DIGEST-Volume-10-Issue-2-FULL ISSUE

11 TPC Digest Chad Luke, Eric T. Beeson, Raissa Miller, Thomas A. Field, Laura K. Jones Counselors’ Perceptions of Ethical Considerations for Integrating Neuroscience With Counseling | TPC Digest T he integration of neuroscience with the mental health professions continues, and with this expansion comes the risks associated with any nascent area of innovation. Counselors and the counseling profession, under code C.2.b of the ACA Code of Ethics , are charged with scrutinizing innovations and specialty areas prior to and throughout their use in clinical practice; this is a safeguard to protect clients from risky or poorly evidenced theory or practices. For example, some of these risks, as they pertain to neuroscience (i.e., the study of the brain and central nervous system) and neurobiology (i.e., literally, the biology of the neurons and the nervous system) include accuracy, embellishment, misapplication, and hype. The current study is the first to empirically address this topic by eliciting the counseling community’s perceptions of ethical concerns related to the integration of neuroscience and counseling. The research question guiding this study explored if counselors perceive ethical concerns pertaining to integrating neuroscience with their counseling practice, and if so, the nature of these concerns. The study utilized a survey-based qualitative methodology to explore counselors’ perceived ethical concerns regarding the integration of neuroscience with their counseling practice. A single open-ended survey question was selected for qualitative data analysis in this study. Counselors, counselor educators, and counselors-in-training reported a wide range of ethical concerns regarding the integration of neuroscience with clinical practice. These concerns largely reflected existing ethical guidelines and existing literature related to neuroscience and counseling. We developed four primary themes through the data analysis process. In reviewing these themes, we identified questions that participants seemed to be asking through their expressed concerns. Each of the themes shared a meaningful connection, through implication and association, with major sections of the ACA Code of Ethics . They were: (a) neuroscience does not align with our counselor identity , (b) neuroscience is outside the scope of counseling practice , (c) challenges with neuroscience and the nature of neuroscience research , and (d) potential for harm to clients . The results of this study highlight the need for more training in accessing, interpreting, and being current in neuroscience research. This focus includes the need to increase resources to support high-quality neuroscience-based studies in counseling. As scholars have asserted, neuroscience provides a unique strategy to evaluate the outcomes of counseling services. The challenge, as we demonstrate in this article, is how the profession moves forward in view of these ethical standards. It is one thing to assert that counselors operate only within their scope of competence. It is another thing to articulate and circumscribe the limits of competence in an emergent area like neuroscience. Chad Luke, PhD, NCC, MAC, ACS, LPC/MHSP, is an associate professor at Tennessee Tech University. Eric T. Beeson, PhD, NCC, ACS, LPC, CRC, is a core faculty member at The Family Institute at Northwestern University. Raissa Miller, PhD, LPC, is an assistant professor at Boise State University. Thomas A. Field, PhD, NCC, CCMHC, ACS, LPC, LMHC, is an assistant professor at the Boston University School of Medicine. Laura K. Jones, PhD, NCC, ACS, LPCC, is an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Asheville. Correspondence may be addressed to Chad Luke, Clinical Mental Health Counseling, Tennessee Tech University, P.O. Box 5031, Cookeville, TN 38505, cluke@tntech.edu.