Reaffirming the Role of Science and Diversity in Counseling: A Reply to Hansen.

Overall, Hansen (2012a) and the author (Brady-Amoon, 2012) share a humanistic vision for the future of counseling. In this continued dialogue, the author argues that a broad-based philosophy of science that encompasses renewed respect for diversity remains essential for the future of the profession. Keywords: counseling, diversity, future, humanism, science Overall, Hansen (2012a) and I (Brady-Amoon, 2012) share a humanistic vision for the future of counseling. Consistent with this, we agree that renewed respect for human complexity and multiple perspectives is central to our work, including the ways counselors organize and monitor themselves professionally. However, as Hansen rightly notes, he and I disagree on some of the finer points, most notably our conceptualizations of science and its role in counseling and my proposal to more fully integrate feminist, multicultural, and social justice perspectives with humanism and counseling. In the sections that follow, I address these two areas in turn. I conclude with a call for continued dialogue and action to promote an integrated humanistic future for the counseling profession. SCIENCE In his rejoinder, Hansen (2012b) reaffirms his belief that science and, more specifically, a "scientific ideology is inherently reductionist" (p. 198). By reductionist, Hansen argues that the function of science is to distill complex questions to discover singular answers. Hansen's objection to a positivist view of science (Rosenau, 1992) and scientific ideology thus appears to be an objection to the ethos of oversimplification that he believes has overtaken the profession. Although I am also concerned about the negative consequences of oversimplification in the profession, my view of science is very different from Hansen's. Like many natural (Hoernschemeyer, 2000; Randall, 2011) and social scientists (Fox & Prilleltensky, 1997), I view science as a way of expanding knowledge (Randall, 2011). Therefore, my view of a scientific mind-set or ideology is one in which people use curiosity, creativity, skepticism, and open-mindedness (Hoernschemeyer, 2000) to critically examine the assumptions, methods, results, and interpretations that have the potential to affect all aspects of our work and professional life. This postmodernist (Fox & Prilleltensky, 1997) or hermeneutic (Richardson & Fowers, 1997) view of science, which recognizes and respects human subjectivity, has the potential to facilitate deeper understanding in counseling and allied professions and move the profession forward. Despite the differences in how we view science, Hansen (2012a) and I agree the founders of humanism "were advocates for the use of science in counseling" (p. 199). My review of the early humanists' writing--for example, Rogers's (1951) position that humanism extends the principles of psychoanalysis and behaviorism--forms the basis for my conclusion that art and science, as broadly defined, are foundational to humanism and counseling. The reaffirmation of the role of science and diversity in counseling has the potential to serve as an antidote to the simplistic and singular thinking that has become increasingly evident in the profession. As discussed earlier, simplistic thinking is not scientific. Therefore, scientific inquiry is needed to examine the validity of unexamined and somewhat simplistic beliefs, particularly those that some adherents would impose on the profession. INCREASING RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY IN HUMANISM AND COUNSELING Hansen and I agree that renewed respect for human complexity and multiple perspectives is essential for the future of the profession. However, his critique of my proposal to more fully integrate relevant aspects of feminist, multicultural, and social justice theory, research, and practice with humanism and counseling (Brady-Amoon, 2011) is based on a mischaracterization of these movements as inherently collectivist and therefore inconsistent with humanism's emphasis on individualism. …