What is the Theoretical Basis or Framework for this Study?
The article consists of an experimental investigation of white counselors broaching race and racism. King and Borders (2019) studied “potential clients’ evaluation of an initial broaching statement” (p. 341). The most critical events in counseling occur at the verbal level. The essence of the verbal behavior of the consultants is the ways of their reaction in the process of interaction with the client – the basic skills of counseling, accessibly including race and racism topics. It could reduce barriers to access to mental health services for minorities. However, sometimes consultants lack proper guidance to form effective disclosure statements.
What Variables are Included in this Study?
The research under study presents an experimental analog design. It included audiovisual vignettes to test specific counselor broaching behaviors (King & Borders, 2019). Despite the presence of works that provide a large amount of information on this topic, they do not address in detail the broaching framing. There were four vignettes that showed different counselor-client interactions or conditions. There were 575 participants who viewed the vignette and completed dependent variable measures.
How Are Variables Connected to the Theoretical Framework for the Study?
Participants stated that frequent problems in counseling were anxiety, depression, low mood, stress, and stress management. Participants were also presented with questions covering a range of multicultural identities. More than half of the people who took part indicated that they had previously resorted to counseling, and just under half had never been a client. The racial significance did not differ in the four experimental conditions (King & Borders, 2019). As a result, the participants’ responses provide a link between the variables and the study’s scope and validity.
To What Degree Does the Author Operationalize the Variables?
The variable is operationalized in a limited way because the questions and conditions presented on the vignettes are similar for each participant, and they were not delivered within the setting of a real counselor-client relationship and were not applied uniformly to all participants. In one of the analyses, the authors examined the interaction of race and ethnicity and broaching conditions in a two-way MANOVA. King and Borders (2019) say that “a test of debated components with high internal validity, possible with analogue research, could advance the knowledge base on broaching” (p. 343). The research examined broaching components of goals and inclusion of similarities and differences through audiovisual materials of an interaction between a White counselor and an African American client.
What Were the Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for the Study?
The study focused on the racial aspect of counseling, and the primary exclusion criterion was the lack of a cross-racial experience in the sphere of counseling with White counselors and Black patients. Participants’ mean age was 22 years, with 22% men, 75 % women, 0.7% transgender, and 0.9% (King & Borders, 2019). A survey was conducted for the participants, in which many advanced beyond informed consent but were unable to complete some items and were removed.
What Sampling Methods did the Researchers Use?
In the study, the authors used such a method as analog design with audiovisual components. In such studies, the sample is not equivalent to the group for which the results are planned to be generalized. It may be conducted for convenience reasons or if it is difficult or even impossible to find a more suitable sample of subjects, as in the study of stigmatized groups.
Critique of Introduction
The authors use the introduction to familiarize the audience with broaching and its importance in cross-cultural counseling. The goal of such counseling is to help the client establish their identity in a world where many cultures exist, coexist, and interact. Broaching in this sphere can “explicitly convey a counselor’s multicultural orientation, demonstrating to the client the counselor’s humble, open prioritization of culture” (King & Borders, 2019, p. 341). The authors see the problem of the study as getting rid of the “legacy of silence,” which is not directly related to the race and identity of a person (King & Borders, 2019, p. 341). It is worth adding that the authors do not have a specific introduction, and the information that is presented at the beginning of the work is pervasive. It would be helpful to divide it into sections for better understanding.
Critique of Methods
Despite the fact that analog analysis allows expanding the ability to test hypotheses and generalize results that can give a more reliable estimate, it has certain disadvantages. Thus, validity is limited by the quality of the studies included in the analysis and by different methods of evaluating the same outcomes in different studies. There is a possibility of creating a false impression about the accuracy of the results. In addition, there may be variability in the quality of the impact factor assessment data.
Critique of Results
The advantage of the study is the detailed disclosure of the results of the analysis of all four hypotheses. King and Borders (2019) indicate that “results provide evidence of the therapeutic benefits of broaching, preference for broaching that addresses the counseling relationship, and the role of positionality in evaluating counselors’ cultural responsiveness” (p. 341). The study does not address the training needs of students specializing in racial and ethnic differences, which is a limitation of the work on cross-cultural counseling.
Critique of Discussion
The work under study plays an essential role in the understanding of counseling issues and difficulties. Culture-centered variations in how a counselor framed an initial broaching statement were actual for many participants of the research, but not the professional relationship in general or the willingness to continue working with the specialist (King & Borders, 2019). One of the main interests of the study was to test the opinion that the topic of race is more often provoked and better perceived by minorities. The influence of the majority makes it possible to ensure the stability of individual groups and the social system as a whole, but at the same time, hinders development. It is only thanks to the minority that individual groups and society as a whole are able to change.
Critique of Limitations
The authors are objective in describing the limitation of their study. King and Borders emphasize that the conducted research is in light of limitations. They note (2019) that “although the study operationalized and tested precise broaching components, they were not delivered within the setting of an actual counselor-client relationship and did not apply uniformly to all participants” (p. 349). There were also nuances related to the tone, style, and wording, which were manifested in the interaction with the participants.
Critique of the Authors’ Writing Style
Research is a systematic research process used to gain new knowledge or make changes to existing knowledge by discovering new facts. As for the criticism of the authors’ writing style, it is worth noting that the work is written in reasonably clear language. However, the study lacks structure when presenting a vast amount of information. The research is based on a large number of works by other authors, which also seems to be a plus.
Reference
King, K.M. & Borders, L.D. (2019). An experimental investigation of white counselors broaching race and racism. Journal of Counseling & Development, 97, 341-351.