or under-identifying TIPPCs. Trainers could also use
these results as examples of how they can identify blind spots in their processes,
challenge their systems, deepen their conversations, and/or support their trainees.
Existing Program Variables
Trainers could examine contextual variables that affect conversations about
diversity and TIPPC, including the extent to which (a) critical mass impacts within-
program conversations about diversity, and (b) tensions exist and/or are generated among
faculty around diversity issues. A number of participants noted that existing tension
among faculty around diversity issues impacted conversations about emerging situations
involving intersections of diversity with TIPPC. In line with recommendations from an
earlier paper (Miller et aI., in press), I recommend that trainers attend to and address
existing tensions around diversity prior to the emergence of new TIPPC situations to
enable intentional approaches to such tensions. When working with an intersection of
diversity with TIPPC, trainers could examine and discuss how such tension is present in
184
their deliberations. For example, knowing that new tensions sometimes developed when
faculty members perceived challenges to their multicultural competence, trainers could
recognize and attend to such tensions as they arise, and perhaps mediate the impact on
faculty relationships.
Environmental Threats to Trainee Well Being
Trainers could also attend to potential threats within the training ecology that
increase the likelihood of deterioration in trainee well being and lead to a TIPPC
situation. For example, many participants described the impact of racism, sexism,
homophobia, and difficult interpersonal interactions throughout the training ecology on
students ' (a) emotional health, (b) feelings of support and connection with the program,
their peers, and the university, and (c) acquisition of necessary clinical skills. Such
descriptions echo empirical findings of the serious mental, physical, and social health
ramifications of prolonged exposure to racism in general (e.g., Carter, 2007), and the
negative impact of racism and other macro- and micro-aggressions in supervisory
relationships on psychology training (e.g., Ali et aI., 2005; Fukuyama, 1994; Ladany et
aI., 1997; Walker et aI., 2007). Considered individually and together, such findings
provide further emphasis for trainers to attend to such threats in their training ecologies.
Processes, Interactions, and Assumptions Within the Training Ecology
Trainers should attend to the possibility that preexisting assumptions and biases
among trainers pose a threat ofover- or under-identifying a student as having problems.
Such findings are consistent with conceptual arguments raised by Forrest and colleagues
(1999) about the hazards posed to students and programs when trainers do not examine
185
their own biases, values, and assumptions. Those authors speculated that trainers might
be overly willing or reluctant to identify certain behaviors or trainees as problematic due
to cultural naivete or a fear of appearing biased (e.g., racist, sexist). In addition, Forrest et
aI. and other authors suggested that a lack of such examination into their biases, values,
and assumptions may cause trainers to miss (a) complexities involved in intersections of
diversity with TIPPC, and (b) conscious or unconscious differences in their expectations
of competence standards for different groups of students (Bradshaw, 1982; Busseri et aI.,
2005; Gizara & Forrest, 2004).
Identifying their definitions of intersections of diversity with TIPPC may provide
a window through which trainers can identify possible assumptions. For example, trainers
who define intersections of diversity with TIPPC primarily as difficulty achieving
multicultural competence (i.e., including students from all or multiple demographic
backgrounds) may hold different assumptions from trainers who define such intersections
by linking students' demographics to competence problems. Trainers who focus on
relating demographics to TIPPC may hold assumptions that intersections of diversity and
TIPPC are defined as "diverse students struggling to meet existing standards," rather than
assuming that diversity variables may be salient in any TIPPC situation. Understanding
differences among their own and their colleagues' definitions of such intersections can
give trainers greater awareness about possible sources of conflict, and provide
opportunities to deepen conversations about possible multiple locations for TIPPC
difficulties. Such conversations could lead to systemic change within programs,
universities, communities and the profession.
186
Taking Action, Challenging the System, and Supporting Trainees
Examining factors in the training ecology that could contribute to TIPPC
situations will allow trainers to deepen their contextualization of intersections of diversity
with TIPPC, and provide information to avoid over- or under-identifYing trainees as
struggling to achieve competence. Attending to such factors will also allow trainers to
decrease the potential for such factors to lead to a TIPPC situation. For example, trainers
could provide support for trainees in areas in which trainees repeatedly struggle (e.g.,
adjusting to the requirements and expectations of graduate school), provide specific
strategies for survival, and create opportunities for students to seek support from each
other and debrief reactions to racist, sexist, or homophobic events in the university
environment. Trainers could assess and solicit student feedback about the multicultural
competence of practicum sites and supervisors, and make changes to their training
environments (e.g., changing practicum sites) in response to their findings.
In addition, trainers could consider whether and how to apply the processes
described in this paper for including attention to context when working at intersections of
diversity with TIPPC (e.g., considering the impact of cultural identity development on a
trainee's struggle, finding the essential aspects of a competency, expanding the
competency so it is less embedded in dominant culture expectations). Trainers could
consider (a) how they might integrate processes for attending to context into their own
work, (b) how such processes might intersect with existing ideologies and tensions
around diversity within the program, and (c) how they might apply processes for
187
attending to context to different trainee problems (e.g., clinical, writing, or interpersonal
skills).
Research Implications
The results of this study described above lead to questions for future research.
Continuing to examine the processes by which faculty members and TDs conceptualize,
explore, and reach decisions about intersections of diversity with TIPPC will deepen our
understanding of these phenomena. Future studies could examine the extent to which
interactions among (a) specific TIPPC variables (e.g., RE, length of time in the program),
(b) dimensions of identified problems (e.g., type, severity, frequency), and/or (c) trainer
variables (e.g., role in training ecology, degree ofmulticultural training), impact
negotiation about the type of approach to use and/or generate new tension among faculty.
More perspectives (e.g., internship trainers, peers, administrators) are needed on
intersections of diversity with TIPPC. Researchers who have examined student
perspectives on TIPPC have found that frequently students are aware of and feel
impacted by peers' struggles, and are often dissatisfied with perceived faculty responses
to TIPPC situations (Gaubatz & Vera, 2006; Mearns & Allen, 1991; Oliver et aI., 2004;
Rosenberg et aI., 2005; Swann, 2003). Researchers have also found that students typically
identify their peers as needing remediation at much higher rates than do their faculty
(Gaubatz & Vera; Oliver et aI.; Rosenberg et aI.). Future research could extend the focus
of the present study to examine student and faculty perspectives on how such
intersections impact peers. Researchers could also investigate student and faculty
perspectives on faculty responses to student-raised concerns about a peer (e.g., whether
188
faculty legitimize, validate and/or minimize students' concerns). Researchers could
examine the extent to which such events heighten the complexity of student-faculty
communication around diversity issues, and impact faculty-student relations generally.
Longitudinal studies could also extend existing knowledge about this
phenomenon. Researchers could examine the impact of intersections of diversity with
TIPPC on individuals and programs over time, including case studies and repeated follow
up measures with faculty, students, and former (or continuing) TIPPCs to identify (a)
changes in their understanding of a specific situation, and (b) how programs and faculty
react to repeat or different occurrences of such intersections. Other studies could examine
change over time in the (a) development and/or integration of program policies on
diversity and remediation, (b) degree to which conversations about such intersections
occur and change within and among programs, and (c) local and national impacts of such
intersections. For example, researchers could examine the impact of national level change
such as the recently developed Counseling Psychology Model Training Values Statement
Addressing Diversity (CCPTP, 2006b) and/or the Benchmark Competencies (CCPTP,
2007) on conversations and actions at the program level.
Methods Recommendations. As noted above, although TDs and faculty described
their program and colleagues' approaches to the intersection, their comments may not
have been representative of the views of all of their colleagues. Sampling and selection
biases might have additionally limited the findings, as faculty members who had (a) few
experiences, (b) not spent significant time thinking about these issues, or (c) divergent
views from their colleagues might not have volunteered or been identified by their TD to
189
participate in the study. Different research methods that include blends of self- and
observer-reports (e.g., ethnography) might yield different findings or broaden the scope
of the findings of this study. Similar to research examining the content of audiotaped
supervision sessions (e.g., Granello et aI., 1997; Nelson & Holloway, 1990) future
research could include in-vivo observation of faculty meetings and/or TIPPCs' progress
on remediation plans, coupled with participant self-reports on the process. Other methods
recommendations include developing research and interview teams that represent
additional areas of diversity (e.g., sexual orientation, religion, nation of origin).
Summary, Conclusions, and Political Implications
Conversations about intersections of diversity with TIPPC are conceptually
complex, and can include feelings of vulnerability, pain, sensitivity, and risk. Such
intersections represent a convergence of multiculturalism and diversity with trainee
remediation, each of which can generate provocative and stressful interactions among
trainers. As they described challenges to conversations about multiculturalism in
education, Sue and colleagues (1999) stated that:
... (a) topics of race, gender and sexual orientation may evoke strong reactions of
embarrassment, discomfort, anger, defensiveness, anxiety, and other emotions; (b)
academicians and students operate from "academic and politeness protocols," and
are ill prepared to facilitate such difficult dialogues when intense emotions are
provoked; [and] (c) instructors and supervisors may feel they lack expertise on the
subject matter and, indeed, may experience discomfort themselves (p. 1066).
190
Some researchers (e.g., Bemak et aI., 1999; Busseri et aI., 2005; Gizara & Forrest, 2004;
Vacha-Haase et aI., 2004; Wheeler, 1996) and theorists (e.g., Gilfoyle, in press; Vasquez,
1999) of trainer perspectives on trainee remediation have similarly reported that trainers
feel discomfort, vulnerability and internal conflict when engaging in trainee remediation
and dismissal.
Consequently, interactions among trainers who are contemplating and examining
intersections of these two areas will almost certainly increase in complexity. The findings
of this study provide additional evidence of the occurrence of such complexities and
heightened vulnerability, in terms of how such intersections interact with and generate
new tensions. Findings that participants frequently lost or discontinued attention to
context as they reached decisions serve as additional evidence of this phenomenon.
However, complexity and discomfort are not inevitably joined. Although such
intersections may be invariably complex, the extent to which interactions around those
events become dystonic or uncomfortable may be influenced by existing program factors
such as multicultural training, existing conversations about diversity, and attention to
existing tensions. Trainers have an opportunity to effect change in their systems by
attending to these contextual variables that could derail or enhance such conversations.
Two final points merit attention to conclude this discussion. First, considering that
a lack of examination into intersections of diversity with TIPPC may pose a threat to
retention of trainees from diverse backgrounds, such occurrences may provide
opportunities for social justice actions among trainers, and be foundational to our work as
trainers of counseling psychologists. Second, given exhortations that psychologists have a
responsibility to examine and deconstruct ethnocentric monoculturalism in the
mechanisms and assumptions within psychology (Sue et aI., 1998), trainers might
consider opportunities to challenge and reconfigure professional standards that are not
culturally inclusive as consistent with our commitments to multiculturalism.
191
192
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW GUIDE (INITIAL ITERATION)
Introductory Comment:
I really appreciate your time and willingness to talk about these two very
important topics. From what I have gathered in my reading and conversations with folks,
both the topic of working with students who are struggling to achieve professional
competence and the topic of cultural competency are extremely complex. In fact, the
complexity associated with these issues makes me curious and eager to hear your
thoughts about the intersection between them. I want to emphasize at the beginning of
this interview that I don't have preconceived answers in mind. Also, this interview is not
an attempt to evaluate you or your program. Rather, I am hoping to get more information
about how different faculty and programs put these two areas together. So by your
willingness to answer my research questions you are really making an important
contribution to this area of inquiry and knowledge.
Questions
I have a bit of pragmatic stuff before we begin. Did you receive the informed consent
materials? Do you have any questions? Are you ok with me recording this interview?
And are you ok to talk for about an hour? I am going to be using an interview guide to
help me, although of course to avoid redundancy I may skip over questions if you have
already answered them. Finally, I would like to let you know about my process for this
project. Following our interview, I will transcribe our conversation and will get a copy to
you, asking you to review the transcript for accuracy and any confidentiality concerns. In
addition, once I have completed the analysis, I will send you a copy of the results and
discussion to solicit your comments and feedback.
Ok, I am going to tum on the recorder now.
Introduction, warmup, rapport building
To get started I'd like to get to know you a little bit. Would you be willing to tell me
about yourself as a TD/psychologist?
o Maybe talk about some key components ofyour identity that influence
your approach to your work?
• What year did you get your degree?
• Didyou become afaculty member right away? Is that something that
you planned on doing?
• How long have you been at your current site?
193
• How long have you been Training Director?
What would you like to know about me before we start?
Overview of definitions and program history
"Now I'd like to turn to the focus of this study. Let's start by talking about trainees in
general who have been identified as 'impaired' or not able to develop professional
competence."
• How does a student get identified as impaired in your program?
• What are some ways that your program works with students who have difficulty
developing competence? (e.g. increased supervision, individual behavior
contracts, psychotherapy, etc.)
• Has the way that your program handles these issues changed over time?
o If "yes," then: What are the changes that you observed? What caused that
change?
• What are challenges have you observed, either in yourself or others, in working
with students on remediation?
o To what extent do these challenges impact you personally and/or
professionally?
"Now I'd like to shift the focus of our conversation slightly to include race/ethnicity, class
and gender. From now on, when I ask about students, I am only referring to those
students who have been identified as having problems developing professional
competence. "
Program history and specifics about race/ethnicity and gender in remediation
• To what extent have race/ethnicity, class and/or gender played a role in a student
being identified and placed on remediation?
o If "yes" type response, then: Please tell me some details about the event,
such as student demographics, what the issue was, etc.
• To what extent were you able to address race/ethnicity, class and
gender directly as a faculty when you discussed the case?
• If "yes," then: How did the situation unfold?
• If "no," then: "Are there other circumstances in which you
would be able to address those issues directly?"
• To what extent were you able to address race/ethnicity, class and
gender with the student?
• If "yes," then: How did the situation unfold?
• If "no," then: "Are there other circumstances in which you
would be able to address those directly?"
o If "no," then: Was this because race/ethnicity, class and gender were not a
part of the issue in your opinion?
194
• To what extent was it awkward to bring up the issue?
• Can you describe your framework for conceptualizing race/ethnicity, class and
gender? Why is this framework important to you?
• Are there some types of student problems that are easier to conceptualize in terms
of race/ethnicity, class and gender?
o What are those?
Contextual/Ecological Issues
• To what extent do faculty members hesitate to raise conversations about
race/ethnicity, class and gender when talking about students who are struggling or
on remediation?
o Can you provide an example of a recent incident that captures your or
other faculty members' hesitancy to raise these issues?
• To what extent is diversity part of the values of your program?
• To what extent do you think the university climate impacts the students in your
program?
o Can you provide an example of a recent incident that captures this impact?
o If "no," then: Have you had students raise issues related to race, class and
gender in the university environment? What was your perception of those
discussions?
• To what extent do students struggle with the decision about how much to reveal
culturally related parts of themselves?
o Can you give me an example?
Personal Identity
o To what extent is your race/ethnicity a part of how you think about yourself?
o To what extent is your sex/gender a part of how you think about yourself?
o To what extent is your social class a part of how you think about yourself?
o To what extent are there other identity factors that are as important to you?
o What is the extent to which these identity factors intersect (i.e., is there one or several
aspects of your identity that are the predominant way in which you self-identify)?
I really appreciate your time, and have only a few questions left.
195
Level of disclosure and comfort
• How would you gauge your comfort level talking about these issues with me?
o Would you be willing to describe any barriers you experienced in talking
with me about these issues?
• Do you have any questions for me?
BACKGROUND INFORMATION QUESTIONS (Asked at the end of the interview)
1. In what year/field did you receive your doctoral degree? _
2. How many years have you worked in a university setting? _
3. Approximately how many students have you advised over your career?
4. How many of those students were "impaired" (had problems achieving
professional competence)?
5. How many were on formal or informal remediation plans?
6. What kind of policy does your program have for identifying, remediating and/or
dismissing students who are identified as having problems developing
professional competence (e.g., formal, informal, written, etc.)?
------
196
APPENDIXB
INTERVIEW GUIDE (FINAL ITERATION)
Introductory Comment:
I really appreciate your time and willingness to talk about these two very
important topics. From what I have gathered in my reading and conversations with folks,
both the topic of working with students who are struggling to achieve professional
competence and the topic of cultural competency are extremely complex. In fact, the
complexity associated with these issues makes me curious and eager to hear your
thoughts about the intersection between them. I want to emphasize at the beginning of
this interview that I don't have preconceived answers in mind. Also, this interview is not
an attempt to evaluate you or your program. Rather, I am hoping to get more information
about how different faculty and programs put these two areas together. So by your
willingness to answer my research questions you are really making an important
contribution to this area of inquiry and knowledge.
Questions
I have a bit of pragmatic stuff before we begin. Did you receive the informed consent
materials? Do you have any questions? Are you ok with me recording this interview?
And are you ok to talk for about an hour? I am going to be using an interview guide to
help me, although of course to avoid redundancy I may skip over questions if you have
already answered them. Finally, I would like to let you know about my process for this
project. Following our interview, I will transcribe our conversation and will get a copy to
you, asking you to review the transcript for accuracy and any confidentiality concerns. In
addition, once I have completed the analysis, I will send you a copy of the results and
discussion to solicit your comments and feedback.
Ok, I am going to turn on the recorder now.
Introduction, warmup, rapport building
To get started I'd like to get to know you a little bit. Would you be willing to tell me
about yourself as a TD/psychologist?
o Maybe talk about some key components ofyour identity that influence
your approach to your work?
• What year did you get your degree?
• Didyou become a faculty member right away? Is that something that
you planned on doing?
• How long have you been at your current site?
197
• How long have you been Training Director?
What would you like to know about me before we start?
Overview of definitions and program history
"Now I'd like to turn to the focus ofthis study. Let's start by talking about trainees in
general who have been identified as 'impaired' or not able to develop professional
competence."
• How does a student get identified as impaired in your program?
• What are some ways that your program works with students who have difficulty
developing competence? (e.g. increased supervision, individual behavior
contracts, psychotherapy, etc.)
• Has the way that your program handles these issues changed over time?
o If "yes," then: What are the changes that you observed? What caused that
change?
• What are challenges have you observed, either in yourself or others, in working
with students on remediation?
o To what extent do these challenges impact you personally and/or
professionally?
"Now I'd like to shift the focus of our conversation slightly to include race/ethnicity, class
and gender. From now on, when I ask about students, I am only referring to those
students who have been identified as having problems developing professional
competence. "
Program history and specifics about race/ethnicity and gender in remediation
• When you think about students who have been identified as having a problem that
needs remediation, to what extent have race/ethnicity, class and/or gender played
a role in that process?
o If "yes," type response, then: Please tell me some details about the event,
such as student demographics, what the issue was, etc.
• To what extent were you able to address race/ethnicity, class and
gender directly as a faculty when you discussed the case?
• If "yes," then: How did the situation unfold?
• If "no," then: "Are there other circumstances in which you
would be able to address those issues directly?"
• To what extent were you able to address race/ethnicity, class and
gender with the student?
• If "yes," then: How did the situation unfold?
• If "no," then: "Are there other circumstances in which you
would be able to address those directly?"
198
o If "no," then: Was this because race/ethnicity, class and gender were not a
part of the issue in your opinion?
• To what extent was it awkward to bring up the issue?
• Can you describe your framework for conceptualizing race/ethnicity, class and
gender? Why is this framework important to you?
• Are there some types of student problems that are easier to conceptualize in terms
ofrace/ethnicity, class and gender?
o What are those?
• To what extent do you differentiate between cultural and professional
expectations?
o How do you do that?
o To what extent does that differ among different aspects of diversity?
o What makes it easier or more difficult to do this?
o Can you give me an example?
• How do you think that trainee remediation and/or dismissal impact other students
in the program?
o Do you think that issues ofdiversity can change that impact?
o Have you seen that happen?
Contextual/Ecological Issues
• To what extent do faculty members hesitate to raise conversations about
race/ethnicity, class and gender when talking about students who are struggling or
on remediation?
o Can you provide an example of a recent incident that captures your or
other faculty members' hesitancy to raise these issues?
• To what extent is diversity part of the values of your program?
• To what extent do you think the university climate impacts the students in your
program?
o Can you provide an example of a recent incident that captures this impact?
o If "no," then: Have you had students raise issues related to race, class and
gender in the university environment? What was your perception of those
discussions?
• To what extent do students struggle with the decision about how much to reveal
culturally related parts of themselves?
o Can you give me an example?
Personal Identity
o To what extent is your race/ethnicity a part of how you think about yourself?
o To what extent is your sex/gender a part of how you think about yourself?
199
o To what extent is your social class a part of how you think about yourself?
o To what extent are there other identity factors that are as important to you?
o What is the extent to which these identity factors intersect (i.e., is there one or several
aspects of your identity that are the predominant way in which you self-identify)?
I really appreciate your time, and have only a few questions left.
• In what year/field did you receive your doctoral degree? _
• How many years have you worked in a university setting? _
• Approximately how many students have you advised over your career?
• How many of those students were "impaired" (had problems achieving
professional competence)?
• How many were on formal or informal remediation plans?
• What kind of policy does your program have for identifying, remediating and/or
dismissing students who are identified as having problems developing
professional competence (e.g., formal, informal, written, etc.)? _
What is the greatest challenge facing your program in terms of diversity?
What advice would you give to other programs struggling with these issues?
Level of disclosure and comfort
• How would you gauge your comfort level talking about these issues with me?
o Would you be willing to describe any barriers you experienced in talking
with me about these issues?
• Do you have any questions for me?
200
APPENDIXC
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IJ"l RESEARCH
This dissertation study is expected to provide information on how faculty and programs
include issues of race/ethnicity, class, and gender in decisions about students who are
placed on remediation and/or considered for dismissal. I understand that this study may
be beneficial to participants and society in that the findings may facilitate the process of
including variables such as race/ethnicity, class and gender in student remediation and
dismissal.
My signature below indicates my consent to participate in a research project entitled,
"Faculty Perceptions about the Intersection ofDiversity and Trainee Professional
Competence." This study is dissertation research and will be conducted by David Miller,
M.S.W., under the sponsorship of Linda Forrest, Ph.D. and the counseling psychology
program at the University of Oregon.
I understand that the only requirements of the study will be to complete one or two 60
minute audiotaped telephone interviews and a brief background information form. If I am
uncomfortable being audiotaped, the interviewer will take notes instead. I will also have
the option of not answering questions, if I so choose. After interviews have been
completed, I will be invited to review the transcript and alert the researcher if my identity
seems compromised in any way, or if any other threats to the confidentiality of others are
apparent.
In addition, I agree to provide program and departmental policies on diversity and student
remediation and dismissal. This includes any mission statements and explicit policies
related to diversity and/or student remediation.
I understand that the results of this research will be coded and stored in such a manner
that my identity and the identity of the program and university where I am employed will
not be physically attached to the data. The key listing identities and code numbers will be
kept separate from the data in a secure location, and will be accessible only to the
researcher. In addition, I understand that the only people to see this data will be the
researcher and his advisor. I understand that the purpose of this study is to examine the
experience of groups of individuals, not to evaluate the performance of a particular
individual or program.
I understand that the results of this study may be published or otherwise reported to
scientific bodies, but that I will not be identified in any such publication or report. I
understand that my participation is voluntary and that there is not penalty for refusal to
201
participate. Further, I understand that it may be psychologically difficult to discuss these
topics and that I am free to withdraw my consent and discontinue participation at any
time.
I understand that this project is not expected to involve any risks of harm any greater than
those ordinarily encountered in daily life. I also understand that it is not possible to
identify all potential risks in such research, but that all reasonable safeguards will be
taken to minimize potential risks.
If at any time I have questions about this project, I understand that I may contact the
researcher at (541) 954-3755 or the researcher's advisor, Linda Forrest, at (541) 346-
0913. I understand that if I have questions regarding my rights as a research participant, I
may contact the Office of Human Subjects Compliance, University of Oregon, Eugene,
OR 97403, (541) 346-2510. Finally, my signature acknowledges that I have received a
copy of this form.
Signature _
Date
--------
CONSENT AGREEMENT FOR AUDIOTAPING
I have received an adequate description of the purpose and procedures for audio taping
sessions during the course of the proposed research study. I give my consent to be audio
taped during my participation in the study, and for those audiotapes to be viewed by the
primary investigator and his advisor as described to me. I understand that all information
will be kept confidential and will be reported in an anonymous fashion, and that the
audiotapes will be erased after an appropriate period of time after the completion of the
study. I understand that the primary investigator may contact me in the future to request a
follow up interview. I further understand that I may withdraw my consent at any time.
Print Name
---------------------
Signature of participant. Date _
202
APPENDIXD
RECRUITMENT LETTER
David S. Miller
1790 Ferry St. #8
Eugene, OR 97401
October 20, 2006
Training Director
University
Department
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Dear Dr.
----
I am writing to request your participation in my doctoral dissertation study: "Faculty
Perceptions about the Intersection between Diversity and Trainee Professional
Competence." This is a qualitative project that will be pursued using grounded theory
(Strauss & Corbin, 1990) methodology.
At the conclusion of the study, my intent is to be able to identify how faculty
conceptualizations ofrace/ethnicity, social class, and gender influence decisions to remediate
and/or dismiss trainees identified as having problems of professional competence. My intent
is to increase the knowledge available to training faculty about contextual factors that
facilitate or complicate the remediation and dismissal process, and provide information about
how different programs approach such situations.
Participation in the study would involve three people from your program: the Training
Director and two faculty members. The selection of the two faculty members would be up
to you and your faculty. I hope to interview faculty members who have the most recent or
direct experience working with students on remediation and/or dismissal.
Each participant will be asked to complete a one-page background information form and
engage in one telephone interview of approximately one hour. There is a possibility that I
may request a brieffollow up telephone interview from participants to clarify statements or
ask additional questions. In addition, I will ask participating departments to send me their
program policies on (a) diversity and/or multicultural competence, and (b) student
remediation and dismissal. After interviews have been completed, I will invite participants
203
to review their transcript to ensure that their thoughts are represented in an accurate manner
and alert me if their identity or the confidentiality of others (e.g., peers, students) seems
compromised in any way. Finally, I will invite participants to review and share their
reactions to the results section of my study as it emerges.
I want to assure you and your faculty that I am quite sensitive to the time demands of
faculty work and the sensitivity of this topic. I am prepared to be as flexible as possible
when scheduling interviews. I also wish to note that the identities of individual participants
and sites will be carefully protected during the research process and in the final document.
I have enclosed three items in addition to this letter: Official consent forms for all
participants, a letter from my dissertation chair, Dr. Linda Forrest, attesting to my research
and ethical acumen, and a brief questionnaire to help me develop a sample that is diverse
with regards to program demographics and approaches to student remediation and
dismissal.
I am contacting all accredited and active counseling psychology training programs in the
U.S. to gather a sample that is representative of the diversity of programs.
I will send you a follow up email which will include three brief and broad questions about
your program. If you are interested in participating in this study, please respond via email
by November 10, 2006. Based on those who indicate willingness to participate by
November 10, I will select ten (10) programs to participate in the study. If your program is
selected, I will inform you via email and ask that you and two additional faculty members
complete and return the enclosed consent forms in the self addressed stamped envelope
(also enclosed).
In the interim and throughout the study I am happy to answer any questions that you or
your faculty may have by phone (541-954-3755) or email (dmiller4@uoregon.edu). You
are also welcome to contact my committee chair, Dr. Linda Forrest, with questions at any
time. Thank you for considering my request. I look forward to talking to you.
Sincerely,
David Miller, M. S. W.
Doctoral Candidate
Counseling Psychology
University of Oregon
(541) 954-3755
dmiller4(a),uoregon.edu
Linda Forrest, Ph. D.
Professor and Department Chair
Counseling Psychology and Human
Services
University of Oregon
(541) 346-0913
forrestl@uoregon.edu
204
APPENDIXE
INFORMATIONAL LETTER FROM DR. FORREST
October 9,2006
Dear
-------
I am writing this letter to support David S. Miller's request for your participation in his
doctoral dissertation study: "Faculty Decisions about the Intersection between Diversity
and Trainee Professional Competence."
David has been my advisee since 2002 and I have had many opportunities to observe his
research and ethical behavior in classroom and work settings. I am confident that he has
the professional and ethical competence to handle the complexity of issues that are under
investigation in this study. He is capable of talking about these issues inquisitively and
without judgment. Thus, I believe that you can participate and have confidence that the
data and findings of this investigation will be handled with the utmost attention to
confidentiality and great respect for the research participants. Further, I believe that his
study will be of great value to our discipline. Please do not hesitate to contact me
(forrestlia),uoregon.edu) with any questions you may have.
Thanks in advance,
Linda Forrest, Ph. D.
Professor and Department Chair
205
APPENDIXF
FOLLOW UP RECRUITMENT EMAIL
Hello Dr. _
I recently sent you a request for participation in my dissertation, "Faculty decisions about
the intersection between diversity and trainee professional competence."
This email is a gentle reminder that I have asked folks to respond by November 10, 2006.
If you and two faculty members are interested in participating, please respond by this
date. If you are interested, please answer the three brief and broad questions below to
help me to develop a sample that is diverse with regards to program demographics and
approaches to student remediation and dismissal.
1. What is the demographic composition of the faculty in terms ofrace/ethnicity, class
and gender?
2. What is the demographic composition of the students in terms ofrace/ethnicity, class
and gender?
3. On a scale of 1 (not considered) to 5 (considered as essential), how would you rate the
degree of consideration of race/ethnicity, class and gender when you think about how
your program addresses student remediation and dismissal?
Please email answers to me at dmiller4@uoregon.edu by November 10, 2006. Please note
that responding to this email indicates your agreement for possible inclusion in the
research project entitled, "Faculty Decisions about the Intersection between Diversity and
Trainee Professional Competence."
Thank you,
David Miller, M.S.W.
Doctoral Candidate
Counseling Psychology
University of Oregon
(541) 954-3755
dmiller4@uoregon.edu
(*Please note that email is not a secure form of communication. Please be careful in what
you write.)
206
APPENDIXG
UPDATED INFORMED CONSENT TO EXPAND RESEARCH TEAM
Subject header: Informed consent regarding your participation in dissertation about
diversity and trainee professional competence.
Text:
Dear
----
We are writing to you regarding your participation as an interviewee in the dissertation
study, "Faculty decisions about the intersection between diversity and trainee
professional competence." We believe that the gender diversity in our team allows us to
examine the data with more complexity than if we were both of the same sex. However,
both of us are Euro-Americans. Given that the dissertation is a qualitative study that
includes a focus on race and ethnicity, we are concerned about how our lack of lived
experiences as people of color will affect the quality and thoroughness of our
interpretations of the data. We believe that adding a person of color to our team would
add a much needed perspective and deepen the complexity of our analysis.
The proposed new team member is a fourth year doctoral candidate who is African
American and female. If added to the team, she would sign a confidentiality agreement
regarding work with the transcripts and remain unaware of participant, program and
university identities.
We believe that this study is very meaningful for counseling psychology and will be
useful to TDs, trainers, and supervisors. Our intention in writing to you now is to ask that
you extend your consent to include this change in methods. Please contact us via email no
later than April 2, 2007, to let us know whether you agree to extend your consent. We
plan to use your email response as verification of your extended consent.
If you have questions or comments, please contact either of us via phone or email to
discuss our request. Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
David Miller
dmiller4@uoregon.edu
541.954.3755
Linda Forrest
forrestl@uoregon.edu
541.346.0913
207
APPENDIXH
EMAIL ASKING PARTICIPANTS TO REVIEW AND COMMENT ON RESULTS
Dear
------
Thank you again for your participation in my dissertation research on intersections of
diversity and trainee professional competence problems. We are at the final stage of data
analysis and I am contacting you to ask you for your comments and feedback on the
results section. Attached to this email are four documents:
1. Two diagrams that capture the results conceptually
2. The results section without quotes
3. Quotes from your transcript that will be used in the results section
I believe that these results are exciting and illuminating of multiple approaches across
programs. Please review the results and contact me with any feedback or comments on
how these capture or do not capture your process. Please also review your quotes one
more time and contact me with any concerns about anonymity.
Finally, please contact me with any comments or concerns by Wednesday, April 23,
2008.
Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you and wish you the best.
Sincerely,
David S. Shen Miller
David S. Shen Miller, M.S.W.
Predoctoral Intern
University Counseling Service
University of Iowa
david-s-miller@uiowa.edu
(319) 335-7294
Counseling Psychology Doctoral Candidate
University of Oregon
dmiller4@uoregon.edu
(*Please note that email is not a secure form of communication.
Please be careful in what you write.)
208
APPENDIX I
LIST OF ThTITIAL CODES, CATEGORIES, AND QUESTIONS
Working with students on remediation
Considering procedures and policies
Having graded progression in place to guide actions (P4, LL 118-133)
Having no set approach (P3-does this conflict with Ps 5, 18 and 21?)
Feeling the pain and challenges of no set approach
Lacking existing policies and resulting challenges from legal
counsel (PI, P2)
Lacking experience and knowledge PI LL 178-179
Feeling as though program's hands are tied (Pl), not knowing what
system would allow
Feeling vulnerable, considering ethical responsibilities (P1)-
working to CYA (PI, LL 157-161, LL 167-168)
Seeing work yet to be done on program's policies
Needing improved policies to reach those gray areas (P4 LL 605-
608)
Policies still not adequate (P2 LL 474-480)
Reaching the gray areas of remediation with existing codes (P4)-
this comment is especially important because of the issues of REG
etc. under investigation; are issues of diversity a gray area?
Taking action: Making changes over time
Feeling good about outcomes (PI, P2, P4)
Getting more clear about expectations and procedures, putting it in
writing (PI, P2 LL 230-235)
Using national level work (e.g. competencies) to inform program
changes (P2 230-235)
Seeing change over time in program's ability to respond based on
new materials (PI, P4)
Types of change-in confidence (PI LL 186-191)
Seeing change in self knowledge, awareness, ability to advocate
and argue with legal counsel (P 1)
Identifying TIPPC in general
Systems approach to identification---eollaborating across sites (P4)
Some were more explicit than others about the extent to which
they valued the input from outside sources such as practicum sites
(e.g. P4).
Evaluating sites-if site asking practicum students to do ridiculous
things then terminating with the site (P4?)
209
Mentioning the importance of the trainer as the identifier of the
TIPPC (though indirectly-P3 LL 215-239: "it's the stuff that
those people who are really concerned about practitioners really
get worried about ... "
Identifying problems
Importance of clinical work to bring out issues (P4)---other Ps also
cite the importance of clinical work-P 1 LL 118, P2 LL 134-138
Writing (P5 LL 281-292, P3)-P3 also talked about administrative
stuff
Non academics (P4); also P2 who talked about clinical work and
the student's ability to take feedback, to be trainable (LL 126)
Interpersonal stuff (P3, P2-ability to take feedback LL 107-128
Mention of considering systemic factors
No-(P4)
Considering impact ofpeers-P1 and also P2
Information from a person or group being served by the TIPPC
(clients or students) (P 1)
Using competency evaluations to examine students in structured
format (P2)
Biweekly meetings, discussing problems with students as they
come up. (P3 LL 178). Also papers and program wide exams help
identify people (P3 LL 238-9).
Multiple pathways to identify problems P4 LL 90-101,
collaborating with faculty at practicum sites, communication back
and forth. Mostly faculty know about the issue and raises "red
flags" with practicum supervisor, though the reverse also happens.
Focusing on an area of the program requirements as far as what
seemed to bring out the most problems.
Connection with screening in that programs that do a good job of screening applicants for
certain skills tended to not have problems in those areas (which Ps talked about this?-
P3? P5?)
Locating problems
In students P5 LL 316-323 (also goes to diversity issue on his own,
without waiting for me to ask):
Attending to TIPPC/Remediation
Considering whether to intervene or not could be a title of a category. Considering the
severity of the problem, the impact on others, other stuff in category #2 around whether
or not to give feedback and remediation may be considerations that lead to direct/indirect
feedback and remediation vs. ignoring problems.
Considering level of severity-development vs. abnormal (P4 LL 146-
150) and type of problem (PI, LL 132-140)
Differentiating among possible remediation approaches
Individualized approach: P2 LL 290-293; P3 LL 286-292
210
" ...with the first kid ... 1had to give him structure and finally cut
him loose ...with the second kid, who had no structure, I had to
give her some... "(is this a contradiction? He says he uses a unique
approach for each student but then the two examples are described
in the same way).
P3-taking an individual approach, stressing the difference among
students with problems (LL 252-258)
Removing someone from potential for causing harm (P I 118-120)
Intentionality about remediation-fitting the issues of concern (PI
LL 120-128, P4 165-170, P2 LL 290-293)
Taking extra time )P1 LL 133-135)
Building into existing venues such as practicum sites (P4)
Infusing values (e.g., self awareness, self reflection) into the remediation
(P4, PI)
Articulating standards of profession and program
Using specific techniques (e.g., supervision) focused on
interpersonal attributes (P 1)
Focusing on student's strengths, not on areas of conflict-noting that
most problems are interpersonally oriented and simply matters of
confusion (P3, LL 417, though this should also be in diversity section I
think)
Focusing on prevention (P4 LL 190), making analogy to working with
children/adolescent trajectory (P4, P5)
Type of approach (active vs. passive)-P1 active mostly
P5-described passive approach of continuing to pass students on
to the next level (LL 306-310)
This was more related to reasons not to delay feedback. Interesting that the values of
CPSY are in each participant's description.
Type of approach-PI: personally involved with the remediation, was the student's direct
supervisor (LL 227-230). P2 also personally involved as is P3.
Deciding to get involved
Considering student level of engagement (invested vs. challenging and
resentful)-P1 LL 227-244, P5, P2 LL 182-183, 189-190
Personal need to be appreciated (P5)
Considering nature of and trust in relationship with student (P5)
Severity o/the problem?
Considering gatekeeping and ethical responsibility (PI-hoping student
is amenable to change blc program's hands are tied, P4 LL 219)
Personal experiences with TIPPC remediation (PI)
211
Positive experiences-seeing possibilities and outcomes from good
planning, well thought out planning (PI LL 226-249, P5 LL 339-
351)
Negative experiences-becoming more cynical, more aware of
limitations of working within a larger system that may/may not
provide support (PI LL 205-216, P4 nonspecific but negative
experiences).
Personally attacked P2 LL 168-174
Seen as ogre P5 LL 368-377,578-580
Impact of self-view as trainers, PI, P3, P5
Considering some difficulties
Anticipating and/or dealing with student reactions---experiences
(P4)
Considering personally difficult outcomes
Amount of time (P4, 5)
Impacting personal relationships with students and with
faculty (P5)
Heightened responsibilities; if I help you now, will I need
to help you later? How much investment is there going to
be? Intersection with personal life (P5)
What happens when you add an extra layer of diversity? Does it matter?
Giving feedback to TIPPC
Considering contextual factors influences the timing of feedback and remediation
Neutral considerations
Impact on student and peers and faculty (P 1 LL 378-81)
Awareness that other students were watching their actions
PI LL 516-539)
Awareness of students' eroding trust in faculty as time goes
on, but wanting to take sufficient time (PI, LL 530-532)
Considering extenuating circumstances-PI-this happened after
legal counsel said that they couldn't do anything anyway, perhaps
related to concerns about their legal standing
Considering hierarchy, spheres of responsibility, desire for clear
role (P5 LL426-41, 467-72)
Considering responsibilities to students, profession, public
Increased pain for everyone
Intersection with legal advice/counsel
Differentiating between severe instance and cumulative problems
Impact on TIPPC
Considering student investments in time and money (P3 LL
180-183 contract with student to train them, P4 LL 214-
217, P5 LL 304-310)
212
Impact on both and faculty
Intersection also with the degree to which the program had clear policies and procedures
in place (LITERATURE NOTE: most recent study on policies and procedures-is it
Huprich & Rudd?) and the type of guidance that they are getting from legal counsel.
Deterrents to giving feedback
Students evidencing unpleasant reactions to getting feedback,
including defensiveness and surprise (P4 LL 229-235)
Lack of policies/procedures -P2 LL 464-480
Avoiding the issue
Being too kind, too nice (304-310, P5)(see also P4)
Passing the buck, promoting the student to the next level
(P5 LL 304, who else)
Problems with operationally defining TIPPC difficulties, including
own comfort levels with ambiguity (P4 LL 270-273)
Time consuming P2 LL 162-163, P4 LL 229-235, P5 LL 467-472
Incentives to giving feedback
Public forum (outside committee member will see the problems-
P5) Referencing own job requirements as trainer (P5)
Preparing students for outside world
Ethical and gatekeeping requirements
Learning from past experiences to move quickly (P4 LL 188-190
Not wanting to let things slide (P4)
Seeing the hazards of procrastination (P4)
Informed by efforts at national level
Considering student investment
Not wanting to surprise students with troubling info or
outcomes late in the game (P4, 5)-related to student
reactions-also note that there is no discussion of faculty
reactions; is this a focus on student issues vs. systemic?
P5 LL 530-551 stopping folks from going on internship
Outcomes of delaying feedback making problems with students
worse
Some outcomes: functions and factors (e.g., surprised
students, angry students, faculty and others feeling pain)
due to investment of time and other factors P4 213-223
Impact on other students
Delaying feedback leads to remediation P4 LL 213-223
Involving students in conversations about remediation (P1)
Wanting to talk (generally) with students about TIPPC situations
213
PI: LL 858-871:
Confidentiality concerns (P 1)
Changing policies about this over time to get students more involved (PI LL 530-
532)
Recognizing impact of TIPPC on students as future beneficiaries of gatekeeping
decisions.
Holding assumptions and taking action (P1)
Assumptions about the power of screening process
Selection process is sufficient (PI talked about being surprised at
student's behavior)-P3, P5, P21, PIO?-need literature
In PI case these assumptions limited what they could do with TIPPC
Implementing changes in getting more exact, more explicit in
materials (P1)
Feeling the limitations of lack of preparation (PI) and vulnerability
Feeling limited possible courses of action, intersection with ethical
responsibilities (P1)
Recognizing how much they had been taking for granted (P 1) among students
Learning and skills (PI LL 157, 320-1, 337-340, P5 students'
willingness to work hard re: APA style for example)
Ethical compliance (PI LL 255-258)
Peer interactions (racism, support, availability to help in remediation)
(PI)
If all is quiet, there's no problem (P3 LL 352-354
Assumptions about acculturation into the profession (subtle and overt). P3 LL
352-353 talked about he doesn't know if how the message gets conveyed but it
does. Other Ps?
Assumptions about regional limitations (e.g. master's students who have never
seen a person of color) (PI LL 789-795, P2 LL 431,368-82,435-437, 758-773)
Holding assumptions about diversity and/or utility of approach
(LITERATURE SEARCH: Screening as a means to decrease TIPPC; it's true that
internships have lower rates, theorized that is because of its position late in the training
sequence).
Methods for understanding diversity
Understanding self as diverse being
Does the where someone understands diversity issues impact their actions around
including or attending to diversity in TIPPC? Through personal experiences outside of
academic role
P5 EA male, outsider as Fulbright scholar LL 63-71, 99-100
P3 EA male, outsider when in New Orleans, etc. LL 601-109
Through personal experiences inside of academic role
214
Interactions with students and colleagues-P2 LL 324-337, 431-
441, being antichrist, confessions from students LL 818-820
Understanding self as diverse being by referencing aspects of self
With exploration of intersections
PI and P2, LL 326-333, P21
Without exploration of intersections
Deprecating reference to self as old White guy
P5 652-3,966-7, position by default, P3, P4
Do most of the White guys talk about themselves in this kind of way? Is
it indicative of race focus?
Differentiating among aspects ofself(Pl, P2, P3, P4, P5)
Acknowledging power, privilege
Acknowledgement of power/privilege on own perspective
(P4, tentative, LL 432-433, 508-511, P2 talking about
heterosexual and class privilege LL 864-888, PI RE LL
821-843)
Examination of university climate and other ecological
factors
Not overtly acknowledging power/privilege
No examination of system, program or ecologically rooted
discrimination (P3 LL 505-510, others)
Not mentioning power differences P5 LL 831-839 wanting
students to take risks with him, not wanting anonymous
feedback (P5 1050-1059, 1070-1075
Assuming one style of communication vs. cultural diffs (P5
LL 997-1004)
Assuming one perspective: "it doesn't matter to me so it
doesn't matter (P3, 330-353, not sure if LOB students feel
differently talking to him
Doesn't know if LBO students feel any differently talking
to him, has not found out (LL 330-333: "I'm not sure
whether they feel any differently when they're talking to
me, but I'm not, I don't think, 'hot dog, this is the week
that I will work with a gay man, a gay male' or 'this is the
week I have my lesbian supervisee.").
Not discussing differential costs of convos for different
folks (P5 LL 1102-1109, 578-80,723-736 MorePie and
colleagues at home vs. nationally, P3 talking about happy
resolutions in which all are happy and learn LL 393-408)
Seeing differences as here and now vs. including history of
oppression (P5, LL 578-580, 820-823)
Missing intersection of identities (P5 African American
failed a test same and different experience LL 982-987)
215
In our analysis, we felt that this statement did not reflect an
assessment of power/integration of race and gender
Mentioning intersections of identity (P 1, P2, P5)
Mentioning multiple dimensions involved in interactions
(P5, LL 858-862 involving REG, position, others)
Being overwhelmed by magnitude of layers
P5 LL 883-888: ".. .1 throw up my hands and say,
'well, you know, what are you going to do?'"
Integrating vs. focusing exclusively on one or more aspects of self
Integrating P4 LL 502-511,534-535, P2 LL 326,378-382
864-866, PI 821-843
Learning about self
Graduate school (P1)-described a commitment to learning
about herself that began in graduate school LL 832-835
Everyday circumstances (P2)-
P4 learned about self too, talks about it LL 502-511, talks
about it happening over time
Active
Passive
Happening to know P3 566-569
Evaluated as surface level understanding of
diversity based on lack of examination and
discussion of power/privilege.
Being made aware P2 LL 865-866
How many participants learn about their privilege because of their program's
emphasis or structure or composition?
Using framework
Literature basis-P5 drawing on wife's feminist model (P5 LL 880-
888), including chaos theory (LL 46-57, ) also includes P2 Helm's
model LL 540-541, 642-647
Incorporating into training as essential P2 Ll 354-356, 546-556
Seeking out specific opportunities (e.g., P5, LL 723-751 MorePie)
Not using particular framework P4 LL 378-382
Colorblind framework
Not being driven by quotas P3 LL 326-337
Discussing limitations around ability to recognize/understand diversity issues
Referencing limitations in self and others-P4 LL 378-382 very clear.
Referencing self as limited because of demographics (P5, P3)
Seeing self as MC aware P5 LL 52-57, 858-962
Discussing responsibility based on limitations
Actions taken
216
Passive approach P4 LL 380-383, 432-433 not exploring responsibility
to get MC competent
Did not discuss-P3, P5
Attributing limitations
To others (e.g., locating problems in TIPPC)
Attributing to external factors (e.g., I'm not able to talk about those
things today because I am really tired-see P4, LL 603, p. 20)
Defining diversity (considering how this category relates to methods for understanding
diversity)
Differentiating among types of diversity
Mentioning international students P5 LL 329-335, P21
Sub-cultural vs. cross-cultural; difference in level of value to sub-
vs. cross-cultural difficulties P5 LL 359-401
Difficulty in preparation for academia, apparent in transition among EM
students P5 LL 355-362
Other forms of diversity?
Religion-difficult due to resistance, intersection with ecology of nation
PI LL 623-645
Notes intersection with current political climate, differentiating between
religion and other aspects of diversity
LBG students-safe program dlt high number of out LGB faculty (P2
LL 835-842)
Visible vs. nonvisible minorities (P3 LL 305-307)
Including all aspects of visible difference P3 LL 305-307
Focusing on demographic characteristics (P3, 4) b/c no discussion of
power, privilege, interaction, history of discrimination, etc.
Seeing diversity as salient in all encounters-P2 LL 545-556
Situating diversity within a framework
Systemic vs. individual
Integration with research/personal agenda
Colorblindness and other approaches
Pros and cons of colorblindness (P3)
Variations on colorblindness (P3)
P5 seemed to have colorblind approach even though he talked
about having multicultural approach (see contradictions section).
Impact of power differences
Student and student facility interactions
Conceptual frameworks for how diversity might playa role in TIPPC: General
Dimensional/dichotomous understanding of cultural/professional expectations
(PI, P5)
Ecological view
Faculty influence
217
Potential bias (P3-advocating the necessity of colorblindness to
avoid the negative role that faculty biases could have in
interactions with students)
Seeing faculty's stimulus potential to uncover trainee difficulties
P2-seeing how students interact with faculty as evidence
of potential difficulties
Regional influences (P I, P2)
Norms about communication and directness (P2)
Assessing students' exposure to RE diversity in region (PI, P2)
Available models of people of color in region, SES (P2)
Impacting practice opportunities for clinical work (P2) and
comes out in class discussions (PI, P2)
Program norms (P 1, P3?)
Level of preparedness of students re: critical thinking and vocab
(P2)
How peers communicate information about acceptable/appropriate
behaviors around diversity (P3)
Peer group
Can be harmful (PI) or helpful (P3, P21)--eomparison between PI
and P21/P3
University
Available models of people of color in tenure track positions (P2)
Women/people ofcolor in positions of power on campus (P 1, P2)
Institutionalized racism (mascot) and sexism (PI, P2)
Furor on campus over mascot controversy (PI, 2)
University administrator (president) making racist comments (P3,
P5)
Unaware of events in larger university (P4, LL 480-485)
Bidirectional examination
Peers influencing faculty thinking (Groupthink) (PI)
Locating problems in the university within regional problems (P2)
No one examined the role ofwhether program or university policies were
a potential problem
Who (ifanyone) examined all levels, or many levels?
Individual view
Focusing on demographics only (of students and other collaterals, not on
the interplay of those demographics) (P4 295-316, 333-344)
Framing the problem as a student one (P3, P5)
Understanding the problem as local only (between 2 or more people) not
systemic; no exploration of systemic influences (P3)
Colorblind view (varying degrees) (colorblind view is an individual
view?)
Not seeing how diversity could be involved (P4 LL 315-316)
218
Intentional blindness-idea that attention to differences can impair
ability to communicate and interact with students (P3)
Referencing program only when asked about university climate (P4)
Not mentioning diversity when asked about impact of university climate
on student functioning (P4)
COMPARE/CONTRAST OPTIONS
Level of exploration of the system: P3 vs. PI, P2-how does exploration of the
system factor into ecological and other conceptualizations?
Peer group harmful vs. helpful (see above, PI vs. P3, P21)
Conceptual frameworks for how diversity might playa role in TIPPC: Specific
Using one's personal understanding of diversity to consider diversity in TIPPC
Using self-identity to examine interactions with students (P2, PlO)
Colorblind approach (P3, P4, 339-343, P1-LL 449-457)
Not seeing roots/system problems and impact P4 315-316, 342-348
Acknowledging colorblind approach could impact students P4
353-357
Conceptualizing different groups and different problems differently (P5,
21)
Sub-cultural vs. cross-cultural (P5)
Domestic vs. international (P21)
Religious differences (P 1, P2)
EA students (PI, P2) and problems in MC class
Considering the differences in intersections with specific problems
(e.g., cultural differences intersecting with writing vs. language, vs.
academic culture-P5, P21, possibly PI and P2 with religion)
Considering TIPPC concerns (when raised) about the role of culture in the
identified area of difficulty (PI)
Issues of discrimination and/or misunderstanding of cultural differences
(PI)
Taking action by ignoring any diversity issues, focusing on the strengths of the student
and not on any other discussion (P3, LL 418-419)
Which are taking action and which are not?
Assessing how diversity might be relevant to TIPPC: Actions
Consideringfactors that might be influencing the TIPPC and remediation
Considering the student
Directly asking/confronting the student about the problem as it
relates to MC (P2) (LL 326-344) (see footnote on expanded notes
page 5)
Considering the demographics of the student (P4 LL 295-316)
Considering student's personal and professional identity (PI)
Considering the intersection of components of identity (P 1, RE &
religion)
219
Considering student development, wondering whether the
difficulty is part of "normal" student development or other types of
development... or not
Considering the faculty
Questioning faculty's ability to understand the cultural dimensions
involved (P 1 LL 295-295)
Open deliberations among faculty about their biases and MC
competence (PI, PlO) (do any Ps talk about private
conversations?)
Challenging conversation, lack of consensus about role of
RE (PI)
Making individual decisions to take risks, talk about
concerns (P 1)
Discussion among faculty about diversity in specific case (PI, PlO)
Could this also include specific instances ofraising issues of
diversity in discussions ofTIPPC?
Limitations of faculty lack of knowledge and understanding about
impact ofRE (PI 317-318)
Considering distinction between cultural expectations and
professional standards (PI LL 478-82)
Communicating with colleagues about points of contention (P5-
hesitating to give feedback, struggles about safety v. standards, PI)
Considering the history of the program work around (and attention to)
diversity
Referring to other experiences with "MC" students (general
language) to determine whether problem is culturally related
(Pl)(see notes p. 6)
Seeking consultation
Consulting by sending emissary to the MC center (vs. inviting
someone in)(P 1)
Considering the peer group (P 1, P2l)
Potential biases and discrimination among peers (P 1)
Impact of peer group on ability of TIPPC to prevent problems
andlor successfully remediate (PI, P3, P2l)
Working to differentiate between cultural differences andproblematic behavior
Ps who do it
Ps who do not differentiate
Colorblind approach
Not seeing the two as mutually exclusive
Considering the types ofproblem facing the TIPPC and the program
Differentiating between cases involving cultural differences that are clear-
cut vs. complex (P 1, 21)
220
Factors that make problems more difficult (or easy?) to classify or
intervene
Layered complexity (e.g. supervision) (PI)
Impact of racism etc., intersection with trainee power and
vulnerability (P 1)
Cost of conversations for trainees when the cases involve
racism (PI)
Lack of faculty knowledge/experience to intervene (PI LL 649-
650)
Language and multiple intercultural (national) differences (P2I)
Unwilling/defensive TIPPCs (PI-religion, P4, P5, other Ps)
Students raising issue of discrimination (P 1)
Current sociopolitical and/or regional climate (PI, P2)
Considering point in time in program in terms of research interests,
MC competence, critical mass of students (P 1, P2)
Considering levels of ethical responsibility (P 1)
Operationalizing terms and behaviors (P4)
Types of problems (interpersonal not too much of a problem-P3)
Addressing diversity in TIPPe-options
Taking direct action
Faculty interventions (P2-direct conversation with students)
Preventive approach (P3 LL 387 "budding problems") also P4, P2I, and
maybe PIO?
Indirect action
Waiting (developmental? Informal/auto-remission?) (PI, others)
Relying on peer group interventions (P3)
Mixture of active/passive (or all one or the other) steps in making decision
PI-movement from active (taking many steps, including long
deliberations) to passive (waiting if more information would emerge)
processes
Making a decision
Drawing a line
Mentioning an end point for decision making (PI LL 371-374)
Establishing baseline to facilitate decision (P 1, PI 0)
Professional standards (P5)
Using APA standards (P5) contrast P5 with P21 and PIO
Using ethics code (PIO)
Behavioral indicators (P 10, PI, LL
Intentionally considering and redefining standards and finding flexibility
(P2I)
Raising issue of standards vs. diversity (P5, P2I)
Addressing by reverting to standards as golden rule (P5)
221
Addressing by redefining standards to be more inclusive, finding
flex points (P21)
Factors that influence one's decision
Perceiving one's training and gatekeeping responsibilities (P5, P2 LL 366)
Considering how diversity issues and conflicts impact the department
Level ofagreement with rest of faculty (P21)
Relationships with colleagues (P5-African American female
colleague)
Impact on community (P3-other students take charge)
Perceiving potential for bias and discrimination in process (P 1, P21)
Feelings during decision making process (PI)
Where the PPC is located (in TIPPC, or elsewhere)-P4 LL 221 (analogy
to behavior problems in young kids)
Extending time ofdecision (including decision to, or evaluation ofremediation)
Acknowledging the complexity and layered aspect of situation (P 1, LL
299-322)
544-51)
26)
Considering the severity and painfulness of the decision (P 1, LL
History of discrimination, potential for discrimination (P 1)
Fear of overlooking RE differences or biases (PI, LL 374-378)
Considering the impact on peers and TIPPC and faculty (PI, 378-82, 508-
Relationship between faculty and other students (PI)
Struggling with confidentiality limits (PI, LL 530-532)
Impact on other students
Student faith in faculty
Losing faith and anger with faculty (PI)
Student belief in faculty dependent on level of general information (PI 0)
Attention to the process of communication with students (P 1, PI 0)
Language used
Incoherent
Vague and general
Unclear if talking about racism or bias (PI LL 320-321, 337-56)
General diversity terminology (vs. specific language) (PI 318-440, P3)
Non engagement with specific language (P3 p.13 my extended notes, P4
353-357, LL 414-419)
Movement from explicit to general discussion
Tentative language
"Probably, potential"-eontrast between definitive language and tentative
PI LL 283-289 RE vs. religion; PI length of time needed for
decision
P3 on level of engagement ("probably really good that I missed
stuff")
222
P4 on conceptualizing diversity and identification of TIPPC: LL
353-357 ("interesting way oflooking at it"-2x; "1 suspect"-4x,
LL 380)
P4 on passive, tentative language in knowing how he integrates
diversity with students LL 387-395
Acknowledgment ofown privilege P4 LL 508-511
Direct
Language about history of discrimination (PI LL 549-555)
Raising issues of whether faculty are discriminating (P21)
Talking about student biases and resistance to change (P2 LL 710-712)
Framing events as natural phenomena
Framing events as naturally occurring-P3 with Black advisees LL 323-
337
Using the phrase happen to when describing diversity in an event (P3-I
happen to know...LL 566, 491-493); PI
Colloquialisms (p. 14 other notes, P4 LL 383)
Passive vs. active tones to be fleshed out, potential category or even linchpinfor
paper
COMPARE/CONTRAST:
How PI talked about potential racism within the peer group (vague vs. direct)
with P3 as well as P2 and P21
Contrast vague vs. direct: P3 and P5 as they talked about issue on campus with
president of university P3 LL 520-545, P5 LL 1358-1393
Referencingprogram's Me competence
Contrasting with rest of the university/department (PI, P3, P4, LL 378-3795)
Using the program's difference from rest of university as a teaching tool for
students (P1)
Discussing how program culture gets enforced
En-route, during program (P3, LL 352-357; P21
From the very beginning, during screening (P 10)
Assessing impact ofMC training on faculty (PI, LL 673-688, P2, P4 LL 381-383)
Relationships within the department around MC issues
Conflicts: Standards vs. safety (P5 LL 611-612; 799-806)
Fear of being counterattacked if raising concerns with other faculty (P5)
Harmony and consensus: P3
Program actions to improve MC competence/resolve conflicts around MC issues
Engaging in difficult dialogues PI, P5
Discussions and exploration of differences (PI LL 673-688, P5)
Individual actions-doing nothing for fear of being counterattacked (P5)
Lack of personal action (discussed) to "catch up" (P4 LL 381-2)
223
Seeing self as part of or separate from program in terms of MC skills (P4 vs. P3,
P5)
Selfas having fewer skills relative to colleagues (P4 LL 380-383,414-419
focusing on others not self as raising issues)
Colleagues raising issues of diversity
Hesitation
No hesitation, spontaneous (P4 414-419)
Differentiating among faculty abilities (PI, P4, P5-seeing racism in others)
Research interests of faculty members embedded in program values (PIO, P2?)
Exploring vs. assuming approaches used by colleagues (P3, P4 assume, don't
explore P4 LL 390-391)
Assessing depth of MC influenced relationships within the program
Students-faculty (P5 LL Black students going to Black faculty, EA
students coming to P2 White guilt)
Peers and colleagues
Peers keep each other in line, communicate norms (P3, P21)
Peers can create trouble for each other, potential for racism (P1)
Student comfort raising issues of diversity
Not seeing any difficulties
Relative to current timing and faculty composition in terms of LGB and
RE (PI, P2)
Related to norms within the department (P2l, P3, others?)
Struggling with White guilt (P2 LL 813-820, P2l?)
Difficulty talking about religion (PI, P2)
Difficulty being conservative students (PI LL 764-768)
Where did the feedback come from? Was it a site visit? Anonymous
feedback? Formal? End of year? Look for contradictions
APA site visit PI LL 756-768
Anonymous feedback P5
COMPARE/CONTRAST:
Exploration of peer group contrast PI with P3 in terms of harmony vs. creating
trouble for each other.
Exploration of differences between how different Ps see themselves in relation to
their colleagues in terms of MC competence-is there difference or an
assumption of sameness? Are they the most or least competent?
Contradictions
Stated approaches to diversity vs. actions
Participant -stating clear understanding of issues LL 182-188:
"what... diversity means for trainee remediation... gets to the question of
what do you think needs to be remediated and whose values are you going
by anyway?" followed by rejecting a colorblind approach, yet consistently
using a colorblind approach (advocating hard and fast standards).
224
Articulated knowledge of diversity and self, yet difference in adherence to
standards and lack of exploration of what those standards mean. Choosing
to ignore diversity (P5, 858-862; also "throw up your hands... ". Not
acknowledging experience differences (985-87, P5); this example is one of
the level of assessment of diversity differences. Participant talked about
his experiences living out of the country, how this heightened his ability to
identify cultural assumptions, yet does not talk about how those cultural
assumptions penetrate the workplace-when he is the foreigner, he can
see it. When he is at home, he cannot... ?
Demonstrating inconsistent knowledge of diversity
Participant -using some language consistent with MC competence
terminology but then advocating a demographic characteristic focus when
discussing/thinking about the impact of diversity (i.e., not discussing
environmental or historical or systemic impacts), LL 387-395. Participant
-talked about his program's cross-systemic approach to T1PPC
remediation but does not talk about the examination of systemic causes in
T1PPC.
Participant
Participant talking about taking different approaches to working with
students, yet using examples in which he used the same approach both
times LL 286-292). Advocating a colorblind approach: yet describing
program deep commitment to diversity (possibly not a contradiction): "I
think we are as a program and as a department, strongly committed to
matters of----ensuring that diversity doesn't get in the way. That our
department stands out in that regard. I think we just, we value that whole
effort so strongly that we don't, we don't make differences among our
students and among our program faculty." (LL 338-341) yet on 370-372
he says: "I would say that the program is committed to ... training people to
practice the strongest forms of recognizing and working with people who
are diverse." Department not affected by the university because the
program is small, yet fighting for money within the system.
Participants--eommitment to MC competence, yet admitting students who have
never seen a person of color into the masters' program (LL789-90 conflicts with
values on social justice and diversity) Values on diversity and social justice (LL
669-670 in Participant, LL 734-735 in Participant). Participant LL 794-95
missing the fact that the area is not homogenous, there are opportunities for
students/applicants to interact with people of color (Participant likely missed this
as well).
• To what extent have other participants written/published about MC?
225
• What is sphere of responsibility? How does the program context (individual
mentor/advisee model vs. more faculty collaborative responsibility) impact the
extent to which faculty feel comfortable intervening with students?
o To what extent does the relationship vs. the responsibility matter?
• How do people respond to me using the word, "diversity?"
o Some respond by clarifying what I mean
o Others describe what diversity means to them.
• Check how often throughout transcripts people ask me to clarify what I mean, and
in what context (i.e., about which questions).
• Degree of consistency with which people talk about diversity and intersection
with trainee remediation throughout the transcript.
• The impact of remediation on other students, especially concerning the amount of
time that the remediation goes on
• How students get identified
• Talking a lot about faculty tension (student tension as well?) and continued to
come back to the theme of being totally open with each other.
• Describe the relationships between students and faculty,
• How they answer the question about campus/university climate
• Which aspect of diversity do people focus on
• Students coming forward with concerns?
o To what extent do faculty talk about students knowing what is going on?
• What types of problems come up first in response to the question about
intersection
• Impact of dismissal on program, on students, interaction with liability-when is it
too late to talk about dismissing a student?
• Defining diversity
• To what extent does the model of the program (mentor model, etc.) impact how
comfortable faculty feel with each other and/or to criticize, comment or correct
the advisees of their colleagues
• How students get identified
• Types of remediation, types of problems
• How many white male participants described themselves as "token" white males
• Types of remediation outcomes? Look at P8-all students on remediation have
left the program.
• Age as a factor, training, and cohort effects. Add to cohort effects the different
training zeitgeists; now is MC so there is a gap between many current trainees and
faculty/prac supervisors.
• People in CPSY might be too nice (1/23/07)
• Focus on international students
• How often do participants reference power issues as part of these types of
situations?
226
• What influences P's actions and interactions?
• Who influences P's actions and interactions?
• What are the ways to appear as though one is culturally competent? Do people
have ways of trying to have a culturally competent face when their MO is status
quo or to ignore culture? How much do their projections of who I am and what I
look like play into their answers? How about the fact that I am a student? Are they
setting up straw men? Is the standard of skill level cleaner than culture to deal
with?
• Values-what are the implicit values driving her statements/actions?
• Power-how is power impacting the situation, is it discussed openly?
• Location of the problem (from earlier project with Linda and Nancy-it's in my
mind as I approach the data-should consider writing about the "Already
researched this some" I)
• Naivete of participant (self described)
• Possible Definitional clarity issue (see Location... )
• Importance of the person of the P in the conversation, potentially around self-
perception as educator
• Collegiality and how this impacts decision making and process
• Seeing the issue (also raised by P5, P12, others) of wanting to be trusted, needing
the space where other people give her the trust that she is trying to understand.
Importance of safe environment to explore these issues.
• When or in what part of training do students most typically get identified as
having problems?
• Issue about sooner vs. later, and quickly vs. slowly
• Issue about benefit of the doubt (see also P14)
• Issue of timeliness
• Sense that other students in the program wanted them to dismiss impaired
students more quickly
• Importance of context of program, high number of students of color
• Perceptions about race vs. "actual" skill problems
• Does the focus of the program (research vs. practice) matter to TD/faculty in how
they think about remediation and defense
o Would you think about approaching trainee remediation differently if the
student was clear about wanting to be a researcher, versus wanting to be a
clinician
• Does anyone raise the issue of faculty competence in working with students?
Distinguish between supervisor and other outsider (yet connected to the program)
competence and faculty/peer competence.
• What factors are related to how faculty are informed about students'
dissatisfaction with the program?
o Composition of student body (e.g., high percentage of students of color)
o Location in the country
227
o Research/attention of faculty
o Level of perceived trust between students and faculty
o Level of faculty openness or perceived openness
o Types of invitations for feedback (e.g., direct from faculty, direct from
APA site visitors, indirect through anonymous surveys)
• Questionable language
o P3: "I think consistent output is more pleasing to the natives than whatever
else" (LL 598-99) ... and P5: "The minority faculty-the Black faculty-
went bananas over that" (LL 1366-1367).
• The concept of happens to: examine how participants are talking about diversity,
whether they use this phrase or not. What is it used for? To describe naturalness
(i.e., actions are neither purposeful nor intentional), disconnection (i.e., the
composition of relationships, interactions, statuses are not connected to REG/SES
etc.) or something else
Questions that were guiding Focused Coding
Talking about actions faculty take around TIPPC and diversity
1 is to examine themselves and each other to check out biases
1 is to listen to student concerns
1 is to raise the issue with student directly (P2) could this be related to the type of student
problem, and who the faculty is and who the student is?
Meat of dissertation analysis:
1. Different approaches to incorporating diversity and how those are connected to
general discussions about diversity
a. Concrete steps to address diversity
b. No steps
c. Conflicting issues
2. The role of language
3. Contradictions
Examining movement in language-when TDs move from clear to evasive, vague to
specific, direct to passive.
Colorblindness-summary of variations
Approach to understanding and assessing as one category, taking action as another
category-what do participants and their programs think about re: TIPPC? What do they
do? What are the external influences (e.g., individual differences in thinking about
diversity, program culture) on them and the students?
228
Coming to ultimate decision point? When? Where? How?
How might some groups of TIPPCs raise different questions and concerns for Ps? Are
there questions around legitimacy of difficulties?
Examining the degree of cultural rootedness that exists in professional standards and
expectations and then choosing to use those standards are two different, but related
things. How to organize?
Possible new questions added:
1. To what extent do you think that the standards of the profession, with regards to
professional education and training, reflect both the current field and the
aspirations of the field with respect to diversification?
2. How do you apply your program's approach to diversity into trainee remediation?
3. When you think about the cases of student remediation and student dismissal,
how have you seen those cases impact other students in your program?
4. What is the impact of these events on your professional/personal life?
5. What have you found to be the most helpful aspect of integrating diversity into
working with TIPPC?
229
APPENDIXJ
RESEARCHER JOURNAL
11/29/06
Have heard back from a few TDs who state that they are unable to get 2 other faculty
together and are wondering whether they can still participate. Given the low number of
positive responses to the call for participants I think it would be ok to interview and keep
track of the disparate numbers for later analyses.
12/5/06
Notes: Confronted with the decision about whether and when to interview one participant
and others from her university because s/he is the [identifYing information about a
participant's multiple role with the researcher related to publication issues]. Decided
that it would be ok to interview other folks and wait to interview him/her until after s/he
has [resolved the publication issue]. Two thoughts: dual roles and the idea that the
conversation about the article might impact his/her thoughts on REG in remediation. In
fact am thinking that these thoughts will be impacted anyway and may be reflected in the
interview. During this conversation it also comes to light whether we should think about
the order of interviews; should we interview TD, then faculty, the same way in each
program? I noticed that one university has all males agreeing to be interviewed. Is that an
issue? How might that impact the data?
Related point: should we interview all folks from the same university in the same week or
as a group? Does that matter? I think not at this point. Just want to get the data together
and then look at it. In one case only 2 folks (TD and 1 other) are able to do it b/c of small
faculty. Ok?
12/11/06
In the 11 th hour, just prior to my first interview I realized that I did not have informed
consent releases from the week's participants. I emailed forms to all three participants
and asked that they let me know whether they would want a self addressed envelope in
which to return the forms to me. Hoping to do it over email.
Am noting a bias in which I am attributing value to the extent to which folks include
diversity in TIPPC. The more I think about the process of including diversity in the
process of TIPPC the more I am aware of how difficult it may be, though of course that
would depend on the individual. I think that I assume that Euro Am males will have the
most difficult time, partly because of my own fear/nervousness about being exposed as a
racist when I am talking about diversity myself.
230
12/14/06
Just finished my third interview of the week, with an older White male who initially
seemed to be pretty resistant in that he gave long answers to my questions; his answers
were not necessarily too connected to my questions, either, at least in my initial opinion. I
struggled early on in this interview with trying to think about ways to rethink my
questions and refocus the conversation and think that I did a pretty good job although I'll
need to check the transcripts. I also struggled with being frustrated and angry with this
person, thinking initially that he was being obscure or having some fun at my expense, or
manipulating me with his much greater knowledge and experience.
As the interview continued, I realized that I was beginning to write this person off as well
and was thinking about not asking some of the core questions because I felt that I already
knew the answers. In addition, I felt as though I was beginning to judge him and his
ability to be a good trainer and again was feeling some anger towards him. I handled
this by reminding myself of my goals as a researcher, which include getting the available
information. I also found myself developing some empathy for this person as well as
respect and thinking that he has trained many people and is doing his best. Recognizing
my struggle between values and all areas of the data has been helpful in continuing to
refine my process of understanding the data both during the interview and in reflecting on
it. I think I did a pretty good job of sticking close to the protocol as well, although I may
think differently once I transcribe the interview.
12/14/06
Transcribing interview #3, I noticed that our conversation at the beginning was a bit off;
he started talking about working with young people, essentially on remediation, and then
as he initiated a discussion about how I did not have a [professional presentation related
concern] he mentioned that he helped young people with those things. Having some fun
at my expense? Establishing trust? Hierarchy? Not sure. Also, I should note that at the
beginning of this interview, prior to turning on the tape recorder, he answered the phone
with his name and said, "David! Let's go!" which to me indicated that he did not want a
long preamble about the weather, etc. So I jumped into the introductory comments and
moved right through. Wonder about that culturally in his state in the Midwestern US and
how that impacted our rapport and relationship. For me I was a bit uneasy at the
beginning but later relaxed.
12/15/06
Transcribing #3 still. Thinking about looking at possible relationship between the amount
of power and status that one attributes to faculty (pg. 16 of this transcript) and how that
relates to their understanding of student issues. Thinking that this guy is a great example
of insider knowledge and how this is testing my skills to be present in the moment of
231
interview, try to manage the interview while also probing to decode some of what he is
talking about. I found this very difficult because I found him to be a huge long talker as
well as a vague talker, and so it was a matter of trying to contain his responses, probe
more deeply to get the insider knowledge necessary and then continue on with the bevy
of questions. As I am transcribing I am thinking that this guy may represent the old guard
and perhaps earlier thinking about diversity ... ?
12/19/06
During transcribing I realized that I was not asking Ps to focus on REG or other aspects
of diversity until about 25-30 minutes into our hour interview, and wondered at my own
willingness to address the issue. Thinking about it I realized that I was spending a good
amount of time building rapport and moving into the area. I think this approach is ok
given the sensitivity and my relative newness to these folks. Wonder about it being a
cohort effect and if similar questions, if asked 20 years in the future, would be easier to
broach sooner in the interview?
I think one point of analysis should be attention to how Ps describe the relationships
between students and faculty, how they answer the question about campus/university
climate, and how they talk about impact on the students. Some have talked about the
impact oftime (waiting a long time, not waiting too long before addressing the student
with problems) on students. Some focus only on students with problems, others on all
students and others on the whole program, students and faculty.
Other points of analysis: when did the person get their degree? When do they first raise
the issue of culture/diversity in the interview? Do they or do I?
12/21/06
Participant 5-pg. 34 comment on administrators-is this also a reference to his tension
with the one African American faculty member? Also, look at the program faculty's
efforts to join together through getting together outside and using consultants. Theme?
P 5 talking a lot about faculty tension (student tension as well?) and continued to come
back to the theme of being totally open with each other. That is what would work best. I
wonder how much he is aware of the privilege in that statement? My own impression is
that there is not too much attention to the amount of privilege in that statement, not too
much consideration of the power involved; he is a Euro Am male full professor, who
does not have much to lose. On the other hand there is a strong desire for connection here
as well.
Difference in answers to university climate question--#3 and 5 are at same university but
answer question very differently. Wonder if this relates to how people understand the
232
question-look in the analysis at how this might be tied in to perceptions of power,
ability, differences in perceptions of relationships between faculty and students. Is this
also something of a cohort effect or personal orientation (e.g., feminist, traditional,
positivist, etc.?)
Pg. 43/44 for P5-talking about a specific, racially charged incident on campus. Look at
difference between # 3 and 5 in discussing this incident.
During the interview with participant 5 I definitely enjoyed talking with him, although I
also struggled to keep him brief in his answers. At times I felt very aware of the
student-faculty dynamic between the two of us, as I felt like I was receiving a lecture
rather than part of a conversation between two people. Yet it is true that there exists this
dynamic between us, and between me and all my participants, so I should think about
how the power dynamic comes out or does not come out in these conversations.
12/22/06
P6-transcribing. Thinking about looking at how students get identified. Seems like in
most cases thus far students get identified via faculty meetings. Does anyone talk about
other students coming forward? Do they on their own or when I prompt? What do Ps say
when I prompt them on this question?
Also, emerging area-a lot of folks talk about the impact of remediation on other
students, especially concerning the amount of time that the remediation goes on.
Note on transcription: I decided to not include my minimal encouragers (e.g., "Mm
hmm" and "Right" and other assenting statements) in transcripts when these were in the
middle of participant streams of conversation. If I used a minimal encourager to move
someone along, in a moment of silence or following a completed thought, then I included
these. Occasionally I included these when a participant quote was particularly long and I
commented midstream, just for ease of reading the transcripts.
Need some new questions about intersection between professional standards and
diversity? Something like,
6. To what extent do you think that the standards of the profession, with regards to
professional education and training, reflect both the current field and the
aspirations of the field with respect to diversification?
7. How do you apply your program's approach to diversity into trainee remediation?
8. When you think about the cases of student remediation and student dismissal,
how have you seen those cases impact other students in your program?
One participant noted that their faculty had 3 students in a row on remediation who were
all people of color, mentioned that she and the faculty were pretty upset at that. Wonder if
233
that biased them for evaluating future students, especially students of color? Pg. 14-15.
Talked about being very relieved when the next student was White. Intersection with
vision of self, personal beliefs about own attention to racism?
12/27/06
I had 2 folks from same university. Both mentioned a detail about the university climate
that impacted students; one asked me not to include it b/c the information might be too
identifying, and the other did not ask me to do so. How to proceed?
12/28/06
P3-as I am reviewing his transcript and thinking about differences between him and P5
(from same university) it occurs to me that a serious limitation of this study is that the
answers to questions about program action and philosophy are from the perspective of
each individual. Actually, not a limitation, but a benefit (last comment added 2/03/08).
Possible categories
Category: How do people respond to me using the word, "diversity?"
Some respond by clarifying what I mean
Others describe what diversity means to them.
Check how often throughout transcripts people ask me to clarify what I mean, and
in what context (i.e., about which questions).
Degree of consistency with which people talk about diversity and intersection
with trainee remediation throughout the transcript.
Note: when asking how many students needed remediation and/or had problems
achieving professional competence, some participants assume that this is a permanent
thing I think.
Changed/added a few questions based on preliminary analysis and some participant
responses. See updated interview guide.
12/29/06
Thoughts while transcribing P5
What is sphere of responsibility? How does the program context (individual
mentor/advisee model vs. more faculty collaborative responsibility) impact the extent to
which faculty feel comfortable intervening with students?
To what extent does the relationship vs. the responsibility matter?
234
One of the overriding issues that seems to be pervading the discussion thus far is the
multitude of perspectives, understandings and personal definitions of multiculturalism
and diversity that are out there.
12/30/06
P5 also wrote an article on culture [removed because too identifying] (including his
philosophy and multiculturalism, personal experiences). To what extent have other
participants written/published about MC?
Note: university climate question: which aspect of diversity do people focus on? Mostly
RE? one or two on sexual orientation? Religion?
Students coming forward with concerns? No, they're pretty protective of each other.
Us/them dynamic? Look at data around student coherence; what makes it easier or more
difficult for students to come forward? Also, to what extent do faculty talk about students
knowing what is going on?
Note: examine whether Ps discussions of changes in remediation are related to the major
types of problems that they see in their program.
In fact, look at what types of problems come up first. Maybe future interviews should go
right towards that? So if a P say, well, most of our students that are TIPPC are so because
of their writing skills, reframe the diversity question to ask about that: to what extent do
you think that diversity issues might be embedded in problems with writing, either on the
problem side or on the assessment of the problem side?
111107
Pg. 15 P7-look at how this person and others talk about the process of dismissal. Impact
of dismissal on program, on students, interaction with liability-when is it too late to talk
about dismissing a student?
P19. P7--d.efining diversity. Note: a number of folks talk about defining/clarifying
diversity. What are some common features of their identity? Are there ideological
differences between people who jump right in (i.e., have endorsed a more common,
accepted, discussed prominently in the literature definition of diversity) and those who
pause to define their terms? Or to what extent are such definitional sidetracks the
outcome of my using the one word 'diversity?'
Might part of the struggles be that people have very different concepts of what
diversity means? Do I need to go back and ask that question, "How do you define
diversity?"
235
P27 P7---eomfort of talking about the student in question and raising issues of diversity.
To what extent does the model of the program (mentor model, etc.) impact how
comfortable faculty feel with each other and/or to criticize, comment or correct the
advisees oftheir colleagues? This interview reminds me ofP5s comments about being
the Chair of someone's committee versus being on the committee as a member. Context
here very important. Program context and training model.
Serious limitation: My skill as an interviewer.
1/3/07 Ethics notes
In an email to 2 participants (separately) I wrote the following in response to similar
concerns:
...As for confidentiality, that is number one priority. I am still figuring out how to do this
in a way that is the most secure; in terms of thinking through the results/discussion, what
I think I will most likely do is send each participant a copy of particular quotes from them
that will be used prior to sending out the full draft; that way I am not inadvertently
"outing" anyone within the participant pool. Hope that makes sense. Also, like I said this
is still a process I am mulling over (and thankfully the "completed" analysis is still far far
away!) and I would be very open to your thoughts on this. I will also do some consulting
prior to making a final decision on how to handle this matter.
Dave
1/12/07
I spoke with one person who informed me that he was no longer TD and that there is a
new person. After consulting with Linda, we decided that I would still interview the
former TD because I would not be getting TD perspective from the new TD, as that
person had not been the TD long enough to have that perspective.
1/13/07
While transcribing P8:
One thing that I am noticing is the difference between participants in how students get
identified. What are the contextual factors that surround whether students corne to faculty
with concerns about a peer? Or whether faculty consider that students know or do not
know about peers with problems? Or the timing? Some faculty seem to think that
students know, but only after faculty know. Or that supervisors of practicum see it first.
What makes the difference?
236
A number of participants distinguished among different types of remediation: graded
from low to high. Some referred to writing skills, etc. and the difference between these
types of problems and clinical skill problems or ethical problems. Maybe make a link to
Forrest/Elman terminology paper.
One thing that occurs to me is that I am learning from my participants. My understanding
of issues of diversity is becoming more complex as I continue to talk with participants,
which in tum is affecting my analysis of the data. Interviews with some TDs and faculty
who have thought very deeply and for a long time about these issues is helping me
construct categories and identify different aspects of other interviews in which the
conversation might not have been so complex.
Question: how many white male participants described themselves as "token" white
males?
Question: What are some typical topics that participants raise that unearth differences?
Example: hierarchy and titles (being called "Dr."). Others?
Question: types of remediation outcomes? Look at P8-all students on remediation have
left the program. Especially check out 11 740-746
1/19/07:
Noticing that most ifnot all faculty, when asked the question about how many students
they have advised, count completed dissertations, or ask me if I mean how many
dissertation committees they have chaired vs. how many students are in their office as
advisees. Not sure how relevant this is but I do think it's interesting given that the focus
of the study is on trainee remediation and wouldn't some trainees ever make it to the
dissertation stage because of remediation?
1/20/07:
Participant 11 brings up perspective of genuineness and being trained/working in the
'60s. I should examine age as a factor, training, cohort effects. Add to cohort effects the
different training zeitgeists; now is MC so there is a gap between many current trainees
and faculty/prac supervisors. What has the profession lost sight of over the years that
might be helpful?
1/23/07:
theme that people in CPSY might be too nice.
2/4/07:
237
Participant 14 asked me about my definition for a few things, including remediation (pg.
11). I realized that my interviewing skills are subpar in that I gave a very biased
definition of remediation, a very strengths based approach. Wish that I would have been
more neutral and that I would have had definitions for many of the constructs in this
inquiry prior to conducting interviews. Also concerned that I am collapsing too many
different experiences with cross cultural supervision and experiences into my overview of
my involvement in this study and also not giving Linda enough credit for coming up with
the topic. The issue of not having adequately well delineated constructs prior to the
inquiry is all right in some areas; need to think about how to talk about this in the context
ofthe study.
Same page. P 14 raised the issue of how the study was described made her think that we
might be talking about RE minorities with deficiencies. This totally caught me off guard.
Example of blind spot, wow. In the interview I became very nervous as though some
internal racism on my part was exposed. Because not being racist is such a core value for
me, I think I immediately became concerned about both how I was being perceived by a
person of color (in terms of my privilege and my ignorance) but also in terms of my self-
worth. Connecting to these core values and wondering about my internal racism. Don't
know that I handled this so well. See also pg. 12.
Why so much focus on international students? See pg. 17 (P14) for some thoughts on
this. Is it because international students and ESL is sort of an easier to identify, less
charged issue? Is it the reactions that different students have to being critiqued on ESL?
Or the long history of racial conflict and struggle in the U.S.? Where are most
international students coming from? Does that matter?
217107
Transcribing P14-pg. 24-5, talking about race themed parties, I felt uncomfortable
moving forward in the interview after hearing some of these events. Was not sure how to
proceed blc I really wanted to make some sort of comment. This happened frequently
when I heard similar comments from people. I think I was (am) struggling with the issue
of whether and how, wanting to identify myself as an ally.
Check out 11 437 (p. 14).
2/9107
Ps15-l7: Just prior to these interviews I had a 2 week break in data collection. During
that time I began to assess my level of interaction within interviews. Felt as though I was
not digging in enough and felt as though I was taking too long to get to the areas
involving diversity. When I began interviewing again, starting with P15, I realized that I
felt much more situated in the interview and began to focus more quickly and clearly on
issues of diversity. I also began to ask more specific questions to get us there and started
238
feeling less pressure to stick exactly to the interview protocol. This diversion also fit with
some areas that were beginning to emerge over the course of interviews in terms of
impact of students, issues ofpower, relationships among faculty, etc. that I thought might
be important. I am also beginning to think about how areas of an individual's research
interests might playa role.
How often do participants reference power issues as part of these types of situations?
2111/07
Two new issues:
1. I had a participant raise concerns about protection of confidentiality when I
proposed sending the results/discussion to participants; this person suggested that
she might be identifiable to the other participants who would also receive these
materials. I thought about this for a while and responded that I would be happy to
address this concern by sending each participant a skeleton framework of the RID,
with only their quotes in their specific attachment. So PI would get the bare RID,
which would include text of my analytic categories plus any quotes that were
from PI, and P2 would get the same but with a quote in a different spot (P2 only),
etc.
a. This response was fine, although in conversations with Linda I realized
that my developing self as a researcher was being tested in this interaction,
in terms of giving away too much power to participants, or not giving the
impression that I had thought through many different angles/problems to
this work. It also raised a larger issue of power differences between me
and my participants, many of whom might be future colleagues, but who
now hold power over me as faculty members...even though I hold power
as researcher
b. So there are a few issues: keeping control of my role as researcher,
meaning not to give away too much power unnecessarily
c. Keeping an eye on the power issue
d. Keeping it more formal; Linda pointed out that at times I can get a bit too
informal, and although there is my style, there is also an issue of other
people's perceptions and impressions of researchers, and how casual I am
may impact how serious people take me, and in turn how much they may
be willing to disclose, etc. Many things. Which brings into light the idea of
my own sense again of how a researcher is supposed to act. There is an
issue of not wanting to exclude people or to be too aloof with people,
which is impacting my decisions to be formal, casual, etc.
e. I am also noticing that I feel very grateful to people for participating; these
are very busy folks with packed schedules, and I feel lucky to be able to
interact with them. Yet these feelings that I have can be a bit prohibitive at
times as they stop me from going after some questions that I might have. I
239
have gotten over this a bit as I have gone through more and more
interviews, though at times (such as with participants 16 and 17) I felt very
aware as I probed for more details about several events that I was a
student, asking questions about how they proceeded with certain events. I
was/am a student asking faculty members what they thought about and did
with other students on remediation; this process felt a bit like I was
accusing these faculty of doing something wrong. And although it was not
my intention it was a feeling I was struggling with.
f. But back to feeling so grateful; this is an issue identified by Linda and I as
one on which I would like to work: to not be so beholden to folks. There is
a cultural or personal, or both factor; I think it is more personal or familial
than cultural about not wanting to probe at the painful areas for folks
either.
g. Other areas of growth for me as a researcher that we focused on:
i. Framework for seeing self as researcher
1. Incorporating my Jewish identity
2. Developing a stronger sense of self as researcher
3. Legitimacy for asking questions
11. Thinking about how to be more thoughtful, less quick in
responding, thinking about how to respond as a researcher
On another note, in the last few interviews (15-17) I noticed myself truly being very
curious about what the participants had to say in a way that felt more involved. I began to
abandon my strict adherence to the protocol and began following what they were saying,
and found myself absorbed. In the case of PIS, who was a person of color, however, I
noticed myself working hard to show that I was joining with him about issues related to
race/ethnicity. This approach is something that I noticed myself doing with other
participants who I perceived as sharing similar values, as I made more summary
comments and verged on what at times felt like leading comments. I wonder as I write
this about whether I worked in the opposite direction with participants with whom I did
not feel so connected; the only ones that stand out for me would be P3, P4, and P7,
especially P3 who was my first EA male, and who put me through the ringer a little bit in
terms of giving me a hard time Uokingly, I thought) about informed consent, and about
not having a webpage of my own. He made some comments as did a number of
participants about how they enjoyed helping "students like you" on projects as a major
part of my job. So I guess this dynamic was in the room a lot.
Issue #2:
I interviewed 3 (thus far) participants from 2 different sites that had [aspects oftheir
university changed to protect participant identity] that included systemic racism. Two Ps
were from the same site; both mentioned the [aspect] and one asked me not to talk about
it, whereas the other did not mention anything about it. How to address this issue in a
way that honors the data and the confidentiality concerns of all involved? I can't talk to
240
the first P and tell her that I talked with another person from her university (who she
referred to me) and disclose that that second P talked about it, because that would violate
confidentiality between participants, at least in terms of content. Given that one is a TD
and one is an assistant professor there may also be power dynamics that I could tap into
as well. Adding more complexity to this situation, another P from another university with
such [an aspect] also mentioned it, so does that mean that I cannot talk about that data
either for fear that the first P would be concerned that I had violated our agreement? How
many CPSY programs are there at schools with [such aspects]? Three? Four? Not
enough, I don't think.
Issue #3: (these have all been percolating, by the way): One participant asked that I not
let Linda access her transcript, because she is a new professional and Linda is a very
powerful psychologist in our division and in APA. This person's rationale was that she
would like to become active in the division and was afraid that she might say something
that could hurt her chances of doing well professionally on a national level. Although I
wanted to argue with her about Linda's ethical acumen I also felt that it would not be
prudent to begin my interview with a participant by arguing over the issue so I agreed to
her terms. Linda and I also agreed, although we said as well that I might revisit with that
P to see if I could change her mind. Once she has read her transcript maybe she will feel
differently about it.
As far as this issue goes, I will email this P and let her know that Linda and I had a
discussion about her request and decided that the only thing that Linda will know is the
P's REG and her status as either a TD or faculty member. We did talk about my cleaning
up the transcript sufficiently to mask this person's identity even more to see if that would
fly with her; I might try to do this over the phone to get a better rapport going with her.
2/12/07
Have been rereading some methods the last few days to help with my approach to the
data analysis, and realized that I really was not grasping fully the distinctions between
Glaser, Strauss and Corbin, Glaser and Strauss, and Charmaz and their approach to the
data. Have been moving back and forth among these references, trying to get clear about
how to approach the data for initial stages of coding. I am also afraid that I have not done
an adequate job of taking notes, etc., for all of my interviews and that I may have
accumulated too much data without doing sufficient formal analysis of it up to this point.
Yet I am trying to balance the realities of transcribing these things myself, not wanting to
get buried in the data or a huge backlog of recorded-but-not transcribed-interviews as
well. In terms of coding approaches, it seems as though they have a good deal of overlap;
Glaser seems to be articulating a broader scheme of category types that really stood out
for me, whereas Charmaz provided a framework for understanding a constructivist
approach to GT, which is how I would identify as well.
241
2/13/07
Including methods update from doc sem presentation on 2/14/07 below.
I had a planning meeting today for a presentation with a fraternity on issues of sexual
assault, prevention, and consciousness raising that seemed relevant to the topic of the
dissertation as well; maybe this observation is a function of my work to become
progressively more aware of my subjective experience or philosophical approaches to my
work. I found that on close examination I was unsure of the degree to which I believed in
each of the sometimes conflicting convictions that were present in the room. I found
myself truly tom between what felt like opposite poles of accountability and engagement.
That is, it seemed as though we were struggling with the issue of how to hold the
fraternity men accountable for their statements on a facepage that promoted sexual
activities with degrading and violent names, while still keeping them engaged. There was
a fear among the 3 of us that holding the men overtly accountable might cause them to
disengage in a way that our intervention would not be effective, or at least not lastingly
effective. Maybe it is an issue of trying to move them from one form of consciousness to
another, and if so then any method might work? But my thinking was that in order to
keep them engaged we needed to be gentle about the level of accountability, or maybe
not go after it in an overt way. Yet the issue of privilege came up repeatedly in terms of
our privilege as male presenters, talking with a male audience about actions that hurt a
(largely) female audience. Yes, males were hurt, and offended-including me, but the
degree to which males were hurt was different, I don't need to explain that. And so would
it be perceived (or in fact, just as real) or constructed in such a way that we were
essentially giving these men a free pass, by focusing instead on how we were happy to be
there, and how they were great to be taking some action, and focusing on all the positive
stuff?
Questions for analysis:
• What influences P's actions and interactions?
• Who influences P's actions and interactions?
Potential questions to add to future interviews:
• What is the impact of these events on your professional/personal life?
• What have you found to be the most helpful aspect of integrating diversity into
working with TIPPC?
It strikes me that my limited experience as an interviewer, coupled with my subjective 1's
and my position of relative power/lack of power with my participants impact my
constructions ofthe data in terms of data collection, as well as analysis. For example,
how I ask questions and interact with participants is important; I have struggled with how
to address Ps on first and subsequent contacts. How I have chosen to address this for the
most part is to use the "Dr." title, yet in some, a few cases, I have used people's first
names if I know them well and that seems ok. Then if they respond to me and sign with
242
their first name, then I have usually used that first name in subsequent contacts, although
when I have later started new email threads, I have reverted back to the use of the title. In
addition, I have been particularly aware of the differences between myself and
participants in terms of race/ethnicity around this issue, being careful to monitor whether
I am being more familiar with older White males (not the case) and less with younger,
and/or women of color, or people of color. I am also attending to the gender factor as
well, as I see above and as I think about this issue. Ironically, throwing a wrench in the
works for my system of title/no-title decision making, some TD's sign off with their
initials. What should I do in this case? I have been inconsistent here. To make matters
worse, [removed because ofpossibly identifying information about a TD] Which makes
that even more difficult. For the most part I have referred to that person by title, but
several times have used the first name.
I have also noticed that at times I am joining with participants vs. eliciting their language
and terms; there is a real danger here in my reframing of some of the issues--one
participant even said, yeah, I like the way you said that. I thought, That is NOT a good
sign. Trying to balance building rapport and staying with participants while not treating
them as if they were clients in a sense. In addition, I have noticed that I have a hard time
moving on from some topics; some Ps have talked about very difficult, very painful
topics and I have felt moved to talk about these with them and offer some empathy,
which I have done. I wonder about rewarding people in this way and how that will be
impacting the data. Will they tell me about more events, or will this approach move them
to respond in a way that presents them as congruent with my oh's and ah-ha's, so as to be
more rewarded?
1. Decision about which variation/approach to GT (i.e., Glaser, 1978, 1992; Glaser
& Strauss, 1967; Strauss and Corbin, 1990) I will be using. I have been reading
critiques and analyses of GT (e.g., Charmaz 2000, 2002, 2003; Cutcliffe, 2000,
2005; Stern, 1994; Melia, 1996) as part of this process, as well as rereading the
original authors. In the process I have been also searching for specific examples
of how to conduct the actual methods for coding data, which I have found in the
works ofCharmaz (e.g., 2002, 2003) who provided examples of segments,
moving from substantive to theoretical coding, including coding to categories
(handouts).
a. Glaser (1992) criticized Strauss and Corbin's (1990) model as focusing
only on substantive coding and eschewing theoretical coding. He levied an
additional complaint that the model developed by S&C prohibited the
emergence of the theory from the data, via the use of a predetermined
paradigm for ordering relationships among the categories.
b. Glaser (1978) provided an in depth "family of coding" guide that I found
to be very helpful to think about different ways of coding data; his
approach to letting the theory emerge from the data and his strong
emphasis on the importance of theoretical coding put me in favor of using
243
his approach to GT. Although I appreciate the S&C paradigm in terms of
ease of facilitating theory development, I am also a bit uneasy about using
a preconceived framework for ordering the relationships among the data.
As such I am leaning towards following the Glaser approach. Also,
Cutcliffe (2000) and Stern (1994) pointed out that Strauss's approach
stops at each word and asks, "what if?" (focusing on all possible
contingencies), whereas Glaser's approach stays rooted at the data and
says, "what do we have here?" (focusing only on what the data reveal).
c. I appreciate the staying close to the data, vs. stopping for each possible
contingency. However, as Charmaz (2000, 2003) pointed out, both
founders of Glaser and Strauss in their respective works focus on the idea
that what is found in the data is objective. Charmaz (2000, 2002)
distinguished between an objectivist approach to GT in which the
researchers' job is simply to "discover" the theory as such inheres in the
data, and a constructivist approach, in which the researcher acknowledges
that process of the research is a one of construction. In data collection,
data are gathered in a mutual construction of exploration. During analysis
and subsequent sampling and data collection, data are examined in a
process that included the location of data in time, place, culture, and
context that includes the person of the researcher.
d. Charmaz's (2000,2002,2003) constructivist approach works for me and
fits well with the philosophic underpinnings involved in my approach to
research and the topic. As such I have chosen to follow her approach and
to model my work after her methods. According to Charmaz (2002),
constructivist researchers acknowledge that they define what is happening
in the data. Also, that the data represent participants' views, not cold hard
facts. Researchers should attend to the context of the data, and locate the
participants' stories in the basic social process under study; also
researchers need to understand participants' subjective meanings.
e. In addition, she is the only one I have found thus far who has provided
actual examples of her work, which has been very helpful. As a part of this
decision, I am going to use line by line coding for the analysis. Glaser
(1978) advocated using either paragraph coding or line by line, suggested
that coding by paragraph is for more advanced users. As a beginner, and
as someone who wants to make sure that I have a clear audit trail, I think
that the line by line process will be much more clear, easy to follow, and
although more labor intensive, will likely give me a chance to learn more
about the process.
f. I am really regretting my decision to not include more people in the
analysis team. Although I know that Linda and I will do a good job, there
is an issue of small number of eyes on the data. And we could always use
more perspectives.
244
g. I believe that the decision to pursue this inquiry from a constructivist
framework is also consistent with the criteria for trustworthiness, although
I do not believe that only such an approach can be trustworthy. However,
given the limitations that this study will face in terms of number of
analysts, I think that a very clear acknowledgement of the subjective
nature of the analysis will be helpful to readers. As such, I decided to be
very clear about my biases (see below)
"We are all ... unavoidably... in the subjective underbrush of our own research
experience" (Peshkin, 1988, p. 20).
2. I would like to spend some time discussing and brainstorming subjective "1's"
that are impacting my analysis of the data (Peshkin, 1988). Linda recommended
this article which provided a nice framework for thinking about the topic. Peshkin
(1988) noted that researchers must examine and develop awareness oftheir own
subjectivity to provide readers with a sense of where the researcher's "self and
subject became joined" (p. 17), as such a joining impacts all interpretations of the
data. In his discussion, Peshkin characterized a number of personal "1's" (i.e.,
selves) that he identified as part of his subjectivity. He emphasized the relative
and constructed nature of these "situational subjectivit(ies)" (p. 18). He also noted
that some of his different personal "I's" were unsurprising, but some were
surprising, and that he was transformed in some ways (i.e., had some new 1's
develop) as a result of the research process (also noted with greater attention in
Peshkin, 1985).
a. Peshkin (1988) suggested looking for clues in the analysis or in interviews
i. What are the hot and cold spots?
ii. What are your positive feelings? Negative feelings?
lll. What experiences did you want more of? Less of? Want to avoid?
IV. When did you feel moved to act in roles outside or those necessary
to fulfill research needs, or beyond the limits that you had
previously set?
b. Peshkin (1985) argued for the utility of examining the changes one makes
in the proposed title(s) of a study as a heuristic for understanding the ways
in which a researcher is transformed during the research process. He
suggested that entering into a body of data and/or a field with no
preconceived notions leads to change, deepening perspectives on the field,
and an evolving relationship and ultimate understanding of the data over
time.
3. Subjective "I's" that I am currently considering:
a. The Eagerly Antiracist 1:
i. I have noticed that I have a hard time moving on from some topics;
some Ps have talked about very difficult, very painful topics and I
have felt moved to talk about these with them and offer some
245
empathy, which I have done. I wonder about rewarding people in
this way and how that will be impacting the data. Will they tell me
about more events, or will this approach move them to respond in a
way that presents them as congruent with my "oh's," and "ah-
ha's," so as to be more rewarded?
b. The Joining I:
i. I have noticed that at times I am joining with participants vs.
eliciting their language and terms; there is a real danger here in my
reframing of some of the issues---one participant even said, yeah, I
like the way you said that. I thought, That is NOT a good sign.
Trying to balance building rapport and staying with participants
while not treating them as if they were clients in a sense.
c. The Social Justice I:
1. I believe that I have a bias in which I am attributing value to the
extent to which folks include diversity in TIPPC? Because I think
that I do. For example, during my interview with Participant, I
realized that I was beginning to write this person off as well and
was thinking about not asking some of the core questions because I
felt that I already knew how he would answer the questions. In
addition, I felt as though I was beginning to judge him and his
ability to be a good trainer and again was feeling some anger
towards him. The more I think about the process of including
diversity in the process of TIPPC the more I am aware of how
difficult it may be, though of course that would depend on the
individual. I think that I assume that Euro Am males will have the
most difficult time
d. The Uneasy About My Own Racism/Sexism I
i. I have a good deal of fear/nervousness about being exposed as a
racist when I am talking about diversity. In the cultural
competency trainings that I have done, I have noticed a
phenomenon in which White allies sometimes try to focus on or
find the White person in the room who is the least sophisticated
about racial issues and then go after that person, "educating" that
person. Although I think it is useful to be educated, I also wonder
to what extent that stops folks from examining themselves. I know
I'd rather not go poking at my own painful areas when I don't want
to and even though I have been doing some good work in this area
I am still terrified at what I will find at times. So am I doing that
with this participant? In my interviews? Am I more attentive with
people of color about these issues? What are my assumptions about
how people of color will answer these questions? Where is gender
by the way? And social class?
246
11. A different example: During transcribing I realized that I was not
asking Ps to focus on REG or other aspects of diversity until about
25-30 minutes into our 60 minute interview, and wondered at my
own willingness to address these issues. Thinking about it I
realized that I was spending a good amount of time building
rapport before moving into the area. I think this approach is ok
given the sensitivity and my relative newness to these folks.
Although on further reflection I do not think the issue is so simple
as that, and that this requires some more thought.
111. A third example: Check out how I talk about some Ps' definitions
and answers: "A number of folks talk about defining/clarifying
diversity. What are some common features of their identity? Are
there ideological differences between people who jump right in
(i.e., have endorsed a more common, accepted, discussed
prominently in the literature definition of diversity) and those who
pause to define their terms? Or to what extent are such definitional
sidetracks the outcome of my using the one word 'diversity?'"
IV. Participant raised the issue of how the study was described made
her think that we might be talking about RE minorities with
deficiencies. This totally caught me off guard. Example of blind
spot, wow. In the interview I became very nervous as though some
internal racism on my part was exposed. Because not being racist
is such a core value for me, I think I immediately became
concerned about both how I was being perceived by a person of
color (in terms of my privilege and my ignorance) but also in terms
of my self-worth. Connecting to these core values and wondering
about my internal racism. (added on November 9, 2007): After
reviewing the transcript of interview with Participant, I realize that
this "Subjective I" for me really impacted my ability to stay
concentrated in the interview and to follow up on promising leads
in the conversation. See LL 289 in Participant (p. 9). Potential for
much lost data here, and blending with the Inexperienced
Interviewer I (below):
e. The Inexperienced Interviewer I:
i. I have a tendency to get sidetracked, or lost, or not ask deepening
questions. I have seen myself get progressively better at this but I
know that I missed a lot of great opportunities and may need to go
back. For example, at the beginning of the interview with
Participant, prior to turning on the tape recorder, he answered the
phone with his name and said, "David! Let's go!" which to me
indicated that he did not want a long preamble about the weather,
etc. So I jumped into the introductory comments and moved right
through. Thinking that this guy is testing my skills to be present in
247
the moment of interview, as I try to manage the interview while
also probing to decode some of what he is talking about. I found
this very difficult because I found him to be a huge long talker as
well as a vague talker, and so it was a matter of trying to contain
his responses, probe more deeply to get the insider knowledge
necessary and then continue on with the bevy of questions.
11. Participant asked me about my definition for a few things,
including remediation (pg. 11). I realized that my interviewing
skills are subpar in that I gave a very biased definition of
remediation, a very-strengths based approach. Wish that I would
have been more neutral and that I would have had definitions for
many of the constructs in this inquiry prior to conducting
interviews. Note: Should I use this as an example ofwhy I am
going to the trouble ofdelineating subjective I's?
f. The Student I:
i. During the interview with Participant I definitely enjoyed talking
with him, although I also struggled to keep him brief in his
answers. At times I felt very aware of the student-faculty
dynamic between the two of us, as I felt like I was receiving a
lecture rather than part of a conversation between two people.
Other Ps brought attention to this fact. For example, Participant
started talking about working with young people, essentially on
remediation, and then as he initiated a discussion about how I did
not have a web presence he mentioned that he helped young people
with those things. Having some fun at my expense? Establishing
trust? Hierarchy? Not sure.
11. How does this impact my approach to the interview and
understanding of the data? To what extent does my identity as a
student impact how I perceive the data during collection and
during analysis?
111. One thing that occurs to me is that I am learning from my
participants. My understanding of issues of diversity is becoming
more complex as I continue to talk with participants, which in tum
is affecting my analysis of the data. Interviews with some TDs and
faculty who have thought very deeply and for a long time about
these issues is helping me construct categories and identify
different aspects of other interviews in which the conversation
might not have been so complex
g. (Added on November 11, 2007): When coding P22, I asked the question of
the research team as to whether the 3 ofus had an image of "international
student" in our heads, and it turned out that we did. And we all had a
similar image: that ofan Asian student.
248
h. (Added on January 7, 2008): Subjective "I" section of the paper: 1raise
the issue of international students with Participant (LL 463-466):
"P: I'm not sure exactly what you're asking here 1guess.
I: Ok. Actually, 1want to go back, cause I, I, may have used the phrase cultural problem
and 1really did not mean to imply that cultural differences are a problem. 1meant to say
more there's a-there's a you know, a student is struggling to achieve competence and
the question is, is this something that is the result of cultural differences?
P: Right, right, yeah 1understood that that's what you meant. Not necessarily that
culture's a problem, but 1just get there's a cultural overlay to every student's problems.
I: Right, right. Well, 1 guess 1wonder you know, when you think about students who are
from-who represent different aspects of diversity, are there, are there some students, are
there different aspects of diversity that make it easier or more difficult to point that out
and say, "Oh, well this is clearly because this person is from a different country, and
there's that issue of'
2.14.07
Linda today told me that she had interacted with 2 TDs at CCPTP who told her
unsolicited that they would have given me more info if1was a faculty member, but the
fact that 1was a student made them hold back; they were very aware that they were
talking to a student about the issues of the dissertation. This is a limitation to the study
that we need to keep in mind.
2/15 notes on interviewing Participant:
We had a long conversation about confidentiality prior to the interview (and subsequently
not on the tape) in which this participant cautioned me several times and asked me to be
careful. She also asked me two questions before beginning; one was that the program did
not have policies on diversity and TIPPC and that she had no time to look for one, and
then also talked with me about her concerns about confidentiality. This felt very much
like a student-faculty conversation wherein 1felt like 1was getting a lecture and that she
may have been working to set some clear boundaries about power. Perhaps not. 1began
to feel a bit distracted about the time, however, because we were spending a lot of time
up front and 1wanted to get going. With this participant 1also learned more about my
interviewing style because her pacing was very, very different from anyone who 1had
previously interviewed. After she would finish with a sentence, she would pause. And
then 1would say something, and then she would continue on with her thought. After a
while 1began to realize that she was actually not finished, just pausing, being thoughtful,
collecting, and 1realized how much 1take pacing for granted, or how much other
participants are stopping once 1 start in with a new question. This P was also silent a lot
and it felt hard to know or guess what was going on with her at the other end of the
249
phone. She was a long talked and a slow talker, and I was very hesitant and actually not
so able to interrupt her. Difficult, challenging interview.
2/25
Cleaned one page of data from Participant for consultation meeting with a GT expert on
campus. Will have meeting tomorrow, 2/26. In the middle of this process I have been also
working on a presentation at a fraternity with Jon Davies and Tim McMahon, which has
been raising a lot of issues of power, listening, collaboration, etc. And I have been diving
back into GT methods texts to learn more, trying to prepare for this meeting and for data
coding.
Although I have not yet fully analyzed the data formally with the research team and I
have interviewed 19 people, I think I am all right in terms of coding. I was afraid that due
to theoretical sampling, I would need to be coding the whole time and redirecting
subsequent interviews, but actually as I think about it I am also thinking that it will be
nice to have a larger body of data, rather than subsequent interviews that get shorter or
more focused. Plus I am thinking that I can either go back to ask additional questions of
some of my existing research participants and/or ask remaining ones the new questions
when such arise. A third option is to go back into the data and look again. Likely all three
will be used.
2/26/07
Began coding this afternoon during a consultation for GT with Mary Fechner, Deb Olson
and Linda. We coded one page from Participant all together; great learning experience as
each of us coded the page differently and then talked about it. Some things that came out
of the meeting: asking questions of the data, asking about what is and is not there.
Example: "this data is about making decisions about whether a person is competent or
not; what factors help make the decision?" "Benefit of the doubt.. .what does that mean-
is there a standard of measurement for student functioning that is at play? What are the
implicit vs. explicit values here?"
During this analysis the people in the room examined all different aspects of the fragment
of data; marking it in terms of who the P was talking to, content, specific terminology,
inferences, asking many questions.
Potential areas to explore for the dissertation:
What are the ways to appear as though one is culturally competent? Do people
have ways of trying to have a culturally competent face when their MO is status quo or to
ignore culture? How much do their projections of who I am and what I look like play into
their answers? How about the fact that I am a student? Are they setting up straw men? Is
the standard of skill level cleaner than culture to deal with?
250
See also coding guide as it is developing.
3/1/07
I began formal coding on 2/27/07, the day following this GT consultation; decided to get
into my data a little bit even though I still have about 4 interviews to transcribe. After the
meeting I was fired up and ready to go. As I began examining PI's transcript, I decided
not to go line by line initially, but to examine it paragraph by paragraph; during the GT
session I noticed that I tended to get a bit lost in the line by line coding, which was an
impediment from stepping back from each paragraph and asking questions about what
was happening. So I decided to develop the following approach:
1. Go through the transcript paragraph by paragraph and incident by incident
a. Ask questions, lots of questions about what is happening in the data?
b. Constant comparison of incident coding with earlier incidents
2. Return to the data to map the incidents and develop a concept map
I am striving to do these as much as possible, though of course some incidents may
overlap or be spread across the transcripts. As I continue to code PI, I realize more and
more what is meant by "being playful" with the data; examining it from all angles (sort of
like Strauss' model) and asking many questions about what I see, what I don't see.
Looking at terminology used, trying to identify assumptions, trying to be curious. And as
I go through and be curious about the data, more and more of myself comes through,
which is helping me to understand how my eyes and Subjective 1's are involved in the
process; my experiences are dictating the kinds of things to which I attend and the types
of questions I tend to ask. As an example, I have noticed that I am paying particular
attention to the following themes in this analysis of PI:
• Values-what are the implicit values driving her statements/actions?
• Power-how is power impacting the situation, is it discussed openly?
• Location of the problem (from earlier project with Linda and Nancy-
it's in my mind as I approach the data-should consider writing about
the "Already researched this some" I)
• NaIvete of participant (self described)
• Possible Definitional clarity issue (see Location... )
• Importance of the person of the P in the conversation, potentially
around self-perception as educator
• Collegiality and how this impacts decision making and process
3/10/07
Email exchange with participant:
From participant:
> > Dear David,
> > I very much enjoyed meeting with you and learning about your dissertation project
251
during my interview this morning. Although I think that you did a wonderful job
establishing rapport and assuring me that my responses would not be printed without my
explicit permission, I left the interview feeling somewhat vulnerable. It was difficult for
me to respond to the interview questions without providing quite a bit of identifiable
information about my particular program. Similarly, it just didn't feel "right" to me to
discuss specifics of some of our students with somebody outside of the program who
doesn't have the larger context in view.
With regard to the link between remediation and diversity, I also feel uncomfortable with
my choice to respond in ways that attended to issues with "diverse" students, which (out
of context) seems pathologizing. I do not feel that you led me to these responses in any
way, but am wondering if explicitly making a distinction between issues with "diverse
students" and "diversity in the curriculum in general" might be helpful. Other than that, I
do not have any suggestions at this time for how you could ask the questions or conduct
the interview differently, but just wanted to alert you to how I am feeling post-interview.
My initial response:
> Dear__, thank you for your very thoughtful and thought-provoking reflection on
our interview today. I too enjoyed our conversation very much. As I read your comments,
my mind went in several different directions. I would like to take a day to think through
those before responding. I do plan to respond more substantively, and wanted to send you
a quick note about my process to keep you informed.
> Thank you again for you candor and thoughtfulness throughout this process.
More later,
> Dave
My later response:
Hi _' thank you again for your thoughts about Monday's interview. First, I want to
reassure you that the sensitive nature of this investigation makes the confidentiality of my
research participants, their students and their programs my highest priority. I hope the
following three methods for protecting confidentiality will address your sense of
vulnerability. First, as stated in the informed consent, you will have an opportunity to
review your interview transcript to ensure your comfort with the level of detail that you
provided. Throughout the process, you will be able to communicate directly with me or
my advisor about specific concerns related to confidentiality. Second, during data
analysis, my focus on patterns of responses will create additional protections of
confidentiality because I will be describing themes that run across the 25 interviews.
Finally, you will have an opportunity to review and comment on the initial draft of my
results and discussion. Thus, I see three distinct opportunities for both myself and my
252
research participants to attend carefully to concerns that the multiple layers of
confidentiality (self, students and program) are protected.
I would like to respond also to your concern about not feeling "right" to discuss your
students in the absence of the larger context. Given my theoretical commitments to
understanding processes in their systemic and ecological contexts, many of my questions
were designed to gather such information. Yet we both know there is no way to gain a
sufficiently deep understanding of a context over a one-hour interview. So I appreciate
your concern and will be recognizing this limitation of my methods in my analysis as
well as pointing to it in the writing of the discussion.
As for your concern about the link between remediation and diversity and the potential
for pathologizing: When I think about the intersection of faculty conceptualizations of
diversity and trainees identified as having problems of professional competence, I think
about multiple possibilities [e.g., faculty's (a) reluctance, willingness, and/or eagerness to
identify trainee problems, and (b) potential for complex understanding of diversity
applied to student, faculty and systems interactions, and (c) potential misunderstandings
or abuses of power in cross-diverse configurations in training dyads and groups (e.g.,
supervision, mentorship]. From the beginning, I have been aware that some faculty may
look at this intersection and (inadvertently or not) pathologize students' diversity. If that
is what some faculty are doing, then this needs to be documented. However, my data also
include discussions with folks who are examining this intersection in a variety of
complex ways. For example, the issue that you raised about the potential for
pathologizing "diverse" students means that there is a more complex picture to be told
regarding faculty conceptualizations. That, too, will be part of my analysis.
I appreciate that you found that I did not lead you in any way to these responses. I have
been aware of this possibility and have tried hard to create open-ended questions that
allow research participants to take their answers to my questions in any direction that
they would like. As someone who is deeply committed to diversity and multiculturalism
and coming from a constructivist-interpretivist theoretical orientation, I believe the
continuous examination of the wording of my questions and the style of my delivery is
important. I have continued to consult with Linda about my role as an interviewer and
will be attending to these issues during my data analysis.
Thank you again. As I mentioned during our interview, I am open to further dialogue.
Your scholarly work has informed my own professional development and I will be very
interested in your feedback on the draft of my results and discussion when such are ready.
Best regards,
Dave
253
3/01-3/15: Am thinking about data analysis, talking with Linda, coming to the
conclusion that we really need to broaden the diversity of our research team to give us
more perspectives and more eyes looking at the data. I have asked M to join us and she
has agreed. Now the next steps are going through IRE and then to participants.
Wondering how this will impact their willingness to participate and also my potential
standing/reputation as a thoughtful person, yet I think that it is too important to let it go
especially since we are so early in the analysis process.
3/16/07
Transcribing Participant
Issues ofnaYvete coming out p 16.
Pg 17 question at top of page. Wow: " ... living in the South where urn, where these issues
have historically been such volatile and, and difficult issues for the society is, are we
developmentally at a place where, where the level of conversation, the issues that we're
dealing with are very different than they have been historically... as we make progress in
some areas does it mean that there are now sensitive issues and discussions being had that
we just developmentally weren't ready for before?"
Amazing question. Had not heard it framed that way before.
Note: at the beginning of this interview I did not even ask the specific questions leading
to diversity. This participant just went there on her own, right away. Seemed like she was
very eager to talk about it. Given the content of the interview I would say so. Need also to
think about the fact that she is an type ofprofessor and not a type ofprofessor, someone
who works primarily as a clinician and not as a researcher. Important in context of her
interview? Should we examine amount of clinical work as an aspect of our analysis?
Position for sure; some faculty have talked openly with me about feeling free to say what
they want b/c of their status as senior faculty. Others have commented on their place
within the hierarchy or institution.
LL 740-742: FERPA issues.
3/17 Participant. How do people describe themselves? Is there a difference between how
EM and EA talk about themselves? Do people hone in on RE in ways that are different
from G? I am noticing as I transcribe Participant that she seems to have an almost
apologetic tone to her description of her own RE and social class. Do other EAs do this?
What might this suggest? This seems to be an area where the perspective of the
investigators would really have an impact. I am thinking about Utsey et al.' s findings and
Bonilla-Silva's findings. How might I have read those? How might we think about
categorizing those? It raises the issues of engagement vs. accountability for me in the
sense that presenting this phenomenon (if it does exist, need to go back to the data to see
more) in a way of saying that EAs talk about their privileged backgrounds as
"unfortunate" because they are not full of culture/ethnicity/whatever, and talking about
254
that as defensiveness or covert racism or whatever might be one way to talk about it. But
would that be accurate or just one read? How might that tum people off so as to not think
about it? What is the way to talk about that phenomenon with any degree of accuracy?
Thinking about WMWP phenomenon. Also thinking about myself as a EA, Jewish
student and the issues of power as a researcher, particularly in this instance with the
power to name this type of phenomenon. Glad I have other members on this team.
Participant. LL 913-920+ seeing the issue (also raised by Participant I think) of wanting
to be trusted, needing the space where other people give her the trust that she is trying to
understand. Importance of safe environment to explore these issues.
3/19/07 Transcribing P17:
Thinking about analysis: when or in what part of training do students most typically get
identified as having problems?
Issue about sooner vs. later, and quickly vs. slowly
Issue about benefit of the doubt (see also Participant) (LL 129-133)
3/21/07 Transcribing Participant
LL 248-250: And so you talked about the student of color having problems with clinical
skills. To what extent do you think that her either, her gender or her race/ethnicity or
other aspects of her factored into the problems that you all were observing?
This seems to be a leading question on my part. Need to think about how asking such
questions, similarly framed, may very easily lead participants to make an association
between REG and TIPPC. I am trying to get at underlying assumptions but I do not think
that I phrased this question at all well.
4/07/07
Had meeting with dissertation analysis team Linda and M on Thursday afternoon (4/5).
During our meeting we discussed different approaches to sharing the analysis and serving
as auditors for each other, and decided that we would split up the transcripts equally
between M and Linda. I will read all transcripts, so that each transcript will have 2
readers with the third person auditing the results. This third person will also help resolve
areas in which the 2-person team disagrees about the coding of a particular concept or
idea. We discussed approaching the analysis from a social constructionist perspective,
discussed how our different life experiences and perspectives would enhance our team
analysis of the data. We agreed to meet weekly for 2 hours and to analyze one transcript
per week. In the interim, I will review our work between meetings.
We agreed to use active words when possible to code concepts, and to attend to (latent
255
and manifest) process as well as content in the data. We decided that we would try line-
by-line coding at first and that coding could be more literal or process oriented based on
personal approach. Finally, we agreed that we would not review the entire transcripts at
the beginning, but would instead review transcripts from the first mention of diversity
until the final mention of it. Later in the analysis process we will go back to examine
other parts ofthe transcripts as needed. However, each analyst will read the transcript in
its entirety.
4/7/07
Was contacted by another research participant with concerns about the confidentiality of
her transcript. I responded to her concerns with virtually the same email that I used for
the previous participant (confidentiality section only).
4/10/07
FORMAL BEGINNING DATE FOR DATA ANALYSIS
Beginning formal data analysis with group discussion
Process: in talking over transcripts, we discussed broad concepts first and then moved to
a line-by-line and incident-by-incident discussion.
4/12/07
Transcribing P17-note: I have noticed a few Ps talking about using their privilege to
help others, finding opportunities to exploit their own privilege. Possible code?
Raised issue of timeliness, sense that other students in the program wanted them to
dismiss impaired students more quickly. Also talked a lot about context of program, high
number of students of color, perceptions about race vs. "actual" skill problems.
4/21/07
Transcribing PI 8-1 am noting a few instances in which she seems to be getting very
careful, changes in speech patterns. Notably LL where she has long, long pauses followed
by rapid speech, and LL in which she is very careful to talk about diversity and refers
back to my definition-stating, "the definition that you gave of diversity," which just
makes me wonder about her level of comfort talking about these issues.
4/21
Transcribing P19-noting how she initially answers the opening question on diversity-
focusing on problems related to diversity issues. Make sure to examine how other Ps are
reading/understanding the opening question. Might be an interesting category.
256
Question: does the focus of the program (research vs. practice) matter to TD/faculty in
how they think about remediation and defense? In other words, you can rationalize
remediating or dismissing someone on the basis that they might go out and harm the
public. Seems easy to defend in terms of existing case law. Same for someone from a
research program who says, I never want to work with the public? How is it different?
Question for follow up or future investigations: Would you think about approaching
trainee remediation differently if the student was clear about wanting to be a researcher,
versus wanting to be a clinician? Would the type of problem and the stated career goal be
part of your thinking process?
Question: does anyone raise the issue of faculty competence in working with students?
Distinguish between supervisor and other outsider (yet connected to the program)
competence and faculty/peer competence.
Question: ability or willingness to examine self? Others?
4/25/07
transcribing P20
LL 430-435: she is talking about the faculty getting informed of student dissatisfaction
with the program. Should we examine this as a category? Seems like many programs are
getting this kind of feedback, though some are getting it directly b/c they ask for it, some
get it when students put a document together and deliver it, some get it when students
talk to a third party (e.g., APA site visitors) or an anonymous survey. What factors are
related to how faculty get informed about this?
Composition of student body (e.g., high percentage of students of color)
Location in the country
Research/attention of faculty
Level ofperceived trust between students and faculty
Level of faculty openness or perceived openness
Types of invitations for feedback (e.g., direct from faculty, direct from APA site
visitors, indirect through anonymous surveys)
5.12.07
Analysis ofP3: Notes
Methods process:
We began by coding individually, followed by a meeting for group discussion.
Two readers served as coders for each transcript, with the 3rd member of the team served
as auditor. I was always a coder, whereas Linda and M took turns alternating between
coding and auditing. In our group sessions we addressed each transcript by discussing
257
each incident (separate topic) in the order in which the participant discussed it. We
frequently found that some concepts (e.g., approaching knowledge of or attention to
diversity passively/actively) were represented in a number of places throughout the
transcript. As such, we chose to identify the concept by discussing other incidents that
were similar; some of our discussions did not follow sequential movement from one
incident to the next. However, once we were finished for that concept we returned to the
original site of departure in the transcript to pick up the next incident. We did disagree on
a number of occasions and asked each other to clarify thought processes until we could
reach consensus.
Following coding discussions for each transcript, I then formatted a coding summary for
each participant. The summary was conducted as follows:
1. Read through the notes of the group discussion and individual notes
2. Enter overall brief description of participant including REG, other disclosed
aspects of diversity (e.g., sexual orientation) as well as number of years in the
profession.
3. Enter concepts as they appear throughout the transcript, starting with the group
discussion notes, and then including individual notes from process notes and
transcripts
Note also any questionable language as an example of lack of investigation into the
power of language. Could it be an issue of unexamined privilege? Connected to passive
approach to diversity awareness? Example- Participant: "I think consistent output is
more pleasing to the natives than whatever else" (LL 598-99) ... and Participant: "The
minority faculty-the Black faculty-went bananas over that" (LL 1366-1367).
5/13/07
Attending to the concept of happens to: examine how participants are talking about
diversity, whether they use this phrase or not. What is it used for? To describe naturalness
(i.e., actions are neither purposeful nor intentional), disconnection (i.e., the composition
of relationships, interactions, statuses are not connected to REG/SES etc.) or something
else?
5/22/07
Focus on process, not conceptual description.
Comparative methods
6/18/07
Have been working with Linda and M on coding participants for the last few weeks. We
258
have generally taken 2-3 weeks per participant, going slowly through Ps 1-5. At this
point, what I have done is taken notes from our discussions, my notes, and all 3 of our
coded transcripts (2 coders, one auditor) and any other notes that either M or L has made,
and then used all those materials to construct a coding summary.
Over the past week, we met to generate some more codes from our experiences of coding
Ps 1-5, and include other areas of knowledge that were part of our theoretical sensitivities
(preexisting theories and approaches that we are bringing into the data analysis). Some of
these include:
• Attending to where participants locate the problem for TIPPC (is it in the
student? In the system? Other aspects of the ecology?)
• Bonilla-Silva's notion of rhetorical incoherence (examining language patterns,
and how participants get more vague vs. specific, direct vs. indirect, etc.).
Specifically looking at when Ps change, including passive vs. active language.
Noticing that some change even mid-answer, or start out very clear, and then get
vaguer as they continue to talk.
• When standards are vague, they can be used to flex to the disadvantage of people
of color or representing other disadvantaged groups (e.g., women, LGB folks).
Similarly can be used to avoid engaging in certain conversations (e.g., we can't
talk about that because we just don't have the language to do so, can't
operationalize the terms or goals). However, those same standards can be used to
the advantage of a person already in a position of power
• Examining the differences in power, privilege and vulnerability in different types
of dyads (e.g., Cook, 1994; Priest, 1994; Steward & Phelps, 2004)
Following this compilation of coding summaries, and our meeting to generate more
codes, I worked to generate more codes from the coding summaries as well, and am
meeting with M (with Linda auditing) to move our lists into a more comprehensive list of
codes with which to begin examining the remaining transcripts. What has been exciting is
that over the weekend I was working on these and read a few other transcripts, looking
for other instances of our codes (e.g., colorblindness, using one's self as a tool to
understand the role of diversity in TIPPC, seeing how other Ps defined the issue, seeing
issues of diversity impact and/or generate existing conflict among faculty) and found a
bunch of different and varied examples. So I have hope. ©
Thus far then, the process looks something like this:
1. Coding: me plus one other, with the third team member auditing
2. Generating coding summaries (Ps 1-5). Following coding summaries, we decided
to become a bit more specific in our approach, to be more explicit about our
constant comparison and examine how different Ps compared on similar
incidents. We have also been examining and generating a list of within P
contradictions which is a potential category.
259
3. Generating a list of assembled codes to use for the next 5 participants as a mid-
range strategy, trying to develop some initial categories so that we can examine
more data to see if we can flesh out the existing categories (and discover other
categories that are not yet developed). We will be mindful of the risk of fitting all
further data into the existing categories that we have. We will check to make sure
that either we have new categories at the end of the next 5 participants, andlor that
we have moved and shifted our categories around a bit. At this point we have
generated a huge list of preliminary categories (out of many, many, many codes)
and so I have no doubt that we will continue to refine, reorganize.
Another thing that I've noticed is my changing understanding ofthe phrase diversity in
trainee remediation. I am not yet sure what the newer, more exact term might be but I am
beginning to feel as though this phrase feels inexact. Also, noticing that typically
participants are only attending to several aspects of diversity in the moment. When asked
for their definitions, or for the aspects of themselves that they consider as diverse beings,
many participants (perhaps most) give a fairly comprehensive definition. Yet when we
come to talking about specific instances, or asking more targeted questions about trainee
remediation, most participants are focusing on one or two areas (after examining 5
transcripts in depth). In addition, one of the findings from the pilot study is that
participants typically focused on one or another aspect of diversity (either RE or G) but
not an integration; in the pilot, only I case out of 40+ had any discussion of an
integration of aspects of the individual (religion and gender). Same thing happening here.
08/08/07
On an administrative note, I have not heard from M since awhile ago, though I have now
tried to contact her several times. My most recent attempt was yesterday morning at 9am
PST with a phone call and email. On a personal note, I hope that she is ok. On a
professional note, I hope to talk to her soon so that we can continue the work. In the
interim I think this process of going back and shoring up the categories can only help.
Continuing on with analysis. I am now going back to the transcripts that we have
analyzed (PI-5 and about half ofP21, plus using M's notes and my notes) and, using the
list of assembled codes from the coding summaries, fitting in specific data from each
participant, using the transcript and the individual summary. I think this process will
enable me to fill out the codes a bit more and facilitate examining the next transcripts.
09/01107
Have been in touch with M and with Linda; we decided that due to scheduling difficulties
that I would work with M on coding the next few transcripts and that Linda would then
audit those through conversations with me (in which I related convos with M) when
Linda returned, and then we would reconvene as a group and reinstate the 3 way
260
conversations. Have coded 7 transcripts at this point (1-5, 10 and 21) and am now
working on P18 (the final P from the same place as P3, 5 and 21).
Working to continue with overall analysis in the hopes of generating cleaner codes and a
swifter coding process; I am looking at the list of the assembled codes and inserting
quotes to substantiate the codes as well as continuing to use constant comparison to
nuance/change those codes with other Ps. Then I am moving back and forth between the
longer document with all the quotes and a shorter document with codes only (to be used
together for future write-ups to try to generate a manageable code list for our future
coding).
11/18/07
Coding summary on P22, noticing that the analysis is continuing to move along through
our process of coding each transcript. Although we are still in the process of generating a
formal list of all the categories, we are continuing to compare and contrast within and
across transcripts as we look at each one individually.
Social constructionist moment in my interview with Participant:
"1 got the sense that considering client safety was one o/the major things that helps you
differentiate between how much we're attending to context versus competence
Would you say that's the major one? Yeah, that, you know in this particular situation it
was the major one." (LL 479-487)
ARTICLE IDEAS
• Impact on peers (P9, LL 434 and many others)
• Confidentiality (P22, LL 61 0-652, others)
• Comparison-between Ps who do not include MC competence as critical
component of competencies with those Ps who do-looking at how they talk
about professional standards
o Are EM students ahead on those competencies?
• Does anyone talk about EM students begin strong or weak in this
area of competency among all competencies?
o Do these 2 groups talk differently about the relationship between
professional standards and social address?
• Is it the same/different?
• Is it vague/clear at the same or different times?
• Other language issues?
• Age/training cohort analyses
December/January 2007-2008
Difficulty:
261
1. Fitting in Pl' s observations about seeing students struggle with culturally related
parts of themselves. Maybe should lump together with university/program
climate? Especially EA students struggling with raising RE issues.
2. Figuring out the section on seeing some problems more easily as having diversity
component.
Thoughts:
Talking about actions faculty take around TIPPC and diversity
1 is to examine themselves and each other to check out biases
1 is to listen to student concerns
1 is to raise the issue with student directly (P2) could this be related to the type of student
problem, and who the faculty is and who the student is?
Meat of dissertation analysis:
4. Different approaches to incorporating diversity and how those are connected to
general discussions about diversity
a. Concrete steps to address diversity
b. No steps
c. Conflicting issues
5. The role of language
6. Contradictions
Examining movement in language-when TDs move from clear to evasive, vague to
specific, direct to passive.
Colorblindness-summary of variations
Approach to understanding and assessing as one category, taking action as another
category-what do participants and their programs think about re: TIPPC? What do they
do? What are the external influences (e.g., individual differences in thinking about
diversity, program culture) on them and the students?
Coming to ultimate decision point? When? Where? How?
How might some groups of TIPPCs raise different questions and concerns for Ps? Are
there questions around legitimacy of difficulties?
Examining the degree of cultural rootedness that exists in professional standards and
expectations and then choosing to use those standards are two different, but related
things. How to organize?
January 4, 2008
262
*From Participant coding: Our commitment to social justice has outpaced our
conversations and understanding about social justice. Lived experience has outpaced our
cultural competence as a profession
What is the general impression or interpretation of what this question about the
intersection of diversity with TIPPC means/refers to? COMPARE/CONTRAST among
all participants-how do folks initially answer the question?
January 7, 2008
Having compiled completed coding summaries from Ps 1-5,9, 10, 12, 15-22, (N= 16) I
reexamined the analysis questions generated in the course of our team conversations
about the data. Note that these questions were in chronological order, so I was reading
questions that were progressively refined and based on more and more data and analysis.
I then loosely grouped participants by time of coding and time of summary, reexamining
the most recent ones first. My rationalization for doing so is that our analysis deepened
over time because of the constant comparison process; that is, we had a collective team
memory (with individual variation and contribution) that enabled us to compare current
participants with those earlier coded. I believe that by examining the more recent ones
first, I would then be able to go back to the earlier ones to look for
confirming/disconfirming data.
1/15/08-1/19/08
Progressing through coding. I used the conversations to develop codes in the transcripts,
including developing categories as we progressed through the conversations. Following
this process I created formal "coding summaries" of each participant, including the
specific lines from which the category was drawn and specific quotes that we thought
were powerful.
Following this process, I then reviewed coding summaries, 3-5 at a time, to look for
similar and different categories, combining participants' responses into larger groupings
of summaries of 3-5 participants (e.g., combining codes for PIO, 14, 20, 22). In all cases
except one, I kept all participants from the same university in the larger combined group.
I then examined these larger combined coding summaries for existing categories that
could be combined, refined, nuanced. I found myself coming up with the following
questions and processes that were posed and answered in the data, such as:
• Making a decision about where problems are located (in the system, in the
student)
• What helps make the decision about where to locate the problem?
263
o Examining situational factors
• What helps make the decision about where to look (i.e., how to examine) the
problem?
• What are some of the questions that are asked?
• What are some of the answers to those questions (i.e., what have participants
concluded)?
• What are some of the responses to the answers found?
• What are some of the outcomes of the processes used?
This work was developing as I was in the process of putting together job talks and
presentations on this research. I engaged in several practice job talks at my internship and
received feedback on the results (presented as tentative).
Making decision about whether to focus only on diversity intersection with remediation
or all points at which participants mentioned considering context. I decided to focus
mainly on the intersection, although I included information about whether a program
looked at context when considering remediation; figured it would be useful if not in the
dissertation write-up, then certainly later; also though I think it is useful in the
dissertation, because it could be coded under factors that make consideration of diversity
variables more likely.
If there is a process that generally involved taking an explicit look at the program and the
context then I did include that, and will talk about that as providing a natural window into
examining the context when diversity is part of the picture. Of course, diversity might
make it more difficult to examine the context for a variety ofother reasons, such as
faculty conflict, etc.
I identified a possible and fundamental assumption that problems at the intersection of
TIPPC and diversity are in part caused by the training ecology. Only just now did I think
of this assumption and generate a category for problems at this intersection that are latent
in the student (e.g., that Ps have talked about, due to the region of the country and racism
in the student's upbringing--e.g., PI, P2, or religious reasons--e.g., P 12, or multiple
identities of varying degrees of privilege and acting on one's power--e.g., another
participant)
02/04/08
Focused coding meeting with Linda and M. Discussed categories and subcategories,
made some revisions and clarifications. Will meet next week, reviewing transcript from
P7 in line with these existing categories (will also finish with focused coding category
"responding to the findings of their investigations").
264
02/10/08
Additional changes to categories since our meeting:
IN "PROCESSES FOR EXAMINING THE INTERSECTION"
1. I split the category "conceptual processes for examining the intersection" into 2
subcategories of "conceptual" and "active" and then renamed the category
"processes for examining the intersection." Note that this category used to
"conceptual models for examining the intersection" and even prior to that was
"methods for examining the intersection." In our last meeting we talked about
how these were actually processes. In rereading the categories I was remembering
our conversation about the different types of processes at play and felt that
whereas "using a colorblind continuum" and "considering an absolute standard
for evaluating competency" were more conceptual, "active engagement with
colleagues and students" seemed to be more active.
2. Changed "colorblind continuum" to "using a colorblind continuum"
3. Changed "waiting it out" to "extending the process ofexamination" and
combined it with that subcategory, formerly in "outcomes."
Changes made as a result of our focused coding meeting:
Removed the following section from "factors that affect ease or difficulty of raising
issues of diversity" (in subcategory "multicultural competence of the program:
Demonstrating values"):
Using specific tools for examining diversity generally
Using the ADDRESSING model (specific model from literature) (403-
404) Participant
Reading literature on culture from related fields beyond CPSY (409-413)
Participant
Not understanding my question (490) Participant
Not able to articulate or respond to direct question about a model despite
being offered examples of models (490-505) Participant
02/16/08
Theoretical coding meeting with M, in which we coded PT s transcript and discussed how
we would use the new categories and codes. We decided to use this transcript and the
remaining ones to examine our current categories, looking for confirming/disconfirming
evidence in these interviews, as well as finding information that would nuance or enhance
the depth of existing categories. One example of this is the addition of P7' s discussion of
the "mentor vs. cohort" model of doctoral student selection, which we added to the
"factors that affect ease or difficulty of raising issues of diversity" category.
Changes/additions based on P7 coding:
265
1. Adding the "mentor vs. cohort" model of doctoral student selection, which we
added to the "factors that affect ease or difficulty of raising issues of diversity"
category
2. Adding a dimension of "colorblindness" to "existing tensions around MC issues"
subcategory in the "factors that affect ease or difficulty of raising issues of
diversity" category
03/02/08
Considering theory, model, fit among categories.
I think the category "processes for examining the intersection" and the subcategories, or
properties and dimensions of this category could be re-organized with more focus on
differences between espoused conceptual approaches, such as being always colorblind,
sometimes colorblind, and never colorblind (ranging along the continuum and perhaps
also seen in the first part of "examining the ecology of the problem" in which we talked
about the degrees of complexity offocusing on the student property and dimensions of
this category) and a new property of demonstrated or engaged conceptual and active
approaches (internal and external) that could include things like bending over backwards
(external) which could in tum fit with both being colorblind (Participant) as well as
being context-sensitive (Participant), and could be both described as positive and
negative. The idea of bending over backwards (external vs. internal approach) fits well
with notions of commitment to an espoused ideal in program, self or others for good or
bad, and fits with notions of giving students who are struggling the benefit ofthe doubt
(Participant and others) in some cases and extending the process ofremediation to be
sure about the decision about the problem in others. It seems to be different from, yet
similar to, other strategies such as raising questions about standards (includingflexibiliry
and cultural andpersonal rootedness) (internal) and "We're done:" Finding absolutes
that trump the role ofculture (likely internal, maybe both) and examining selfand
standards, and properties of the category that are more external or interaction based, such
as relying on colleagues' expertise, and engaging in conversations with colleagues, and
listening to students. Question: should bending over backwards be a strategy that
intersects with ideology or espoused conceptual approaches, such as other strategies exist
that include more reflective approaches (see next paragraph)?
Thinking that maybe this overall category title should be changed to Strategically
examining the intersection (contextual through colorblind approaches). We could
differentiate this category from examining the ecology of the problem because the
"strategies" category relates to how participants focus on standards surrounding the
problem (and perhaps the means by which to examine the issues), whereas the examining
the ecology of the problem category focuses on the student and aspects ofthe system that
might be contributing to the problem. Need to consider the extent to which the ecology is
examined (and what aspects of the ecology are examined) may relate to strategies used to
examine the intersection. This could be the core category. In this category 1 am trying to
266
capture how the use ofcolorblind through contextual approaches (and all variations in
between) impact participants' approach to examining (a) standards by which students
are evaluated, (b) their own levels ofbias (ifany) and (c) other aspects ofthe system that
might be contributing to the problem.
Within the category, aspects of colorblindness vs. context impact a number of
decisions and how they are used; in some cases the standards are used as absolutes
without consideration of context, in others the same standards are used as endpoints to
finalize investigations about the role of culture/context. So participants come to the same
outcome through a different process, but perhaps they never make it to the same outcome,
or perhaps there is change in the standards (see responding to the findings category).
Similarly, some participants have articulated the dilemma around flexibility vs. absolutes
in standards and then not discussed any further action, moving instead to a discussion
about articulating the dilemma and enforcing the standards (Participant), whereas others
have described the dilemma and talked about it in depth, others have also talked about
their process as a struggle. Participant in this instance articulated the argument but did
not talk about nuance; Participant talked about decision making process, Participant
talked about struggling, consulting, not having clear decision. Not all properties in this
category are considered through both colorblind and contextual lenses.
Examining the ecology of the problem as discussed in the category above, relates to how
participants examine multiple factors that may be impacting the student, from training
system to training ecology (proximal to distal, I guess)-seems like there are things that
they might be able to control and things they (the faculty) might not, or at least are able to
control more directly and more indirectly. Focusing on the person of the student.
Wondering about how this relates also to responding to findings of their investigations; is
there a sense of making a decision about how to respond based on focus of findings? For
example, there is a major difference between advocating for changing the system and
changing the system by dropping a practicum site or challenging colleagues vs. using
adversity to educate students about social justice and activism. Question: how does
More on colorblindness and context, seeing the process of considering context on a
continuum. Sometimes context falls off, such as when power is more salient to the
exclusion of diversity, race, etc. (Participant). Other examples as well (see processes ... ).
In addition, in examining the ecology of the problem, the first section,focusing on the
student, involves various levels of complexity as far as considering aspects of TIPPCs
identity. These varying levels to which TIPPC's identity is considered might intersect
with varying levels of attention to context AND with defining the intersection of diversity
and TIPPC category, especially in linking identifiedproblems to diversity variables.
Discussion section: something about the role and importance of colleagues throughout
these categories and phases. Need to emphasize.
267
REFERENCES
Ali, S. R., Flojo, J. R., Chronister, K. M., Hayashino, D., Smiling, Q. R., Torres, D., et
al. (2005). When racism is reversed: Therapists of color speak about their
experiences with racism from clients, supervisees, and supervisors. In M. Rastogi
& E. Weiling (Eds.), Voices ofcolor: First-person accounts ofethnic minority
therapists (pp. 117-133). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
American Psychological Association Task Force on Women in Academe. (2000).
Women in academe: Two stepsforward, one step back. Washington, D. C.:
Author. Retrieved November 8,2006 from
http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/academe.pdf.
American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and
code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060-1073.
American Psychological Association. (2003). Guidelines on multicultural education,
training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists.
American Psychologist, 58, 377-402.
American Psychological Association. (in press). Guidelines for psychological practice
with girls and women. American Psychologist.
Ancis,1. R., & Szymanski, D. M. (2001). Awareness of White privilege among White
counseling trainees. The Counseling Psychologist, 29, 548-569.
Arredondo, P., Toporek, R., Brown, S. P., Jones, 1., Locke, D. C., Sanchez, 1., &
Stadler, H. (1996). Operationalization of the multicultural counseling
competencies. Journal ofMulticultural Counseling and Development, 24, 42-78.
Atkinson, D. R., Brown, M. T., Casas, J. M., & Zane, N. W. S. (1996). Achieving
ethnic parity in counseling psychology. Counseling Psychologist, 24, 230-258.
Ault-Richie, M. (1998). Teaching an integrated model of family therapy: Women as
students, women as supervisors. Journal ofPsychotherapy and the Family, 3,
175-192.
Baldo, T. D., & Softas-Nall, B. C. (1997). Student review and retention in counselor
education: An alternative to Frame and Stevens-Smith. Counselor Education and
Supervision, 36, 245-253.
Beauchaine, T. P. (2003). Taxometrics and developmental psychopathology.
Development and Psychopathology, 15, 501-527.
268
Behrens, J. T., & Smith, M. L. (1996). Data and data analysis. In D.C. Berliner & R.C.
Calfee (Eds.), Handbook ofeducational psychology (pp. 945-989). New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Bemak, F., Epp, L. R., & Keys, S. G. (1999). Impaired graduate students: A process
model of graduate program monitoring and intervention. International Journal for
the Advancement ofCounseling, 21, 19-30.
Bernal, M. E., & Castro, F. G. (1994). Are clinical psychologists prepared for service
and research with ethnic minorities? American Psychologist, 49, 797-805.
Bernard, J. M. (1994). Multicultural supervision: A reaction to Leong and Wagner,
Cook, Priest and Fukuyama. Counselor Education and Supervision, 34, 159-172.
Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (1998). Fundamentals ofclinical supervision (2nd
ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Biaggio, M. K., Gasparikova-Krasnec, M., & Bauer, L. (1983). Evaluation of clinical
psychology graduate students: The problem of the unsuitable student.
Professional Practice ofPsychology, 4, 9-20.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2000). The linguistics of color blind racism: How to talk nasty
about Blacks without sounding "racist." Critical Sociology, 28, 41-63.
Boxley, R., Drew, C. R., & Rangel, D. M. (1986). Clinical trainee impairment in APA-
approved internship programs. The Clinical Psychologist, 39, 49-52.
Bradey, J., & Post, P. (1991). Impaired students: Do we eliminate them from counselor
education programs? Counselor Education and Supervision, 31, 100-108.
Bradshaw, W. H., Jr. (1982). Supervision in black and white: Race as a factor in
supervision. In M. Blumenfield (Ed.), Applied supervision in psychotherapy (pp.
199-220). New York: Grune & Stratton.
Brown, L.S. (1994). Subversive dialogues. New York: Basic Books.
Brown, M. T., & Landrum-Brown, J. (1995). Counselor supervision: Cross-cultural
perspectives. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander
(Eds.), Handbook ofmulticultural counseling (pp. 575-603). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
269
Bryant-Davis, T., & Ocampo, C. (2005). Racist incident-based trauma. The
Counseling Psychologist, 33, 479-500.
Burkard, A W., Johnson, A J., Madson, M. R, Pruitt, N. T., Contreras-Tadych, D. A,
Kozlowski, J. M., et al. (2006). Supervisor cultural responsiveness and
unresponsiveness in cross-cultural supervision. Journal ofCounseling
Psychology, 53, 288-301.
Busseri, M.A, Tyler, J.D., & King, AR. (2005). An exploratory examination of student
dismissals and prompted resignations from clinical psychology Ph.D. training.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36,441-445.
Carter, R. T. (2007). Racism and psychological and emotional injury: Recognizing
and assessing race-based traumatic stress. The Counseling Psychologist, 35, 13-
105.
Charmaz, K. (2003a). Grounded theory. In J. A Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A
practical guide to research methods, (pp. 81-109). London: Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2003b). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N.
K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies ofqualitative inquiry (2nci ed., pp.
249-291). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through
qualitative analysis. London: Sage.
Chung, Y. R, Marshall, J. A., & Gordon, L. L. (2001). Racial and gender biases in
supervisory evaluation and feedback. Clinical Supervisor, 20, 99-111.
Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A (1996). Equifinality and multifinality in developmental
psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 597-600.
Comas-Diaz, L. (1994). An integrative approach. In L. Comas-Diaz & B. Greene
(Eds.), Women ofcolor: Integrating ethnic and gender identities in psychotherapy
(pp. 287-318). New York: Guilford Press.
Constantine, M. G. (1997). Facilitating multicultural competency in counseling
supervision: Operationalizing a practical framework. In D. R Pope-Davis & H. L.
K. Coleman (Eds.), Multicultural counseling competencies: Assessment,
education and training, and supervision (pp. 310-324). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
270
Constantine, M. G. (2001). Addressing racial, ethnic, gender and social class issues in
counselor training and practice. In D.B. Pope-Davis & H.L.K. Coleman
(Eds.), The intersection ofrace, class and gender in multicultural counseling (pp.
341-350). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cook, D. A. (1994). Racial identity in supervision. Counselor Education and
Supervision, 34, 132-141.
Cook, D. A., & Helms, J. E. (1988). Visible racial/ethnic group supervisees'
satisfaction with cross-cultural supervision as predicted by relationship
characteristics. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 35, 268-274.
Council of Counseling Psychology Training Programs. (2006a). Surveys ofDoctoral
Training Programs 1995-96 through 2004-05. Retrieved March 6, 2006, from
http://www454.outtech.com/council/Reports/survey.aspx
Council of Counseling Psychology Training Programs. (2006b). Counseling psychology
model training values statement addressing diversity. Retrieved on September 24,
2007 at http://www.ccptp.org/ModeIValues091006.htm.
Council of Counseling Psychology Training Programs. (2007). Assessment of
competency benchmarks work group: A developmental model for the defining
and measuring competence in professional psychology. Retrieved on September
24,2007 at
http://wsm.ezsitedesigner.com/share/scrapbook/50/502062/Benchmark_Competen
cies_Document_-_Feb_2007.pdf.
Creswell, 1. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing amongjive
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cutcliffe, J. R. (2000). Adapt or adopt: Developing and transgressing the
methodological boundaries of grounded theory. Journal ofAdvanced Nursing, 51,
421-428.
Cutcliffe, J. R. (2005). Methodological issues in grounded theory. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 31, 1476-1484.
D'Andrea, M., & Daniels, J. (1999). Exploring the psychology of White racism through
naturalistic inquiry. Journal ofCounseling and Development, 77, 93-101.
Delgado-Romero, E. A., Galvan, N., Maschino, P., & Rowland, M. (2005). Race and
ethnicity in empirical counseling and counseling psychology research: A 10-year
review. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 419-448.
271
Dovidio,1. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2005). Color blind or just plain blind? The Nonprofit
Quarterly, 12. Retrieved March 10, 2006 from
http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/print/788.html
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Kawakami, K., & Hodson, G. (2002). Why can't we just
get along? Interpersonal biases and interracial distrust. Cultural Diversity and
Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8, 88-102.
Duan, C., & Roehlke, H. (2001). A descriptive "snapshot" of cross-racial supervision
in university counseling center internships. Journal ofMulticultural Counseling
and Development, 29, 131-146.
Ellis, M. V., & Ladany, N. (1997). Inferences concerning supervisees and clients in
clinical supervision: An integrative review. In C.E. Watkins, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook
ofpsychotherapy supervision (pp. 447-507).
Elman, N. S., Forrest, L., Vacha-Haase, T., & Gizara, S. (1999). A systems perspective
on trainee impairment: Continuing the dialogue. The Counseling Psychologist, 27,
712-721.
Elman, N. S., & Forrest, L. (2004). Psychotherapy in the remediation of psychology
trainees: Exploratory interviews with training directors. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 35, 123-130.
Elman, N. S., & Forrest, L. (2007). From trainee impairment to professional
competence problems: Seeking terminology that facilitates effective action.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 501-509.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook ofresearch on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan.
Falendar, C. A., Collins, C. J., & Shafranske, E. P. (2005). Use of the term
"impairment" in psychology supervision. The California Psychologist, 38, 21-22.
Fassinger, R E. (2005). Paradigms, praxis, problems and promise: Grounded theory in
counseling psychology research. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 52, 156-166.
Fenig, S., Levav, 1., Kohn, R, & Ye1in, N. (1993). Telephone vs face-to-face
interviewing in a community psychiatric survey [Electronic version]. American
Journal ofPublic Health, 83, 896-898.
272
Fong, M. L., & Lease, S. H. (1997). Cross cultural supervision: Issues for the White
supervisor. In D. P. Pope-Davis, & H. L. K. Coleman (Eds.), Multicultural
counseling competencies: Assessment, education, training, and supervision (pp.
387-405). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Forrest, L., Elman, N., Gizara, S., & Vacha-Haase, T. (1999). Trainee impairment: A
review of identification, remediation, dismissal, and legal issues. The Counseling
Psychologist, 27, 627-686.
Forrest, L., Elman, N. S., & Miller, D. S. Shen. (in press). Psychology trainees with
competence problems: From individual to ecological conceptualizations. Training
and Education in Professional Psychology.
Frame, M. W., & Stevens-Smith, P. (1995). Out of harm's way: Enhancing monitoring
and dismissal processes in counselor education programs. Counselor Education
and Supervision, 35, 118-129.
Fine, M. (2007). Expanding the methodological imagination. The Counseling
Psychologist, 35, 459-473.
Fukuyama, M. A. (1994). Critical incidents in multicultural counseling supervision: A
phenomenological approach to supervision. Counselor Education and
Supervision, 34, 142-151.
Gatmon, D., Jackson, D., Koshkarian, L., Martos-Perry, N., Molina, A., Patel, N., &
Rodolfa, E. (2001). Exploring ethnic, gender and sexual orientation variables in
supervision: Do they really matter? Journal ofMulticultural Counseling and
Development, 29, 102-113.
Gaubatz, M. D., & Vera, E. M. (2002). Do formalized gatekeeping procedures increase
programs' follow up with deficient trainees? Counselor Education and
Supervision, 41, 294-305.
Gaubatz, M. D., & Vera, E. M. (2006). Trainee competence in masters-level counseling
programs: A comparison of counselor educators' and students' views. Counselor
Education and Supervision, 46, 32-43.
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C.
Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation ofcultures: Selected essays (pp. 3-32). New
York: Basic Books.
Gelso, C. J., & Fretz, B. R. (1992). Counseling psychology. Orlando, FL: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich.
273
Gilfoyle, N. (in press). The legal exosystem: Risk management in addressing student
competence problems in professional psychology training. Training and
Education in Professional Psychology.
Gizara, S. S. (1997). Supervisors' construction ofintern impairment at APA-accredited
internship sites. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University,
East Lansing.
Gizara, S. S., & Forrest, L. (2004). Supervisors' experiences of trainee impairment and
incompetence at APA-accredited internship sites. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 35, 131-140.
Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology ofgrounded
theory. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. (1992). Emergence vs. Forcing: Basics ofgrounded theory analysis. Mill
Valley, CA: The Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. (2002). Constructivist grounded theory? Forum: Qualitative Research.
Retrieved April 23, 2007 from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-
02/3-02glaser-e.htm
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery ofgrounded theory: Strategies
for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.
Gloria, A. M. (2001). The cultural construction of Latinas: Practice implications of
multiple realities and identities. In D. B. Pope-Davis & H. L. K. Coleman (Eds.),
The intersection ofrace, class and gender in multicultural counseling (pp. 3-24).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Goodyear, R. K. (1990). Gender configurations in supervisory dyads: Their
relationship to supervisee influence strategies and to skill evaluations of the
supervisee. The Clinical Supervisor, 8, 67-79.
Goodyear, R. K., & Guzzardo, C. R. (2000). Psychotherapy supervision and training.
In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook ofcounseling psychology (3 rd ed.,
pp. 83-108). New York: Wiley & Sons.
Graham, S. (1992). "Most of the subjects were white and middle class:" Trends in
published research on African Americans in selected APAjoumals, 1980-1989.
American Psychologist, 47, 629-639.
274
Granello, D. H. (2003). Influence strategies in the supervisory dyad: An investigation
into the effects of gender and age. Counselor Education and Supervision, 42, 189-
202.
Granello, D. H., Beamish, P. M., & Davis, T. E. (1997). Supervisee empowerment:
Does gender make a difference? Counselor Education and Supervision, 36, 305-
317.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research.
In N. K Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook ofqualitative research, (pp.
105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hahn, W. K, & Molnar, S. (1991). Intern evaluation in university counseling centers:
Process, problems, and recommendations. Counseling Psychologist, 19, 414-430.
Hall, C. C. 1. (1997). Cultural malpractice: The growing obsolescence of psychology
with the changing U.S. population. American Psychologist, 52, 642-651.
Hammond, W. R., & Yung, B. (1993). Minority student recruitment and retention
practices among schools of professional psychology: A national survey and
analysis. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 24, 3-12.
Helms, J. E. (1982). Differential evaluations ofminority and majority counseling
trainees' practicum performance. Unpublished manuscript, University of
Maryland, College Park.
Helms, J. E. (1990). Black and white racial identity: Theory, research andpractice.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Helms, J. E., Hernigan, & Mascher, J. (2005). The meaning ofrace in psychology and
how to change it: A methodological perspective. American Psychologist, 60, 27-
36.
Helms, J. E., & Richardson, T. Q. (1997). How "multiculturalism" obscures race and
culture as differential aspects ofcounseling competency. In D. B. Pope-Davis &
H. L. K Coleman (Eds.), Multicultural counseling competencies: Assessment,
education and training, and supervision (pp. 60-79). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hensley, L. G., Smith, S. L., & Thompson, R. W. (2003). Assessing competencies of
counselors-in-training: Complexities in evaluating personal and professional
development. Counselor Education and Supervision, 42, 219-230.
275
Hilton, D. B., Russell, R. K., & Salmi, S. W. (1995). The effects of supervisor's race
and level of support on perceptions of supervision. Journal 0/Counseling and
Development, 73, 559-563.
Hodson, G., Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L. (2002). Processes in racial discrimination:
differential weighting of conflicting information. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28, 460-471.
Hoffman, M. A., Hill, C. E., Holmes, S. E., & Frietas, G. F. (2005). Supervisor
perspective on the process and outcome of giving easy, difficult, or no feedback
to supervisees. Journal o/Counseling Psychology, 52, 3-13.
Holloway, E. L. (1992). Supervision: A way of teaching and learning. In S. D. Brown
& R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook 0/counseling psychology (pp. 177-214). New
York: Wiley.
Holloway, E. L., & Neufeldt, S. A. (1995). Supervision: Its contributions to treatment
efficacy. Journal o/Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 207-213.
Huprich, S. K., & Rudd, M. D. (2004). A national survey oftrainee impairment in
clinical, counseling, and school psychology doctoral programs and internships.
Journal o/Clinical Psychology, 60, 43-52.
Ked, S. B., Garcia, J. L., McCullough, C. S., & Maxwell, M. E. (2002). Systematic
evaluation of professional performance: Legally supported procedure and process.
Counselor Education and Supervision, 41, 321-332.
Kiselica, M. S. (1998). Preparing Anglos for the challenges and joys of
multiculturalism. The Counseling Psychologist, 26, 5-21.
Kite, M. E., Russo, N. F., Brehm, S. S., Fouad, N. A., Hall, C. C., Hyde, J. S., & Keita,
G. P. (2001). Women psychologists in academe: Mixed progress, unwarranted
complacency. American Psychologist, 56, 1080-1098.
Kleintjes, S., & Swartz, L. (1996). Black clinical psychology trainees at a "White"
South African university: Issues for clinical supervision. Clinical Supervisor, 14,
87-109.
Knoff, H. M., & Prout, H. T. (1985). Terminating students from professional
psychology programs: Criteria, procedures, and legal issues. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 22, 291-296.
276
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ladany, N., Brittan-Powell, C. S., & Pannu, R. K. (1997). The influence of supervisory
racial identity interaction and racial matching on the supervisory working alliance
and supervisee multicultural competence. Counselor Education and Supervision,
36, 305-317.
Laliotis, D. A, & Grayson, J. H. (1985). Psychologist, heal thyself: What is available
for the impaired psychologist? American Psychologist, 40, 84-89.
Lamb, D. H. (1999). Addressing impairment and its relationship to professional
boundary issues: A response to Forrest, Elman, Gizara and Vacha-Haase. The
Counseling Psychologist, 27, 702-711.
Lamb, D. H., Cochran, D. J., & Jackson, V. R. (1991). Training and organizational
issues associated with identifying and responding to intern impairment.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 22, 291-296.
Lamb, D. H., Presser, N. R., Pfost, K. S., Baum, M. C., Jackson, V. R, & Jarvis, D. A
(1987). Confronting professional impairment during the internship: Identification,
due process, and remediation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,
18, 597-603.
LaRoche, M. J., & Maxie, A (2003). Ten considerations in addressing cultural
differences in psychotherapy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,
34, 180-186.
Lark, 1. S., & Paul, B. D. (1998). Beyond multicultural training: Mentoring stories
from two White American doctoral students. The Counseling Psychologist, 26,
33-42.
Lazur, R F., & Majors, R. (1995). Men of Color: Ethnocultural variations of male
gender role strain. In R F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of
men (pp. 337-358). New York: Basic.
Leong, F. T. L. (1996). Toward an integrative model for cross-cultural counseling and
psychotherapy. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 5, 189-209.
Leong, F. T. L., & Lee, S-H. (2006). A cultural accommodation model for cross-
cultural psychotherapy: Illustrated with the case of Asian-Americans.
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 43, 410-423.
277
Leong, F. T. L., & Wagner, N. S. (1994). Cross-cultural supervision: What do we
know? What do we need to know? Counselor Education and Supervision, 34,
321-331.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lumadue, C. A., & Duffy, T. H. (1999). The role of graduate programs as gatekeepers:
A model for evaluating student counselor competence. Counselor Education and
Supervision, 39, 101-109.
Maneolas, P., & Carrillo, E. (1991). A culturally syntonic approach to the field
education of Latino students. Journal ofSocial Work Education, 27, 135-144.
Martin-Baro, 1. Writings for a liberation psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Maton, K. 1., Kohout, J. L., Wicherski, M., Leary, G. E., & Vinokurov, A. (2006).
Minority students of color and the psychology graduate pipeline: Disquieting and
encouraging trends, 1989-2003. American Psychologist, 61, 117-131.
McNeill, B. W., Hom, K. L., & Perez, J. A. (1995). The training and supervisory needs
of racial and ethnic minority students. Journal ofMulticultural Counseling and
Development, 23, 246-258.
McRoy, R. G., Freeman, E. M., Logan, S. L., & Blackmon, B. (1986). Cross-cultural
field supervision: Implications for social work education. Journal ofSocial Work
Education, 22, 50-56.
Mearns, J., & Allen, G. J. (1991). Graduate students' experiences in dealing with
impaired peers, compared with faculty predictions: An exploratory study. Ethics
and Behavior, I, 191-202.
Melia, K. M. (1996). Rediscovering Glaser. Qualitative Health Research, 6, 368-378.
Miller, D. S. S., Forrest, L., & Elman, N. (in press). Training Director's
conceptualizations of the intersections of diversity and trainee competence
problems: A preliminary analysis. The Counseling Psychologist.
Moradi, B., & Neimeyer, G. 1. (2005). Diversity in the ivory White tower: A
longitudinal look at faculty race/ethnicity in counseling psychology academic
training programs. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 655-675.
278
Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling
psychology. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 52, 250-260.
Morrow, S. L., Rakhsha, G., & Castaneda, C. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods
for multicultural counseling. In 1. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C.
M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook ofmulticultural counseling (2nd ed., pp. 575-
603). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morrow, S. L., & Smith, M. L. (2000). Qualitative research for counseling psycholofy.
In S. D. Brown & R.W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook ofcounseling psychology (3 r ed.,
pp. 199-230). New York: Wiley & Sons.
Morse, J. M. (1995). The significance of saturation. Qualitative Health Research, 5,
147-149.
Morse, 1. M. (1994). Designing funded qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook ofqualitative research (pp. 220-235). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Munoz-Dunbar, R., & Stanton, A. L. (1999). Ethnic diversity in clinical psychology:
Recruitment and admission practices among doctoral programs. Teaching of
Psychology, 26, 259-263.
Munson, C.E. (1987). Sex roles and power relationships in supervision. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 18, 236-243.
National Center for Educational Statistics (2005). Digest ofEducation Statistics: 2005.
Table 233: Full-time andpart-time instructional faculty and staffin degree-
granting institutions, by race/ethnicity, sex, andprogram area: Fall 1998 andfall
2003. Retrieved November 1,2006, from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/tables/dt05_233.asp.
Nelson, M. L., & Friedlander, M. L. (2001). A close look at conflictual supervisory
relationship: The trainee's perspective. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 48,
384-395.
Nelson, M. L., & Holloway, E. L. (1990). Relation of gender to power and
involvement in supervision. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 37, 473-481.
Neville, H. A., & Carter, R. T. (2005). Race and racism in counseling psychology
research, training and practice: A critical review, current trends, and future
directions. Counseling Psychologist, 33, 413-418.
279
Norcross, J. C., Kohout, J. L., & Wicherski, M. (2005). Graduate study in psychology.
American Psychologist, 60, 959-975.
Norton, R. A., & Coleman, H. L. K. (2003). Multicultural supervision: The influence
of race-related issues in supervision process and outcome. In D. B. Pope-Davis,
H. L. K. Coleman, W. M. Liu, & R L. Toporek (Eds.), Handbook ofmulticultural
competencies in counseling andpsychology (pp. 114-134). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Oliver, M. N. 1., Bernstein, J. H., Anderson, K. G., Blashfield, R K., & Roberts, M. C.
(2004). An exploratory examination of student attitudes toward "impaired" peers
in clinical psychology training programs. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 35, 141-147.
Olkin, R, & Gaughen, S. (1991). Evaluation and dismissal of students in master's
level clinical programs: Legal parameters and survey results. Counselor
Education and Supervision, 30, 276-283.
O'Neil, J. M. (2008). Summarizing 25 years of research on men's gender role conflict
using the gender role conflict scale. The Counseling Psychologist, 36, 358-445.
O'Neil, J. M., Helms, B., Gable, R, David, L., & Wrightsman, L. (1986). Gender
Role Conflict Scale: College men's fear of femininity. Sex Roles, 14, 335-350.
Ottavi, T. M., Pope-Davis, D. B., & Dings, J. G. (1994). Relationship between White
racial identity attitudes and self-reported multi-cultural counseling competencies.
Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 41, 149-154.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity: One's own. Educational Researcher, 17,
17-22.
Ponterotto, J. G. (1988). Racial/ethnic minority research in the Journal ofCounseling
Psychology: A content analysis and methodological critique. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 35,410-418.
Procidano, M. E., Busch-Rossnagel, N. A., Reznikoff, M., & Geisinger, K. F. (1995).
Responding to graduate students' professional deficiencies: A national survey.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51,426-433.
280
Priest, R. (1994). Minority supervisor and majority supervisee: Another perspective of
clinical reality. Counselor Education and Supervision, 34, 152-158.
Prilleltensky,1. (1997). Values, assumptions and practices: Assessing the moral
implications of psychological discourse and action. American Psychologist, 47,
517-535.
Quintana, S. M., & Bernal, M. E. (1995). Ethnic minority training in counseling
psychology: Comparisons with clinical psychology and proposed standards. The
Counseling Psychologist, 23, 102-121.
Richie, B. S., Fassinger, R. E., Linn, S. G., Johnson, J., Prosser, J., & Robinson, S.
(1997). Persistence, connection and passion: A qualitative study of the career
development of highly achieving African American-Black and White women.
Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 44, 133-148.
Rogers, M. R., & Molina, L. E. (2006). Exemplary efforts in psychology to recruit and
retain graduate students of color. American Psychologist, 61, 143-156.
Rosenberg, J. 1., Getzelman, M. A, Arcinue, F., & Oren, C. Z. (2005). An exploratory
look at students' experiences ofproblematic peers in academic professional
psychology programs. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36, 665-
673.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, 1. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art ofhearing data.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Russell, C. S., & Peterson, C. M. (2003). Student impairment and remediation in
accredited marriage and family therapy programs. Journal ofMarital and Family
Therapy, 29, 329-337.
Ryan, AS., & Hendricks, C. O. (1989). Culture and communication: Supervising the
Asian and Hispanic social worker. Clinical Supervisor, 7, 27-40.
Ryan, C. S., Hunt, J. S., Weible, J. A.., Peterson, C. R., & Casas, J. F. (2007).
Multicultural and colorblind ideology, stereotypes, and ethnocentrism among
Black and White Americans. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 617-
637.
Schoener, G.R. (1999). Practicing what we preach. The Counseling Psychologist, 27,
693-701.
281
Sells, 1. N., Goodyear, R K., Lichtenberg, 1. W., & Polkinghorne, D. E. (1997).
Relationship of supervisor and trainee gender to in-session verbal behavior and
ratings of trainee skills. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 44, 406-412.
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in
education and the social sciences. (3 rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Spanierman, L. B., Oh, E., Poteat, V. P., Hund, A R, McClair, V. L., Beer, AM., et
al. (in press). White university students' responses to societal racism: A
qualitative investigation. The Counseling Psychologist. Retrieved January 10,
2008, from
http://O-tcp.sagepub.com.j anus.uoregon.edu/cgi/rapidpdf/OO 11 000006295589v2
Steward, R J., & Phelps, R E. (2004). Feminist and multicultural collaboration in
counseling supervision: Voices from two African American women. Journal of
Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32, 358-365.
Strauss, A L., & Corbin, 1. (1990). Basics ofqualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Stricker, G., Davis-Russell, E., Bourg, E., Duran, E., Hammond, W. R, McHolland, 1.,
et al. (1990). Toward ethnic diversification in psychology education and training.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Sturges, J. E., & Hanrahan, K. J. (2004). Comparing telephone and face-to-face
qualitative interviewing: A research note. Qualitative Research, 4, 107-118.
Sue. D. W. (2005). Racism and the conspiracy of silence: Presidential address. The
Counseling Psychologist, 33, 100-114.
Sue, D. W., Bingham, R P., Porche-Burke, L., & Vasquez, M. (1999). The
diversification of psychology: A multicultural revolution. American Psychologist,
54, 1061-1069.
Sue, D. W., Carter, R T., Casas, J. M., Fouad, N. A, Ivey, A E., Jensen, M., et al.
(1998). Multicultural counseling competencies: Individual and organizational
development. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2003). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory andpractice.
New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Sue, S. (1998). In search of cultural competence in psychotherapy and counseling.
American Psychologist, 53, 440-448.
282
Sue, S. (1999). Science, ethnicity, and bias: Where have we gone wrong? American
Psychologist, 54, 1070-1077.
Super, D. E. (1955). Transition: From vocational guidance to counseling psychology.
Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 2, 3-9.
Swann, C. R. (2003). Students' perceptions ofdue process: Policies, procedures, and
trainee problematic functioning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Pittsburgh.
Tedesco, 1. F. (1982). Premature termination of psychology interns. Professional
Psychology, 13, 695-698.
Utsey, S. 0., & Gernat, C. A. (2002). White racial identity attitudes and the ego
defense mechanisms used by White counselor trainees in racially provocative
counseling situations. Journal ofCounseling and Development, 80, 475-483.
Utsey, S. 0., Gernat, C. A., & Hammar, L. (2005). Examining White counselor
trainees' reactions to racial issues in counseling and supervision dyads. The
Counseling Psychologist, 33, 449-478.
Vacha-Haase, T. (1995, August). Impaired graduate students in APA-accredited
clinical, counseling, and school psychology programs. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station.
Vacha-Haase, T., Davenport, D. S., & Kerewsky, S. D. (2004). Problematic students:
Gatekeeping practices of academic professional psychology programs.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35, 115-122.
Vander Kolk, C. (1974). The relationship of personality, values, and race to
anticipation of the supervisory relationship. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin,
18,41-46.
Vasquez, M. J. T. (1999). Trainee impairment: A response from a
feminist/multicultural retired trainer. The Counseling Psychologist, 27, 687-692.
Vasquez, M. J. T., & Jones, J. M. (2006). Increasing the number of psychologists of
color: Public policy issues for affirmative diversity. American Psychologist, 61,
132-142.
283
Vasquez, M. J. T., Lott, R, Barcia-Vasquez, E., Grant, S. K., Iwamasa, G. Y, Molina,
L. E., et al. (2006). Personal reflections: Barriers and strategies in increasing
diversity in psychology. American Psychologist, 61, 157-172.
Vasquez, M. J. T., & McKinley, D. L. (1982). Supervision: A conceptual model-
reactions and an extension. Counseling Psychologist, 10, 59-63.
Walker, 1. A, Ladany, N., & Pate-Carolan, L. M. (2007). Gender-related events in
psychotherapy supervision: Female trainee perspectives. Counselling and
Psychotherapy Research, 7, 12-18.
Wester, S. R., & Vogel, D. L. (2002). Working with the masculine mystique: Male
gender role conflict, counseling self-efficacy, and the training of male
psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 370-376.
Wester, S. R., Vogel, D. L., & Archer, 1. A (2004). Male restricted emotionality and
counseling supervision. Journal ofCounseling and Development, 82, 91-98.
Wester, S. R., Fowell, R., Fouad, N. A, & Santiago-Rivera, A (in press). Information
processing as problem solving: A collaborative method to deal with students
exhibiting insufficient competence. Training and Education in Professional
Psychology.
Wheeler, S. (1996). The limits of tolerance in assessing the competence of counselling
trainees. International Journal for the Advancement ofCounselling, 18, 173-188.
Worthington, E. L., & Stem, A. (1985). Effects of supervisor and supervisee degree
level and gender on the supervisory relationship. Journal ofCounseling
Psychology, 32, 252-262.
Yee, A R., Fairchild, H. R., Weizmann, F., & Wyatt, G. E. (1993). Addressing
psychology's problems with race. American Psychologist, 48, 1132-1140.
Yeh, C. J., & Inman, A (2007). Qualitative data analysis and interpretation in
counseling psychology: Strategies for best practices. The Counseling
Psychologist, 35, 369-403.