This article was downloaded by: [Texas State University - San Marcos] On: 21 June 2012, At: 13:41

Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal for Specialists in Group Work

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usgw20

Dual Relationships in Group Training

Kristopher M. Goodrich
a a

Syracuse University,

Available online: 09 Sep 2008

To cite this article: Kristopher M. Goodrich (2008): Dual Relationships in Group Training, The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 33:3, 221-235 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01933920802204981

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

TRAINING

Dual Relationships in Group Training

Kristopher M. Goodrich
Syracuse University

Downloaded by [Texas State University - San Marcos] at 13:41 21 June 2012

This article reviews and critiques the literature regarding dual relationships in group work training. It explores the ethical concerns raised within the field, and relates this to an emerging literature concerning potentially beneficial relationships. Anecdotal and empirical evidence regarding dual relationships is reviewed, demonstrating the scant literature concerning this phenomenon in the group work training. Finally, conclusions are offered with implications for future work within the field. Keywords: beneficial relationships; boundary issues; dual relationships; ethics; group training

In the field of group work, educators have come to a consensus that it is necessary that students undergo an experiential module to assist in their preparation toward becoming an effective group leader (Fall & Levitov, 2002; Herlihy & Corey, 1992). By requiring students to enter a group themselves, it creates a level of awareness and understanding of clients for counselors-in-training, and allows group leaders to model appropriate counseling behavior for their students (Merta & Sission, 1991; Merta, Wolfgang & McNeil, 1993). This practice has undergone increased scrutiny since the Council for Accreditation for Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP, 2001) and the Association for Specialists in Group Work (ASGW, 2000) adopted both instructional, as well as experiential, components in their professional standards and criteria for training in group work (Fall & Levitov, 2002). Researchers and practitioners have argued over the ethics involved in instructors leading students in the experiential component of group work due to the dual relationships that are formed amongst instructor and students (Forester-Miller & Duncan, 1990; Lloyd, 1990; Merta & Sisson). They argue that the criteria set up by the
Kristopher M. Goodrich is a doctoral student in Syracuse Universitys Counselor Education and Supervision program. Thanks to John Kiweewa and Dick Hackney for their feedback on previous drafts of this manuscript. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kristopher M. Goodrich, Syracuse University, Counseling & Human Services Department, 259 Huntington Hall, Syracuse, NY 13244. E-mail: kmgoodri@syr.edu.
THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK, Vol. 33 No. 3, September 2008, 221235 DOI: 10.1080/01933920802204981 # 2008 ASGW

221

222

THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK / September 2008

Downloaded by [Texas State University - San Marcos] at 13:41 21 June 2012

training standards conflict with the American Counseling Association (ACA, 2005) and ASGW ethical standards, which prohibit potentially harmful dual relationships between counselors and their students= clients. Thus, there has been conflict in the field of counseling about the most appropriate way that one can honor the professional standards and responsibilities of training effective group counselors while avoiding the ethical dilemmas that could be created between teacher and student in the classroom. The purpose of this paper is to review the available literature (using ERIC, PSYCInfo, Google Scholar, and Wilson Select Plus) regarding dual relationships in group work training. It will explore the ethical concerns raised within the field, and will conversely relate this to an emerging literature concerning potentially beneficial relationships. Anecdotal and empirical evidence regarding dual relationships will be reviewed in an attempt to demonstrate the paucity of literature concerning this phenomenon in the field of group work training. Finally, suggestions will be offered with implications for future work within the field.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT FOR THE ETHICAL DILEMMA In 1983, the Association for Specialists in Group Work published a survey of programs regarding their group work curriculum in the masters and doctoral level programs. This survey found that 84.5% of masters program and 84.6% of doctoral programs reported they required the knowledge competencies of group work, while only 72.3% of masters programs and 75.3% of doctoral programs reported requiring the skills competencies within their training for group work (Conyne, Wilson, Kline, Morran, & Ward, 1993). Of those programs that met the skills component, most reported meeting the competencies related to forming a group and conducting the early group-stage efforts; most programs reported that they did not meet skill standards related to advanced group work stages, follow-up procedures, and evaluation (Coyne et al., 1993.; Huhn, Zimpfer, Waltman, & Williamson, 1985; Merta et al., 1993). As a result of these competency ratings, the ASGW looked to revise its standards to ensure that effective group leaders would be trained by counselor training programs in both early and advanced level skill development. Thus, the ASGW training standards were revised which included a new set of standards for both instructional (i.e., lecture), as well as experiential (i.e., skills) components to group work training (Coyne et al., 1993). By adding a mandatory experiential aspect to group training, the CACREP and ASGW standards created an interesting issue: the

Goodrich=DUAL RELATIONSHIPS

223

Downloaded by [Texas State University - San Marcos] at 13:41 21 June 2012

introduction of the issue of dual relationships into the required course of study for counselors-in-training. Dual relationships in group work are defined when the leader of the group component holds multiple roles or responsibilities with the participants they engage with (Donigian, 1993; Forester-Miller & Duncan, 1990; Gazda, Ginter, & Horne, 2001; Lloyd, 1990; Merta & Sisson, 1991; Merta et al., 1993; Patrick, 1989; Pearson & Piazza, 1997), such as when a group facilitator takes on a concurrent role as a faculty member or evaluator. In many articles, the terms dual relationships and boundary issues are utilized interchangeably (Scarborough, Bernard & Morse, 2006). In this article, the term dual relationships will be utilized to represent both terms. Also, throughout the article, the term experiential group will be utilized; this term will be used to represent both skills-based, as well as interpersonal development groups.

THE ENTRANCE OF DUAL RELATIONSHIPS INTO THE FIELD A review of the literature demonstrated an interesting historical perspective in the nature of the dual relationship in group work experiential training. Prior to 1990, very little literature that espoused the conflict of holding multiple roles with counseling students could be found. In many of these articles, no mentions were made of ethical dilemmas or dual roles with students. Instead, the model format presented for group leadership training held the instructor as facilitator, modeling appropriate leadership behavior for students and responsible for structuring the practice and movement of the group (Pearson, 1985). The instructors practice was to demonstrate effective intervention procedures to model in the classroom, as well as decrease student anxiety when faced with their first group situation. ForesterMiller and Duncan (1990) also found a similar situation in their review of group work literature. It is not until Patrick (1989) that ethical dilemmas regarding these types of models began to appear in the field of counselor education. In her article, Patrick spoke of the need of counselor candidates to receive personal counseling while in their program of study; this type of counseling could appear in traditional style personal-growth groups when facilitators ask students to share from their personal experience. However, she also noted the conflicting roles of an instructor possibly learning about undesirable traits of students: as a gatekeeper to the field one must keep the best interest of the public and field in mind, but any actions based on information acquired from students in personal-growth groups or individual counseling could also lead one

224

THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK / September 2008

to act against that students best interest. Patrick offered the solution of informed consents being shared with students explaining the limitations of confidentiality in evaluating whether or not students would be able to serve as effective counselors. Ethical Problems in Group Work Training Lloyd (1990) was one of the first authors who directly addressed the ethical dilemma associated with dual relationships in group training. He cited the 1988 CACREP standards which identified the need for group activities in the training for group counselors in two sections of their curriculum. Lloyd then counterbalanced that criterion with the 1988 ethical standards of the American Association of Counseling and Development (AACD, a predecessor of ACA) and the 1989 ethical guidelines for the ASGW. In both of these sets of ethical standards, there are requirements for counselors to avoid dual relationships with others that may impair the professionals ability to provide objective and professional judgment, as well as compromise the others ability to share fully in their counseling experience. The ASGW standard also states that the requirement of participation in a group situation cannot be evaluated toward a group members academic grade, and that instructors need to take steps to minimize any negative impact the group experience can have on a student. Although amongst the first to express his concern over the issue of dual relationships in group-work training, Lloyd was not alone with his fear. Many other counselor educators have since written extensively on the nature of dual relationships in group training, as well as the need to minimize these relationships to foster an ethical and comfortable environment for students and practitioners (Conyne et al., 1993; Conyne, 1996; Corey, Williams & Moline, 1995; Davenport, 2004; Donigian, 1993; Emerson, 1995; Forester-Miller & Duncan, 1990; Merta & Sission, 1991; Merta et al., 1993; Pierce & Baldwin, 1990; Riva & Korinek, 2004; Schmidt, 1999). Issues have included the need for counselor educators to screen out incompetent counselors to protect the public, as well as balancing the need to keep group-members disclosures confidential and minimize the possibility that an instructor could abuse the power of evaluation over a student. To balance the responsibility between the differing roles as instructor as well as gatekeeper to the field, authors have suggested many alternatives to conducting the experiential group. These include changing how one evaluates a students work in the experiential component of the group, utilizing doctoral students or professionals outside the program to facilitate the group as a separate or concurrent component to the group work course, or offering options for students

Downloaded by [Texas State University - San Marcos] at 13:41 21 June 2012

Goodrich=DUAL RELATIONSHIPS

225

(such as role plays) so that students have alternatives to selfdisclosure and avoiding possible bias in their relationships with their counselor education faculty (Forester-Miller & Duncan, 1990; Lloyd, 1990; Merta & Sission, 1991; Merta et al., 1993; Pierce & Baldwin, 1990).

ALTERNATIVE GROUP WORK MODELS As previously stated, many alternatives to the traditional group work model have been proposed by the field to grapple with the issue of dual relationships (Fall & Levitov, 2002; Furr & Barret, 2000; Hensley, 2002; Kane, 1995; Romano, 1998; Stockton & Toth, 1996; Toth, Stockton & Erwin, 1998). Each of these models was utilized by different educators and practitioners concerned with the dual relationship of group leader and evaluator in the program; none of the models found in a literature search addressed the possibility of potentially beneficial relationships, and any type of learning or development that may arise from that possibility. Each of these alternatives offers a variety of benefits and challenges that should be considered before implementation. Many group models look to separate the group members personal experience from the experiential component, focusing instead on skill acquisition. Examples of these alternatives include group stage models (Toth et al., 1998), simulated group training (Romano, 1998), as well as actors in leadership training (Fall & Levitov, 2002). Group stage model (e.g., Toth et al., 1998) is a skills-based approach which combines experiential, observational, didactic and role-play components each week for students to acquire new skills. Students do not take part in an interpersonal growth group, but instead learn about different techniques and how to utilize them in a role-played group situation. In simulated group training (Romano, 1998) and actors in leadership training (Fall & Levitov, 2002), students are either assigned roles as client actors, or real actors from the community join the group to play clients. Counselors-in-training rotate experiences as group co-facilitators and acquire leadership skills, as well as understanding, through this experience. In these models students are asked not to share their personal experiences, but to utilize the experience they gained in exploring new skills to understand how they can serve as group facilitators in the future. Other group models allow counselors-in-training to utilize their life experiences, but offer different alternatives to address boundary considerations. These alternatives include the dual experience group course (Furr & Barret, 2000) and fishbowl models (Hensley, 2002; Kane, 1995). In both models, the students in the group class are divided into two different groups. In the dual experience group course

Downloaded by [Texas State University - San Marcos] at 13:41 21 June 2012

226

THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK / September 2008

(Furr & Barret, 2000), the counselors-in-training alternate between a course instructor for didactic instruction and short group exercises, and an adjunct instructor for the experiential group. The course instructor never views the group, and ensures no information shared in group is also shared in the classroom. In the fishbowl models (Hensley, 2002; Kane, 1995), two groups of students are formed. Over the course of the semester, the groups rotate between group members=co-facilitators and process observers, with the instructor serving in a role of an observer.

Downloaded by [Texas State University - San Marcos] at 13:41 21 June 2012

Strengths and Weaknesses of Alternative Models The alternative models of group work training do offer some advantages when associated with a more traditional model of group training (Pearson, 1985). The first advantage would be the many roles that counselors-in-training are offered to participate in. Instead of being more passive observers or traditional group members, many of these alternatives offer students the possibility of serving as co-facilitators, process observers and group actors (Fall & Levitov, 2002; Furr & Barret, 2000; Hensley, 2002; Kane, 1995; Romano, 1998; Toth et al., 1998). The introduction of these different roles for students does seem to help serve the purpose of the proposed changes to the group curriculum to address previous deficiencies in skill competencies (Conye et al., 1993; Conye, 1996). Another key advantage may be the possibility for students to experience a variety of different types of issues within the group, when client roles are assigned by an instructor (Fall & Levitov, 2002; Romano, 1998). As opposed to only focusing around whatever issues the students may bring, these assigned client roles may introduce other issues that otherwise may not be introduced by students, such as severe psychopathology, relational role plays, and other concerns. Finally, many of the alternatives do address the issue of duality with course instructor previously presented. However, these models are not without their limitations. The first has to do with assigned roles (Fall & Levitov, 2002; Romano, 1998; Toth et al., 1998), and the spontaneity that may be compromised. As opposed to playing a role that may be real for the participants, group members may have to take time to reflect on how their character would respond to the stimulus. This may impact the interactions that take place in the group, questioning the honesty of the experience. Another limitation rests in the possible disruption of the group experience, as in many experiences students are forced to shift roles from member to observer or co-facilitator (Fall & Levitov, 2002; Hensley, 2002; Kane, 1995; Romano, 1998). The constant changing of roles could disrupt the flow of the group, and stymie group development.

Goodrich=DUAL RELATIONSHIPS

227

Next, there is the issue of duality. Although these authors set their groups up to avoid the boundary considerations previously discussed, it appears that many of these models may still offer these opportunities to present themselves. In the fishbowl exercises (Hensley, 2002; Kane, 1995), the instructor is still present in the room as an observer when the students participate in the group experience. Therefore, they are still allowed the knowledge of what aspects of the students personal lives that are shared. In the simulated experience (Romano, 1998) there is no control for the students abilities to separate themselves from the role they are assigned and participate in for their group experience. This could also present awkward positions for the instructor and group members if group members personal lives leaked into the roles that they act out. Finally, one can question what learning may not occur with the absence of this potentially beneficial relationship between instructor and student (Lloyd, 1992; Scarborough et al., 2006). Authors such as Hayes (1991) have argued the need to raise ethical issues in the classroom, such as the balance between instructor and group facilitator, as they can set the stage as good role modeling for students as well as lessen the power differential and allow for student accountability in the classroom. By allowing students to experience ethical conflict and assist in its resolution, authors such as Downs (2003) and Hayes believe that counselor educators would be preparing their students for meeting other ethical dilemmas in their practice and lives, in an appropriate way. Allowing students to utilize their own material in group could lead to interpersonal awareness and development. Allowing students to hear how they interact with others, and how that makes others feel, could be a catalyst to students interpersonal growth, which may assist them in the counseling career. This is an example of a here and now intervention, such as proposed by Ivey (Toth et al., 1998). It could beg the question of whether it is necessary to have been a member of a group to become a group leader. Training through the skills-based approaches (such as Fall & Levitov, 2002, Romano, 1998 and Toth et al., 1998) would essentially avoid making counselors-in-training earnest group members (Davenport, 2004). Again, this is an interesting consideration as the field considers ways in which to facilitate a comprehensive and ethical training of group workers.

Downloaded by [Texas State University - San Marcos] at 13:41 21 June 2012

POTENTIALLY BENEFICIAL RELATIONSHIPS Thus far, the focus of research has been that the presence of a dual relationship may be detrimental to either student or the instructor=leader in the group counseling context. This may not be

228

THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK / September 2008

entirely the case. Although research on dual relationships in supervision has focused on the primarily negative=harmful relationships that do present themselves in the field, such as sexual harassment and conflictual relationships (Ellis, 2001; Johnson & Nelson, 1999; Lloyd, 1992; Nelson & Friedlander, 2001; Sullivan & Ogloff, 1998; Veach, 2001), there may also be a possibility that group members may benefit from multiple relationships with their facilitator (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004; Johnson & Nelson; Kottler, 2004; Lloyd, 1992; Scarborough et al., 2006). Pearson & Piazzas (1997) work discussed the different levels of dual relationships, and classified multiple relationships into five different categories: circumstantial multiple roles, structured multiple professional roles, shifts in professional roles, personal and professional role conflicts, as well as predatory professional roles. Circumstantial multiple roles explain when roles occur out of chance. This might happen when a group facilitator finds that she belongs to a church that one of the group members attends. Structured multiple roles occur as a part of a professionals job. This might occur in the group situation when a doctoral student acts as a master students teaching assistant in one class and supervisor of the group in another where the masters student is a member. Shifts in professional roles occur when there is a change either within an organization or in the status of a member. This can come about if a peer is a classmate in one class, and then a group facilitator in the next. Personal and professional roles occur when a professional relationship pre-exists, and then a personal relationship follows. A situation may include a person being a group leader in one semester, and then developing a social relationship in the future (or vice versa). The last, predatory professional would occur if a group leader took advantage of their power to use the group or group members to fulfill their own needs. This could be for exploitative or sexual purposes (Pearson & Piazza, 1997; Scarborough et al., 2006). Pearson & Piazzas (1997) work is important to consider as it addresses the fluid nature of the multiple relationships one can have when enrolled as a graduate student. Not all multiple relationships in their model are detrimental to the group or its facilitator, although certain relationships can definitely fit those roles. They address the fact that relationships do not stay the same over time, but evolve and change. Their article was an important first look at how not all multiple relationships may be negative, and opened up the discussion of the possible benefits of dual roles depending on the context (Johnson & Nelson, 1999; Kottler, 2004; Scarborough et al., 2006). This issue of potentially beneficial relationships is interesting to consider based on the current nature of research in the field, as well as alternative group work models. Many models offer doctoral students,

Downloaded by [Texas State University - San Marcos] at 13:41 21 June 2012

Goodrich=DUAL RELATIONSHIPS

229

or adjunct instructors, roles of group facilitators in place of the instructor of record for that course (Davenport, 2004; Forester-Miller & Duncan, 1990; Merta & Sission, 1991). In reviewing the literature on boundary considerations, these individuals may play many diverse roles over a graduate students career (Pearson & Piazza, 1997; Scarborough et al., 2006). Thus, these models may serve as temporary band-aids for the dual relationship issue in group and either lead to other issues further in ones graduate career, or simply not allow a developmental conversation to be facilitated in the program. Hayes (1991) and Downs (2003) both argue that counselor educators can better prepare their students to appropriately work with ethical dilemmas in their work and lives after they are allowed to experience an ethical conflict in the classroom. This may be connected to increasing students critical thinking skills, or the cognitive frame from which they view certain situations. Thus, by not allowing students to fully experience an appropriate ethical dilemma, one may in turn have an impact on the type of learning that occurs in the group situation. Davenport (2004) noted the intended beneficial relationship between having students take part in an experiential group: unless students experience the vulnerability and ambivalence in disclosing risky material, how can they understand the group situation themselves? By becoming honest group members, they may be more able to appreciate the complex dynamics of the group, as well as what it means to be a participant. Hearing how they interact with others, as well as how that makes others feel, could also be a catalyst to their own interpersonal growth (Patrick, 1989). Davenport also noted the need students have for a competent group facilitator, which may not always be guaranteed with doctoral students-in-training or adjunct providers. Having faculty lead the groups can help assure facilitation is done by a competent group leader. This understanding that there are possibilities of potentially beneficial results within some dual relationships is another important consideration when selecting a group work model. Although it does appear that there is some promise within the currently utilized group work structures, more research is needed to determine the exact impact of these types of relationships. At this point, all the research in this area is purely anecdotal, and thus empirical research would be necessary to more fully flesh out this issue.

Downloaded by [Texas State University - San Marcos] at 13:41 21 June 2012

RESEARCH RELATED TO DUAL RELATIONSHIPS IN GROUP WORK Although the anecdotal research has suggested problems inherent in more traditional group work training models, this issue has not

230

THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK / September 2008

undergone much empirical study. A review of the literature databases (including ERIC, PSYCInfo, Google Scholar, and Wilson Select Plus) failed to find any empirical research on potentially beneficial relationships in this canon. Within that database search, a few articles which relate to this topic were found, and are illustrated below. Anderson and Price (2001) examined student perceptions regarding the experiential group process in the group work course. The authors surveyed 99 individuals from seven graduate programs. In a series of questions aimed at the usefulness of the group experience, between 77% and 97% of respondents agreed with questions stating the experiential group process was useful or positive. When questioned about a number of different aspects of student=instructor dual relationships, 3% to 29% of students agreed with questions that indicated difficulties with the group. Finally, in series of questions aimed at students general discomfort with the course, between 3% and 33% of students agreed that they had felt different types of discomfort with their course experience. Of the students who responded to this survey, 41% indicated that their instructor did not lead or observe the group, but did receive feedback about the process. Thirty three percent of students noted their instructor observed the group, but did not lead it. Twenty two percent of students stated that their instructor did not lead, observe or receive feedback about the group. Finally, the last 3% of students stated their instructor led the experiential group. This study did suffer from some instrumentation issues, such as failing to report the data in a way that would allow readers to find if there were statistically significant differences for students across faculty conditions; thus, it is not possible to find in which faculty participation conditions students were most satisfied with their group experience. This is an interesting study to explore as it helps one to understand how students may respond to different presentations of the experiential group component in class. Other researchers have explored related issues around dual relationships in counselor education courses. Schwab and Neukrug (1994) used a number of vignettes to study what perceptions faculty in the Southeastern United States had about current ethical issues. They found that at least 70% of the sampled counselor educators supported requiring students to participate in small group interactions and believed that students should be encouraged to share personal experience in class. In situations where the program learned of a mental health issue involving a student in class, most counselors who qualitatively commented reported that as long as students appeared to be competent and displayed appropriate behavior and attitude, there would be no issue in allowing them to serve as counselors once successfully completing the program. These issues are

Downloaded by [Texas State University - San Marcos] at 13:41 21 June 2012

Goodrich=DUAL RELATIONSHIPS

231

Downloaded by [Texas State University - San Marcos] at 13:41 21 June 2012

important to consider in context, as there is always the possibility of learning about students mental health issues when requiring them to disclose in class. Understanding how to deal with that issue appropriately is necessary to the work of any counselor educator. Kolbert, Morgan and Brendel (2002) conducted a qualitative study aimed at exploring dual relationships between faculty and students. They found that there were differences in the perceptions held around the issue of dual relationships across faculty and student groups, and concluded that faculty should be cautious when entering dual relationships with students. Students were found to perceive dual relationships as more negative, and were more concerned than faculty about professors objectivity, as well as the possibility of exploitation across a number of different circumstances. Students also more frequently raised the issue of fairness and favoritism leading to unequal access for certain members of the student body. In reviewing most of the empirical literature in the field of dual relationships in group, it appears that there is much more that we do not know about these relationships than what we actually do. Although researchers such as Schwab and Neukrig (1994), Anderson and Price (2001) and Kolbert and Brendel (2002) have studied faculty and student perceptions of groups or dual relationships, each only explored a small element of those constructs, and only Anderson and Price really explored the duality issue within the context of an experiential group. Also, each study has its own list of limitations, without follow-up or concurrent studies completed to address those issues. Thus, it appears that more empirical research is needed to find exactly what impact dual relationships have on the training and experience of group workers-in-training.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH As stated above, further research is needed to more fully understand the phenomenon of dual relationships and potentially beneficial relationships in group work training. Although the anecdotal research has suggested problems inherent in more traditional group work training models, this issue has not undergone much empirical study. Due to the lack of empirical research in this area, there are currently a number of questions left unanswered. It is only through scholarly inquiry that the field will understand the impact of these questions. Some possible areas of future study include:
. Are there any differences in skill development or counseling competency between students who were trained using a skills-based approach as

232

THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK / September 2008

Downloaded by [Texas State University - San Marcos] at 13:41 21 June 2012

. .

. .

opposed to an interpersonal development model? If so, where do those differences lie and what is the impact on client outcomes? Are there differences in student outcomes (i.e., skills acquisition or concerns over dual issues) for students trained by their instructors versus those trained by an outside professional (i.e., a different facilitator)? If differences are present, is this the same or different across interpersonal groups or skills-based training? How does the training model impact students cognitive development or ethical competency (Downs, 2003; Hayes, 1991)? Are there any differences in cognitive complexity or ethical competence between students trained utilizing a skills-based versus an interpersonal development approach? What are the current models of group work training present in the field? Do they reflect the work of Merta and his associates (1993), or has the field adjusted based on previously raised concerns? This includes the use of doctoral students in group work training. How common is it for them to facilitate the experiential group, and what impact does this have on the training process (i.e., are there differences in knowledge or skill acquisition for masters level trainees when led by a doctoral student versus a doctoral-level practitioner)? What attitudes do counselors-in-training currently have toward dual relationships in the group work training process? Is this an area of concern for them as they progress through their programs of study? If so, in what ways can this impact their learning? Are there student attitudinal differences based on placement in the program? Do doctoral students hold different attitudes compared to masters level students (Scarborough et al., 2006)? Do students who hold different roles in the group process (group facilitator versus member, or observer) display different attitudes about dual relationships? How do issues of power (such as doctoral students facilitating the masters level experiential group) impact the experience (Scarborough et al., 2006)? How do the different levels of dual relationships, as proposed by Pearson and Piazza (1997), impact faculty or student attitudes towards dual relationships? Are there differences based on relationship level? What are the perceived negative or positive consequences for boundary violations in the experiential group for faculty and students (Scarborough et al., 2006)? Are there differences present between faculty and student impressions?

CONCLUSIONS For many years, the field of group work has felt a tension or anxiety around the seemingly conflicting roles of instructor=evaluator and group facilitator in relation to the skills component of the required group work experience. Numerous authors (Davenport, 2004; Fall & Levitov, 2002; Furr & Barret, 2000; Hensley, 2002; Kane, 1995; Romano, 1998; Toth et al., 1998) have reacted to this conflict by exploring alternative models of group work training to address the ethical concerns raised within the field (Forester-Miller & Duncan, 1990;

Goodrich=DUAL RELATIONSHIPS

233

Downloaded by [Texas State University - San Marcos] at 13:41 21 June 2012

Lloyd, 1990; Pierce & Baldwin, 1990). An emerging literature does challenge the assumptions that dual relationships must be inherently bad; it instead suggests that these relationships can offer benefits to students in their personal and professional development by allowing them to work with through ethical concerns, and serve as exercise in critical thinking (Downs, 2003; Hayes, 1991; Lloyd, 1992; Scarborough et al., 2006; Pearson & Piazza, 1997). As previously stated, it is necessary that future research about boundary considerations and student experiences be explored for the field to move forward with this issue. Currently, the field has conducted little work in the study of dual relationships outside of conflictual or sexual relationships in the training of student counselors (Ellis, 2001; Johnson & Nelson, 1999; Lloyd, 1992; Nelson & Friedlander, 2001; Sullivan & Ogloff, 1998; Veach, 2001). Research must be completed to address whether multiple roles could be helpful in facilitating personal or professional growth in students, as well as to understanding how different relationships may impact the experiences of students. This research may help the field in understanding if some boundary slips may be acceptable, or influential, in the development of counselors-in-training, or if they only hold an adverse impact on trainees. This research would be significant in understanding if there is a need for alternative models of group work training, or if courses could be structured in a way that more appropriately facilitates understanding and growth. However, the ultimate focus for future research should be providing students and leaders a quality experience that responds to the diverse needs of those engaged in the learning process.

REFERENCES
American Counseling Association. (2005). ACA code of ethics. Alexandria, VA: Author. Anderson, R. D., & Price, G. E. (2001). Experiential groups in counselor education: Student attitudes and instructor participation. Counselor Education & Supervision, 41, 111119. Association for Specialists in Group Work. (2000). Association for Specialists in Group Work: Professional Standards for the Training of Group Workers. Retrieved August 11, 2006 from http://www.asgw.org/training_standards.htm Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2004). Fundamentals of clinical supervision, (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2001). The 2001 Standards. Retrieved April 30, 2006 from http://www.cacrep.org/2001 Standards.html Conyne, R. K. (1996). The association for specialists in group work training standards: Some considerations and suggestions for training. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 21(3), 155162.

234

THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK / September 2008

Conyne, R. K., Wilson, F. R., Kline, W. B., Morran, D. K., & Ward, D. E. (1993). Training group workers: Implications of the new ASGW training standards for training and practice. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 18(1), 1123. Corey, G., Williams, G. T., & Moline, M. E. (1995). Ethical and legal issues in group counseling. Ethics & Behavior, 5(2), 161183. Davenport, D. S. (2004). Ethical issues in the teaching of group counseling. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 29(1),4349. Donigian, J. (1993). Duality: The issue that wont go away. The Journal for Specialist in Group Work, 18(3), 137140. Downs, L. (2003). A preliminary survey of relationships between counselor educators ethics education and ensuing pedagogy and responses to attractions with counseling students. Counseling and Values, 48, 213. Ellis, M. V. (2001). Harmful supervision, a cause for alarm: Comment on Gray et al. and Nelson and Friedlander (2001). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(4), 401406. Emerson, S. (1995). A counseling group for counselors. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 20(4), 222231. Fall, K. A., & Levitov, J. E. (2002). Using actors in experiential group counseling leadership training. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 27(2), 122135. Forester-Miller, H., & Duncan, J. A. (1990). The ethics of dual relationships in the training of group counselors. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 15(2), 8893. Furr, S. R., & Barret, B. (2000). Teaching group counseling skills: Problems and solutions. Counselor Education & Supervision, 40(2),94104. Gazda, G. M., Ginter, E. J., & Horne, A. M. (2001). Group counseling and group psychotherapy: Theory and application. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Hayes, R. L. (1991). Group work and the teaching of ethics. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 16(1), 2431. Hensley, L. G. (2002). Teaching group process and leadership: The two-way fishbowl model. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 27(3), 271286. Herlihy, B., & Corey, G. (1992). Dual Relationships in Counseling. Alexandria, VA: American Association for Counseling and Development. Huhn, R. P., Zimpfer, D. G., Waltman, D. E., & Williamson, S. K. (1985). A survey of programs of professional preparation for group counseling. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 124133. Johnson, W. B., & Nelson, N. (1999). Mentor-protege relationships in graduate training: Some ethical concerns. Ethics & Behavior, 9, 189210. Kane, C. M. (1995). Fishbowl training in group process. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 20(3), 183188. Kolbert, J. B., Morgan, B., & Brendel, J. M. (2002). Faculty and student perceptions of dual relationships within counselor education: A qualitative analysis. Counselor Education & Supervision, 41, 193206. Kottler, J. A. (2004). Realities of teaching group counseling. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 29(1), 5153. Lloyd, A. P. (1990). Dual relationships in group activities: A counselor education=accreditation dilemma. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 15(2), 8387. Lloyd, A. P. (1992). Dual relationship problems in counselor education. In B. Herlihy & G. Corey (Eds.), Dual relationships in counseling (pp. 5964). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Merta, R. J., & Sisson, J. A. (1991). The experiential group: An ethical and professional dilemma. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 16(4), 236245.

Downloaded by [Texas State University - San Marcos] at 13:41 21 June 2012

Goodrich=DUAL RELATIONSHIPS

235

Downloaded by [Texas State University - San Marcos] at 13:41 21 June 2012

Merta, R. J., Wolfgang, L., & McNeil, K. (1993). Five models of using the experiential group in the preparation of group counselors. The Journal for Specialist in Group Work, 18(4), 200207. Nelson, M. L. & Friedlander, M. L. (2001). A close look at conflictual supervisory relationships: The trainees perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(4), 384395. Patrick, K. D. (1989). Unique ethical dilemmas in counselor training. Counselor Education & Supervision, 28, 337341. Pearson, R. E. (1985). A group-based format for basic skills of small-group leadership. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 10(3), 150156. Pearson, B. & Piazza, N. (1997). Classification of dual relationships in the helping professions. Counselor Education & Supervision, 37, 8999. Pierce, K. A., & Baldwin, C. (1990). Participation versus privacy in the training of group counselors. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 15(3), 149158. Riva, M. T., & Korinek, L. (2004). Teaching group work: Modeling group leader and member behaviors in the classroom to demonstrate group theory. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 29(1), 5563. Romano, J. L. (1998). Simulated group counseling: An experiential training model for group work. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 23(2), 119132. Scarborough, J. L., Bernard, J. M., & Morse, R. E. (2006). Boundary considerations between doctoral students and masters students. Counseling & Values, 51(1), 5366. Schmidt, J. J. (1999). Two decades of CACREP and what do we know now? Counselor Education & Supervision, 39, 3445. Schwab, R., & Neukrug, E. (1994). A survey of counselor educators ethical concerns. Counseling & Values, 39, 4255. Stockton, R., & Toth, P. L. (1996). Teaching group counselors: Recommendations for maximizing preservice instruction. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 21(4), 274282. Sullivan, L. E., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (1998). Appropriate supervisor-graduate student relationships. Ethics & Behavior, 8(3), 229248. Toth, P. L., Stockton, R., & Erwin, W. J. (1998, March). Application of a skill-based training model for group counselors. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 23(1), 3349. Veach, P. M. (2001). Conflict and counterproductivity in supervision-when relationships are less than ideal: Comment on Nelson and Friedlander and Gray et al. (2001). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(4), 396400.