Abstract
In this article, we attempt to draw a connection between social justice and international competencies within counseling psychology. Built on Constantine et al.’s general social justice competencies as well as the cross-national cultural competences model and dynamic-systemic-process model of international competencies, nine international social justice competencies are outlined and their relevance in international contexts is highlighted. In addition, three specific mindsets for the enhancement of international social justice work by U.S.-based counseling psychologists are discussed. We believe that by promoting the integration of social justice and international competencies, future counseling psychologists will be better prepared for the global era.
Although internationalization of counseling psychology is a relatively new trend observed in the past 15 years, the persistent and collective efforts made by a number of presidents of the Society of Counseling Psychology (SCP) and several counseling psychologists have led to remarkable advancements both in the field and the SCP (see Nilsson, Wang, & Chung, 2019 [this issue]). In addition, these efforts have led to counseling psychologists and trainees having greater exposure to international research, training, and educational programs. For example, the University of Missouri-Columbia developed a Master’s Dual Degree Program with National Taiwan Normal University with the goal of generating opportunities for international education and enhancing cross-cultural competencies of future counseling psychologists (Heppner & Wang, 2014). Several other counseling psychology programs (e.g., University of St. Thomas, University of North Texas, and Oklahoma State University) also offer international exchange or study abroad programs (Koch, Ross, Wendell, & Aleksandrova-Howell, 2014; Smith, Jennings, & Lakhan, 2014).
These internationalization efforts, however, have been limited to a few particular training programs with faculty members who have strong interests in international issues. Findings from studies focused on international education in U.S. counseling psychology programs indicated that less than a handful of American Psychological Association (APA) -accredited counseling psychology programs offer formal training opportunities in another country (e.g., taking courses, earning academic credit; Turner-Essel & Waehler, 2009). In addition, although some programs consider international experiences in their admissions process and encourage their students to attend international conferences, the curriculum or training focus on international issues among APA-accredited counseling psychology programs did not increase from 2007 to 2013 (Hurley, Gerstein, & Ægisdóttir, 2013). In their study, Hurley et al. concluded that the most important change in recent years has been the inclusion of international issues as part of multicultural training. However, opportunities for international training remain scarce.
As international efforts within counseling psychology training programs started taking shape, a number of sociopolitical changes occurred in the United States and around the globe. These include the September 11th attacks, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Arab Spring, the outbreak of ISIS terror attacks, the Syrian refugee crisis in Europe, natural disasters such as earthquakes in Haiti and Japan, and tsunamis, hurricanes, and flooding (see Inman et al., 2019 [this issue]). With the constant global information exchange taking place through the Internet and smart phones, the rapidly rising frequency of international trade and overseas employment (World Trade Organization, 2016), and the challenges and opportunities associated with the rise of political-economic influences of “third-world” countries (Roth, 2016), the new millennium has forced U.S.-based counseling psychologists to think more internationally.
Are we, and the field of counseling psychology, ready for the new era? Unfortunately, it is the authors’ perception that we are underprepared at this time to adequately and fully embrace the global era. In this article, we present international social justice competencies in an effort to broaden counseling psychologists’ international reach. Our recommendations are based on extensive exchanges held among 11 counseling psychologists from seven different countries and/or cultural backgrounds over a period of 9 months (see Nilsson et al., 2019).
In the following sections, we first present examples of international social injustice and oppression in the global community. Next, we discuss the unique features of our profession that position us well to examine issues of social justice in international contexts. We then address the integration of social justice and international competencies by presenting nine international social justice competencies adapted from Constantine, Hage, Kindaichi, and Bryant’s (2007) general social justice competencies. Finally, we present three specific mindsets for enhancing social justice work within a global context.
Social Injustice and Oppression in the Global Community
A main goal of social justice work is to address oppression, disparity, and marginalization (Leong, Pickren, & Vasquez, 2017; Vera & Speight, 2003). Unfortunately, we have witnessed oppressive acts and prejudiced attitudes on the part of individuals from majority groups toward minority or immigrant individuals in many global communities. For instance, research suggests that there has been a steady increase over the past 20 years in negative attitudes held by British and French citizens towards Muslim immigrant individuals, despite efforts by the governments to attend to intercultural relations (Bleich, 2009). Relatedly, the Islamic veil worn by Muslim women has become a target of anti-Muslim acts. Several Western European countries (e.g., Belgium, France) have passed laws that prohibit wearing the veil in governmental buildings and public schools, as well as other locations (Saroglou, Lamkaddem, Van Pachterbeke, & Buxant, 2009). The many layers of oppression and racial discrimination against Pakistani Muslim individuals and families by local residents were also documented in Hong Kong, with clear negative effects on psychological development and perceptions of community belonging among Pakistani residents (Crabtree & Wong, 2013). In Taiwan, Muslim Indonesian graduate students studying in Taipei reported experiencing social discrimination off campus as well as various difficulties related to their religious practices (Chen, Liu, Tsai, & Chen, 2015). In addition, research conducted in the United Kingdom suggests a racially segregated labor force in the country, with White individuals enjoying privilege and migrant workers facing disadvantages (Samaluk, 2014). All of these examples from different countries documented in the literature illustrate the ongoing ethnic and/or religious membership-based oppression in the world.
The literature also suggests that gender-based oppression continues to be one of the most prevalent human rights violations in the world. According to the United Nations, one third of women and girls are beaten or sexually abused in their lifetime, usually by a family member or acquaintance (United Nations Women, 2011, 2014). Women in some Asian, African, and Middle Eastern countries are either expected by the societal and/or cultural norms (e.g., India) or explicitly required by laws (e.g., Saudi Arabia) to consult and get permission from their male guardians on many aspects of their life decisions, ranging from something as simple as going out of the house and traveling to more complicated events like finding jobs, selecting schools, and getting married (Berry, 2008). Under male guardianship, fathers and husbands have the right to discipline their daughters and spouses if they disobey men’s guardianship (Rheaul, 2007). Although banned by law, an unspoken expectation in many Indian communities is that women are the property of their fathers or husbands (Johnson & Johnson, 2001; Makkar, 2019). Women who have exited their married life for various reasons (e.g., divorce, widowhood, and abandonment) are considered “bad” women by the general public and frequently experience neglect, disregard, and rejection from family members, social peers, or institutions (Berry, 2008; Makkar, 2019). A large percentage of married women in Russia suffer from domestic violence, with incidence rates being four to five times higher than those typically reported in Western countries (Horne, 1999). Recently, amendments to existing laws in Russia were passed that lower the sentence on male offenders in domestic violence cases who caused bruises and bleeding, but no broken bones, on their spouses or children (Stallard, 2018).
Although the U.S. Supreme Court made a historic ruling to lift the ban on same-sex marriage on June 26, 2015, there are still 72 countries in which relationships between men, and 45 countries in which relationships between women, are considered illegal or subject to antigay legislation (International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, 2015). There are eight countries that legislate the death penalty for same-sex sexual behaviors, although only five (Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen) actually implement it. A sixth country, Iraq, has judges and militia that issue the death penalty despite the fact that the punishment does not appear in the civil code. Some African regions (e.g., Nigeria, Somalia) also implement the death penalty for same-sex sexual behaviors (International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Intersex Association, 2015). Outspoken, antigay political leaders and high-rank government officials in Gambia, Jamaica, Kenya, Nigeria, Russia, Uganda, and several Arab countries have made derogatory comments toward sexual minority populations despite international confrontations (West & Cowell, 2015). Even in countries where antigay laws have been lifted, LGBT individuals continue to suffer from various levels of oppression and discrimination, ranging from cultural prejudices and stigmas of being abnormal, sinful, and sexually promiscuous to being physically and/or sexually assaulted (Graziano, 2004). Thus, there is a continuing and critical need for counseling psychologists to advocate for LGBT rights internationally and work closely with local LGBT organizations in various countries.
In the Internet and global era, unjust social incidents taking place overseas are no longer remote and unrelated to the United States. The recent Syrian refugee crisis is an example of a significant international social justice issue that felt close to home. According to Amnesty International (2015), over 4 million Syrian refugees have fled to Turkey and neighboring countries; this has resulted in more than 3,800 deaths among migrants crossing the Mediterranean in 2016 alone (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2016). Almost 1 million Syrian refugees have applied for asylum in Europe. Although Germany accepted about half of these refugees, with smaller numbers accepted in Sweden and Australia, many European countries and government officials upheld discriminatory policies or used prejudiced language against these refugees (Connor, 2018). For example, governmental officials in Slovakia openly expressed concerns about accepting “Muslim” refugees because of religious differences (British Broadcasting Corporation, 2015). However, when the image of the Syrian boy’s drowned body on the Turkish coast was repeatedly broadcast to the world via multimedia, it led to strong protests in several European countries and to the United States condemning these discriminatory responses (Withnall, 2015).
Counseling Psychology and International Social Justice
Social justice, equity, and acceptance of differences are at the root of counseling psychology core values. In the past few decades, counseling psychologists have been urged to go beyond the provision of conventional counseling and psychotherapy services, and more actively engage in social justice and advocacy work through community involvement and research (Goodman & Gorski, 2015; Vera & Speight, 2003). Through our collective efforts, our profession has observed remarkable achievements in the past 15 years, including the publication of the Handbook for Social Justice in Counseling Psychology in 2006 (Toporek, Gerstein, Fouad, Roysircar, & Israel, 2006), the development of several social advocacy and competency models (e.g., Constantine et al., 2007; Goodman et al., 2004), the implementation of the scientist–practitioner–advocate training model (Mallinckrodt, Miles, & Levy, 2014), and the publication of two special issues of The Counseling Psychologist (TCP) in 2014 (Koch & Juntunen, 2014a, 2014b) devoted to nontraditional teaching methods for social justice.
However, there is also a movement toward expanding our social justice work internationally. For example, Gerstein (2006) called upon counseling psychologists “to embrace the role of social architect and participate on interdisciplinary teams designed to provide a host of culturally appropriate and effective services worldwide” (p. 377). When discussing specific social justice activities, Fouad, Gerstein, and Toporek (2006) included work that focused on “empowering individuals, families, groups, organizations, and institutions outside of the United States; attempting to resolve border disputes between nations; advocating for the release of political prisoners” (p. 1). More recently, the updated Model Training Program (MPT; Scheel, Stabb, Cohn, Duan, & Sauer, 2018) included four core values (i.e., growth toward full potential, holistic and contextual, diversity and social justice, communitarian perspective) and 20 principles grouped into six clusters. Specifically, Cluster 2 focuses on multiculturalism, diversity, and social justice, and includes a specific principle for international contexts. Scheel et al. emphasized the importance of a global and transnational perspective in training counseling psychologists, and invited training programs to integrate such content in their curriculum.
Despite the call made by several leading counseling psychologists to expand social justice practice into the global community, the application of social justice work in international contexts by U.S. counseling psychologists has been very limited. For instance, Singh et al. (2010) discussed counseling psychology doctoral trainees’ perceptions of social justice training; their findings indicated that 85% of participants had not taken a course on social justice. Although Singh et al.’s study provided critical information about the need for social justice training, the need to engage in international social justice was not addressed. Similarly, Miller and Sendrowitz (2011) examined counseling psychology trainees’ potential engagement in social justice, but the application of social justice in international contexts was not addressed. Counseling psychologists who have done outstanding social justice and advocacy work outside the United States (e.g., Gerstein & Kirkpatrick, 2006; Horne & Mathews, 2006; McWhirter & McWhirter, 2006; Norsworthy & Khuankaew, 2006) have invested personal time and resources to do so.
We acknowledge that there are many barriers counseling psychologists must overcome to be involved in international social justice work. For example, the criteria for tenure and promotion evaluation for academic psychologists are largely focused on publications and research grants. In addition, we have also noticed that subsequent to the 2008 economic crisis, most public universities in the United States have limited their investment to core activities (i.e., research, teaching, service to students on campus). As a result, most universities do not provide strong support for counseling psychology faculty to engage in international social justice work. At many universities, tenure-track faculty may be actively discouraged from doing such work and, instead, are asked to focus on publishing and seeking grants.
In a review of the literature, we sought to identify articles focused on international social justice issues. Regarding our own flagship journals—Journal of Counseling Psychology (JCP) and TCP—we identified one article in JCP (i.e., Chen et al., 2015) and five in TCP (i.e., Bartholomew, Gundel, & Kantamneni, 2015; Koch, Ross, Wendell, & Aleksandrova-Howell, 2014; Sloan, 2005; Smith, Jennings, & Lakhan, 2014; Yoon, Lee, Koo, & Yoo, 2010) in the last 20 years (1996–2015) that directly examined international social justice issues or training activities designed to enhance international social justice competency. When expanding our search to all APA journals, we identified six additional articles (i.e., Bartholomew, 2012; Graziano, 2004; Horne, 1999; Mohamed & Ratele, 2012; Shefer, 2012; Sonn, 2012). Among them, three were published in Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology; one article each was published in the American Psychologist, Cultural Diversity and Minority Psychology, and International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice, and Consultation. The limited attention to this topic suggests a great need to expand our research on international social justice issues.
Linking Social Justice With International Competencies
Psychology has been criticized for failing to get ahead of other disciplines or even keep up with the globalization trend (Marsella, 2012). Because social justice is a core counseling psychology value (Packard, 2009), we believe that U.S.-based counseling psychologists are ideally equipped to take a leading role in promoting international social justice advocacy work. We believe that by integrating social justice and international competencies, counseling psychologists will broaden their perspectives and have more tools to address global issues such as injustice, poverty, health and educational disparities, and the unequal distribution of resources.
In addition to a solid foundation on domestic social justice, our profession possesses a unique advantage—international alumni—for addressing international social justice issues. The hallmark features of the counseling psychology profession in the United States, such as a focus on strengths, diversity, inclusion, and equality, make our profession appealing to many international students (Wang & Heppner, 2015). Our profession has a long history of attracting international students, substantially more than other sub-disciplines of applied psychology. In 2013, international students accounted for 8.34% of the total student body enrolled in APA-accredited counseling psychology doctoral programs (up from 5.34% in 2003, representing a 16% increase over the 10-year period), compared to 4.29% in clinical psychology programs and 4.58% in school psychology programs (APA Commission on Accreditation, 2014). Upon completion of their training, U.S.-trained international counseling psychologists have acquired language and bicultural competencies. Regardless of whether they stay in the United States or return to their home countries, our international alumni become precious assets that may connect professional organizations across countries and enhance our awareness of international social injustice (Wang & Heppner, 2015).
Constantine et al. (2007) outlined nine specific competencies for general social justice work. These competencies include: (a) knowledge of injustice and oppression present in society; (b) continuous self-reflection regarding our own privilege and power; (c) self-examination of our own responsibility for maintaining the status quo; (d) awareness of exploitative interventions; (e) knowledge of culturally sensitive interventions; (f) knowledge of issues of social injustice in the international community; (g) consideration of appropriate preventative interventions or programs; (h) collaboration with other organizations; and (i) facilitation of social change in one’s own community, social groups, or institutions.
Although with great merits, these nine competencies have an implicit focus on diversity issues in the United States, and fall short when applied in an international context. Thus, to prepare future counseling psychologists for social justice advocacy work in international communities, we have adapted these competencies to extend their relevance to international social justice advocacy work. Our revised competencies are as follows:
Knowledge of social injustices, disparities, and oppression in the global community.
Continuous self-reflection of our own privilege, ethnocentric, and/or socioeconomic–political biases against foreigners or other countries.
Self-examination of our responsibility for maintaining the status quo of global injustices.
Awareness of exploitative interventions in different countries.
Knowledge of culturally appropriate interventions, as viewed from local perspectives.
Consideration of the influence and implications of injustices occurring in a particular country on neighboring regions and the global community.
Consideration of preventative programs appropriate to local cultural contexts.
Collaboration with organizations across country borders.
Development of advocacy skills to facilitate social change in the global community.
In addition, in this article we expand on two conceptual models that are helpful for the integration of social justice and international competencies: the cross-national cultural competence model (CNCC; Heppner, Wang, Heppner, & Wang, 2012), and the dynamic-systemic-process model of international competencies (DSP-MIC; Gerstein, Hurley, & Hutchison, 2015). In the next section, we propose three overarching mindsets for individual counseling psychologists and counseling psychology training programs to consider, which extend the existing models by strengthening international social justice competencies. We believe these three mindsets complement the nine international social justice competencies modified from Constantine et al. as well as the two aforementioned models. These three mindsets include the following: (a) development of an ecological perspective, (b) implementation of dialectical thinking, and (c) cultivation of cross-cultural sensitivity through personal immersion experiences and establishment of long-term international relationships. In the next section, we anchor our discussion on the nine competencies as well as the two conceptual models, consistent with the focus of this Major Contribution (Nilsson et al., 2019).
Further Engagement in a Global Perspective
Marsella (2012) criticized psychology’s unbalanced focus on within-person topics and recommended inclusion of larger macrosocial variables (e.g., larger global problems such as poverty, war, and disasters) in psychologists’ training curriculum and research activities. Similarly, Prilleltensky (2012) has called for Western psychology to embrace the global era by reconceptualizing fundamental constructs such as self-concept and psychological well-being from an ecological and multidimensional perspective. Further engagement in a global ecological perspective is directly related to the first, fourth, fifth, and sixth competency from the revised Constantine et al. model. Engaging an ecological perspective will help to address the ecosystem component in the CNCC model (Heppner et al., 2012). It will enable future U.S.-trained counseling psychologists to become adequate global citizens and international social justice advocates by gaining knowledge about social injustices in various international regions as well as about local efforts and resources available to address them. This perspective also helps to strengthen the training implications proposed in Gerstein et al.’s model (2015; see Nilsson et al., 2019).
To facilitate the engagement of a global ecological perspective, students may take courses outside of the discipline such as international politics, political ecology, and ecological economics. In addition, the requirement of foreign language proficiency would enable counseling psychology students who are interested in international work to obtain a more accurate understanding of local perspectives. In turn, this understanding is likely to lead to the development of indigenous, ecological reconceptualizations or to adaptation of psychological concepts, models, and theories. The vital function and tremendous benefit of possessing basic proficiency of a local language is highlighted in both models proposed by Heppner et al. (2012) and Gerstein et al. (2015). Inclusion of literature from outside the U.S. related to indigenous theories and counseling models, should be regular readings in all training courses.
Because the Standards of Accreditation for Health Service Psychology outline required elements and competencies for training outcomes, many APA-accredited training programs may have difficulty including too many additional courses (APA Commission on Accreditation, 2018). In addition, students may not have room in their schedules to take elective courses given the heavy demand in clinical and research training already present in required coursework. Therefore, an alternative approach for those trainees who are seriously considering engagement in international work may be to pursue a master’s degree in another field (e.g., international relations) that would allow them to further develop an ecological perspective, while or soon after completing their training in counseling psychology.
Implementation of Dialectical Thinking
We believe utilizing dialectical thinking may be a helpful tool when addressing international social injustices or disparities. The premises of dialectical thinking start with acknowledging the coexistence of two or more apparently opposing forces (Peng & Nisbett, 1999). The current status is considered ever-changing and conceptualized as both an outcome and cause, deeply intertwined with and compensating to two (or multiple) contradictory parties (Hamamura, Heine, & Paulhus, 2008). There are many questions that must be addressed, such as identifying who the stakeholders are, how the maintenance of the status quo is perpetuated, the benefits and losses each party may experience if the change takes place, and what recursive influences each stakeholder may have on others. Other questions may include how local people perceive and define happiness, success, and righteousness, what basic human rights are involved in this issue, and who defines them. Equally important, we need to ask how critical and urgent it is to address the unjust situations, what available mechanisms are in place, what steps most local people would consider acceptable in addressing the situation, and at what and whose cost? Such questions should be thoroughly processed to attempt to gain a comprehensive picture about the ecological context in which the event or issue takes place. Dialectic thinking may be counterintuitive to some counseling psychologists growing up and completing their training in the U.S., for it is distinctly different from the practice of logical thinking in mainstream Western societies, where the goal is to analyze contradictions and synthesize differences (Choi & Choi, 2002). However, a person can acquire the ability to engage in dialectic thinking through training, and this perspective may help counseling psychologists who engage in international social justice work understand local norms more accurately and develop a stronger action plan (Prilleltensky, 2012).
Although the use of dialectical thinking can benefit all social justice work, we argue it is particularly useful and relevant for the promotion of social justice in international contexts. Among others, interdependence and self-determination are two key elements for social justice advocacy work (Vera & Speight, 2003). A main reason we believe dialectical thinking would be critical is that international social justice work often requires U.S.-trained counseling psychologists to reconceptualize many psychological, interpersonal, and societal phenomena and intersections from a local cultural lens in order to help the local community achieve self-determination and maintain a delicate balance in interdependence. Implementation of dialectical thinking is consistent with the second, fourth, fifth, seventh, and ninth competencies from the revised Constantine et al. (2007) model. In the DSP-MIC, Gerstein et al. (2015) highlighted the importance of engaging in cognitive complexity and cognitive flexibility, which are closely related to dialectical thinking. In addition, dialectical thinking can be considered a significant addition to Heppner et al.’s model (2012), which focuses on development of knowledge, awareness, skills, attitudes, and coping.
We would like to provide a brief example to illustrate how dialectic thinking applies to international social justice issues. Judging from even the lowest standard of gender equality commonly agreed upon in the United States, male guardianship in some Arab countries would be considered clear oppression imposed on women in these countries. However, public survey results have suggested that a large percentage (over 50% in some cases) of women in some Arab countries agree with some aspects of the male guardianship practice and are in support of using Islamic principles in guiding legislation (Rheaul, 2007). U.S.-based counseling psychologists may be puzzled by the seemingly paradoxical results of the public polls.
When applying dialectical thinking to address this case, counseling psychologists will first need to understand indigenous perspectives on the positive and negative aspects of this custom. For example, local proponents of the custom (many of whom are women) argue that male guardianship is counter balanced by some common cultural practices. For example, married men are expected to provide full financial support to members of their families in Islamic society. If a married woman has a job, she is allowed to keep the full amount of the earnings from her work. In addition, a man’s financial responsibility for his children remains after divorce, even if his wife has custody of the children. Implementation of dialectical thinking would also require us to identify key indicators of gender equality as perceived by local people, and consider what would be a desirable gender role by the local community, including marginalized voices. In conclusion, we believe dislectical thinking can help counseling psychologists navigate complex cultural issues and dynamics in these communities.
After gaining a more comprehensive understanding of indigenous cultural norms and practices through dialectic thinking, it is critical to establish a long-term collaboration with local individuals to identify desirable benchmarks for changes as well as realistic steps to move forward. For example, research suggests that a social movement is more likely to lead to lasting and desirable political and policy changes when well-organized local activists and persistent international attention pressuring the top of the local political body are both present (Tsutsui & Shin, 2008).
Cultivation of Cross-Cultural Sensitivity
We believe that cultivating cross-cultural sensitivity through cultural immersion experiences and that building personal relationships with international colleagues are additional ways for mental health professionals to develop international social justice competencies. If adopting an ecological perspective and engaging in dialectical thinking give counseling psychologists the tools to engage in international social justice work, cross-cultural sensitivity cultivated through personal connections and immersion experiences would provide the impetus and motivation that create personal meaning for continuous involvement in international social justice work. This perspective is consistent with the second, third, fourth, and sixth competencies from the revised Constantine et al. (2007) model. In the DSP-MIC model, Gerstein et al. (2015) highlighted the importance of motivation as a critical factor for cross-cultural effectiveness. In addition, cultivation of cross-cultural sensitivity is consistent with the immersion experiences described in Heppner et al.’s model (2012).
One of most effective ways for counseling psychologists to increase their cross-cultural sensitivity is through participation in cross-cultural immersion experiences (Heppner et al., 2012). In recent years, an increasing number of accredited counseling psychology programs have begun to offer training activities that involve interactions of various types with international counseling professionals (e.g., study abroad, student exchange, visiting scholars). For instance, the Cross-Cultural Competencies course offered by the University of Missouri and National Taiwan Normal University includes a 2-week trip to visit partner universities (Heppner & Wang, 2014). The Cross-Cultural Psychology course offered at the University of North Texas includes a 3-week international field trip to Taipei, Beijing, and/or Inner Mongolia. At Oklahoma State University, a service learning course is offered to counseling psychology graduate students which involves traveling to Belize to engage in 10 days of intensive experiences in cultural immersion and social justice activism (Koch et al., 2014). A 4-week study abroad diversity course offered at the University of St. Thomas aims to enhance students’ cross-cultural competency by engaging in intercultural, service learning activities (Smith et al., 2014). The Supervision course at Lehigh University offers opportunities to engage in cyber supervision of trainees in different countries (A. Inman, personal communication, June 23, 2017). These international training opportunities help students increase cross-cultural sensitivity and develop competencies in conceptualizing and engaging with various social justice issues from local, ecological perspectives. As we become a global community, we believe it is critical for counseling psychology trainees to have more opportunities for cross-cultural immersion experiences offered by counseling psychology programs and faculty.
Therefore, to facilitate the development of cross-cultural sensitivity in our students, it is necessary for training programs and the SCP to continue to establish more long-term, cross-national collaborations and partnerships. For instance, the SCP and the APA could provide more incentives to encourage a greater number of accredited training programs to develop short-term or semester-based student exchange programs with non-U.S. counseling psychology training programs; these connections would provide students with more cross-cultural immersion opportunities and exposure to international social justice issues. Similarly, practicum or internship sites could seek international partnerships. Currently, APA-accredited internship training or postdoctoral residency sites exclude opportunities abroad (APA, 2019). However, such training opportunities would help to increase trainees’ awareness and sensitivity about injustices in the global community, addressing the first, second, and third international social justice competencies. The APA CoA may consider establishing accredited predoctoral internship or postdoctoral training sites in places outside the United States where qualified supervisors are available.
Moreover, to enhance cross-cultural sensitivity, U.S. counseling psychologists or trainees who are interested in international social justice work should actively reach out to international colleagues by attending international conferences. The APA or SCP should provide incentives and support to encourage more U.S.-based counseling psychologists or trainees to attend international conferences. Internet-based social media can be used after initial contact to maintain and deepen connections with international counseling psychologists and scholars. When collaborating with international colleagues in global social justice work, U.S. counseling psychologists or trainees should strive to establish an egalitarian, mutually beneficial collaboration with them. It is important to be aware of the potential obstacles faced by international peers in these collaborations. For example, studying oppression and publishing on social justice–related issues in academic journals is not as acceptable in other countries as it is in the United States.
In addition, language has significant power. The dominant status of English in almost all current international psychology conferences is perpetuating Western colonialization (Goodman & Gorski, 2015; Marsella, 2012). We should encourage and provide the means for international psychologists to present their research findings in their native languages at conferences held in the U.S. It is our belief that promoting the usage of multiple languages in international psychology conferences and/or accepting manuscript submissions to U.S.-based journals in multiple languages is one of the most effective steps for achieving decolonization of Western Psychology in many developing countries. The APA should encourage more U.S.-based psychology journals to consider designating a particular section to publications that directly address international issues. The International Forum (IF) in TCP is a good example of a publication that provides an outlet for international work in counseling psychology; in turn, it is a critical source of international counseling psychology research (Wang & Heppner, 2015). The IF was created in 1988 under the editorship of Bruce Fretz to share research, training activities, and other professional work conducted by counseling psychologists around the world (Wang & Heppner, 2015). When Heppner became the TCP Editor in 1997, he appointed counseling psychologists with sensitivity and expertise in international issues to be the coeditors of the IF. Under the editorship of Lydia Buki, all submissions to the journal that include (a) research with international samples collected outside of the U.S., (b) professional practice in international settings, (c) research conducted in the U.S. with international samples, (d) cross-cultural investigations, and (e) conceptual issues related to the internationalization of counseling psychology were categorized as IF submissions. The Journal’s appeal to international authors is evidenced in submission trends: In 2018, the percentage of IF manuscripts accounted for 37% of all manuscript submissions. This represents a clear upward trend from 23% of submissions in 2014 (L. Buki, personal communication, July 9, 2019).
In recent years, promising infrastructure changes have been notable. For instance, the International Section of the SCP was established in 2005 with the goal of promoting counseling psychology practice, training, research, and social justice work in international contexts (Wang & Heppner, 2015). At the APA level, the Committee on International Relations in Psychology (CIRP) actively promotes international perspectives within psychology and facilitates interactions between U.S. psychologists and international colleagues (APA CIRP, 2019). There have been a number of counseling psychologists and members of the SCP who have served in, and have led, this Committee in recent years (e.g., Puncky Heppner, Arpana Inman, Melissa Morgan Consoli, Guerda Nicolas, Johanna Nilsson, Tina Richardson). CIRP is also responsible for the annual APA International Humanitarian Award, which recognizes the long-term engagement and outstanding contributions of the recipient in international social justice work; several counseling psychologists and SCP members (e.g., Kathryn L. Norsworthy, Guerda M. Nicolas) have received this award in recent years (APA International Humanitarian Award, 2019).
Another way that training programs can facilitate the development of cross-cultural sensitivity is to admit more international students. We believe that increasing the international diversity of our future generation of counseling psychologists is a lucrative long-term investment. This is because international graduate students not only will enrich the worldviews of the program faculty and their U.S. peers but after graduation they also may serve as liaisons to connect their U.S. faculty and peers to international counseling psychologists and organizations in their home countries. We would like to advocate for training programs to consider admitting international students to be about 15–20% of their yearly cohort. Because most APA-accredited counseling psychology programs admit 5 to 8 students a year, this percentage means each program would admit 1 to 2 international students annually to their yearly cohort, and provide training to approximately 4 to 6 international students across all cohorts at any given time. This size would allow for within-group social and emotional support to develop among international students, and would reduce isolation or risk of tokenism due to having a very small number of international trainees.
Although the long-term benefits of producing international alumni are clear, survey findings have indicated that only a small number of APA-accredited counseling psychology training programs (e.g., Ball State University, Lehigh University, Purdue University, University of Maryland in College Park, University of Missouri, University of North Texas) accept international students on a regular basis (Wang, 2014). We acknowledge that advising and mentoring international students often requires extra work for both counseling psychology faculty and training programs. More systematic efforts from the APA and SCP levels should be made to address concerns in this area. For instance, the SCP may host ongoing symposia during conventions or offer web-based workshops or peer support programs to guide and assist faculty members or clinical supervisors who have not taken, but are interested in accepting, international students. These efforts would allow more U.S.-based counseling psychologists to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to provide effective mentorship and supervision to this population. Incentives or awards may be provided to recognize and encourage more training programs to create a welcoming environment. In August 2017, CIRP gave its first award to recognize doctoral programs that have demonstrated a strong commitment to promoting and fostering international perspectives and global involvement of psychology. It is an exciting new trend and we encourage more to come.
Conclusions
Built on Constantine et al.’s (2007) general social justice competencies as well as Heppner et al.’s and Gerstein et al.’s models, we propose to integrate social justice advocacy work and international competencies. Nine international social justice competencies are outlined by highlighting their relevance in international contexts. In addition, we provide three perspectives to enhance the competencies of counseling psychologists engaged in international social justice work. We believe that embracing a global perspective will help our profession decolonize multicultural counseling practice and Western psychology (Goodman & Gorski, 2015) and advance the underlying principles of multiculturalism in global contexts.
In 2015, we celebrated the 10-year anniversary of the SCP International Section and the inauguration of the first SCP Vice President for International Affairs. This is a critical time to reflect on the internationalization movement within our profession and consider future directions. The recommendations outlined in this article are merely some possible directions and initial steps to link social justice and international competencies. We hope they will stimulate further discussion among leaders and colleagues in our Society. With our collective efforts, we will be able to better prepare the next generation of counseling psychologists to be effective social advocates in the global community.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.