Received 10/20/13

Revised 05/29/14
Accepted 06/05/14
DOI: 10.1002/j.1556-6978.2015.00069.x

Counselor Preparation

Integrating Religion and Spirituality Into

Counselor Education: Barriers and Strategies
Christopher M. Adams, Ana Puig, Adrienne Baggs,
and Cheryl Pence Wolf
Despite a professionally recognized need for training in religion/spirituality,
literature indicates that religious and spirituality issues continue to be inconsistently addressed in counselor education. Ten experts were asked to identify
potential barriers to integrating religion and spirituality into counselor education and indicate strategies for overcoming these obstacles. Barriers included a
lack of information and a lack of personal interest or relevance, and strategies
included continuing education, heightened awareness of self and others, and
curriculum-specific recommendations. Implications for counselor training and
recommendations for future research are discussed.
Keywords: religion, spirituality, counselor education

Considering that most Americans self-identify as spiritual or religious (Newport, 2011), there is a need to effectively integrate religion and spirituality
into counseling (Hage, Hopson, Siegel, Payton, & DeFanti, 2006; Myers &
Williard, 2003). Although the mental health professions have historically
held negative attitudes toward religion and spirituality (Hage et al., 2006),
today counselors generally have positive attitudes and express openness
about discussing clients religious/spiritual beliefs, and clients generally
report positive experiences (Post & Wade, 2009). Moreover, the Association
for Spiritual, Ethical, and Religious Values in Counseling (ASERVIC) has
more than 4,000 members and a commitment to promoting free intellectual
inquiry into spiritual, ethical, religious, and value domains of counseling
(ASERVIC, n.d.-b). In response to this mission, ASERVIC leaders developed
a list of competencies (Cashwell & Watts, 2010) believed to be essential in
training counselors to work effectively with clients religious and spiritual
concerns (Young, Wiggins-Frame, & Cashwell, 2007, p. 48). American
Counseling Association (ACA) members have strongly supported the use
of these competencies for effective counseling and additional counselor
training in religious/spiritual topics (Young et al., 2007).
Despite their favorable attitudes toward religion and spirituality and a
desire for training in religion and spirituality (Souza, 2002; Young et al.,
2007), the majority of counselors report rarely discussing religion and spiriChristopher M. Adams, Behavioral Sciences Department, Fitchburg State University; Ana
Puig, Office of Educational Research, University of Florida; Adrienne Baggs, Department of
Counselor Education, Argosy UniversityDenver; Cheryl Pence Wolf, Department of Counseling and Student Affairs, Western Kentucky University. This study was supported, in part, by
funding from a research award from the Association for Counselor Education and Supervision. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christopher M. Adams,
Behavioral Sciences Department, Fitchburg State University, 160 Pearl Street, Fitchburg, MA
01420 (e-mail: cadams15@fitchburgstate.edu).
2015 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved.
44

ACACEAS_v54_n1_0315TEXT.indd 44

Counselor Education&SupervisionMarch 2015 Volume 54

2/5/2015 11:27:32 AM

tuality in their educational experiences (Walker, Gorsuch, & Tan, 2004).

Similarly, researchers have shown that counselor training programs minimally or inconsistently address topics in religion and spirituality (Cashwell
& Young, 2004; Dobmeier & Reiner, 2012; Hage et al., 2006; Post & Wade,
2009; Walker et al., 2004; Young, Cashwell, Wiggins-Frame, & Belaire, 2002;
Young et al., 2007). Thus, counseling students may be unprepared in the
ASERVIC competencies (Robertson, 2010) or unfamiliar with them altogether
(Dobmeier & Reiner, 2012).
Considering the inconsistent curriculum or the complete lack of integration of religion and spirituality in counselor training, it is not surprising
that counseling students express discomfort in addressing these issues with
clients (Adams, 2012; Souza, 2002) and that clinicians inconsistently attend
to religion and spirituality in counseling (Post & Wade, 2009; Walker et al.,
2004). Counselors may avoid addressing religion and spirituality because of
confusion about these constructs, uncertainty about how to attend to them,
and potential legal and ethical concerns (Gonsiorek, Richards, Pargament,
& McMinn, 2009). This lack of attention may affect client outcomes, and
some evidence indicates that clinicians may pathologize religious/spiritual
beliefs with which they are unfamiliar (S. OConnor & Vandenberg, 2005),
possibly resulting in misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment goals.
In response to the potential negative impact on client outcomes and the
disconnect between counselor attitudes and practices, an extensive amount
of conceptual literature has been published on the need to better integrate
religion and spirituality into counselor education (e.g., Briggs & Rayle, 2005;
Gonsiorek et al., 2009; Hagedorn & Gutierrez, 2009; Pate & Hall, 2005).
When offered religious/spiritual training, students reported positive reactions toward religious/spiritual training and demonstrated increased religious/spiritual competency (Adams, 2012; Baggs, Wolf, Puig, & Del Moro,
2011; Dobmeier & Reiner, 2012; Robertson, 2010; Souza, 2002). However,
it remains unclear why counselor training in religion and spirituality has yet
to be integrated into counselor education more formally and consistently,
especially considering the recognized need for and benefits of such training.
As Cashwell and Young (2011) wrote:
The counseling profession is at an interesting stage regarding the integration of religion
and spirituality. . . . The importance of this domain within the counseling process is clearly
recognized, yet a substantial need remains for more writing on and training in methods
for doing this competently. Collectively, counselors seem to have recognized the need for
shelter, but they are still building the house. (p. 287)

Although the existing literature on the topic clearly reflects that there is a
need to address religion and spirituality in the counseling relationship, the
literature also clearly shows that clinicians do not do so regularly, possibly due
in a large part to poor or inconsistent training in religious/spiritual issues. What
is not clearly understood is why the lack in training in religion and spirituality
continues despite a recognized need for it. Most of the research on counselor
training in religion and spirituality has been conducted using students and
clinicians who seem to believe their training in religion and spirituality has
been insufficient (i.e., Adams, 2012; Dobmeier & Reiner, 2012; Souza, 2002);
however, little research exists on the views of faculty in counseling programs.
Counselor Education&SupervisionMarch 2015 Volume 54

ACACEAS_v54_n1_0315TEXT.indd 45

45

2/5/2015 11:27:32 AM

Therefore, research is needed to explore any potential barriers that educators

may experience related to the integration of religion and spirituality into counselor training, as well as possible strategies for overcoming such obstacles. An
awareness of such barriers may foster a better understanding of why training
in religion and spirituality appears to be lacking in counseling programs and
may ultimately inform efforts to improve this training. The following research
questions were addressed in our study: (a) What do experts in religion and
spirituality consider to be the most significant barriers to integrating religious
and spiritual issues into counselor education? and (b) What do these experts
believe are effective strategies for overcoming these barriers?

Method
This study used a Delphi methodologyan approach well suited for when
there is incomplete knowledge related to particular phenomena (e.g., barriers to integrating religion and spirituality in counseling and strategies for
overcoming these obstacles). Delphi studies have been increasingly used
in counseling and psychotherapy research (e.g., Herlihy & Dufrene, 2011;
Krell & Prusse, 2012). Using an iterative, group communication process,
experts anonymously share and generate new ideas based on an emerging
consensus (Stone Fish & Busby, 2005). The Delphi method includes four
phases, typically including three waves of data collection, although this may
vary depending on the nature of the topic under study (Skulmoski, Hartman,
& Krahn, 2007; Stone Fish & Busby, 2005). In these phases, (a) expert panel
members are selected to respond to an initial open-ended questionnaire
designed to obtain their opinions about a particular topic of inquiry, (b)
input from each expert is compiled to understand the group perceptions of
the topic, (c) researchers explore and elaborate on the various views of the
experts through a follow-up survey, and (d) researchers review the information after the expert panel has analyzed the preliminary data and provided
feedback. The Delphi method has several advantages, including (a) allowing for a deeper understanding of a topic through participant reflection
and consensus building (Hsu & Sandford, 2007; Krell & Prusse, 2012); (b)
permitting for a geographically diverse sample of participants; and (c) eliminating problems commonly associated with other group research methods,
such as a lack of anonymity and pressure for conformity (Dalkey, 1972).
Participants
Participants were experts in the field of counselor education, as determined by contributions to the topics of religion and spirituality in counseling. Because there are no set standards or criteria for selecting Delphi
subjects (Hsu & Sandford, 2007), researchers must develop criteria they
believe will be adequate enough to capture a potential pool of experts.
We identified a pool of potential experts using individuals who met
both of the following criteria: (a) a record of publication of at least two
journal articles/book chapters or one book on these topics within the
past 5 years and (b) status as a full-time faculty member in a counselor
education or clinical/counseling psychology program with at least 5 years
of teaching experience. We believed that a panel of individuals with such
a background would be able to best comment on the potential barriers
46

ACACEAS_v54_n1_0315TEXT.indd 46

Counselor Education&SupervisionMarch 2015 Volume 54

2/5/2015 11:27:32 AM

to integrating religion and spirituality because of their extensive knowledge of the topic and their direct involvement in counseling programs.
That is, we believed that these experts would possess insights into the
potential barriers (and the strategies to overcome these barriers) based
not only on their expertise but also on their interactions with other counselor educators and their experiences teaching in counseling programs.
Through a PsycINFO search, we initially identified 29 experts who met
the first criterion and asked them to participate in the study if they also
met the second criterion. Ten of these individuals (34% response rate)
participated in the first two rounds of data collection; eight of these 10
(80%) participated in the final round.
Of the initial 10 experts, eight were men and two were women; nine participants were White (one did not identify his or her ethnic background);
and ages ranged from 37 to 67 years (M = 49.5, SD = 11.8). Six of the 10
experts were faculty in counselor education programs, three taught in
psychology programs, and one did not identify the type of program. Panelists experience as an educator ranged from 15 to 26 years (M = 16.1, SD
= 7.0), and they had been in their current positions for 2 to 26 years (M =
10.2, SD = 6.7). Six of the experts taught at institutions in the southeastern
United States, one in the northeastern United States, one in the midwestern
United States, one in the western United States, and one did not identify
a geographic location. Six of the experts taught at public institutions, and
the other four taught at private schools. Seven of the participants reported
teaching at secular institutions, and three taught at religiously affiliated
schools. Seven of the experts taught in programs offering both masters and
doctoral degrees; the other three experts taught in masters-only programs.
The panel size for our study was small, but this is not uncommon in Delphi
studies. With Delphi methods, the size of a panel can range from more than
100 individuals to just a few, depending on the number of people possessing expertise in the topic of interest (Skulmoski et al., 2007). Furthermore,
despite [the] wide applicability of the Delphi methodology, there is no
clear identification of what constitutes a sufficient number of Delphi survey
participants (Akins, Tolson, & Cole, 2005). Considering the selection criteria and the lack of clear guidelines on sample size, we believed the expert
panel in the current study was of adequate size to provide meaningful data.
Procedure
The present study involved three waves of data collection. For each wave,
participants were contacted via postal and electronic mail with a letter requesting their participation. The letter explained the purpose of the study
and the nature of the Delphi study procedure and included an Internet
address directing them to an online survey.
Round 1. We asked 10 expert panel members to respond to two open-ended
questions: (a) Please identify up to five of what you consider to be the most
significant barriers to integrating religious and spiritual issues into counselor
education and (b) Please identify up to five strategies that you believe are
effective for overcoming these obstacles. The research team evaluated panelists responses for content and reduced them to general themes; we used these
themes to create a follow-up questionnaire for the next phase of the study.
Counselor Education&SupervisionMarch 2015 Volume 54

ACACEAS_v54_n1_0315TEXT.indd 47

47

2/5/2015 11:27:32 AM

Round 2. In the second wave, we presented the same 10 panelists with a

list of items from Round 1. These items included potential barriers to integrating religious/spiritual issues into counselor education and strategies for
overcoming these barriers. We asked the panelists to rate each of these on
a 7-point Likert scale, which represented the degree to which they believed
each was a significant barrier or an effective strategy (1 = strong disagreement,
7 = strong agreement). We calculated median scores and interquartile ranges
(IQR) to determine which items should be retained for inclusion in the third
wave of data collection. To reflect a high degree of panelist agreement, items
with a median rating of at least 5.0 and an IQR of 2 or less were retained for
inclusion in the final survey. In addition, items had to show 80% agreement
(i.e., 80% of panelists rated the item 5 or above on a 7-point Likert scale)
to be included in the final survey.
Round 3. Eight of the initial 10 panelists participated in the third wave of
the study and were asked to rank items retained on the questionnaire from
Round 2. More specifically, we asked panelists to rank the remaining five
barriers and 12 strategies in the order in which they believed these were
significant obstacles to integrating religious/spiritual issues into counselor
education (1 = most significant barrier, 5 = least significant barrier) or effective
strategies for overcoming such obstacles (1 = most effective strategy, 12 = least
effective strategy).

Results
The 10 panelists who participated in Round 1 of the study identified 28
barriers and 28 strategies. Example barriers included hesitancy on the part
of the counselor educator and uncertainty as to the ethical implications
of dealing with religion. Example strategies included educat[ing] faculty
about [the] salience of [spirituality and religion] and faculty need[ing]
to affirm that religion and spirituality are aspects of multicultural diversity.
A team of four researchers (made up of two counselor educators and two
doctoral students in counselor education) independently reviewed participants responses and attempted to reduce these down to their essential
meaning and eliminate redundancy. After reviewing these independently,
the team discussed the meaning of the qualitative responses and condensed
these into thematic labels describing the responses. For example, one expert
identified the barrier of uncertainty as to the ethical implications of dealing
with religion; this barrier was condensed to ethical concerns of faculty.
This process reduced the total number of barriers from 28 to 19 (see Table
1) and strategies from 28 to 18 (see Table 2).
For Round 2, only five of the 19 barriers that the participants rated showed
a median rating of 5.0 or above, agreement of 80% or above, and an IQR of
2 or less. Thus, only five were retained for inclusion in the final questionnaire (see Table 1). Of the 18 strategies, 12 showed a median rating of 5.0
or above, agreement of 80% or above, and an IQR of 2 or less (see Table 2).
For Round 3, participants were also given the median scores and IQRs from
Round 2 (along with an explanation of these numbers) and asked to reflect on
them when rating the items. A closer inspection of the barriers revealed that
they fell into two primary categories: (a) a lack of information and (b) a lack
of personal interest or relevance. Specifically, three barriers seemed to reflect
48

ACACEAS_v54_n1_0315TEXT.indd 48

Counselor Education&SupervisionMarch 2015 Volume 54

2/5/2015 11:27:32 AM

Table 1
Barriers to Integrating Religion and Spirituality
Into Counselor Education
Round 2 (n = 10)
Barriers
1. Lack of faculty knowledge, preparation, and
competence to address R/S issuesb
2. Lack of understanding R/S and its
importance to clientsb
3. Faculty disinterestb
4. Seeing R/S issues as simply another
cultural issueb
5. Poor understanding of R/S and the
differences between themb
6. Low importance to faculty
7. Faculty hesitancy
8. Lack of clear training guidelines
9. Negative faculty biases/prejudice
10. Ethical concerns of faculty
11. Faculty resistance
12. Lack of room within curriculum
13. Concerns about blurring professional
boundaries (e.g., turning counseling into
pastoral care)
14. Lack of resources
15. Worries regarding integration of R/S into
secular institutions
16. Dominance of Western theories
17. Fear
18. Fit/appropriateness with courses
19. Religiously/spiritually conservative student body

Round 3 (n = 8)

Mdna

AG %

IQR

M Rank Range

6.0

80.0

2.0

2.5

5.5
5.5

80.0
80.0

2.0
2.0

2.5
3.0

3
4

5.0

80.0

2.0

3.0

5.0
6.0
5.5
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.5
5.0

80.0
70.0
60.0
60.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
40.0

2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
2.0
1.0
3.0

4.0

4.0
4.0

40.0
30.0

3.0
3.0

4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0

30.0
30.0
30.0
20.0
20.0

2.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.0

Note. AG = agreement; IQR = interquatrile ranges; R/S = religion/spirituality.

a
Round 2 median scores could range from 17 (1 = strong disagreement; 7 = strong agreement).
b
Items retained for inclusion in Round 3 questionnaire (i.e., 80% agreement and IQR of 2).

an overall lack of knowledge related to religion and spirituality (i.e., lack of

faculty knowledge, preparation, and competence to address religious/spiritual
issues, lack of understanding religion/spirituality and its importance to clients, and poor understanding of religion and spirituality and the differences
between them). The remaining two barriers (i.e., faculty disinterest and
seeing religious/spiritual issues as simply another cultural issue) seemed
to be reflective of a lack of interest or relevance as a barrier. Furthermore, the
strategies were categorized into three groups: (a) continuing education, (b)
heightened awareness of self and others, and (c) curriculum-specific recommendations. Specifically, six of the endorsed strategies seemed to fall into the
category of continuing education (i.e., continuing education, increased
faculty discussion of religion/spirituality, contextualizing religion/spirituality
as aspects of human development and culture, increasing faculty knowledge
and awareness of nonreligious/theistic spirituality, improving faculty awareness of the psychological implications of religion/spirituality, and increasing
publication on religious/spiritual issues). Faculty willingness to explore their
own spirituality and/or biases toward religion/spirituality and recognition
of the inherent spiritual nature of meaning and value systems seemed to be
reflective of the need for greater awareness of self and others. The remaining
Counselor Education&SupervisionMarch 2015 Volume 54

ACACEAS_v54_n1_0315TEXT.indd 49

49

2/5/2015 11:27:32 AM

Table 2
Strategies to Overcoming Barriers to Integrating Religion
and Spirituality Into Counselor Education
Round 2 (n = 10)
Strategies
1. Continuing educationb
2. Faculty willingness to explore their own
spirituality and/or biases toward R/Sb
3. Increased faculty discussion of R/Sb
4. Including R/S in multicultural/diversity
coursesb
5. Evaluation of where and how to best integrate
R/S into the curriculumb
6. Contextualizing R/S as aspects of human
development and cultureb
7. Offering a specialized course on R/S in
counselingb
8. Infusing R/S into each course (e.g., through
lecture)b
9. Increasing faculty knowledge and awareness
of nonreligious/theistic spiritualityb
10. Improving faculty awareness of the
psychological implications of R/Sb
11. Increasing publication on R/S issuesb
12. Recognition of the inherent spiritual nature of
meaning and value systemsb
13. Educating faculty regarding the salience of
R/S to clients
14. Professional organizations establishing
practice/training guidelines
15. Increasing the quality of research on R/S
16. Encouraging student participation and
promoting the value of seeing multiple
perspectives
17. Support of student research on R/S issues
18. Educating faculty about the differences
between R/S

Round 3 (n = 8)

Mdna

AG %

IQR

M Rank Range

5.0

80.0

2.0

3.0

6.0
6.0

80.0
80.0

1.0
2.0

3.5
5.0

11
5

7.0

90.0

2.0

6.0

10

6.0

80.0

2.0

6.0

10

6.0

80.0

2.0

7.0

6.0

80.0

2.0

7.5

5.0

80.0

1.5

8.5

5.0

80.0

1.5

8.5

5.5
6.0

80.0
80.0

1.5
1.5

8.5
9.0

10
8

5.0

80.0

2.0

10.5

11

5.0

70.0

2.5

7.0
6.0

70.0
60.0

3.5
3.0

5.0
5.0

60.0
50.0

2.5
3.0

5.0

50.0

2.5

Note. AG = agreement; IQR = interquatrile ranges; R/S = religion/spirituality.

a
Round 2 median scores could range from 17 (1 = strong disagreement; 7 = strong agreement).
b
Items retained for inclusion in Round 3 questionnaire (i.e., 80% agreement and IQR of 2.

four strategies (i.e., including religion/spirituality in multicultural/diversity

courses, evaluation of where and how to best integrate religion/spirituality
into the curriculum, offering a specialized course on religion/spirituality
in counseling, and infusing religion/spirituality into each course [e.g.,
through lecture]) seemed to indicate the need for curricular-level changes.

Discussion
The present study adds to the existing literature by exploring expert counselor educators perceptions of training in religious/spiritual issues. The
majority of research on religious/spiritual issues in counseling has primarily
used student and clinician samples; this research suggests that counselors
inconsistently address religious/spiritual issues with their clients (Post &
Wade, 2009; Walker et al., 2004) and that graduate programs attend to
50

ACACEAS_v54_n1_0315TEXT.indd 50

Counselor Education&SupervisionMarch 2015 Volume 54

2/5/2015 11:27:32 AM

religious/spiritual issues in a similarly inconsistent manner (e.g., Hage et

al., 2006; Walker et al., 2004; Young et al., 2007).
Although the conceptual literature on religion and spirituality in counseling
(e.g., Cashwell & Young, 2011; Hage et al, 2006) has speculated on the potential reasons for this inconsistency, little research has explored why training in
religion and spirituality is behind the current need. Our study contributes to
the research on counselor training in religion and spirituality by supporting
what have been identified in the conceptual literature as potential barriers that
counselor educators may experience when integrating religion and spirituality
into the training of students. Our study also identifies strategies for helping
faculty overcome those barriers to improve counselor training in religion and
spirituality. Specifically, the results of our study suggest that counselor educators may experience two major barriers to integrating religion and spirituality
into training; in addition, three primary strategies may be most effective in
helping counselor educators work around these barriers.
Barriers to Integrating Religion and Spirituality
The experts in our study agreed on five significant barriers to integrating
religion and spirituality into counselor education (see Table 1). The five
barriers fell into two main categories: (a) lack of information and (b) lack
of personal interest or relevance.
Lack of information. The findings of our study suggest that experts in religion and spirituality believe their fellow counselor educators may not be
knowledgeable about topics in religion and spirituality, the role religion and
spirituality plays in clients lives, and how best to educate counselors-in-training
on effectively integrating religion and spirituality in counseling. Specifically,
our findings indicate that experts believed that faculty may be confused by
the terms religion and spirituality and may not know the differences between
these two constructs, which is consistent with previous researchers findings
that clinicians struggle with the concepts of religion and spirituality (Crossley
& Salter, 2005). Additionally, because counselors who are more religiously/
spiritually oriented are more likely to discuss religion and spirituality in counseling than their counterparts (Frazier & Hansen, 2009; Walker et al., 2004),
the concepts of religion and spirituality may be especially unclear for faculty
who do not find religion and spirituality to be personally relevant.
In addition, faculty may not be familiar with the abundant literature on
the relevance of religion and spirituality to clients and the potential physical
and mental health benefits (Cashwell & Young, 2011; Levin, 2001). Thus,
well-intentioned faculty may underestimate the relevance of religion and
spirituality in counseling or inadvertently avoid discussions of religion and
spirituality in class because they are simply uneducated about these topics.
Finally, educators might intentionally avoid discussing religion and spirituality for fear of violating the law or blurring the boundaries of professional
ethical competence (Gonsiorek et al., 2009).
Lack of personal interest or relevance. The panel experts also believed that
faculty may lack interest in religion and spirituality or conceptualize religion
and spirituality as just another cultural issue that needs to be addressed.
Considering that counselors tend to be less religiously/spiritually oriented
than the general population (Walker et al., 2004), faculty may not attend to
Counselor Education&SupervisionMarch 2015 Volume 54

ACACEAS_v54_n1_0315TEXT.indd 51

51

2/5/2015 11:27:33 AM

these issues because topics in religion and spirituality are not salient aspects
of their own cultural backgrounds and identities. Consequently, counselor
educators may not seek out opportunities to increase their knowledge regarding these topics, which would then likely result in a failure to attend to
such issues in counselor training.
Strategies to Overcoming Barriers
Although the panel experts agreed on 12 strategies for overcoming perceived
barriers to integrating religion and spirituality into counselor education (see
Table 2), their opinions about the effectiveness of these strategies varied
quite a bit. The range of opinions on these strategies may reflect the difficulty
inherent in trying to encourage educators to focus on issues of which they
lack knowledge or that they do not see as relevant. Despite the lack of clear
consensus regarding the effectiveness of these strategies, experts identified
three categories of strategies: (a) continuing education, (b) heightened
awareness of self and others, and (c) curriculum-specific recommendations.
Continuing education. The panel members generally agreed that continuing
education is the most effective strategy to overcome barriers to integrating
religion and spirituality in counselor education. This strategy was consistent
with the panelists views that the lack of awareness of religion and spirituality
in counseling is the primary obstacle to integrating religious/spiritual topics
into curriculum. Consistent with the panelists views, continuing education
efforts should incorporate several key areas. First, because the constructs of
religion and spirituality can be rather abstract (Crossley & Salter, 2005), it is
critical to educate faculty on the similarities and differences between religion
and spirituality, various faiths, and forms of religious/spiritual expression
(for excellent discussion of these, see Frame, 2003; Richards & Bergin, 2000).
Second, continuing education should highlight the numerous physical and
mental health benefits of religion and spirituality (Cashwell & Young, 2011;
Levin, 2001), the potential negative impacts of religion and spirituality on
the clients well-being (Griffith, 2010), and techniques for how to effectively
facilitate difficult conversations with clients about religion and spirituality
(see Cashwell & Young, 2011). Finally, it is imperative that continuing education focuses on strategies for effectively addressing religion and spirituality
in counselor training. The ACA Code of Ethics (2005) and Counsel for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP)
2009 Standards recognize the importance of understanding various aspects
of clients and counselors identities, including religion and spirituality, and
a considerable body of literature has focused on strategies for incorporating
religion and spirituality into counselor education (e.g., Briggs & Rayle, 2005;
Hagedorn & Gutierrez, 2009). Considering this availability, it is surprising
that many counselor education programs have not yet endeavored to modify
their curricula to reflect these resources. Perhaps integrating these strategies
into continuing education is a primary avenue to provide counselor educators
with a framework for addressing issues in religion and spirituality in their
courses and programs. The ASERVIC (2009) competencies may be a good
place to start. Finally, continuing education should educate faculty about the
barriers presented in our research; normalize the lack of knowledge on this
topic; promote dialogue about religion and spirituality; and initiate a call
52

ACACEAS_v54_n1_0315TEXT.indd 52

Counselor Education&SupervisionMarch 2015 Volume 54

2/5/2015 11:27:33 AM

to action for faculty to engage in and promote creative, effective strategies

for integrating religion and spirituality into counselor education.
Heightened awareness of self and others. Panel members also believed that it
was important for faculty to be aware of their own religious/spiritual beliefs
and understand the importance of clients and counselor trainees religious/
spiritual beliefs. Consistent with the ACA Code of Ethics (2005), counselors
have an ethical obligation to be aware of their personal belief systems and
avoid imposing those on clients (and students). In addition, CACREPs 2009
Standards emphasize the need for students to reflect on their own cultural
identities and those of their clients. Considering that counselors (and presumably, counselor educators) tend to be less religiously/spiritually oriented than
their clients (Walker et al., 2004), it seems particularly important that faculty
are willing to explore how this difference could potentially affect what they
choose to attend to in counselor training or what they advocate for in their
programs curricula. Increasing faculty members awareness of their own and
others religious/spiritual beliefs could be done in a variety of ways, including
the common strategies of education (e.g., continuing education efforts, professional development workshops, conference presentations). Less common
strategies for increasing self-awareness might include encouraging faculty to
use mentoring, consultation, or supervision with other faculty who are more
comfortable with and knowledgeable about religion and spirituality in counseling. Certainly, personal counseling for counselor educators and counselors
is also an effective way to explore personal beliefs, including religion and
spirituality, and the ways they affect the counseling process.
Curriculum-specific recommendations. Panel members also believed that faculty
may benefit from evaluating where and how to best integrate religion and
spirituality into the curriculum. More specifically, panelists believed that
counselor programs should consider infusing religion and spirituality into
each course. Panelists offered other more specific suggestions for addressing religion and spirituality in counselor education that involved including
religion and spirituality in multicultural/diversity courses and offering a
specialized course on religion and spirituality in counseling. Several authors
have offered guidance for integrating religion and spirituality into counseling
courses. For example, Briggs and Rayle (2005) offered several useful suggestions for including religion and spirituality in existing courses. In addition,
Hagedorn and Gutierrez (2009) offered excellent teaching activities for addressing religious/spiritual issues in counseling courses, and these activities
are designed based on the ASERVIC competencies. Furthermore, ASERVIC
(n.d.-a) has posted several activities (available at http://www.aservic.org/
resources/teaching-modules/) for addressing religion and spirituality that
are based on these competencies. Core areas in which attending to religion
and spirituality might be a relatively easy fit include professional orientation
and ethical practice, social and cultural diversity, and human growth and
development courses. In addition to integrating religion and spirituality into
current courses, counselor education programs may wish to consider offering
a specialized course on religion and spirituality in counseling. A considerable
body of literature describes such courses (e.g., M. OConnor, 2004; Pate &
Hall, 2005), which could be used to guide programs in developing a religion
and spirituality course. In fact, researchers (Baggs et al., 2011; Robertson,
Counselor Education&SupervisionMarch 2015 Volume 54

ACACEAS_v54_n1_0315TEXT.indd 53

53

2/5/2015 11:27:33 AM

2010) have found that courses that focused on religion and spirituality may
significantly improve students competence to address religious/spiritual issues.
Limitations
The results of this study should be interpreted in the context of its limitations.
First, the panel size may be considered small. Second, although the expert panel
consisted of individuals that we considered to be experts in religion/spirituality
and counseling, the selection criteria may not have been stringent enough. As
a result, some panel members may have lacked the experience and knowledge
necessary to offer an informed opinion about the research questions. Alternatively,
the criteria may have been too restrictive, limiting potential experts who could
have beneficially contributed to this study. Third, considering their expertise in
religion and spirituality, panel members may have biased opinions about the topic.
For example, the panel generally believed that their fellow educators require more
knowledge about religious/spiritual issues; however, this may not be the case and
other barriers could be more salient to integrating religion and spirituality into
curriculum. Similarly, six of the 10 panelists resided in the southeastern United
States, which may reflect a skewed or biased perspective based on the reported
salience of interest in religion and spirituality in this region (Newport, 2014).
Finally, the strategies the expert panel identified may not actually be helpful to
counselor educators without expertise in religious/spiritual issues, who are struggling with integrating religion and spirituality, especially if the barriers that the
panel identified are not accurate for a general counselor educator population.
Implications for Future Research
Because this study only evaluated the opinions of experts in religion and
spirituality, it would be important to determine what factors other (nonexpert) counselor educators believe are barriers to integrating religion and
spirituality into counselor education and what strategies they believe would
be effective in addressing those barriers. Such research might reveal that
other counselor educators believe they are sufficiently addressing religious/
spiritual issues in their courses or that they believe other factors are preventing them from more effectively addressing these issues, which could
ultimately inform efforts to improve the religious/spiritual competence of
counselor educators.
It is also important to note that this study focused only on counselor education programs and did not investigate possible barriers to addressing religion
and spirituality in other areas of counselor training, such as clinical supervision. A growing body of literature has focused on the need to better attend to
religion and spirituality in supervision (e.g., Bartoli, 2007; Bishop, Avila-Juarbe,
& Thumme, 2003), and although it is likely that clinical supervisors struggle
with similar obstacles to addressing religion and spirituality with supervisees
as faculty do with students, it is also likely that some of these barriers are quite
different. Similarly, although supervisors might benefit from many of the
same strategies we have outlined for faculty in counselor education programs,
future research should evaluate the strategies specific to enhance supervisor
competence in addressing religious/spiritual issues with trainees.
It would also be important to evaluate professional development programs designed to increase faculty competence in religious/spiritual issues
54

ACACEAS_v54_n1_0315TEXT.indd 54

Counselor Education&SupervisionMarch 2015 Volume 54

2/5/2015 11:27:33 AM

to determine if these have a positive impact on their teaching practices.

Perhaps more important, it would be critical to evaluate if such religiously/
spiritually focused interventions result in greater student religious/spiritual
competence and, ultimately, improve clinical outcomes. Thus, it would be
valuable to know if students who are trained by faculty who receive these
interventions develop greater religious/spiritual competence themselves,
and if their effectiveness with clients improves.

References
Adams, J. R. (2012). Spiritual issues in counseling: What do students perceive they are being
taught? Counseling and Values, 57, 6680.
Akins, R. B., Tolson, H., & Cole, B. R. (2005). Stability of response characteristics of a Delphi
panel: Application of bootstrap data expansion. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 5. Abstract
retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/5/37
American Counseling Association. (2005). ACA code of ethics. Retrieved from http://www.
counseling.org/Resources/aca-code-of-ethics.pdf
Association for Spiritual, Ethical, & Religious Values in Counseling. (n.d.-a). ASERVIC teaching
modules. Retrieved from http://www.aservic.org/resources/teaching-modules/
Association for Spiritual, Ethical, & Religious Values in Counseling. (n.d.-b). Mission and Vision.
Retrieved from http://www.aservic.org/counseling-and-values/
Association for Spiritual, Ethical, & Religious Values in Counseling. (2009). Spiritual competencies:
Competencies for addressing spiritual and religious issues in counseling. Retrieved from http://
www.aservic.org/resources/spiritual-competencies/
Baggs, A., Wolf, C. P., Puig, A., & Del Moro, R. R. (2011, March). Integrating spiritual competencies
into multicultural counseling: A mixed methods course evaluation study. Poster presented at the
meeting of the American Counseling Association, New Orleans, LA.
Bartoli, E. (2007). Religious and spiritual issues in psychotherapy practice: Training the trainer.
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 44, 5465.
Bishop, D. R., Avila-Juarbe, E., & Thumme, B. (2003). Recognizing spirituality as an important
factor in counselor supervision. Counseling and Values, 48, 3446.
Briggs, M. K., & Rayle, A. D. (2005). Incorporating spirituality into core counseling courses:
Ideas for classroom application. Counseling and Values, 50, 6375.
Cashwell, C. S., & Watts, R. E. (2010). The new ASERVIC competencies for addressing spiritual
and religious issues in counseling. Counseling and Values, 55, 25.
Cashwell, C. S., & Young, J. S. (2004). Spirituality in counselor training: A content analysis of
syllabi from introductory spirituality courses. Counseling and Values, 48, 96109.
Cashwell, C. S., & Young, J. S. (Eds.). (2011). Integrating spirituality and religion into counseling:
A guide to competent practice (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2009). 2009
standards. Retrieved from http://www.cacrep.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2009Standards.pdf
Crossley, J. P., & Salter, D. P. (2005). A question of finding harmony: A grounded theory study
of clinical psychologists experience of addressing spiritual beliefs in therapy. Psychology and
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 78, 295313.
Dalkey, N. C. (1972). The Delphi method: An experimental study of group opinion. In N. C.
Dalkey, D. L. Rourke, R. Lewis, & D. Snyder (Eds.), Studies in the quality of life: Delphi and
decision-making (pp. 1354). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Dobmeier, R. A., & Reiner, S. M. (2012). Spirituality in the counselor education curriculum:
A national survey of student perceptions. Counseling and Values, 57, 4765.
Frame, M. W. (2003). Integrating religion and spirituality into counseling: A comprehensive approach.
Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Frazier, R. E., & Hansen, N. D. (2009). Religious/spiritual psychotherapy behaviors: Do we
do what we believe to be important? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 8187.
Gonsiorek, J. C., Richards, P. S., Pargament, K. I., & McMinn, M. R. (2009). Ethical challenges
and opportunities at the edge: Incorporating spirituality and religion into psychotherapy.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 385395.
Griffith, J. L. (2010). Religion that heals, religion that harms: A guide for clinical practice. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Hage, S. M., Hopson, A., Siegel, M., Payton, G., & DeFanti, E. (2006). Multicultural training
in spirituality: An interdisciplinary review. Counseling and Values, 50, 217234.
Counselor Education&SupervisionMarch 2015 Volume 54

ACACEAS_v54_n1_0315TEXT.indd 55

55

2/5/2015 11:27:33 AM

Hagedorn, W. B., & Gutierrez, D. (2009). Integration versus segregation: Applications of the
spiritual competencies in counselor education programs. Counseling and Values, 54, 3247.
Herlihy, B., & Dufrene, R. L. (2011). Current and emerging ethical issues in counseling: A
Delphi study of expert opinions. Counseling and Values, 56, 1024.
Hsu, C., & Sandford, B. (2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical
Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12, 18.
Krell, M., & Prusse, R. (2012). Providing college readiness counseling for students with
autism spectrum disorders: A Delphi study to guide school counselors. Professional School
Counseling, 16 , 2939.
Levin, J. (2001). God, faith, and health: Exploring the spiritualityhealing connection. New York,
NY: Wiley & Sons.
Myers, J. E., & Williard, K. (2003). Integrating spiritualityinto counselor preparation: A developmental, wellnessapproach. Counseling and Values, 47, 142155.
Newport, F. (2011, June 3). More than 9 in 10 Americans continue to believe in God. Gallup.
Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/Americans-Continue-Believe-God.aspx
Newport, F. (2014, February 3). Mississippi most religious state, Vermont least religious. Gallup.
Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/167267/mississippi-religious-vermont-leastreligious-state.aspx
OConnor, M. (2004). A course in spiritual dimensions of counseling: Continuing the discussion. Counseling and Values, 48, 224240.
OConnor, S., & Vandenberg, B. (2005). Psychosis or faith? Clinicians assessment of religious
beliefs. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 610616.
Pate, R. H., & Hall, M. P. (2005). One approach to a counseling and spirituality course. Counseling and Values, 49, 155160.
Post, B. C., & Wade, N. G. (2009). Religion and spirituality in psychotherapy: A practice-friendly
review of research. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65, 131146.
Richards, P. S., & Bergin, A. E. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of psychotherapy and religious diversity.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Robertson, L. A. (2010). The Spiritual Competency Scale. Counseling and Values, 55, 624.
Skulmoski, G. J., Hartman, F. T., & Krahn, J. (2007). The Delphi method for graduate research.
Journal of Information Technology Education, 6, 121.
Souza, K. Z. (2002). Spirituality in counseling: What do counseling students think about it?
Counseling and Values, 46, 213217.
Stone Fish, L., & Busby, D. M. (2005). The Delphi method. In D. H. Sprenkle & F. P. Piercy
(Eds.), Research methods in family therapy (2nd ed., pp. 238253). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Walker, D. F., Gorsuch, R. L., & Tan, S.-Y. (2004). Therapists integration of religion and spirituality in counseling: A meta-analysis. Counseling and Values, 49, 6980.
Young, J. S., Cashwell, C., Wiggins-Frame, M., & Belaire, C. (2002). Spiritual and religious competencies: A national survey of CACREP-accredited programs. Counseling and Values, 47, 2233.
Young, J. S., Wiggins-Frame, M., & Cashwell, C. S. (2007). Spirituality and counselor competence: A national survey of American Counseling Association members. Journal of Counseling
& Development, 85, 4752.

56

ACACEAS_v54_n1_0315TEXT.indd 56

Counselor Education&SupervisionMarch 2015 Volume 54

2/5/2015 11:27:33 AM

Copyright of Counselor Education & Supervision is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.