Professional Identity: A Qualitative Inquiry of Experienced Counsellors L’identité professionnelle de conseillers et conseillères expérimentés: Une étude qualitative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are many recent changes to the practice of counselling and psychotherapy in Canada. Newly established statutory regulation of psychotherapy in Ontario and Que-bec, and new legislation in the province of Nova Scotia protecting the title “counselling therapist, ” are examples of an emerging trend in Canada that seeks to clearly define the various mental health professions. This study employed a variation of grounded theory method to investigate how counsellors experienced their professional identities. Nine experienced master’s-level counsellors in a midsized Canadian city were interviewed using a semi-structured interview protocol. The main goal was to develop an understanding of how they define themselves as professionals, with a focus on what they perceived as being the major influences on their professional identity. Eight major themes emerged, and a provisional model was proposed, consisting of three categories: (a) core of professional identity, (b) key influences on professional identity, and (c) instrumental influences on professional identity. Implications for counsellor education and counselling practice are discussed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".