Counseling Psychology’s Ambivalent Relationship with Master’s-Level Training

• Published in: The Counseling psychologist Vol. 28; no. 5; pp. 687 - 700
• Main Authors: McPherson, Robert H., Pisecco, Stewart, Elman, Nancy S., Crosbie-Burnett, Margaret, Sayger, Thomas V.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publications 01-09-2000; Sage Publications, etc; SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC
• Subjects: Ambivalence; Association (Psychology); Careers; Clinical Experience; Conferences (Gatherings); Counseling; Counseling Psychology; Counselling psychology; Counselor Training; Doctoral Degrees; Education; Graduate Students; Graduate studies; Graduate Study; Higher Education; Individualized Instruction; Master's degrees; Masters Degrees; Masters Programs; Occupational Mobility; Politics; Professional Training; Psychological Services; Psychologists; Psychology; Resistance (Psychology); School Counseling; Self Actualization; Skill Development; Supervision; Teaching Methods; Training; Training Objectives; USA
• ISSN: 0011-0000; 1552-3861
• DOI: 10.1177/0011000000285006

Inspired by efforts by those who seek to redefine the practice of psychology as a master’s-level specialty, the authors examine counseling psychology’s heightened ambivalence regarding master’s-level training. First, they present a historical review of this issue. Next, they discuss current social and political pressures that, they suggest, have resulted in renewed tensions in the training of master’s-level practitioners for the field of counseling psychology. They conclude with specific recommendations regarding the manner in which counseling psychology should (a) train master’-level providers, (b) attempt to document the added value doctoral training, and (c) politically respond to this issue.