Medicalizing Developments in Counsellor Education? Counselling and Counselling Psychology Students’ Views
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Counsellors have historically endorsed pluralistic approaches to practice. However, recent medicalizing trends now often shape how they are paid, regulated, and administered. The experiences and views of graduate students in counsellor education with respect to this pluralism and medicalization have not been studied. In an effort to better understand their experiences and how they reconciled (or anticipated reconciling) medicalizing expectations (e.g., use of diagnoses and evidence-based treatments) with other aspects of their learning, we conducted a nationwide survey of Canadian graduate students and recent graduates of master’s-level counsellor education programs ( N = 68). We also conducted in-depth follow-up interviews ( n = 9) with self-nominating survey respondents. Our interest was with representing the tensions and complexities in our participants’ reported experiences, so we used the mapping procedures of Adele Clarke’s (2005) situational analysis. We discuss the implications we associate with these mapped tensions and complexities as they relate to curricular and other aspects of counsellor education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".