TPC Journal-Vol 10- Issue 2-FULL ISSUE

The Professional Counselor | Volume 10, Issue 2 207 participants provided direct counseling services in the past year. When combined, the majority of the sample (77.9%, n = 243) provided direct counseling services within the past year. The mean number of years of counseling experience was 10.13 years, with a large amount of variance ( SD = 10.87). The range for years of experience was 0 to 40 years. Doctoral graduates had the most years of experience on average ( M = 19.91, SD = 11.04). They were followed by master’s graduates who were not pursuing doctoral study ( M = 11.70, SD = 10.42), doctoral students ( M = 7.29, SD = 5.21), and current master’s students ( M = 1.74, SD = 4.98). A subset of the sample comprised full-time counselor educator faculty (18.9%, n = 59). Faculty members in the study had more counseling experience ( M = 17.83 years, SD = 11.00) than non-faculty participants ( M = 8.33, SD = 10.04). No age differences existed by education level. The mean age for the sample was 42.55 years ( SD = 13.66) with a range from 21 to 82 years. Approximately half (54.5%, n = 170) of participants were currently licensed as counselors or psychologists. In addition, 31.1% ( n = 97) held the National Certified Counselor (NCC) certification. The majority of the sample (87.5%, n = 273) were members of counseling associations. Participants self- reported their gender identity, racial/ethnic identity, age, and number of years of counseling experience. The sample consisted of 73.3% ( n = 229) females, 25.0% ( n = 78) males, 1.0% ( n = 3) non-binary, and 0.6% ( n = 2) transgender. One person did not report gender identity. The survey gave participants the option to report multiple racial/ethnic identities. Fifteen percent of participants ( n = 48) identified as multiracial, whereas 84.6% identified as Caucasian/White ( n = 264, of which 45 were multiracial). Of the remaining participants, 8.0% identified as Asian or Asian American ( n = 25, of which 19 were multiracial), 5.4% as African American/Black ( n = 17, of which 13 were multiracial), 3.8% as Hispanic or Latinx ( n = 12, of which 10 were multiracial), 1.0% as American Indian or Alaskan Native ( n = 3, of which three were multiracial), and 0.3% as Arab/Arab American ( n = 1, of which zero were multiracial). No participants identified as Pacific Islanders. Procedure The question addressed in this article was drawn from questions used in a larger study that explored training and attitudes related to neuroscience and counseling. The question used in this study was included intentionally as a means to gain a better understanding of perceptions of the ethics of neuroscience integration, recognizing it as a stand-alone construct for the purposes of analysis. The full survey was constructed by the authors, following a thorough review of the literature around the integration of neuroscience in counseling. All survey questions were constructed to conform to Patton’s (2015) conventions and recommendations for qualitative questions, such as using open-ended and neutral questions, asking one question at a time, and avoiding “why” questions. The specific question analyzed and presented in this report was “What ethical concerns do you have regarding the integration of neuroscience into clinical practice (if any)?” We utilized convenience and snowball sampling to recruit participants, which makes calculating response rate difficult. However, as the purpose of the project was exploratory and the method qualitative, the participants were not intended to be fully representative. The potential response bias inherent to this study could mean that participants were aware to some degree of the status of the profession with regard to integrating neuroscience into clinical practice, both positively and negatively. Following IRB approval, the authors electronically distributed the Survey Monkey– created online survey to the following: neuroscience interest networks in counseling, the counselor education listserv, CESNET-L, and direct emails to colleagues for distribution. A link to the informed consent and full questionnaire was included in the email. Interested participants clicked on the link and were asked to give their consent in order to continue to the survey. Three separate requests for