This psychotherapy trainee at Antioch University presents a cursory review of a core textbook in the training program: Derald Sue et al (2022) Counseling the Culturally Diverse: Theory and Practice (9th edn) Hoboken NJ: Wiley. In particular, she raises questions about the validity and legitimacy of the case examples provided.
This psychotherapy trainee at Antioch University presents a cursory review of a core textbook in the training program: Derald Sue et al (2022) Counseling the Culturally Diverse: Theory and Practice (9th edn) Hoboken NJ: Wiley. In particular, she raises questions about the validity and legitimacy of the case examples provided.
The books sounds like it was made up of fake vignettes, which is an ethical and professional publishing violation. The psychologist who was listed by name and gave written feedback could be contacted to verify if this indeed his own words. It would be interesting to ask the authors and press for proof of the validity of the data used in the vignettes, as this is a 9th Edition book, and they are profiting based on updates of the publication. If they are publishing material that is untrue and made up, this is a serious violation on the part of the authors and publisher. I also agree that the counselling vignettes used with clients sounds incompetent and would likely result in the client leaving therapy and/or a complaint. This book sounds like diversity CSJ propaganda that has no place in training students to become competent therapists, as it is woke ideology that needs to be vigorously opposed in any training curriculum. The authors should be exposed as frauds if there is evidence to demonstrate that the vignettes are fabricated.
I am sure you will know of Scott O Lilienfeld’s comprehensive critique of Sue’s methodology. Its title “Strong claims, inadequate evidence” echoes the concerns you voice in your video. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691616659391
As Dr Mills comments above, if these vignettes were indeed created by the author to strengthen his case, then this needs to be brought to light, although I think it might be difficult to prove. It is interesting that only one person is actually named and that is the psychologist supporting Sue’s argument. In his critique Lilienfeld highlighted Sue’s exclusive reliance on self-report for his microaggressions research and his neglect of other important factors. There is definitely cause for concern about Sue’s methods and your analysis of the vignettes cited in his book only adds to that concern. Thank you for bringing these concerns to a wider audience.
Leave a Reply