Professional Identity and the Internet

A question I sometimes found myself addressing in the classroom and individual conversations with

students was the importance of establishing a personal sense of professional identity as a counselor. Most entering graduate students present in their first-semester counseling classes with a sense of the profession and what its practitioners do. Their assumptions about counseling and how practitioners ply their trade were something ripe for a challenge if not adjusting during the earliest stages of training. Although many of these students were eager to learn and devour texts, handouts, lectures, and classroom discussions, many tended to focus on some individual counselor, real or theoretical, who they attempted to emulate.

 

This propensity to channel an accomplished practitioner became apparent early in their education and training. Perhaps my awareness of this trait in entering students because I could recall my own initial exposure to counseling and the wish to establish myself in the profession. A desire to “do the right thing” and “not screwup” led me to also emulate faculty I admired, theorists who described counseling and human development with philosophical concepts that reflected my worldview. I described my personal theory of counseling as my students often did at the end of their first course in counseling theory, as eclectic. This did not so much mean the blending of several theoretical systems in a deliberate attempt to formulate a “personal theory of counseling,” but rather, amassing a collection of techniques that were employed in a rather “seat of the pants” approach to counseling. The emphasis of such an approach was on attending to technique at the expense of the spirit of the profession. Although I do not see this as uncommon in novice counselors, I do see it as resulting, in part, from a trainee’s lack of a well-defined and concise understanding of the significance of a clear sense of professional identity as a counselor.

 

Professional identity involves developing an awareness of who the counselor is as a person and professional and is more than just an awareness of and proficiency in what a counselor does. It is the result of blending proficiency in practice and technique with a sense of purpose and commitment. Professional identity is what enables the practitioner to fully commit to a career rather than simply develop proficiency as a tactician performing a job. So, how do professional counselors develop this sense of professional identity? There are likely numerous aspects to the answering to this question, however, there is one unsung facet that I wish to highlight in this missive. I submit that the Internet itself—and more specifically the various professionally-oriented online discussion groups, e.g., “listservs”—may well play an important role in developing a personal sense of professionalism.

 

By subscribing to online discussion groups or forums, students can observe virtual exchanges between more experienced practitioners and educators in the field of counseling. This “real-time” opportunity to observe such discourse and theoretical discussion is invaluable. Often conducted by individuals who have authored journal articles and other professional publications read by students in class, such experience

cannot be duplicated short of a chance encounter at a conference or when noted practitioners are “guest lecturers” invited to present a colloquium on or lecture at a student’s university. And for students to observe these discussions between established practitioners and theorists who participate in these virtual online discussions as they would if in person over coffee in a café, enable students to see “us” as tangible and therefore approachable participants in the field of counseling. Such virtual encounters enable the issues to “come alive” and take on a sense of practical significance for the novice counselor.

 

With the time it takes to prepare a manuscript and then have it reviewed, edited if accepted, and then published, it is not uncommon for the time between author insights and “the field’s” exposure to them in published form to be 12 to 18 months. Add to this the difficulty for students to review and discuss such publications in class not to mention respond to the author directly, and we begin to sense the historically exclusive environment in which students of counseling have had to develop their sense of professional identity. In one sense, established counselors have essentially functioned in a rather parochial and almost parental fashion with the official way to dialogue amongst ourselves being publications in refereed journals. From the perspective of a student, this is tantamount to the adage, “children should be seen and not heard.” No wonder new students of counseling adopt their counseling heroes’ theories and practices like they do their parent’s religion or vote for the candidates championed by admired relations.

 

Please do not misunderstand my position to be a soapbox from which to rail on professional publications; quite the contrary. I embrace this vehicle by which thoughtful and provocative ideas enter the mainstream of our profession for scrutiny where critical peer review fosters the advancement of our profession. But as important as this process of sharing professional information may be, it is somewhat chauvinistic in that it frequently denies access to those at the front of the timeline with regards to gaining counseling experience.

 

Online discussion forums provide an important vehicle for cultivating a sense of professional identity for the novice counselor by expanding the field’s two-dimensional view of counseling from simple research

and scholarship to include crowd-sourcing as a third dimension, thereby creating depth and perspective. An argument can follow that no other place provides the opportunity for students in training to observe firsthand the inner workings of the counseling profession. The online exchange of ideas, the proffering of suggestions, the collegial debate, and the sharing of information and resources, all under the guise of “FYI” highlight the professional identity of counseling. What better source of learning about professional identity as a counselor than by observing a virtual display of the professional identity of the profession?

 

Developing a sense of professional identity necessitates the introduction of self-efficacy. To be blunt, how do counselors hope to develop a personal sense of what counseling is or how they “fit” without first developing this sense of self-efficacy? And how does one develop self-efficacy as a counselor? Not until and unless having the opportunity to venture out into the mainstream of public opinion to test the waters? Although it is true that practica and internships are designed to accomplish this, what more convenient, and some might add a “safer” place to augment these experiences than by participating in online discussion forums?

 

Having participated in online discussions on the net over the years, I have grown as a counselor and as an educator. I followed discussions where established counselors debated ideas that echoed thoughts that I had already considered. As a result, I became more confident in the value of my opinions and professional ideas. When I eventually venture down from the virtual safety of the front porch that was my home computer where I observe the rest of the world on the net, I discovered I too could “run with the big dogs.” I have received thoughtful comments from respected authorities in the field on ideas I have shared and seen how they could evoke spirited collegial discussion. Such experience enhanced my sense of professional identity as a counselor and an educator. It is for this reason that I believe that online discussion forums may well be one of the more important tools to add to the budding counselor educator’s toolbox. With this resource, we can encourage students to observe virtual discussions about topics on an infinite variety of subjects of vital importance. These students can see kudos delivered and constructive criticism proffered, often on the same subject within a span of hours. Likewise, these same students can receive encouragement to participate in discussions, even if by simply asking questions via personal emails directed to those who have been participants in the virtual conversations and then considering their replies. As mentioned earlier, where else can a student observe, if not participate in a discussion with those already established in this field? And where else can one observe the musings of professional counselors, better than online in a discussion forum, and in real-time no less?

I close by suggesting that the use of the online discussion forums is of no more value in counselor

education than any other tool in the educator’s toolbox, but neither is it less. To participate in these discussions and encourage our students to do the same, not only creates a vehicle for the establishment of professional identity, it demonstrates that we are real people accessible in real-time, to students who are struggling to find the headwaters of counseling theory and practice.

There is an interesting article in today's Washington Post. The article, entitled, "It's Time to Legalize Drugs," by Peter Moskos and Stanford "Neill" Franklin is representative of a growing public opinion regarding drugs and more particularly, an opinion on our historically moralistic public policy on addressing their use. Although I am an advocate of changes in this policy, I am not sure the views expressed in the Post article are in our best interest as a country in the long run. Allow me to first comment on the positive points the authors make...there are two:

1. If drugs were legal then drugs could be prepared like any other commodity. This would move production out of the back alley and place it under the scrutiny of some regulatory body that could ensure that what is sold in Philly is the same as what is sold in DC as in LA, etc. In short, there is something to be said for regulating production from a harm reduction point of view...less harm to the individual who consumes the drug and less harm (most likely in the form of financial savings) to the public when it does not have to pay for the consequences of consuming “bad” drugs.

2. There is a lot of money to be saved and made by legalizing drugs. Regarding savings, the billions of dollars are no longer spent on interdiction and other law enforcement efforts to stop manufacture and distribution, to prosecute offenders, to incarcerate offenders, etc. Regarding earning, the state and federal taxes to be collected. Ironically, most drugs of abuse could be manufactured inexpensively and then taxed in an outrageous fashion and still be no more expensive to the consumer than they are now.

As attractive as these two “benefits” of legalization may be, they do not, however, off-set the potential consequences. The biggest “drug problems” we have in this country—and likely this is true around the world—is with those drugs that are already legal...alcohol (ethanol) and tobacco (nicotine). These substances are regulated and taxed yet they are together many times more costly to us as a nation than all illicit drug use combined. This is to suggest that making substances “legal” is not to redeem the country or any of its residents from the consequences associated with the use of the now legal drugs. Add to this that some of the more popular illicit drugs of abuse, namely prescription drugs taken without a prescription, are already legal and this just adds to the argument that legalization is not, in and of itself, a solution to "the drug problem."

I liken legalization of drugs as a solution to building more roads to solve the traffic problem. There may be an immediate beneficial result from the effort, but as driving becomes easier, more individuals will choose to drive and this leads to more vehicles on the road, which results eventually in a return of the original traffic problem. Legalization may appear to be a fix, but it would be a band aid on a major, hemorrhaging wound, addiction and other substance use disorders. True, marijuana would probably result in far more people “using” the substance than “abusing,” it, something on a par with alcohol, but consider that 10% of drinkers consume 50% of all alcohol consumed and you can begin to see how even small percentages of “problem users” can result in significant problems for individuals, families, and the society as a whole.

I believe a better solution is something akin to what the Netherlands did 30 years ago and Portugal, Mexico, British Columbia, and other countries are experimenting with today...decriminalization. True, this does not do much to solve the problem of “quality control” problems in the production of drugs—and this is no small problem as regulating production with something like the FDA is probably “the” strongest argument for legalization. What decriminalization does do, however, is it allows us to continue to address substance use as a public health problem where addressing the “agent” (the drugs), “host” (individual who chooses to use the drugs), and “environment” (where the drugs are used, etc.) becomes the focus and prevention of and intervention with use, not interdiction in “the war on drugs,” is the issue of primacy.

When interdiction ceases to be the predominant response to substance use disorders, prevention and treatment can take over that position. When the demand drops then the consequences associated with consumption—especially clandestine and surreptitious consumption—will likely be reduced. Just as we do not prosecute and incarcerate those who consume “trans fats” or “empty calorie” processed foods, neither should we prosecute individuals with substance use disorders.

Drugs, that is, substances with psychoactive properties have been around longer than have we humans who at times seem preoccupied with consuming them. This means that drugs are neither good nor bad, they “just are.” It is the way these drugs are used that determines if they are problematic of not, that is, “a social problem,” and as with all social problems, they are a social construction. This means that a social issue only becomes a problem when a majority of those in power in the society in which the social issue is occurring deem the issue to be problematic. For example, most people do not argue that “child abuse” or “driving while intoxicated” are “social problems.” Interestingly, though, prior to the 1960’s you did not hear about “child abuse” and prior to the 1980 you did not hear much about “drinking and driving.” This does not mean that these issues did not exist, they just were not deemed problematic by the society in which they occurred and were therefore not denoted as “social problems.”

Take “abortion” or “smoking marijuana” on the other hand and there is great debate as to whether or not either or both of these is a “social problem” because there is no consensus on either issue. Consequently, until and unless a majority of individuals in power clearly decide one way or the other, the debate will continue. Probably the clearest example of this is the slow but inexorable growth of the temperance movement in the 19th century into a movement that transformed “drunkenness” from the social problem to “alcohol itself” as the social problem and resulted in the passage of the 18th amendment in 1920. For 13 years, “alcohol” was a social problem...just as “drugs” have been since the Harrison Act was passed in the early part of the 20th century—but even that had an interesting twist in that it was not concern about the use of drugs, but racism that resulted in the passage of early drug laws...certain ethic groups tended to use certain drugs so in an effort to “get rid of the racial problem,” their drugs of choice were made illegal in order to legitimize persecution...but this is another story (see “Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How They Became That Way,” available on Youtube).

In any event, I “hear” the argument of the authors of the Post article and I “feel” their frustration, I just do not “buy” their reasoning for legalizing drugs. One thing is certain, however, and that is the old “war on drugs” approach to dealing with psychoactive substances is going to go the way of the dinosaur...its just a question if that will be with a cataclysmic event that results in mass extinction of something more “evolutionary.”

What do you think?