TPC-Journal-V2-Issue3

The Professional Counselor \Volume 2, Issue 3 221 The CIT theme of CIT Negotiating the Counseling and their Role, and the client theme of Reflections on Counseling, although different, seem to be somewhat parallel for the different perspectives. CITs are attempting to figure out the counseling process with respect to their own role and performance within the process. Meanwhile clients are less likely to reflect on their own performance and role, but more on the process of counseling in general. Implications The findings of this study indicate that CITs and clients experience much of the same things as meaningful in session, such as the counseling relationship, goals, insights, immediacy, and emotion. The findings also indicate where CITs and clients differ in their perspectives, such as in meaningful aspects of the counseling relationship, and the level of importance placed on goals and immediacy (for example goals are more meaningful to clients, and immediacy is more important to CITs). These similarities and differences have implications for practice and for clinical supervision. It is encouraging to see how much overlap there is in what CITs and clients find meaningful in a counseling session. However, the differences are important to be cognizant of, so that CITs and their supervisors may tend more to the areas that are meaningful to clients. For example, goals are clearly important for many clients, and if goals are not as meaningful to CITs, they may be missing an opportunity to be productive with their clients. Further, CITs and supervisors would do well to tend to the aspects of the counseling relationship that clients found meaningful, but were not present for CITs, such as the characteristics and behaviors of CITs that contribute to creating a positive counseling relationship. Most importantly, the findings indicate a need for CITs to elicit client experiences of the process and to check that against their own experience of the process to see where they match up and where they differ. Supervisors can help CITs see the value in doing this, possibly by even modeling this conversation in supervision between themselves and CITs. Along these lines, the findings indicate a need for live and video supervision to be sure we are not only hearing the CITs account of the session, and missing an important piece of the picture. Finally, CITs would benefit from reading the results of this study to encourage reflection of their own development, the experiences of other CITs, and of what their clients may be experiencing in counseling. There are limitations to this study that are important to identify. The sample of CITs and clients who are fulfilling a course requirement create some limitations. There is limited transferability to experienced counselors, the variety of clients they serve, and to the larger field of counseling. In addition, the first author’s role as a doctoral student in the same program the study was conducted is a limitation, and was managed through reflexivity work and with a community of practice. Further, the single session used for data collection in this study is not representative of the entire course of counseling. In particular, collecting data on the second session when the counseling relationship is still new is a limitation. Finally, the data in this study is self-report of participants’ subjective experience, and it is possible that participants have withheld information, or have relayed experiences in a socially desirable light. Future researchers looking at meaningful events in session within CIT-client pairs, along with the perspective of an observer who is an experienced counselor or supervisor, would help to more holistically understand the counseling process. Observers can pick up on subtleties, unconscious occurrences, and experiences that clients may be less willing to report and of which counselors are unaware (Elliott & James, 1989).