TPC Journal-Vol 10- Issue 3-FULL ISSUE

The Professional Counselor | Volume 10, Issue 3 401 Of the five articles that addressed training and supervision, four of them (Ivers & Villalba, 2015; Johal, 2017; Trepal et al., 2014; Vaquero & Williams, 2019) shared a common limitation to their studies that is typically found in research. These authors believed their results might not be generalized to all populations and settings because a small number of participants were used in their respective studies. As mentioned previously, Trepal et al. (2014) and Johal (2017) suggested that personal bias might have occurred, affecting their results. Finally, Ivers and Villalba (2015) cautioned that their use of a self-report instrument might have resulted in skewed findings. Discussion The purpose of this study was to gain a greater understanding of the topics that have been addressed in the existing literature regarding bilingual counseling, training, and supervision. Fifteen empirical articles were included in this study. Results reveal that more studies have explored perspectives of counselors on bilingual counseling than that of clients. Only one study involved current or former clients of counseling services. This may be due to the fact that recruitment of actual clients is more difficult than relying on convenience samples. The results also suggest that more studies are needed for reaching consensus among scholars on what makes bilingual counseling therapeutic and effective. For example, participants in several qualitative studies (e.g., Kokaliari et al., 2013; Trepal et al., 2014; Vaquero & Williams, 2019; Verdinelli & Biever, 2009) perceived that speaking in the client’s primary language positively contributed to counseling relationships. Rolland et al. (2017) postulated that language switching, when used appropriately, is beneficial to clients because it can facilitate a deeper level of self-reflection and exploration. On the contrary, no statistical significance was found on the effects of the language switch on therapeutic bonds in two quantitative studies (Pérez Rojas et al., 2014; Ramos-Sánchez, 2007, 2009). These quantitative studies were conducted in a lab setting with college students, which the authors mention as a potential limitation of their studies. These findings may suggest that switching languages is an art of counseling; it is multifaceted, and its effectiveness may be contextually based. Additionally, more studies that explore the perspectives of both clients and counselors as well as examine variables that impact bilingual counseling relationships are needed. Pérez Rojas et al. (2014) helps to explain these inconclusive findings by stating that “the role that language switching plays in psychotherapy may be more complex than what has been theorized so far” (p. 71). In terms of the specific language combinations that have been included in the previous studies, the Spanish–English-speaking population seems to be the group that has been most represented in the literature. This finding may not be surprising given the fact that Spanish is the second most spoken language in addition to English in the United States. Strong advocacy to support Spanish-speaking populations may also explain why this specific language combination has received the most attention in the profession. It is important to acknowledge that some scholars (e.g., Kakaliari et al., 2013; Rolland et al., 2017) in more recent years have conducted studies that involved multiple languages. Equally encouraging is an increased attention to the training and supervision of bilingual counselors. Although the existing literature in this area is considerably limited, several scholars (e.g., Ivers & Villalba, 2015; Johal, 2017; Trepal et al., 2014) have shed some light on the experiences of bilingual counselors and graduate counseling students and have offered some helpful recommendations for the training and supervision of counselors.