The literature review of the research is divided into three parts. First section looks at the university counseling movement in the United States from past to present.

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature review of the research is divided into three parts. First section looks at the university counseling movement in the United States from past to present.

Second section briefly looks at evolution of Taiwan’s school counseling, and the difference in development compare to the United States. Third section talks about the International Association of Counseling Services and its Accreditation Standards.

I. University Counseling in the United States

Looking at the present implies that we must also understand the past. As a profession, questions we can explore are: Who are we? How did we get here?

What services do we provide, and how do we provide them? What changes are needed? These questions require a historical perspective and an examination of the principles that shaped the university counseling profession. Documentation of change is readily accessible, both in society and in higher education. On the other hand, we need only look into the political, economic, demographic and technological realms of the present to understand the numerous transitions currently sweeping through higher education. This section addresses both the historical foundations of the university counseling center and the current and future challenges that are forcing the profession to redefine itself.

1. Historical Background

During the 1930s and 1940s, debate emerged regarding counseling models and

the role of university counseling. Some educators argued that counseling was best

provided by faculty, especially by those who showed an interest in the counseling field (Patterson, 1928). Others believed that faculty should receive general training in counseling to handle “normal” academic concerns and that trained professional counselors could most appropriately respond to students with psychological problems (Lloyd-Jones & Smith, 1938). Thus, confusion existed regarding both the nature of counseling and about those best equipped to deliver it. The specific duties of the counselor and the degree and specialization of education and training were under debate as well (Tyler, 1969).

During the period immediately following World War II, large numbers of students invaded campuses nationwide. The Federal Veterans Administration (VA) provided financial assistance for veterans to enroll in higher education following their service to the nation. As a result, federal legislation was instrumental in making a college education accessible for nontraditional, married students who had been previously denied access to higher education (Forest, 1989). Many veterans took advantage of this opportunity and enrolled in college. The counseling movement assisted with this transition by providing counseling services to veterans new to higher education. Federal funds provided assistance to veterans for vocational planning and also for their personal adjustment to college. With the VA emphasis on vocational preparation and job training, university guidance services expanded to assist in both academic and vocational development (Forest, 1989).

This expansion of vocational services paved the way for college counselors to

address social and personal concerns in a counseling context and also provided

momentum for universities to expand the role of college and university counseling

centers. The following decades witnessed the Civil Rights and women’s movements,

and the social barriers to higher education for ethnic minorities and women were

recognized and revised in many parts of the country (Aubrey, 1977).

Large numbers of older students with families matriculated and the influx of this population of students represented a major demographic shift for colleges. The increase in this population provided a sense of pluralism and a much more complex social and cultural environment in colleges. Faculties were suddenly interacting with older, more experienced students who were not hesitant to question and discuss established policies and practices.

2. Changes in Student Services

During this period of expansion, additional personnel were hired in an effort to keep pace with the demand in student services. Administrative functions traditionally performed by faculty were reassigned to student affairs. Once part of the faculty domain, counseling had now evolved into a separate professional service.

Broader responsibility designated to the counseling center evolved into a set of distinct services offered only by counseling professionals with specialized training.

Because much of counseling was increasingly concerned with sensitive issues of privacy, counseling professionals soon advocated for the development of ethical standards of practice, as well (Forster, 1977).

No longer could an office of the dean of women or the dean of men provide all

necessary personal services for students. Therefore, campus counseling centers

established protocol for assisting with specific student concerns. A need for

specialized training for providers also increased. Increased usage of career and

academic assessment instruments and a fuller recognition of the personal needs of

students resulted in a growth in the number and specialization of professional

counselors. With this emphasis on addressing both personal and vocational needs of

student, college counseling began to develop an identity that was separate and distinct from other student affairs units. This diversification and professionalization of the field represented a new direction for counselors and created increased professional opportunities at the university level (Forster, 1977; Winston, 1989).

3. Growth in Counseling and Psychological Services

While changes were occurring in higher education, parallel changes were taking place in the fields of counseling and psychology. In particular, the emergence and popularity of the vocational guidance movement were influencing the field of college counseling (Whiteley, 1984). This emphasis in the field of guidance was instrumental in the development of research-based assessment instruments and in bringing counseling into the mainstream of higher education (Morrill, Oetting, & Hurst, 1974).

With the growth of counseling theories and development of standard personality and vocational inventories, the counseling field developed an increased sophistication in assessment, diagnosis, and treatment (Aubrey, 1977). Specific techniques for counseling and assessment were described extensively in professional literature, and distinctions were increasingly being made between developmental, vocational, and personal counseling interventions. (Morrill et al., 1974).

The growth and increased prestige of the American Psychological Association

(APA) also attracted many to the counseling profession. Counseling psychology

emerged as a distinct field in the 1950s (Whiteley, 1984). As the profession grew,

APA developed accreditation guidelines for graduate programs in counseling

psychology (APA, 1986). In addition, counselor education and training programs

separate from APA emerged and developed their own credentialing guidelines

(American Association for Counseling and Development, 1981).

What originally began as a generalist training program for faculty who would be working with college students in all aspects of their development gradually had grown and changed into a specialized field of professional counseling. Professional counseling techniques and assessment instruments have undergone significant revision; professional counseling training programs are offered in psychology, social work, and counselor education; and credentials awarded may include a Ph.D., M.Ed., and M.S. The distinctions among counseling professionals have therefore become more disparate and increasingly complex and have fostered a keen sense of competition among the professional organizations (Littrell, 2001).

4. Philosophical Approaches to University Counseling

The ideology underlying the counseling profession is a remnant of the early days of the field, emphasizing that development occurs along multiple dimensions of the individual during the college years: interpersonal, emotional, physical, and spiritual (Forest, 1989). An additional principle that emerged from counseling’s historical roots is that it should address the demands inherent in transitioning from late adolescence into early adulthood. This developmental approach argues that addressing a student’s emotional concerns can enhance both academic success and satisfaction with the institution (Cosby, 1966).

The emphasis on the student as an individual underscores a respect for the vast

diversity that exists among students and embraces an affirmation of healthy individual

development. The desire to understand a situation from the individual student’s

perspective means a recognition of and sensitivity to the uniqueness of each person

(Rogers, 1951) and emphasizes the growth and development of the whole person

(Williamson, 1939). A holistic approach emphasizes a respect for the student’s

worldview, as opposed to directing the student from one’s own sense of expertise. It also implies an appreciation of students’ interactions with other students and with faculty and staff. In addition, this tenet of professional counseling requires attending to the student in an inquisitive, active, yet nonjudgmental manner. Such high regard for the individual incorporates a commitment to democratic and egalitarian educational principles (Rogers, 1951).

Attending to the affective domain of student development suggests that special attentions be given to the feelings and personal perspective of individual students.

The counseling process provides a framework whereby personal meanings are an established part of the counselor’s interventions. The model suggests that special attention be given to the feelings and personal perspective or worldview of individual students. A counseling model also encourages student self-reflection and values clarification among peers (Carkhuff, 1969; Rogers, 1951).

Although the developmental movement within counseling dominated the first several decades of college counseling, the most recent decade witnessed a dramatic rise in the use of the medical model, or prescription / diagnosis, with students (Gallagher, Gill, & Goldstrom, 1999). Many college counseling centers have resisted this approach, maintaining that the diagnostic system is flawed, poor research base; unfairly portrays normal, developmental issues as “disorders” or “illnesses”; and removes counseling from its traditional, developmental role (Ivey & Ivey, 1998).

Many college counseling centers have of necessity, however, moved away from

the traditional developmental approach of addressing academic issues and transition

from home to college to diagnosing and treating issues such as clinical depression and

major mood disturbances (Gilbert, 1992). Recent indications are that the number of

college students with documented mental illness is on the rise. Results of a study

conducted among counseling center directors, where 82% of those responding indicated that, during the past 5 years, increased counselor time was devoted to students with “serious psychological problems” (Gallagher et al., 1999). A consequence of increased staff time spent with students experiencing major mental illnesses is a decrease in many centers’ outreach prevention programs (Corazzini, 1997).

Recently, even small university centers have witnessed a move toward a more clinical approach, such as the use of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV) in describing students’ emotional problems. The DSM-IV is published by the American Psychiatric Association in 1994 and considers mental health issues from a medical context. This trend may be related to the increase in student clients who are taking psychoactive medications (Gallagher et al., 1999). The 1998 conference of the Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors (AUCCCD) brought to light the concerns and strong feelings regarding the practice of building counseling services around the DSM-IV.

Although there was much disagreement regarding the value of the DSM-IV, the sheer

volume of university counseling center directors addressing the topic is evidence of a

continued paradigm shift in the profession. It was also revealing to note that many

directors were speaking as often to the liability concerns that a more pathological

university student population invites, such as increased suicide risk, as to issues of

professional development. Other professionals have noted the increasing awareness

of high risk sexual behavior and sexual assault, and the increased prevalence in

campus stalking incidents. Unquestionably, research and discussion on campus

pathology and criminology extend well beyond the developmental issues of the

vocational guidance era.

5. Standards of Care

Although ethical standards for the helping professions were developed over two decades and revised on numerous occasions, as a whole the mental health profession has been slow to adopt uniform standards of care (Grannello & Witmer, 1998). It is defined as the professional conduct practiced by reasonable and prudent professionals who have special training for the diagnosis and treatment of clinical issues (Crawford, 1994).

The lack of clearly defined standards of care is especially problematic for university counseling centers, given the voluminous federal guidelines regarding students’ rights. The lack of a uniform standard of care for all practitioners opens the door for wide variations in practice regarding weighty issues such as diagnosis versus non-diagnosis, number of sessions, training and credentials of the practitioner (master’s versus doctorate, psychologist versus counselor), and the appropriate use of clinical assessments. For example, developmentally oriented counseling centers typically do not use the DSM-IV diagnostic system, whereas others maintain that use of this system is standard treatment and that failing to use it constitutes substandard care (Chisolm, 1998). This lack of standardization among university counseling programs creates legal concerns that are potentially detrimental to college counseling.

Higher education is an environment in which scholars challenge and critique one

another on a routine basis. Shaping and crafting through critical review helps forge

more precise scholarship. It is interesting that although it is within the same

scholarly environment, such critique has been slow to develop in the university

counseling profession. The following questions cited by Granello and Witmer (1998)

indicate a lack of care consensus: What are the standard procedures used in the

diagnosis of mental disorders? What are the most effective procedures for treatment of a mental disorder? What is the standard level of education for a counseling professional? What are the standards by which the profession of counseling is to be judged? Currently, there is much deviation among the various helping professions regarding standards of practice. These questions illustrate the nature of the challenges facing the university counseling profession.

6. Summary of the University Counseling Centers from Past to Present

Counseling has been an integral part of higher education since the post-World War II era. Student demographics of the 1940s bear little resemblance to that in the twenty-first century because the student body is now older, mobile, diverse, and students have, perhaps, more pressing emotional needs. However, the basic structure of university counseling is the one designed for a population of White, residential, middle-class students who constituted the majority of college students until the most recent decade. For many of today’s college students, there is a serious lack of relevance regarding counseling services and the professionals who provide it (Sue, 1997).

University counseling centers can continue as beneficial and viable entities in

this multicultural, pluralistic, and diverse high tech age. Providing direct services to

students, serving as consultants to faculty and staff, teaching classes, supporting

multicultural evolution through a diverse profession, and advocating system change

are endeavors through which the counseling center can continue to benefit students

and the university well into the twenty-first century. Conversely, ignoring issues of

diversity, remaining isolated from the broader campus, continuing to engage in

professional “turf wars,” clinging to outdated paradigms, and refusing to entertain

possible changes in the type and delivery of services could result in university counseling’s ultimate demise.

II. School Counseling in Taiwan

The following section reviews the evolution of Taiwan’s school counseling to see the relationship and difference between the evolution of the United States.

1. Brief History of Counseling in Taiwan

In the 1900’s, vocational counseling and school counseling were brought on because of the social circumstance at the time and the introduction to western education. However, the war with the communists forced the counseling work to cease (Shen, 1982).

A new frontier of counseling was established in the 1950’s that brought school counseling back on track again. The students returning from overseas were one of the main factors that theories and practice of counseling were imported to Taiwan from the western culture. Not only were the theories used to help these overseas students to adjust their lives in Taiwan, they also brought back knowledge from their experience in academic and social life. Dr. Jian-Bai Chiang, the first president of the Chinese Guidance Association, made emphasis on the importance of counseling in the Counseling Series, published in the early 1960’s by the Chinese Guidance Association.

In the book, he said, “Counseling is one of the advancements of educational method.

It is an integrated development from fields such as biology, psychology, sociology,

physio-anatomy, and psychodynamics, and it is the outcome after applied to the field

of education.” Also, “…in more advanced part of the world, the European or the

Americas, all levels of the educational system require the assistance of counseling.

And as in Asia, Japan, Philippine, Indonesia, and so on, are all catching up rapidly.

All levels of the educational system are considering counseling as part of the complete educational facility. It is an enhancement embraced by all nations to meet the demands of the era.” (Chiang, 1964).

Consequently, the evolution of counseling went through different phases to establish a concrete foundation. First of all is the introductory phase in the 1950’s where counseling theories and practices were introduced from Europe, America, and Japan. Changes in cognition affect behavior. Educators started to involve the concept of counseling in their educational attitude and techniques, which were the main features of the introductory phase. Secondly is the experimental phase during the 1960’s. Theories of counseling and psychological assessment were first implanted in schools for experimental purposes. The application of educational and psychological assessment enriched the scientific validity of counseling. Thirdly is the promoting phase during the mid 1960’s. Results were proven to be successful after a period of experimentations. Hence, promotion of counseling was launched.

Not only was counseling became part of the mission statements of all levels of the educational system, educational and psychological assessment were especially incorporated in the higher educations. One of the major remarks during this phase was the third world country training program. Educators from Vietnam were given the opportunity to enter the professional training program for the length of six weeks.

It was the first occasion which Taiwan provided educational training for another nation. Lastly, the developmental phase took place from the 1980’s to present.

Regulations and facilities of counseling were established in all levels of the

educational system. Even though establishment is not at grand completion,

persistent effort and concrete foundation can clearly be seen through the evolution (Chang & Wu, 1999).

2. Difference in Development of School Counseling

Compare to the United State’s steady development in school counseling, Taiwan’s development has a very different outlook. Looking back at the relatively short history of the evolution of Taiwan’s school counseling, we see the work of school counseling established and developed abruptly. The main causes were due to the government’s decision-making and its compelling legislation. Basically, they reflect the government’s high expectations in its decision-making attitude. As for whether it truly reflects the need of the society, we have no indication if the general public agrees to it or not.

Taking a closer look at the developments, we see that Taiwan’s school counseling is progressed by the government from the top working its way down to the schools.

Counseling appears in schools as part of the organizational policy which is constructed within the administrative system. On the contrarily, as in the United States, it was based mostly on social movements evoked by the general population.

Agreements were met among the society, and then established through proposition of the legislation parliament. From this viewpoint, school counseling in the United States is built on a good social foundation and hence the promotion and development.

It is highly valued by the public because it does reflect what the society needs.

When we look at the situation in Taiwan from the same perspective, it would not be

too hard to explain why some schools and social members question and overlook the

work of school counseling. There is no doubt that the educational ministries are

implicating school counseling with boldness, but it is just as important that the society

would place the same value towards it. Government could use varieties of approaches to improve the society’s attitude or targeting at specific problems to invoke responses. Or else, school counseling would just remain as “a structure of the legislation.” (Tsiao, 1999)

III. IACS and the Accreditation Standard

Major professional organizations have established standards and codes of ethics for the training and practices of members of their professions. Sometimes these standards and codes become the basis for recognition of the professionalism of individuals, educational programs and services. Accreditation by the International Association of Counseling Services (IACS) is a voluntary evaluative process involving a written self-study and the adherence to established standards of practice.

These Standards are articulated by the IACS Board of Association, the members of which are directors of counseling services located throughout the United States and internationally. IACS is the only Accreditation Association which accredits counseling services on university and college campuses.

1. Overview of the International Association of Counseling Services

As the accrediting agency for counseling centers in a wide variety of settings, the

primary objective for the IACS is the maintenance of quality service delivery. The

objectives of the Association are: (1) To advance the professional development of

counseling services by establishing and encouraging high standards of professional

performance and conduct; (2) To develop criteria, procedures, and principles for

evaluating and accrediting counseling agencies and services. This accreditation

apply only to the agencies and their counseling services and not to counseling staff of those agencies; (3) To provide methods or procedures for assisting accredited services to meet established criteria; (4) To build public goodwill, confidence, and knowledge of the counseling profession by educating the consumer and the public in the advancement, improvement, and uses of counseling services; and (5) To foster professional cooperation and communication among counseling services operating in a variety of settings by providing opportunity for exchange of experiences and opinions through discussion, study, and publications. It is not, however, an objectives of this Association to handle consumer or staff complaints against a specific center or agency.

This project could not be accomplished without the financial support of the Provost’s office at the University of Pittsburgh, the space provided by the School of Education’s Department of Administrative and Policy Studies and the web page assistance of its Technical Support Office. Funding has also been generously provided by AUCCCD and ACCA, the two sponsoring associations.

The Association of University and College Counseling Center Directors (AUCCCD) is a non-profit organization. The mission of the AUCCCD is to assist college and university directors in providing effective leadership and management of their centers, in accord with the professional principles and standards of Psychology, Counseling, and Higher Education. AUCCCD promotes the awareness of college student mental health through research, education, and training provided to members, professional organizations, and the public with special attention to issues of diversity and multiculturalism. Membership consists of counseling center directors from varied institutions across the country.

American College Counseling Association (ACCA) is an Association for those

persons in higher education to include colleges, universities, community and technical college settings, whose professional identity is counseling and whose purpose is fostering students’ development. ACCA strives to support and enhance the practice of college counseling, to promote ethical and responsible professional practice, to promote communication and exchange among college counselors across service areas and institutional settings, to encourage cooperation with other organizations related to higher education and college student development, and to provide leadership and advocacy for the profession of counseling in higher education. ACCA is a division of the American Counseling Association (ACA).

2. Development of Standards

IACS’ roots go back to the 1950’s when accreditation was first extended to counseling services. Representatives of three counseling settings (University and 4- year Colleges, Community or 2-year Colleges, and Public and Private Counseling Agencies) comprising IACS worked for more than two years to establish an accrediting program relevant to the Association’s diverse constituency. The result of this effort was adoption, by the Board of Directors in April, 1973, of common principles and procedures to govern accreditation and separate criteria and standards for the evaluation of each counseling setting. As of April, 2005, IACS now accredits only University and 4-year College Counseling Services.

The Association’s Board of Accreditation members are directors of IACS accredited counseling centers who volunteer their time to the organization. The Board is responsible for the development and maintenance of standards for the evaluation of counseling services within each of their appropriate counseling settings.

In addition, IACS maintains a Board of Directors whose members are also directors of

accredited services. This Board directs the affairs of the Association and holds responsibilities of following tasks: (1) Develop and periodically review and/or revise criteria for evaluation of University and College counseling services; (2) Follow administrative procedures governing field visits; (3) Communicate in a timely manner with Applicant Agencies regarding evaluation procedures and results, and conduct the appropriate review of those agencies; (4) Conduct periodic reviews of Accredited and Provisional Agencies as required, and conduct review of Provisional and Probationary Agencies within the time limits allowed for those reviews; and (5) Report annually to the Board of Directors on activities and operations of the Accrediting Board.

Standards are reviewed on a continual basis by the accrediting board to make sure they keep side by side with the changing face of counseling centers today. If warranted, an accrediting board can amend the standards at anytime; however, the IACS Standards are usually revised every ten years.

3. Accreditation Process

In order for a center to apply for IACS Accreditation, the first step is to purchase an Application Packet. The application is a self-study document that closely follows the IACS Standards. In addition to the paper document, each packet includes a computer disk with the Application. The applicant center must complete this report and add any supplementary materials requested, the point of course being to let the IACS Accrediting Board see how closely the service meets the IACS Standards.

Centers are directed to organize their application and supplementary materials for submission in a specific manner and the entire packet must be submitted in triplicate to the IACS Office along with a check or money order for the Initial Evaluation Fee.

When the materials arrive at the IACS office, the staff checks to make sure that

all the required documentation is included, and send out requests if additional information is needed. Once the application is found to be in order, it is sent to two members of the IACS Board of Accreditation for a First Board Review. The reviewers fill out a checklist which is based on the Standards. They send their reviews to the IACS Senior Consultant who determines if the center is ready for the next phase of the accreditation process which is the on-site or field visit review.

If the counseling service appears to meet the Standards, then it is approved for a field visit and the IACS Executive officer is instructed to send a memo to the center director which includes instructions on how to proceed and a list of potential visitors.

The director of the center must contact the potential field visitors and have them agree to visit the campus. An on-site review must be at least one full day in length. Once the visit takes place, the Field Visitor(s) have one month to submit the report to the Chair of the Accrediting Board who in turn sends the report to the center direct and request a written response. Once the written response from the director of the applying center is received, the Chair will then approve the center for what is called the Final Board Review.

The Final Board Reviewers are two members of the Accrediting Board who have not seen the center’s Application materials before, which now include the First Board Reviews, the Field Visit Report and the director’s written response to the on-site review. The Board Members send their review forms to the Chair of the Board who makes the final decision regarding the applicant center’s Accreditation Status.

According to the IACS By-Laws, Full Accreditation may be granted a university or college counseling service which fully meets the established Standards.

Provisional Accreditation may be granted a center which upon initial review is in

accord with the ethical standards and board criteria for acceptable professional

practice, but which does not meet fully the IACS Standards. Probationary Status is granted to a previously IACS accredited center that currently is not in satisfactory compliance with the Standards.

Centers must complete a brief IACS Annual Report Form and every four years, centers are completely re-evaluated which means they again fill out the same application materials that they completed when they were first accredited. A center’s first re-evaluation includes a mandatory field visit. After that, field visits are mandatory every eight years. Every fourth year, only the written application is required.

4. Advantages of IACS Accreditation

On the 1991 Survey of Counseling Center Directors (1991, AUCCD), Counseling Centers accredited by the IACS were asked to comment on specific benefits to their centers from their accreditation. An abbreviated summary of the responses to this item follow.

Regarding to the counseling center’s role on the campus, the accreditation enhances the status of the center in the university community, and it is viewed positively by administration. Also, it has further enhances the counseling center’s positive image on campus. Public relations with students, parents, general campus community are also improved regarding quality of services. Accreditation has helped significantly in supporting desired facility changes, policies, and issues resolution. Campus recognition with respect to allocation of resources, source of ideas for improvement in center overall operations and staffing patterns.

On the administration level, the accreditation is highly respected by

administrators, makes them more responsive to external standards, and leverage the

administrations to hear the center’s needs. IACS provides information and advocacy to university administration via letters and face to face contact during site visits to reinforce importance of center's role on campus

The accreditation has also brought direct benefit to the counseling centers. It is used as a lobbying tool at budget time to justify increased funding for professional development and additional staff. Physical facilities such as office space, soundproofed structure and renovation, also licenses were paid for as a result of accrediting. The accreditation provides additional rationale for requesting resources to remediate deficiencies.

As to the improvement of the counseling center’s image, the accreditation bring a sense of prestige or good reputation, helps the centers to further refine their operations, maintain professional standards, and help the credibility as a center. It is a formal affirmation that center meets or exceeds standards of practice. Statement of standards and annual self-study are established, and help to communicate quality to users.

The accreditation process is highly valued. An outside evaluation is viewed as more objective. It gives opportunity for periodic and consistent outside review and evaluation of the center to encourage meeting standards of practice and provides valuable input. The on-site visit includes the vice president of IACS, which justifies some accountability procedures for staff.

5. Summary

As we have seen in the above literature review, the movements of counseling

services in higher education are progressing unparalleled between the United States

and Taiwan. Being the frontier in the filed of counseling psychology and many other

aspects of the society, the United States is moving in a clear direction with well-established resources. It has been on a steady track ever since the beginning with smooth transitional changes from the past to the present.

However, Taiwan is trying to catch-up in a close pace, but without a clear set of

standards such as the accreditation standards of the IACS, the university and college

and other parts of the educational system are having a hard-time fighting for a

respected position for the counseling centers. With the vast benefits that we seen

were gained by counseling centers through the accreditation process by the IACS, we

can be even more certain that a review or an evaluation of the counseling service is

essential and beneficial.