Interactive visualizations of content document analysis across 44 handbooks
Aaron Reslink, LCPC, LMHC; Kristina DePue, PhD, NCC; Stephanie Stiavetti, APCC, AMFT
This case study investigated current trends of gatekeeping in counseling program handbooks using content analysis. Remediation planning was the most present code, found in 39 of 44 handbooks. Authors call to increase culturally- and disability-informed remediation practices. Additionally, policies of gatekeeping were inconsistent in the sample, following different recommendations.
Counselor educators determine which counseling students are appropriate to continue into the field by serving as gatekeepers to the profession. The action of gatekeeping is a key factor of counselor educator identity, and is also associated with stress on counselor educators (Decine & Waalkes, 2022; Brown-Rice & Furr, 2016). Because gatekeeping issues are also relevant with problems of professional competency or dispositional problems, counselor educators can face difficult decisions when approaching gatekeeping.
Additionally, legal issues can be a source of stress during remediation and gatekeeping, as counselor educators have multiple perspectives on the role of gatekeeping and dismissal when legal challenges occur (Burkholder et al., 2014). Finally, Urwin et al. (2006) shows the benefit of informing students about program expectations, and research has suggested benefits to informing and involving students in gatekeeping (Foster et al., 2014).
When considering counselor educator stress, legal challenges, and the students' roles, counselor educators can benefit from having concretized, formal policies (Gaubatz & Vera, 2002), such as those found in the student program handbook. Because these formal policies have been described in the literature (Gilfoye, 2008; Homrich et al., 2018), and because student program handbooks often include statements about remediation and dismissal procedures, these researchers engaged in a content analysis to determine the present state of gatekeeping and remediation in mental health counseling programs as found in program handbooks.
To determine the present state of gatekeeping and remediation policy and practice as present in current mental health counseling program handbooks. Additionally, these researchers sought to compare program handbooks using content analysis. Finally, an evaluation matrix was developed as the result of researcher conversations about the commonly observed factors of gatekeeping.
This study uses a case study design with a content document analysis method (Creswell & Poth, 2024, Krippendorff, 2004). The case study was defined as gatekeeping and remediation issues within a current (2016-present) mental health counseling program handbook. In addition, focus was drawn to handbook information pertaining to within-program policy. This boundary allowed for investigation of gatekeeping as a unique practice within counselor education.
Bivariate code frequencies were not significantly different between public and private schools (t(42) = -.067, two-sided p = .947). Schools which outsourced dismissal policies did not have a significantly less dismissal codes overall compared with other handbooks (t(42) = 1.578, one-sided p = .061, Bonferroni corrected α when isolating one of nine axial categories = .055).
We recommend a gatekeeping evaluation matrix based on common language with the following dialectics:
This study utilized content analysis; thus, data about faculty composition, recent active gatekeeping practices, and other important data to the topic of interest were not gathered. While intercoder reliability was generally good across all 9 axial areas (87% agreement), two areas were below the recommended percentage agreement, and two were within some concern (appeals policy, 72%; code of ethics, 73%; remediation plans, 77%; supplemental documents, 77%).
This limits the replicability of the codebook and calls for stricter codebook and coding confirmation in any follow up research. Finally, student handbooks may not describe the full scope of a program's gatekeeping practices, and some schools may choose to purposefully limit information about their gatekeeping policies or maintain within-program policies not disclosed.
Counselor educators are recommended to hold clear gatekeeping policies to protect from litigation, increase transparency, and serve as a guide for current faculty (Urwin et al., 2006; Gaubatz & Vera, 2002; Gilfoye, 2008). The field of counselor education may benefit from a push towards universalized language regarding dismissal, remediation, dispositions, professional competency, and evaluation strategies.
This study is the first of its kind to analyze a large sample of counseling student handbooks and determine current trends. Future researchers may wish to coordinate these findings with case study designs that capture current policies in action, the content of faculty meetings, or the perceptions of experts on best practice when engaging in dismissal and gatekeeping procedures.
American Counseling Association. (2014). 2014 ACA code of ethics. https://www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/ethics/2014-aca-code-of-ethics.pdf
Americanos, M. (2008). Development of policies and procedures in a higher education institution. Middlesex University.
Baldo, T. D., Softas‐Nall, B. C., & Shaw, S. F. (1997). Student review and retention in counselor education: An alternative to frame and stevens‐smith. Counselor Education and Supervision, 36(3), 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.1997.tb00392.x
Brown‐Rice, K., & Furr, S. (2015). Gatekeeping ourselves: Counselor educators' knowledge of colleagues' problematic behaviors. Counselor Education and Supervision, 54(3), 176–188. https://doi.org/10.1002/ceas.12012
Brown-Rice, K., & Furr, S. (2016). Counselor educators and students with problems of professional competence: A survey and discussion. The Professional Counselor, 6(2), 134–146. https://doi.org/10.15241/kbr.6.2.134
Burkholder, D., Hall, S. F., & Burkholder, J. (2014). Ward v. Wilbanks: Counselor educators respond. Counselor Education and Supervision, 53(4), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2014.00062.x
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2024). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (Fifth edition). Sage.
Davidson, C. (2015). The university corporatization shift: A longitudinal analysis of university admission handbooks, 1980 to 2010. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 45(2), 193–213. https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v45i2.184441
Donkor, B., & Harshman, J. (2023). Learning goals and priorities identified by an examination of chemistry graduate handbooks. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(10), Article 10. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00062
Dufrene, R. L. (2018). Informing trainees about gatekeeping policies. In Homrich A. M. & Henderson, K. L. (Eds.), Gatekeeping in the mental health professions (pp. 127-146). American Counseling Association.
Foster, V. A., & McAdams, C. R. (2009). A framework for creating a climate of transparency for professional performance assessment: Fostering student investment in gatekeeping. Counselor Education and Supervision, 48(4), 271–284. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2009.tb00080.x
Foster, J. M., Leppma, M., & Hutchinson, T. S. (2014). Students' perspectives on gatekeeping in counselor education: A case study. Counselor Education and Supervision, 53(3), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2014.00057.x
Freeman, B. J., Garner, C. M., Fairgrieve, L. A., & Pitts, M. E. (2016). Gatekeeping in the field: Strategies and practices. Journal of Professional Counseling: Practice, Theory & Research, 43(2), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/15566382.2016.12033954
Freeman, B. J., Garner, C. M., Scherer, R., & Trachok, K. (2019). Discovering expert perspectives on dispositions and remediation: A qualitative study. Counselor Education and Supervision, 58(3), 209–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/ceas.12151
Gaubatz, M. D., & Vera, E. M. (2002). Do formalized gatekeeping procedures increase programs' follow‐up with deficient trainees? Counselor Education and Supervision, 41(4), 294–305. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2002.tb01292.x
Gilfoyle, N. (2008). The legal exosystem: Risk management in addressing student competence problems in professional psychology training. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 2(4), 202–209. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3918.2.4.202
Goodrich, K. M., & Shin, R. Q. (2013). A culturally responsive intervention for addressing problematic behaviors in counseling students. Counselor Education and Supervision, 52(1), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2013.00027.x
Henderson, K. L. (2018). Standards for personal behavior and professional conduct. In Homrich A. M. & Henderson, K. L. (Eds.), Gatekeeping in the mental health professions (pp. 171-192). American Counseling Association.
Hutchens, N., Block, J., & Young, M. (2013). Counselor educators' gatekeeping responsibilities and students' first amendment rights. Counselor Education and Supervision, 52(2), 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2013.00030.x
Jones, D. R. (2020). A Comparison of success trajectories among nontraditional students with varying abilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(4), 375–385. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1292930
Kaplan, D. M. (2014). Ethical implications of a critical legal case for the counseling profession: Ward v. Wilbanks. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92(2), 142–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00140.x
Kiesel, L. R., DeZelar, S., & Lightfoot, E. (2018). Challenges, barriers, and opportunities: Social workers with disabilities and experiences in field education. Journal of Social Work Education, 54(4), 696-708. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2018.1507365
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed). Sage.
Leland, A. S., Firestone, W. A., Perry, J. A., & McKeon, R. T. (2020). Examining cohort models in the education doctorate. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 11(3), 249–262. https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-01-2020-0004
Meeks, L. M. & Jain, N. R. (Eds.). (2015). The guide to assisting students with disabilities: equal access in health science and professional education. Springer Publishing Company.
Nadin, S. & Cassell, C. (2004). Using data matrices. In Cassell, C. & Symon, G. (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 271-287). SAGE publications.
OpenAI. (2024). ChatGPT (Aug 23 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com
Parker, L. K., Chang, C. Y., Corthell, K. K., Walsh, M. E., Brack, G., & Grubbs, N. K. (2014). A grounded theory of counseling students who report problematic peers. Counselor Education and Supervision, 53(2), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2014.00052.x
Raszewski, R., Goben, A. H., Bergren, M. D., Jones, K., Ryan, C., Steffen, A., & Vonderheid, S. C. (2021). Exploring data management content in doctoral nursing handbooks. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 109(2), 248–257. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1115
Roundtree, S. M. (2024). "I'm not Broken": Disabled students' perceptions of representation in counseling programs. [Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University]. https://www.proquest.com/docview/3132850123
Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3. edition). SAGE.
Salpietro, L., Clark, M., Kress, V., Laux, J., & Walker, T. (2021). Remedial interventions to address receptivity to feedback in master's‐level counseling students. Counselor Education and Supervision, 60(4), 274–290. https://doi.org/10.1002/ceas.12216
Schuermann, H., Avent Harris, J. R., & Lloyd‐Hazlett, J. (2018). Academic role and perceptions of gatekeeping in counselor education. Counselor Education and Supervision, 57(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/ceas.12093
Sellmaier, C., & Kim, J. (2021). Disability accommodation experiences of social work students in the United States. Social Work Education, 40(7), 872 887. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2020.1738375
Thanasiu, P. L. (2018). Informing trainees about gatekeeping policies. In Homrich A. M. & Henderson, K. L. (Eds.), Gatekeeping in the mental health professions (pp. 147-170). American Counseling Association.
Urwin, C. A., Van Soest, D., & Kretzschmar, J. A. (2006). Key principles for developing gatekeeping standards for working with students with problems. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 26, 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1300/J067v26n01_10