PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [1 University of New Mexico]On: 18 February 2011Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 788782879]Publisher RoutledgeInforma 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 WorkPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713658627

Dual Relationships in Group TrainingKristopher M. Goodricha

a Syracuse University,

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

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould 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 directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

TRAINING

Dual Relationships in Group Training

Kristopher M. GoodrichSyracuse University

This article reviews and critiques the literature regarding dual relationships ingroup work training. It explores the ethical concerns raised within the field, andrelates this to an emerging literature concerning potentially beneficial relation-ships. Anecdotal and empirical evidence regarding dual relationships is reviewed,demonstrating the scant literature concerning this phenomenon in the group worktraining. Finally, conclusions are offered with implications for future work withinthe field.

Keywords: beneficial relationships; boundary issues; dual relationships; ethics;group training

In the field of group work, educators have come to a consensus thatit is necessary that students undergo an experiential module to assistin their preparation toward becoming an effective group leader (Fall &Levitov, 2002; Herlihy & Corey, 1992). By requiring students to entera group themselves, it creates a level of awareness and understandingof clients for counselors-in-training, and allows group leaders to modelappropriate counseling behavior for their students (Merta & Sission,1991; Merta, Wolfgang & McNeil, 1993). This practice has undergoneincreased scrutiny since the Council for Accreditation for Counselingand Related Educational Programs (CACREP, 2001) and the Associ-ation for Specialists in Group Work (ASGW, 2000) adopted bothinstructional, as well as experiential, components in their professionalstandards and criteria for training in group work (Fall & Levitov,2002). Researchers and practitioners have argued over the ethicsinvolved in instructors leading students in the experiential componentof group work due to the dual relationships that are formed amongstinstructor 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 University’s CounselorEducation and Supervision program. Thanks to John Kiweewa and Dick Hackney fortheir feedback on previous drafts of this manuscript. Correspondence concerning thisarticle 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, 221–235

DOI: 10.1080/01933920802204981

# 2008 ASGW

221

Downloaded By: [1 University of New Mexico] At: 16:38 18 February 2011

training standards conflict with the American Counseling Association(ACA, 2005) and ASGW ethical standards, which prohibit potentiallyharmful dual relationships between counselors and their students=clients. Thus, there has been conflict in the field of counseling aboutthe most appropriate way that one can honor the professional stan-dards and responsibilities of training effective group counselors whileavoiding the ethical dilemmas that could be created between teacherand student in the classroom.

The purpose of this paper is to review the available literature (usingERIC, PSYCInfo, Google Scholar, and Wilson Select Plus) regardingdual relationships in group work training. It will explore the ethicalconcerns raised within the field, and will conversely relate this to anemerging literature concerning potentially beneficial relationships.Anecdotal and empirical evidence regarding dual relationships willbe reviewed in an attempt to demonstrate the paucity of literatureconcerning this phenomenon in the field of group work training.Finally, suggestions will be offered with implications for future workwithin the field.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT FOR THE ETHICAL DILEMMA

In 1983, the Association for Specialists in Group Work published asurvey of programs regarding their group work curriculum in themasters and doctoral level programs. This survey found that 84.5%of master’s program and 84.6% of doctoral programs reported theyrequired the knowledge competencies of group work, while only72.3% of master’s programs and 75.3% of doctoral programs reportedrequiring the skills competencies within their training for group work(Conyne, Wilson, Kline, Morran, & Ward, 1993). Of those programsthat met the skills component, most reported meeting the competen-cies related to forming a group and conducting the early group-stageefforts; most programs reported that they did not meet skill standardsrelated to advanced group work stages, follow-up procedures, andevaluation (Coyne et al., 1993.; Huhn, Zimpfer, Waltman, & Williamson,1985; Merta et al., 1993). As a result of these competency ratings, theASGW looked to revise its standards to ensure that effective groupleaders would be trained by counselor training programs in both earlyand advanced level skill development. Thus, the ASGW trainingstandards were revised which included a new set of standards for bothinstructional (i.e., lecture), as well as experiential (i.e., skills) compo-nents to group work training (Coyne et al., 1993).

By adding a mandatory experiential aspect to group training, theCACREP and ASGW standards created an interesting issue: the

222 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK / September 2008

Downloaded By: [1 University of New Mexico] At: 16:38 18 February 2011

introduction of the issue of dual relationships into the required courseof study for counselors-in-training. Dual relationships in group workare defined when the leader of the group component holds multipleroles 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 facilita-tor takes on a concurrent role as a faculty member or evaluator. Inmany articles, the terms dual relationships and boundary issues areutilized interchangeably (Scarborough, Bernard & Morse, 2006). Inthis article, the term dual relationships will be utilized to representboth terms. Also, throughout the article, the term experiential groupwill be utilized; this term will be used to represent both skills-based,as well as interpersonal development groups.

THE ENTRANCE OF DUAL RELATIONSHIPS INTO THEFIELD

A review of the literature demonstrated an interesting historicalperspective in the nature of the dual relationship in group workexperiential training. Prior to 1990, very little literature that espousedthe conflict of holding multiple roles with counseling students could befound. In many of these articles, no mentions were made of ethicaldilemmas or dual roles with students. Instead, the model formatpresented for group leadership training held the instructor as facilita-tor, modeling appropriate leadership behavior for students andresponsible for structuring the practice and movement of the group(Pearson, 1985). The instructor’s practice was to demonstrate effectiveintervention procedures to model in the classroom, as well as decreasestudent anxiety when faced with their first group situation. Forester-Miller and Duncan (1990) also found a similar situation in their reviewof group work literature.

It is not until Patrick (1989) that ethical dilemmas regarding thesetypes of models began to appear in the field of counselor education. Inher article, Patrick spoke of the need of counselor candidates to receivepersonal counseling while in their program of study; this type of coun-seling could appear in traditional style personal-growth groups whenfacilitators ask students to share from their personal experience. How-ever, she also noted the conflicting roles of an instructor possiblylearning about undesirable traits of students: as a gatekeeper to thefield one must keep the best interest of the public and field in mind,but any actions based on information acquired from students inpersonal-growth groups or individual counseling could also lead one

Goodrich=DUAL RELATIONSHIPS 223

Downloaded By: [1 University of New Mexico] At: 16:38 18 February 2011

to act against that student’s best interest. Patrick offered the solutionof informed consents being shared with students explaining the limita-tions of confidentiality in evaluating whether or not students would beable to serve as effective counselors.

Ethical Problems in Group Work Training

Lloyd (1990) was one of the first authors who directly addressed theethical dilemma associated with dual relationships in group training.He cited the 1988 CACREP standards which identified the need forgroup activities in the training for group counselors in two sectionsof their curriculum. Lloyd then counterbalanced that criterion withthe 1988 ethical standards of the American Association of Counselingand Development (AACD, a predecessor of ACA) and the 1989 ethicalguidelines for the ASGW. In both of these sets of ethical standards,there are requirements for counselors to avoid dual relationships withothers that may impair the professional’s ability to provide objectiveand professional judgment, as well as compromise the others’ abilityto share fully in their counseling experience. The ASGW standard alsostates that the requirement of participation in a group situationcannot be evaluated toward a group members’ academic grade, andthat instructors need to take steps to minimize any negative impactthe group experience can have on a student.

Although amongst the first to express his concern over the issue ofdual relationships in group-work training, Lloyd was not alone withhis fear. Many other counselor educators have since written exten-sively on the nature of dual relationships in group training, as wellas the need to minimize these relationships to foster an ethical andcomfortable environment for students and practitioners (Conyneet 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 forcounselor educators to screen out incompetent counselors to protectthe public, as well as balancing the need to keep group-member’sdisclosures confidential and minimize the possibility that an instructorcould abuse the power of evaluation over a student.

To balance the responsibility between the differing roles as instruc-tor as well as gatekeeper to the field, authors have suggested manyalternatives to conducting the experiential group. These includechanging how one evaluates a student’s work in the experientialcomponent of the group, utilizing doctoral students or professionalsoutside the program to facilitate the group as a separate or concurrentcomponent to the group work course, or offering options for students

224 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK / September 2008

Downloaded By: [1 University of New Mexico] At: 16:38 18 February 2011

(such as role plays) so that students have alternatives to self-disclosure and avoiding possible bias in their relationships with theircounselor 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 workmodel have been proposed by the field to grapple with the issue of dualrelationships (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 educatorsand practitioners concerned with the dual relationship of group leaderand evaluator in the program; none of the models found in a literaturesearch addressed the possibility of potentially beneficial relationships,and any type of learning or development that may arise from thatpossibility. Each of these alternatives offers a variety of benefits andchallenges that should be considered before implementation.

Many group models look to separate the group members’ personalexperience from the experiential component, focusing instead on skillacquisition. Examples of these alternatives include group stage models(Toth et al., 1998), simulated group training (Romano, 1998), as wellas actors in leadership training (Fall & Levitov, 2002). Group stagemodel (e.g., Toth et al., 1998) is a skills-based approach which com-bines experiential, observational, didactic and role-play componentseach week for students to acquire new skills. Students do not take partin an interpersonal growth group, but instead learn about differenttechniques and how to utilize them in a role-played group situation.In simulated group training (Romano, 1998) and actors in leadershiptraining (Fall & Levitov, 2002), students are either assigned roles asclient actors, or real actors from the community join the group to playclients. Counselors-in-training rotate experiences as group co-facilitatorsand acquire leadership skills, as well as understanding, through thisexperience. In these models students are asked not to share theirpersonal experiences, but to utilize the experience they gained inexploring new skills to understand how they can serve as groupfacilitators in the future.

Other group models allow counselors-in-training to utilize their lifeexperiences, but offer different alternatives to address boundaryconsiderations. These alternatives include the dual experience groupcourse (Furr & Barret, 2000) and fishbowl models (Hensley, 2002;Kane, 1995). In both models, the students in the group class aredivided into two different groups. In the dual experience group course

Goodrich=DUAL RELATIONSHIPS 225

Downloaded By: [1 University of New Mexico] At: 16:38 18 February 2011

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

Strengths and Weaknesses of Alternative Models

The alternative models of group work training do offer some advan-tages when associated with a more traditional model of group training(Pearson, 1985). The first advantage would be the many roles thatcounselors-in-training are offered to participate in. Instead of being morepassive observers or traditional group members, many of these alterna-tives offer students the possibility of serving as co-facilitators, processobservers and group actors (Fall & Levitov, 2002; Furr & Barret, 2000;Hensley, 2002; Kane, 1995; Romano, 1998; Toth et al., 1998). The intro-duction of these different roles for students does seem to help serve thepurpose of the proposed changes to the group curriculum to address pre-vious deficiencies in skill competencies (Conye et al., 1993; Conye, 1996).

Another key advantage may be the possibility for students toexperience a variety of different types of issues within the group, whenclient roles are assigned by an instructor (Fall & Levitov, 2002;Romano, 1998). As opposed to only focusing around whatever issuesthe students may bring, these assigned client roles may introduceother issues that otherwise may not be introduced by students, suchas severe psychopathology, relational role plays, and other concerns.Finally, many of the alternatives do address the issue of duality withcourse instructor previously presented.

However, these models are not without their limitations. The firsthas to do with assigned roles (Fall & Levitov, 2002; Romano, 1998;Toth et al., 1998), and the spontaneity that may be compromised. Asopposed to playing a role that may be ‘‘real’’ for the participants, groupmembers may have to take time to reflect on how their characterwould respond to the stimulus. This may impact the interactions thattake place in the group, questioning the ‘‘honesty’’ of the experience.

Another limitation rests in the possible disruption of the groupexperience, as in many experiences students are forced to shift roles frommember to observer or co-facilitator (Fall & Levitov, 2002; Hensley,2002; Kane, 1995; Romano, 1998). The constant changing of rolescould disrupt the flow of the group, and stymie group development.

226 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK / September 2008

Downloaded By: [1 University of New Mexico] At: 16:38 18 February 2011

Next, there is the issue of duality. Although these authors set theirgroups up to avoid the boundary considerations previously discussed,it appears that many of these models may still offer these opportu-nities to present themselves. In the fishbowl exercises (Hensley,2002; Kane, 1995), the instructor is still present in the room as anobserver when the students participate in the group experience.Therefore, they are still allowed the knowledge of what aspects ofthe students’ personal lives that are shared. In the simulated experi-ence (Romano, 1998) there is no control for the students’ abilities toseparate themselves from the role they are assigned and participatein for their group experience. This could also present awkwardpositions 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 theabsence of this potentially beneficial relationship between instructorand student (Lloyd, 1992; Scarborough et al., 2006). Authors such asHayes (1991) have argued the need to raise ethical issues in the class-room, such as the balance between instructor and group facilitator, asthey can set the stage as good role modeling for students as well as lessenthe power differential and allow for student accountability in the class-room. By allowing students to experience ethical conflict and assist inits resolution, authors such as Downs (2003) and Hayes believe that coun-selor educators would be preparing their students for meeting otherethical dilemmas in their practice and lives, in an appropriate way.

Allowing students to utilize their own material in group could leadto interpersonal awareness and development. Allowing students tohear how they interact with others, and how that makes others feel,could be a catalyst to students’ interpersonal growth, which may assistthem 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 begthe question of whether it is necessary to have been a member of agroup to become a group leader. Training through the skills-basedapproaches (such as Fall & Levitov, 2002, Romano, 1998 and Tothet al., 1998) would essentially avoid making counselors-in-trainingearnest group members (Davenport, 2004). Again, this is an interest-ing consideration as the field considers ways in which to facilitate acomprehensive and ethical training of group workers.

POTENTIALLY BENEFICIAL RELATIONSHIPS

Thus far, the focus of research has been that the presence of adual relationship may be detrimental to either student or theinstructor=leader in the group counseling context. This may not be

Goodrich=DUAL RELATIONSHIPS 227

Downloaded By: [1 University of New Mexico] At: 16:38 18 February 2011

entirely the case. Although research on dual relationships in super-vision has focused on the primarily negative=harmful relationshipsthat do present themselves in the field, such as sexual harassmentand 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 membersmay benefit from multiple relationships with their facilitator (Bernard& Goodyear, 2004; Johnson & Nelson; Kottler, 2004; Lloyd, 1992;Scarborough et al., 2006).

Pearson & Piazza’s (1997) work discussed the different levels ofdual relationships, and classified multiple relationships into fivedifferent categories: circumstantial multiple roles, structured multipleprofessional roles, shifts in professional roles, personal and profes-sional 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 achurch that one of the group members attends. Structured multiple rolesoccur as a part of a professional’s job. This might occur in the group situ-ation when a doctoral student acts as a master student’s teaching assist-ant in one class and supervisor of the group in another where themasters’ student is a member. Shifts in professional roles occur whenthere is a change either within an organization or in the status of amember. This can come about if a peer is a classmate in one class, andthen a group facilitator in the next. Personal and professional roles occurwhen a professional relationship pre-exists, and then a personal relation-ship follows. A situation may include a person being a group leader in onesemester, and then developing a social relationship in the future (or viceversa). The last, predatory professional would occur if a group leader tookadvantage of their power to use the group or group members to fulfilltheir own needs. This could be for exploitative or sexual purposes(Pearson & Piazza, 1997; Scarborough et al., 2006).

Pearson & Piazza’s (1997) work is important to consider as itaddresses the fluid nature of the multiple relationships one can havewhen enrolled as a graduate student. Not all multiple relationshipsin their model are detrimental to the group or its facilitator, althoughcertain relationships can definitely fit those roles. They address thefact that relationships do not stay the same over time, but evolveand change. Their article was an important first look at how not allmultiple relationships may be negative, and opened up the discussionof 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 toconsider based on the current nature of research in the field, as wellas alternative group work models. Many models offer doctoral students,

228 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK / September 2008

Downloaded By: [1 University of New Mexico] At: 16:38 18 February 2011

or adjunct instructors, roles of group facilitators in place of the instructorof record for that course (Davenport, 2004; Forester-Miller & Duncan,1990; Merta & Sission, 1991). In reviewing the literature on boundaryconsiderations, these individuals may play many diverse roles over agraduate student’s career (Pearson & Piazza, 1997; Scarborough et al.,2006). Thus, these models may serve as temporary band-aids for thedual relationship issue in group and either lead to other issues furtherin one’s graduate career, or simply not allow a developmental conver-sation to be facilitated in the program.

Hayes (1991) and Downs (2003) both argue that counselor educatorscan better prepare their students to appropriately work with ethicaldilemmas in their work and lives after they are allowed to experiencean ethical conflict in the classroom. This may be connected to increas-ing student’s critical thinking skills, or the cognitive frame from whichthey view certain situations. Thus, by not allowing students to fullyexperience an appropriate ethical dilemma, one may in turn have animpact on the type of learning that occurs in the group situation.

Davenport (2004) noted the intended beneficial relationship betweenhaving students take part in an experiential group: unless studentsexperience the vulnerability and ambivalence in disclosing risky material,how can they understand the group situation themselves? By becominghonest group members, they may be more able to appreciate the complexdynamics 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 othersfeel, could also be a catalyst to their own interpersonal growth (Patrick,1989). Davenport also noted the need students have for a competentgroup facilitator, which may not always be guaranteed with doctoralstudents-in-training or adjunct providers. Having faculty lead the groupscan help assure facilitation is done by a competent group leader.

This understanding that there are possibilities of potentiallybeneficial results within some dual relationships is another importantconsideration when selecting a group work model. Although it doesappear that there is some promise within the currently utilized groupwork structures, more research is needed to determine the exactimpact of these types of relationships. At this point, all the researchin this area is purely anecdotal, and thus empirical research wouldbe necessary to more fully flesh out this issue.

RESEARCH RELATED TO DUAL RELATIONSHIPS INGROUP WORK

Although the anecdotal research has suggested problems inherentin more traditional group work training models, this issue has not

Goodrich=DUAL RELATIONSHIPS 229

Downloaded By: [1 University of New Mexico] At: 16:38 18 February 2011

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 relation-ships in this canon. Within that database search, a few articles whichrelate to this topic were found, and are illustrated below.

Anderson and Price (2001) examined student perceptions regardingthe experiential group process in the group work course. The authorssurveyed 99 individuals from seven graduate programs. In a series ofquestions aimed at the usefulness of the group experience, between77% and 97% of respondents agreed with questions stating the experi-ential group process was useful or positive. When questioned about anumber of different aspects of student=instructor dual relationships,3% to 29% of students agreed with questions that indicated difficultieswith the group. Finally, in series of questions aimed at students’general discomfort with the course, between 3% and 33% of studentsagreed that they had felt different types of discomfort with their courseexperience.

Of the students who responded to this survey, 41% indicated thattheir instructor did not lead or observe the group, but did receive feed-back about the process. Thirty three percent of students noted theirinstructor observed the group, but did not lead it. Twenty two percentof students stated that their instructor did not lead, observe or receivefeedback about the group. Finally, the last 3% of students stated theirinstructor led the experiential group. This study did suffer from someinstrumentation issues, such as failing to report the data in a way thatwould allow readers to find if there were statistically significant differ-ences for students across faculty conditions; thus, it is not possible tofind in which faculty participation conditions students were mostsatisfied with their group experience. This is an interesting study toexplore as it helps one to understand how students may respond todifferent presentations of the experiential group component in class.

Other researchers have explored related issues around dualrelationships in counselor education courses. Schwab and Neukrug(1994) used a number of vignettes to study what perceptions facultyin the Southeastern United States had about current ethical issues.They found that at least 70% of the sampled counselor educatorssupported requiring students to participate in small group interac-tions and believed that students should be encouraged to share per-sonal experience in class. In situations where the program learnedof a mental health issue involving a student in class, most counselorswho qualitatively commented reported that as long as studentsappeared to be competent and displayed appropriate behavior andattitude, there would be no issue in allowing them to serve as counse-lors once successfully completing the program. These issues are

230 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK / September 2008

Downloaded By: [1 University of New Mexico] At: 16:38 18 February 2011

important to consider in context, as there is always the possibility oflearning about students’ mental health issues when requiring themto disclose in class. Understanding how to deal with that issue appro-priately is necessary to the work of any counselor educator.

Kolbert, Morgan and Brendel (2002) conducted a qualitative studyaimed at exploring dual relationships between faculty and students.They found that there were differences in the perceptions held aroundthe issue of dual relationships across faculty and student groups, andconcluded that faculty should be cautious when entering dual relation-ships with students. Students were found to perceive dual relation-ships as more negative, and were more concerned than faculty aboutprofessors’ objectivity, as well as the possibility of exploitation acrossa number of different circumstances. Students also more frequentlyraised the issue of fairness and favoritism leading to unequal accessfor certain members of the student body.

In reviewing most of the empirical literature in the field of dualrelationships in group, it appears that there is much more that wedo not know about these relationships than what we actually do.Although researchers such as Schwab and Neukrig (1994), Andersonand Price (2001) and Kolbert and Brendel (2002) have studied facultyand student perceptions of groups or dual relationships, each onlyexplored a small element of those constructs, and only Anderson andPrice really explored the duality issue within the context of an experi-ential group. Also, each study has its own list of limitations, withoutfollow-up or concurrent studies completed to address those issues.Thus, it appears that more empirical research is needed to find exactlywhat impact dual relationships have on the training and experience ofgroup workers-in-training.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

As stated above, further research is needed to more fully under-stand the phenomenon of dual relationships and potentially beneficialrelationships in group work training. Although the anecdotal researchhas suggested problems inherent in more traditional group worktraining models, this issue has not undergone much empirical study.Due to the lack of empirical research in this area, there are currentlya number of questions left unanswered. It is only through scholarlyinquiry 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 competencybetween students who were trained using a skills-based approach as

Goodrich=DUAL RELATIONSHIPS 231

Downloaded By: [1 University of New Mexico] At: 16:38 18 February 2011

opposed to an interpersonal development model? If so, where do thosedifferences lie and what is the impact on client outcomes?

. Are there differences in student outcomes (i.e., skills acquisition or con-cerns over dual issues) for students trained by their instructors versusthose trained by an outside professional (i.e., a different facilitator)? Ifdifferences are present, is this the same or different across interpersonalgroups or skills-based training?

. How does the training model impact students’ cognitive development orethical competency (Downs, 2003; Hayes, 1991)? Are there any differ-ences in cognitive complexity or ethical competence between studentstrained utilizing a skills-based versus an interpersonal developmentapproach?

. 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 thefield adjusted based on previously raised concerns? This includes theuse of doctoral students in group work training. How common is it forthem to facilitate the experiential group, and what impact does this haveon the training process (i.e., are there differences in knowledge or skillacquisition for masters’ level trainees when led by a doctoral studentversus a doctoral-level practitioner)?

. What attitudes do counselors-in-training currently have toward dualrelationships in the group work training process? Is this an area of con-cern for them as they progress through their programs of study? If so, inwhat ways can this impact their learning?

. Are there student attitudinal differences based on placement in the pro-gram? Do doctoral students hold different attitudes compared to mas-ters’ level students (Scarborough et al., 2006)?

. Do students who hold different roles in the group process (group facilita-tor versus member, or observer) display different attitudes about dualrelationships? How do issues of power (such as doctoral students facili-tating the master’s level experiential group) impact the experience(Scarborough et al., 2006)?

. How do the different levels of dual relationships, as proposed by Pearsonand Piazza (1997), impact faculty or student attitudes towards dual rela-tionships? Are there differences based on relationship level?

. What are the perceived negative or positive consequences for boundaryviolations in the experiential group for faculty and students (Scarbor-ough et al., 2006)? Are there differences present between faculty andstudent impressions?

CONCLUSIONS

For many years, the field of group work has felt a tension or anxietyaround the seemingly conflicting roles of instructor=evaluator andgroup facilitator in relation to the skills component of the requiredgroup 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 explor-ing alternative models of group work training to address the ethicalconcerns raised within the field (Forester-Miller & Duncan, 1990;

232 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK / September 2008

Downloaded By: [1 University of New Mexico] At: 16:38 18 February 2011

Lloyd, 1990; Pierce & Baldwin, 1990). An emerging literature doeschallenge the assumptions that dual relationships must be inherentlybad; it instead suggests that these relationships can offer benefits tostudents in their personal and professional development by allowingthem to work with through ethical concerns, and serve as exercise incritical thinking (Downs, 2003; Hayes, 1991; Lloyd, 1992; Scarboroughet al., 2006; Pearson & Piazza, 1997).

As previously stated, it is necessary that future research aboutboundary considerations and student experiences be explored for thefield to move forward with this issue. Currently, the field has conduc-ted little work in the study of dual relationships outside of conflictualor 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 com-pleted to address whether multiple roles could be helpful in facilitatingpersonal or professional growth in students, as well as to under-standing how different relationships may impact the experiences ofstudents. This research may help the field in understanding ifsome boundary slips may be acceptable, or influential, in the develop-ment of counselors-in-training, or if they only hold an adverse impacton trainees. This research would be significant in understanding ifthere is a need for alternative models of group work training, or ifcourses could be structured in a way that more appropriately facili-tates understanding and growth. However, the ultimate focus forfuture research should be providing students and leaders a qualityexperience that responds to the diverse needs of those engaged inthe 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, 111–119.

Association for Specialists in Group Work. (2000). Association for Specialists in GroupWork: Professional Standards for the Training of Group Workers. Retrieved August11, 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). The2001 Standards. Retrieved April 30, 2006 from http://www.cacrep.org/2001Standards.html

Conyne, R. K. (1996). The association for specialists in group work training standards:Some considerations and suggestions for training. The Journal for Specialists inGroup Work, 21(3), 155–162.

Goodrich=DUAL RELATIONSHIPS 233

Downloaded By: [1 University of New Mexico] At: 16:38 18 February 2011

Conyne, R. K., Wilson, F. R., Kline, W. B., Morran, D. K., & Ward, D. E. (1993). Traininggroup workers: Implications of the new ASGW training standards for training andpractice. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 18(1), 11–23.

Corey, G., Williams, G. T., & Moline, M. E. (1995). Ethical and legal issues in groupcounseling. Ethics & Behavior, 5(2), 161–183.

Davenport, D. S. (2004). Ethical issues in the teaching of group counseling. The Journalfor Specialists in Group Work, 29(1),43–49.

Donigian, J. (1993). Duality: The issue that won’t go away. The Journal for Specialist inGroup Work, 18(3), 137–140.

Downs, L. (2003). A preliminary survey of relationships between counselor educators’ethics education and ensuing pedagogy and responses to attractions with counselingstudents. Counseling and Values, 48, 2–13.

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),401–406.

Emerson, S. (1995). A counseling group for counselors. The Journal for Specialists inGroup Work, 20(4), 222–231.

Fall, K. A., & Levitov, J. E. (2002). Using actors in experiential group counselingleadership training. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 27(2), 122–135.

Forester-Miller, H., & Duncan, J. A. (1990). The ethics of dual relationships in thetraining of group counselors. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 15(2),88–93.

Furr, S. R., & Barret, B. (2000). Teaching group counseling skills: Problems andsolutions. Counselor Education & Supervision, 40(2),94–104.

Gazda, G. M., Ginter, E. J., & Horne, A. M. (2001). Group counseling and group psycho-therapy: Theory and application. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Hayes, R. L. (1991). Group work and the teaching of ethics. The Journal for Specialistsin Group Work, 16(1), 24–31.

Hensley, L. G. (2002). Teaching group process and leadership: The two-way fishbowlmodel. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 27(3), 271–286.

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 ofprograms of professional preparation for group counseling. The Journal for Specia-lists in Group Work, 124–133.

Johnson, W. B., & Nelson, N. (1999). Mentor-protege relationships in graduate training:Some ethical concerns. Ethics & Behavior, 9, 189–210.

Kane, C. M. (1995). Fishbowl training in group process. The Journal for Specialists inGroup Work, 20(3), 183–188.

Kolbert, J. B., Morgan, B., & Brendel, J. M. (2002). Faculty and student perceptions ofdual relationships within counselor education: A qualitative analysis. CounselorEducation & Supervision, 41, 193–206.

Kottler, J. A. (2004). Realities of teaching group counseling. The Journal for Specialistsin Group Work, 29(1), 51–53.

Lloyd, A. P. (1990). Dual relationships in group activities: A counselor educa-tion=accreditation dilemma. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 15(2),83–87.

Lloyd, A. P. (1992). Dual relationship problems in counselor education. In B. Herlihy &G. Corey (Eds.), Dual relationships in counseling (pp. 59–64). Alexandria, VA:American Counseling Association.

Merta, R. J., & Sisson, J. A. (1991). The experiential group: An ethical and professionaldilemma. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 16(4), 236–245.

234 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK / September 2008

Downloaded By: [1 University of New Mexico] At: 16:38 18 February 2011

Merta, R. J., Wolfgang, L., & McNeil, K. (1993). Five models of using the experientialgroup in the preparation of group counselors. The Journal for Specialist in GroupWork, 18(4), 200–207.

Nelson, M. L. & Friedlander, M. L. (2001). A close look at conflictual supervisoryrelationships: The trainee’s perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(4),384–395.

Patrick, K. D. (1989). Unique ethical dilemmas in counselor training. CounselorEducation & Supervision, 28, 337–341.

Pearson, R. E. (1985). A group-based format for basic skills of small-group leadership.The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 10(3), 150–156.

Pearson, B. & Piazza, N. (1997). Classification of dual relationships in the helpingprofessions. Counselor Education & Supervision, 37, 89–99.

Pierce, K. A., & Baldwin, C. (1990). Participation versus privacy in the training of groupcounselors. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 15(3), 149–158.

Riva, M. T., & Korinek, L. (2004). Teaching group work: Modeling group leader andmember behaviors in the classroom to demonstrate group theory. The Journal forSpecialists in Group Work, 29(1), 55–63.

Romano, J. L. (1998). Simulated group counseling: An experiential training model forgroup work. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 23(2), 119–132.

Scarborough, J. L., Bernard, J. M., & Morse, R. E. (2006). Boundary considerationsbetween doctoral students and master’s students. Counseling & Values, 51(1), 53–66.

Schmidt, J. J. (1999). Two decades of CACREP and what do we know now? CounselorEducation & Supervision, 39, 34–45.

Schwab, R., & Neukrug, E. (1994). A survey of counselor educators’ ethical concerns.Counseling & Values, 39, 42–55.

Stockton, R., & Toth, P. L. (1996). Teaching group counselors: Recommendations formaximizing preservice instruction. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work,21(4), 274–282.

Sullivan, L. E., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (1998). Appropriate supervisor-graduate studentrelationships. Ethics & Behavior, 8(3), 229–248.

Toth, P. L., Stockton, R., & Erwin, W. J. (1998, March). Application of a skill-basedtraining model for group counselors. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 23(1),33–49.

Veach, P. M. (2001). Conflict and counterproductivity in supervision-when relationshipsare less than ideal: Comment on Nelson and Friedlander and Gray et al. (2001).Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(4), 396–400.

Goodrich=DUAL RELATIONSHIPS 235

Downloaded By: [1 University of New Mexico] At: 16:38 18 February 2011