Dissertation

490 views

Published on

Women\'s Perspectives of Professional Identity and Success in the Counseling Field

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
490
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Dissertation

  1. 1. Women’s Perspectives of Professional Identity and Success in the Counseling Field A Mixed-Methods Study Amanda C. Healey
  2. 2. Purpose <ul><li>This study investigated the contextual and definitional qualities of professional identity as well as the perception of success as defined by female counseling professionals. </li></ul><ul><li>The Professional Identity and Values Scale was created </li></ul><ul><li>An quantitative study was done to evaluate gender differences regarding professional identity and validate the scale created </li></ul>
  3. 3. Research Questions <ul><li>How do female counseling professionals define professional identity and success in counseling? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Is there a significant gender difference in professional identity and engagement among counselors? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is there a significant gender difference in the professional identity and beliefs about success for the survey derived from the qualitative analysis? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What is the relationship between the Professional Identity and Engagement Scale (PIES) and the survey derived from the qualitative analysis? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What is the influence of family composition in relation to the PIES and the survey derived from qualitative analysis? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How does allocation of income for professional engagement activities affect the professional identity ratings on both the scale developed by Puglia (2008) and the scale developed through this study? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Does engagement indicate a stronger professional identity? </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Conceptualization
  5. 5. Methods <ul><li>Sequential Mixed-Methods Design </li></ul><ul><li>Feminist grounded theory </li></ul><ul><ul><li>17 Interviews / 2 Focus Groups </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Doctoral Candidates </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Newly Licensed Professional Counselors (2006) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Tenure-Track Counselor Educators </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Exploratory Factor Analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Discriminant/Correlational Analysis </li></ul>
  6. 6. Phase I: Validation Strategies <ul><li>Systematic triangulation of sources, theory and methods </li></ul><ul><li>Peer coding, review and auditing </li></ul><ul><li>Negative case analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Clarification of researcher bias </li></ul><ul><li>Member checking </li></ul><ul><li>Dependability </li></ul><ul><ul><li>detailed researcher notes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>participant profiles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>detailed transcription of interviews and focus groups </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>inter-coder agreement </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Phase II: PIVS Development <ul><li>Three sub-scales </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Philosophy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Values </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Development </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Exploratory Success Scale </li></ul><ul><li>Expert Review (10 Reviewers) </li></ul><ul><li>Coder Review (4 Team Members) </li></ul><ul><li>Dissemination through Survey Monkey </li></ul>
  8. 8. Phase III: Quantitative Analysis <ul><li>Exploratory Factor Analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Faculty and Leadership Content Analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Correlational Study </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Comparison of the two inventories used </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Discriminant Analysis </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Predictor Variables </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Gender, Family Composition, Income Allocation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Grouping Variables </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Sub-Scale and Total Scores for PIVS and PIES </li></ul></ul></ul>
  9. 9. Qualitative Results <ul><li>16 Emergent Themes </li></ul><ul><li>Theoretical Result: Female professionals develop a value system consistent with the counseling philosophy and use this to provide a guide for determining their personal and professional success. When there is a conflict between external expectations/standards and internal values women experience conflict, especially when external or system standards do not value women’s multiple roles </li></ul>
  10. 10. Qualitative Results
  11. 11. Professional Identity and Values Scale <ul><li>Good Inter-Rater Reliability </li></ul><ul><ul><li>K α = .606 / α = .805 (excluding 8 items) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Convergent Validity (PIES) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>r[453] = .498, p < .001 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Final Factors (KMO = .886) at r = 0.45 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>PCA/Varimax </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>9 Factors and 32 Items </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2 Scales – Development and Orientation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Development: 2 Subscales </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Orientation: 7 Subscales or thematic areas </li></ul></ul></ul>
  12. 12. Content Analysis <ul><li>Faculty </li></ul><ul><ul><li>203 male full/104 female full </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>154 male assc./174 female assc. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>130 male asst./258 female asst. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>218 male adjunct or part-time/356 female </li></ul></ul><ul><li>ACA Leadership (President – 10 years) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>90 male/123 female organizational & divisional </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>5 male/7 female ACA president </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. Quantitative Results <ul><li>Significant difference in subscale scores for male and female professionals (statistically and practically) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Engagement/Development scores higher for males </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Significant difference in subscale scores for male and female professionals regardless of family composition with the exception of those living with/in extended families (statistically and practically) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Engagement/Development scores higher for males </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Significant different in subscale scores as it pertained to income allocation to professional engagement activities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Higher subscales scores overall if spending between 6-20% of net annual income on professional activities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Statisically and practically significant (moderate effect size) </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. Implications <ul><li>Role of Mentors </li></ul><ul><li>Counselor Training </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Personal and Professional Conflict </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Aspirational Values vs Institutional Expectations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Gender Roles, Values, Pay and Status Disparity </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Wellness and Self-Care </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Does the system allow for it? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Gender differences in sub-scales </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Protective factor of extended family </li></ul></ul>
  15. 15. Limitations <ul><li>Qualitative </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No male negative case analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Researcher experience </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Desirable responses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Theoretical/Snowball sampling </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ethnic background of participants </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Quantitative </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Response rate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sample size from differing professional roles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CACREP and local recruitment pool </li></ul></ul>

×