TPC Journal-Vol 9- Issue 4-FULL ISSUE

The Professional Counselor | Volume 9, Issue 4 377 In summary, six assignments were described above: neuroscience-informed guided metaphor; brain systems, structures, and functions book; dyads; the N-PAL; exploring neuroscience-informed technology; and a case conceptualization paper. The assignments were developed to build students’ understanding of the material and improve their ability to integrate neuroscience into their case conceptualization, treatment planning, and counseling skills. With the growth of neuroscience integration into the counseling profession, best practice dictates that ethical and cultural considerations are addressed. Ethical Considerations With nascent developments in the counseling profession, such as neuroscience-informed counseling, come potential risks to clients’ well-being. The ACA Code of Ethics (2014) states that “Counselors practice only within the boundaries of their competence, based on their education, training, supervised experience, state and national professional credentials, and appropriate professional experience” (Standard C.2.a). Scholarly literature has recognized the need for professional counselors to work within their scope of practice (Luke, 2019). As the counseling profession continues to integrate neuroscience into practice, the boundaries of that practice are not always clear. For instance, at what level of integration must counselors be educated in neuroscience explicitly? Who governs the practice of integration and ensures that counselors are following best practice, especially when best practice has not been established? Each of the three areas described above—neuroeducation, neurofeedback, and metaphor—present distinct ethical challenges. Neuroeducation, like psychoeducation, can become too didactic and place counselors in the role of content expert, as opposed to process expert. It may be easy for counselors to share brain information with their clients, becoming dependent on sharing facts instead of sharing a process. Studies have demonstrated the potential for harm in the helping relationship when clients view helpers as aloof related to neuro-speak, as clients may feel powerless to change their neurobiology (Kim, Ahn, Johnson, & Knobe, 2016; Lebowitz & Ahn, 2014). Neurofeedback can require advanced knowledge in technological interventions. For example, neurofeedback often requires the use of technological equipment to read and equalize brainwave activity. The Biofeedback Certification International Alliance (n.d.) offers a training program specifically for neurofeedback certification. With certification comes a level of oversight and guidance that promotes proper training of practitioners. However, certification is not a legal requirement to use neurofeedback in counseling practice. Therefore, what is a counselor’s ethical responsibility to acquire education in the use of neurofeedback equipment with clients? How much education is enough to be considered competent? Also, in terms of counselor identity, can neurofeedback be considered counseling or is it an adjunct to counseling? Given these concerns, the use of metaphor may be a reasonable middle ground wherein counselors are still integrating neuroscience into counseling, but not to the extent that it becomes something different. The use of metaphor is less about teaching clients and more about coming to a mutual understanding of the client’s experience using terms that make sense and matter to the client (Tay, 2012). However, this approach requires the counselor to understand brain function and to stay current in the literature to ensure that the metaphor is accurate and apropos to the client situation. For example, memory has been likened to a video recording of events, yet the function of memory has been demonstrated as far more constructed than a recording of facts. In this case, memory is more like a movie wherein the recordings have been edited to tell the story