Culturally Competent Career Development

COUC522:
Discussion Thread: Culturally Competent Career Development

The
student must then post 1 reply of at least 200-250 words. Each reply
must incorporate at least 1 scholarly citation in APA format. Any scholarly sources
cited must have been published within the last five years. Acceptable sources
include course materials, scholarly peer-reviewed sources, and/or the Bible.

Please reply to the following post.

Posted by J. W

The
different theories of career counseling studied in this class were interesting
to me. I had no idea there were so many. I found several of them interesting
and have done additional research on several. For this discussion board, I
chose the Hope-Action Theory (HAT) developed by C.R. Snyder in the 1990’s
(Feldman et al., 2009).

The overall idea behind HAT is that when people are filled with hope, they will
do whatever it takes to make a way for their goals to come true. HAT consists
of three components or pathways: agency thinking, pathway thinking, and goal
thinking (Sheperis et al., 2019). All three components are needed for an
individual to be successful, and a career counselor should help the client
understand the reasons behind the missing pieces (Sheperis et al., 2019).

I believe in the power of hope. I have seen people persevere through
extenuating circumstances. While I am not saying this theory is bad (because I
am not), there are parts that need some adjusting. I believe that attaining
these goals is easier for some than it is for others. For example, people of a
lower socioeconomic status (SES). I believe that everyone has hopes for their
future, however, if your family struggles with generational poverty, then you
might be less likely to find the pathways necessary to reach your goals. For
some people, life seems to just keep beating them down. Having hope will not be
enough. “A study showed that individuals from lower social class generally has
less career-related self-efficacy when it came to vocational aspirations” (Ali,
McWhirter, & Chronister, 2005 as quoted by American Psychological Association,
2017).

I do not know how to improve on this theory without first fixing the rising
lower-class. What I do know is that having hope is wonderful, but it is not
enough. Low-SES plays a crucial role in life and while it is not the end-all
be-all, it certainly can make things extremely difficult.

References
American Pyschological
Association. (2017, July). Education
and socioeconomic status factsheet. https://www.apa.org. https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/education#
Feldman, D. B.,
Rand, K. L., & Kahle-Wrobleski, K. (2009). Hope and goal
attainment: Testing a basic prediction of hope theory. Journal of social and clinical psychology, 28(4), 479-497. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1521/jscp.2009.28.4.479
Sheperis, C. J.,
Drummond, R. J., & Jones, K. D. (2019).
Reliability/Precision. In Assessment
procedures for counselors and helping professionals (9th ed.).
VitalSource Bookshelf version. vbk://9780135186770

COUC601:
Discussion Thread: Forgiveness and Reconciling Through Experiencing Empathy
(FREE)

The
student must then post 1 reply of at least 400 words. Each reply
must incorporate at least 1 scholarly citation in APA format. Any sources cited
must have been published within the last five years. Acceptable sources include
the course textbooks, research and peer-reviewed journals, and books.

Please
respond to the following post..

Posted by
K.K

Through
years and years of research Ripley and Worthington developed a
forgiveness-based intervention tool for couples called, which is called the
forgiving and reconciling through experiencing empathy (FREE) model. This
intervention is best used in when a couple is taking hope-focused approach to
their therapeutic process. One of the key findings in using the FREE model, as
well as an added benefit, according to Ripley and Worthington (2014) is that as
the individual practices and exercises forgiveness towards another,
specifically the spouse, he or she experiences deeper forgiveness towards the
self.

The first
step of the FREE model includes reconciling. Once the decision to reconcile has
been made, the involved parties must come to a conclusion on how they are going
to pursue reconciliation and to reach that point together. The next step of the
four step FREE model involves approaching the member of the relationship who is
in need of forgiveness and looking at the actions of the perceived wrong doer.
In this step, the textbook (Ripley & Worthington, 2014) describes the wrong
doer offering an explanation and/or offering a confession on the matter that
requires forgiveness. The third step of the FREE model, detoxification,
involves noticing and growing from any space or distance that has occurred in
the relationship due to the event or action that is in need of forgiveness.
Finally, the fourth step is devotion. The devotion step entails a level of
recommitment to the love that is involved in the relationship—encouragement and
love are quintessential to this fourth and final step of the FREE model.

Ripley and
Worthington (2014) implement the REACH framework for forgiveness to assist in
the process of the use of the FREE model. The first part of the REACH model is
the ‘R’, which stands for recall. Visualize the event and look at it through an
objective lens. Next, the ‘E’, involves empathizing from the wrong doer’s point
of view. The ‘A’ outlines the step of giving an altruistic gift, which is the
gift of forgiveness. A difficult step, which involves recalling past events
where the self was, too, in need of forgiveness. Then, the ‘C’ in the REACH
framework stands for commit. Post act of forgiveness, an individual needs to
commit to a public declaration of forgiveness, this can be done through
offering a certificate of forgiveness to the other or announcing to another
your act of commitment to forgiveness. The ‘H’ and final step in this framework
is described by the word, hold. To hold, can be another difficult step in the
framework, as forgiveness does not include completely erasing the hurtful
action from one’s memory, but involves interacting with the memory in a healthy
when a flashback moment pops through one’s thoughts. Not wallowing, not holding
vengeance, but reminding the self that forgiveness has been chosen is what it
means to hold in the final piece of the REACH forgiveness framework (Ripley
& Worthington, 2014).

The area
of the FREE I appreciate most deeply is the devotion step, which I see as
closely tied to the hold portion of the REACH model. To say ‘I forgive you’ is
only part of the process, the act out and to over time, despite painful
memories, practice forgiveness is where true forgiveness lives. The part of
this that stands out most is how the act of forgiveness encompasses a wholistic
approach of rational thinking, emotion, spirituality, and psychology.

A
forgiveness driven intervention I appreciate sincerely out of the seven
mentioned by Ripley & Worthington (2014) is the step of offering a patient
and empathetic heart to the wrong doer. This step involves exercising a
Christ-like love and I believe will ultimately reunite the two involved parties
to one another and closer to the Lord. This is what true, Christian
reconciliation looks like.

References

Ripley, J.
S., & Worthington. (2014). Couple therapy: A new hope-focused approach. IVP
Academic.

Last Completed Projects