���Ϲ�

Dr. Garrett McAuliffe

Professor Emeritus at ���Ϲ� (���Ϲ�) and Fellow of the American Counseling Association, Dr. McAuliffe’s career has focused on four "Cs": culture, constructivism, counselor education, and career development. The author of five books and six training videos, he is particularly well known for his books: Culturally Alert Counseling and Positive Counseling, as well as his three volumes on constructivist counselor education. His first career involved teaching elementary and junior high school students in the New York City area. He was a counselor at Greenfield Community College in Western Massachusetts and at the University of Massachusetts, where he also completed his doctoral studies. Dr. McAuliffe has been significantly involved in diversity and social justice initiatives at ���Ϲ� and internationally. He is married to Sharon and has three children: Maura, Garrett, and Kiera.

Dr. Ed Neukrug

The Executive Director of IIACT and the Batten Endowed Chair of Counseling at ���Ϲ�, Dr. Ed Neukrug has been a counselor educator for over forty years and has worked in various roles, including as a crisis counselor, outpatient therapist at a mental health center, associate school psychologist, school counselor, and private practice psychologist and licensed professional counselor. He has held a variety of positions in professional associations and has published dozens of articles, book chapters, counseling videos, and interactive websites (Visit the IIACT website to see his work). Dr Neukrug is best known for his 15 books, most of which are available at  A Fellow of the American Counseling Association (ACA), Dr. Neukrug has been honored with ACA’s Hohenshil Publications Award. He has two children, Hannah and Emma.

A Conversation Between Drs. Garrett McAuliffe and Ed Neukrug

“That actually makes the theories more meaningful. It shows they’re part of an ongoing conversation...”

Ed: So, Garrett, how did you end up in the counseling profession?

Garrett: I think many of us start our professional lives in the counseling field because of some personal experience. However, I don’t want to pathologize counselors as somehow especially needy. We also recognize our talents—interpersonal skills and valuing helping others.

On the personal side, when I was in college, I was struggling with anxiety. I went to a counselor at the university counseling center at Queens College in New York. I had panic and anxiety that I didn’t understand. The counseling center referred me to a nearby therapist, not one at the university. I ended up being psychoanalyzed for three years, lying on the couch—the real old-school thing. It gave me great insight into my defenses, motivations, and unconscious. It helped me become a more authentic person. But it didn’t help my anxiety at all. So that was that—three years of examining my psyche. After that, I began teaching.

Ed: So here you were learning about yourself. But at some point, you must have made the switch from being an English major to wanting to be a counselor. How did that happen?

Garrett: Well, I was confused about what I wanted to do, so I went back to the counseling center—this time for career counseling. They had me take the Strong Interest Inventory and told me I could have only one session. Three professions emerged: teacher, librarian, and counselor. Then the counselor had me do a Gestalt exercise in which the three professions talked to each other. Counseling won the debate. 

I had to convince myself that I could work at something I loved and believed in. That was contrary to the message I had received—that work was always distasteful. I shadowed the school counselor at the New York public school where I taught. He wasn’t very inspiring, but, armed with permission to do something I loved, I marched confidently toward my dreams, to paraphrase Thoreau.

So, Ed, how did you get into the profession, and how did you become interested in theories?

Ed: Interestingly, my entry into the field was very similar to yours. I had an anxiety attack in college, went to the counseling center, and got into therapy. Soon, I realized that being a biology major was not the path for me, so I switched to psychology. Eventually, I obtained my master’s and doctorate in counseling. At the time, I knew very little about theories, but I was always very interested in the theorists themselves. I started going to conferences and would attend the sessions where the famous theorists were speaking. 

I tried to meet them whenever I could. I was a bit in awe of them. Over the years, I have interacted with Beck, Ellis, Frankl, Glasser, Rogers, Lazarus, Linehan, Skinner, Wubbolding, Yalom, and others. I was even in therapy with a well-known existential therapist, Dugald Arbuckle. I was fascinated by them.

Garrett: How did this interest grow into writing counseling theories books and developing IIACT?

Ed: Actually, at the beginning of my career, I was pretty much a generalist. But I kept thinking about those theorists and tried to meet them whenever possible. At some point, I even started collecting oral audio stories about some of them. Many of the stories are enlightening. You can listen to them at the IIACT website—look for “audio stories” on the main page of our website.

Garrett: Meeting those theorists must have been interesting. I’ll bet you have some fascinating stories.

Ed: Oh yeah. I think the first theorist I ever had contact with was Carl Rogers. I heard him give a talk about the importance of the world becoming more peaceful, accepting, and empathic—and that if it didn’t, it would destroy itself. A few years later, he was speaking again at the University of Cincinnati, where I was getting my doctorate, so I went to hear him.

At one point, he asked if anyone had questions. I raised my hand, and I think I was the first person he called on. I asked whether he still thought the world was in jeopardy. He asked me to repeat the question. I tried to, but I was so nervous that I couldn’t pull it together. He looked at me and abruptly said, “I don’t know what you’re talking about."

I felt dismissed. I sat there feeling embarrassed, thinking that my idol had just told me I was ignorant. I was crushed.

Garrett: How did you make sense of his talk and his response to you in the context of his theory?

Ed: With the exception of when he spoke to me, I found that during his talk, he embodied his theory, as he was kind, empathic, and real. At first, it made me question myself. But later I realized that we’re all human, not perfect—even Carl Rogers.

Interestingly, one of the audio stories I have is from Sam Gladding, who wrote an article about Rogers, and Rogers wrote him a pretty harsh letter criticizing it. Sam was the nicest, gentlest guy in the world, so receiving a nasty letter from Rogers seemed out of character. Again, another example of how Rogers did not always embody his theory.

Garrett: So these experiences really affected you.

Ed: Yes. I began wondering about who our heroes are and what an idol really means. In my mind, these theorists were on a pedestal. They seemed brighter than I was and completely put together. But suddenly, one by one, they were falling off their pedestals.

Garrett: Did you have other experiences like that?

Ed: I had a really interesting experience with Albert Ellis. I applied for a postdoctoral fellowship at the Albert Ellis Institute in New York City. After meeting the staff, who were particularly nice, they said I had to do the obligatory role play with “Al."

I went upstairs to his office, and he was sprawled out on a big leather chair. He shook my hand and immediately said, “Okay, let’s do the role play."  I began with a little empathy, thinking I should understand what he was talking about. After about two minutes, he looked at me and said, “Don’t give me that empathy crap." So I quickly switched to REBT. When we finished, he said, “Not bad, not bad.”

At the time, I was in therapy with Dugald Arbuckle, who had asked me to say hello to Ellis. When I did, Ellis finally responded, “Oh, that jerk.” That was Ellis—crude and willing to say whatever was on his mind. I both loved it and hated it. I certainly didn’t expect a famous theorist to be cursing at me and calling people jerks. I decided not to do a postdoc there.

Garrett: Slowly, you began to see these theorists as human beings rather than figures on a pedestal.

Ed: Exactly. And that realization changed how I think about theories. I remember when you introduced me to Robert Kegan, the cognitive developmental theorist. I was writing about his theory and wanted to know at what age people typically reach the interindividual stage—the ability to seek out and hear different perspectives and even change their views when new information makes sense.

So I called him at Harvard, and he answered the phone. I asked at what age people reach that stage. At first, he said he couldn’t give an age, but finally, he said something like, “Well, no one ever fully gets into the interindividual stage unless they’re at least forty."

Garrett: That makes sense. It takes time and experience.

Ed: Exactly. Being transcendent is a process. When I reflect on my own life, I realize it wasn’t until my fifties—maybe even my sixties—that I began to embody some of those qualities. It took painful experiences like divorce, health problems, and processing them to understand the complexities of life. That’s when I began to feel a sense of equality with these theorists. They weren’t above me—they were just people.

Garrett: In a sense, that’s the discovery of relativism. These theories are constructed. They’re not handed down with authority.

Ed: That’s very well put. Many theorists construct their theories from their own experiences, which become embedded in them. Freud, for instance, was embedded in his European Jewish culture and experiences that formed his beliefs about the unconscious. Rogers grew up in a stern religious home where he was criticized a lot, and he developed a theory centered on the opposite empathy.

I once attended a workshop with William Glasser. During a role play, he used a technique that looked very Gestalt-like. I mentioned it to him, and he said, “I don’t know anything about Gestalt therapy.” He was knowledgeable about his own theory, which grew out of his experiences— and that was it.

Similarly, Michael White’s narrative therapy reflected his activism, such as protesting the Vietnam War and fighting for equal rights, as well as his negative experiences with his father and the mental health system. Marsha Linehan’s negative experiences in the mental health system and her religious upbringing clearly helped shape Dialectical Behavior Therapy, and Stephen Hayes’s Acceptance and Commitment Therapy grew partly out of his own struggles with panic attacks and his familiarity with behavior therapy.

Garrett: The connection between theorists’ experiences and their theories seems clear. Yet counselors are often trained to integrate approaches.

Ed: Yes, and research indicates that no single theory works for everyone. That reminds me of the common factors approach, which suggests that certain qualities lead to positive outcomes regardless of the specific theory.

Garrett: And the biggest one is client characteristics.

Ed: Exactly. Client characteristics, along with the therapist building a strong alliance, showing empathy, being genuine, knowing your theory well, and helping clients believe that therapy will work—all seem related to positive outcomes. Those qualities often matter more than the specific theory itself.

Garrett: But theories still matter. It’s up to counselors and scholars to test them through experience and research.

Ed: I agree. Being open to new ideas and collaborating makes for a better and more thoughtful therapist and theorist.

Garrett: You also mentioned how disappointing it was to learn about the personal flaws of some theorists.

Ed: I had placed them on a pedestal. Eventually, that pedestal faded away. They were giants in the field and contributed enormously, but they were also human beings. The more I learned about them, the more I saw how their theories often grew out of their struggles and vulnerabilities. And each of us is probably drawn to certain theories because of our own experiences.

Garrett: I think that’s very true. I was drawn to postmodern approaches like narrative and solution-focused therapy. Those approaches appealed to me because of their focus on stories and creating a new future. 

I was particularly drawn to solution-focused therapy—perhaps connected to my own experience with anxiety and not being helped by some insight-oriented approaches. That might also be a reaction to my strict Catholic schooling, which often emphasized what was wrong with you.

Ed: Early in my career, I was drawn to Gestalt therapy because it was expressive, theatrical, and a bit pushy. But eventually I realized that wasn’t how I wanted to practice therapy. I wanted to be more like Rogers, though I still used some Gestalt techniques.

Garrett: Discovering Rogers was transformative for me. I realized there weren’t absolute rights and wrongs and that everyone had something to offer. Empathy and positive regard could replace domination and put-downs, which were common where I grew up in Queens.

Ed: That probably contributed to your later interest in multicultural issues.

Garrett: Definitely. Cultural relativism helped challenge the racism and prejudice I saw growing up.

Ed: Many counseling theories are criticized for being based on Western perspectives, but many theorists also had humane motivations. In their time, some were quite revolutionary. For example, Freud helped establish free clinics in Europe so the poor could receive treatment. Adler championed rights for women and children, and Rogers brought together Whites and Blacks in South Africa and Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland for conflict resolution and social change.

Garrett: In a way, famous Western theorists were like the founding fathers of the United States. They lived within a social context that shaped their beliefs—even when those beliefs were wrong from today’s perspective.

Ed: Exactly. We all operate within the perspectives available to us.

Garrett: Which brings up the idea that Freud supposedly said the Irish were not good candidates for therapy.

Ed: Personally, I would disagree with Freud. I enjoy helping people explore their inner worlds—especially when they’re not used to doing that.

Garrett: The Irish didn’t want to talk about themselves.

Ed: While the Jews did. That probably shaped his perspective.

Garrett: Yeah.

Ed: As we’ve been talking, I realize my view of these theorists has changed. Early on, I saw them as larger-than-life figures who had all the answers. But after meeting some of them and learning more about their lives, I began to see them differently. They were brilliant and creative, and their theories often grew out of their struggles, questions, and the times they lived in.

Garrett: That actually makes the theories more meaningful. It shows they’re part of an ongoing conversation rather than something fixed.

Ed: Exactly. We can respect these theorists without putting them on pedestals. When we see them as human, their work becomes more accessible—and we’re more willing to question and build on what they started.

Garrett: In a way, that’s how the field grows. Theories aren’t sacred texts; they’re thoughtful attempts to understand human experience, and each generation adds to that understanding.

Ed: So well put Garrett. I’m always impressed with your ability with words. This has been such an interesting and real conversation.

The Global Issues Subdivision, led by Dr. Courtland Lee and Dr. Barbara Herlihy, has completed a project titled "South American Perceptions of Counseling Theoretical Approaches." The purpose of this project was to investigate theoretical approaches to counseling/helping/healing in South America. It had three objectives: 

1. to analyze the cultural and structural environment of each country to better understand mental health practices;
2. to assess how well traditional North American counseling theories and frameworks fit the healing, helping, counseling, or psychotherapy practices in South American settings; and
3. to investigate Indigenous and traditional healing and helping frameworks in South American countries.

Mental health and related professionals from Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, and Venezuela participated in structured interviews, responding to questions focused on the cultural, social, and structural contexts of counseling theoretical frameworks in their respective countries. The interviews were conducted, mostly in-person, by Kasey Bunting, the Subdivision’s Graduate Assistant. The interview questions specifically asked these professionals to evaluate prominent Western counseling theoretical models within the context of Indigenous helping and healing practices in their respective countries. This investigation revealed a mental health landscape in South America defined by profound duality. The interviews indicated that the countries operate under two distinct, parallel systems of care, separated by geography, socioeconomic status, and cultural worldview. The final report of the investigation is forthcoming.

We are moving closer to Cognella Academic Press offering continuing education credits for the eight vodcasts produced by Drs. Sylvia Nassar and Daniel Gutierrez, and featuring several well-known counselors and educators. The videos will be placed on the Cognella Academic Press website, with a link from our website to theirs. Continuing education credits will be low-cost and available to all. The following are the titles of the eight vodcasts:

1. Theory in Context: Clinical Practice with Latine and Immigrant Communities
2. Theory in Context: Clinical Practice using Internal Family Systems with LGBTQ+ Communities
3. Theory in Context: Clinical Practice with Asian LGBTQ+ Communities
4. Theory in Context: Clinical Practice with Guyanese Diasporic Communities
5. Theory in Context: Clinical Practice with African American/Black Men
6. Theory in Context: Clinical Practice of Black Mental Health
7. Theory in Context: Clinical Practice with Black Families
8. Theory in Context: Clinical Practice with Black/African American Adolescent Boys

The research subdivision, headed by Drs. Kalkbrenner and Sink recently had the following important article accepted in the journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling: “A Rasch Analysis of Ed Neukrug’s Theoretical Orientation Survey (ENTOS): A National Survey of Counselors and Counselors-in-training (CITs).” Dr. Neukrug is now working on placing the new scale, in English, Spanish, and Chinese, on the IIACT website.

In addition, an article examining the most influential theorists of the 21st century is in progress. Dr. Jay Lee Jungeun from the University of Houston has joined Dr. Ed Neukrug, Dr. Mike Kalkbrenner, and Dr. Chris Sink in moving forward with this research. Finally, we are now exploring the possibility of small grants for doctoral dissertations focused on counseling theory.