Introduction
In Norwegian schools, counsellors hold an important role in youth’s educational and vocational choices and well-being. Because the counsellor’s interpretations of policy form an important basis for guidance practice, the current study explores how counsellors interpret two central policy guidelines. The first guideline is an organisational recommendation on how to organise guidance in school, and the second is the regulation for professional codes of conduct amongst guidance counsellors.
The counselling services in Norwegian schools have two defined functions: (1) educational welfare guidance and (2) career guidance. The primary task for career guidance is to provide pupils with information and guidance regarding educational and vocational choices, whilst the primary task of educational welfare guidance is to help pupils experience social and academic success (FKunnskapsdepartementet,
2009). Furthermore, counsellors are expected to focus on both the system for all counselling activity at the school and guidance of individual pupils (Mordal et al.,
2015). Most counsellors in the Norwegian school system hold part-time positions as counsellors and part-time positions as teachers (Buland et al.,
2014). Since early 2000, policy has promoted separate counselling services (NOU,
2016, p. 7, p. 154) as the recommended form (Buland & Havn,
2003; OECD,
2002; St.Meld.nr.16, 2006–2007).
Separate counselling services imply splitting career guidance and educational welfare guidance into separate functions that are attended to by different counsellors (Buland & Havn,
2003). Separate counselling services were initially promoted as a solution for safeguarding career guidance because stakeholders were concerned that this task was being neglected because of the expanding needs in the area of educational welfare guidance, which include pupils mental and social challenges (Buland & Havn,
2003). The Norwegian Ministry of Education (2009, Sect. 22-1) has stated, ‘In order to preserve the pupils’ best interests, there should be a holistic view of the pupil and the educational welfare guidance and career guidance should be integrated’. However, there is no specification of how counselling services in schools should be organised to ensure a holistic guidance practice. Currently, the variety in organising is vast; some schools have assigned both functions to the same person (integrated services), whilst others have split the functions across several persons (separate counselling services).
A ‘holistic philosophy of counselling emphasises helping “whole” persons’ (Betz & Corning,
1993, p. 137) and seeing career and personal counselling as inextricably intertwined (Krumboltz,
1993, p. 143). Thus, we see a holistic or whole-person approach as a guidance practice where the counsellor recognises the intertwinement of personal challenges and career decisions, treating them as a continuum rather than dichotomous concerns (Krumboltz,
1993; Super,
1993; Zunker,
2012). The holistic perspective is in accordance with Bronfenbrenner’s (
1977) classical concept of community collaboration, hence promoting a collective-oriented holistic approach. Kettunen and Makela (
2019) found that ethical practice amongst others was conceived as stemming from a collaborative orientation. According to Low et al. (
2013), collaboration and cooperation are essential to ensure the successful implementation of counselling services. Thomsen (
2017) provide interesting ideas on career guidance as a collective practice in communities. Thus, recommendations that promote separating the two main tasks of counselling may create a conflict with regulatory and professional emphasis to achieve a holistic approach towards counselling. To be explicit, regulations provide guidelines on how the counsellors and schools should conduct counselling, whilst policy recommendations to separate the services address how the services should be organised. Nonetheless, how the work is organised has implications for its practice [e.g., Irgens (
2010)]. In the gap between policy and practice, the decisions made by practitioners influence how policy is realised (Hooley & Rice,
2019).
According to Watts (
2008), most guidance services are the object of and a potential instrument for public policy; he claims that research within the field of career guidance pays little attention to public policy and implementation. Furthermore, Haug et al. (
2020b) and Hooley (
2019) address the difficulties of policy implementation in the career guidance field in Norway and how policy implementations’ depend on professionals’ faith and goodwill. This dependence could also be a consequence of policy having interpretative flexibility (Pinch & Bijker,
1987). Interpretative flexibility is the notion of how something is interpreted into local knowledge and how it is interpreted differently by different actors. This concept is appropriate for guidance counselling because counsellors need to understand policy in relation to their own local context (Frostenson,
2015; Irgens,
2010). This is supported by the Expert committee on the role of teachers (
2016, p. 208), which is explicit on how professional communities have an important mediating function in giving meaningful content to external demands and expectations in development and change.
Prior to year 2000 Nordic research in guidance has focused mainly on the sociological aspects of guidance, its societal links and possible impact (Plant et al.,
2003, p. 116). As a developing field of research, Haug et al. (
2020a) finds a great variance of thematics in the specific context of Nordic guidance counselling. These include reflections on the Nordic model and the notion of career, gender equality and career guidance and professional development of career guidance practitioners, only to mention a few. However, no contributions of the anthology discuss how counsellors’ interpretations and understandings affect the implementation of policy recommendations. The aim of the current study is to fill this gap in the literature.
We seek to expand the knowledge about what guides counsellors’ professional practices by exploring how counsellors interpret and understand conflicting regulations and policy recommendations. Our approach to exploring this is based on three complementary theoretical contributions. We combine profession theory and the concepts of occupational and organisational professionalism (Evetts,
2009), boundary work (Liljegren,
2012) and hybrid professionalism (Noordegraaf,
2015), here with Lipsky’s (
1980) theory of street-level bureaucracy and Pinch and Bijker (
1987) interpretative flexibility. Lipsky’s (
1980) contribution is relevant for understanding counsellors’ attempts at managing the difficulties and ambiguities in conflicting recommendations. Interpretative flexibility addresses how policy intentions and content can be interpretatively flexible (Pinch & Bijker,
1987) when counsellors implement them into local school practices (Irgens,
2010). Insight into counsellors’ interpretations and professional judgements may give us knowledge about their perspectives and reasoning for—or not—implementing policy. Such knowledge can be important for future policy making, implementation and development in professional guidance practice. Thus, our research question is as follows:
How do counsellors interpret and understand the recommendation of separating career guidance and educational welfare counselling in schools?
The theoretical approach of the current study can contribute to novel knowledge of how counsellors in Norwegian schools understand the contradictions in policy. Exploring this can also provide additional knowledge of counsellors’ general professional rationales for their practices. This will be further elaborated upon after a short introduction to the research on the Norwegian context of school counselling.
School counselling in a Norwegian context
The core values of Norwegian school counselling are egalitarianism and contain a moral and political commitment to the welfare state (Bakke,
2020; Haug et al.,
2020b; Hooley,
2020). New public management (NPM) has a major impact on the world of work and, consequently, on the way career guidance is conceived, practised (Hooley et al.,
2018, pp. 5–8; Hughes et al.,
2015; Sultana,
2018). Accordingly also the development of education for career guidance professionals (Andreassen et al.,
2019). The Norwegian school system is affected by NPM rationales, with a goal-oriented focus on efficiency, quality and the cost-effective delivery of public services (Hooley et al.,
2018; Nilsen,
2021). As a result, counsellors in Norway have reported insufficient resources and that extensive goal orientation and standardised numbers of hours for pupils in each subject are obstacles for guidance activities; they have also stated that their work is rated as second in line and a ‘time thief’ (Mordal et al.,
2015, p. 112). Counsellors understand themselves primarily as the pupils’ supporter (Mordal et al.,
2015, p. 116). According to Irving (
2017, p. 57), there is a degree of flexibility in counsellors’ freedom to review, reframe and reposition career/education discourse when organising their work. Also, as argued by Thomsen (
2014), flexible career practices that adapt to the needs of participants have the potential effect of greater social justice. Indeed, the room for local variations in forming and developing the counsellor’s role is considerable (Buland et al.,
2020; Mordal et al.,
2015). Further, it is important to notice that understandings of competence have specific meanings in particular contexts (Sultana,
2009). Yet the role itself appears to be complex and stressful (Mathiesen et al.,
2014; Mordal et al.,
2015). This points towards a knowledge gap concerning counsellors’ perspectives of their own professional practice because earlier research contributions in this field appear to have focused mostly on the outcome of guidance practices (Haug et al.,
2018).
Guidance counsellors as professional street-level bureaucrats engaged in interpretative flexibility
To illuminate the guidance counsellors’ professionalism within an NPM rationale, Evetts’ (
2009) ideal forms of professionalism is useful. Evetts (
2009) argues that there is a development of two different and contrasting forms of professionalism.
Organisational professionalism is manifested in a discourse of control that involves increasingly standardised work procedures and practices. At the other end of the spectrum,
occupational professionalism is oriented towards authority and autonomy and emphasises relationships; here, organisational professionalism is more dependent on structures (Evetts,
2009, p. 248). An important difference between these logics is that occupational professionalism builds authority on trust in professionals’ education and ethics, whilst organisational professionalism authority is grounded in regulations and control (Liljegren,
2012). According to Abbott (
1988), this distinction helps when we make sense of professional craft, which is understood as using abstract knowledge to solve specific issues. Practitioners’ mandates and tasks are regulated by public policy and local conditions and can be seen as collective actors who manoeuvre within their specific contexts (Abbott,
1988; Liljegren,
2012). This process can be understood in terms of
boundary work (Liljegren,
2012), where professions create, maintain and break down boundaries to separate ‘us’ from ‘them’ and claim professional turf. Uncertainty of boundaries and a weakening of autonomous spaces appear to attack professional work and harm professional values (Hermstad et al.,
2020; Noordegraaf,
2015). Hence, Noordegraaf (
2015) suggests the emergence of
hybrid professionalism, which arises when professional and managerial principles—here concerning coordination of work, the establishment of authority and the values at stake—come together. Hence, hybrid professionalism occurs when professional and managerial boundaries become blurred, when professional logics are combined and reconfigured and when professionalism and managerialism are combined (Noordegraaf,
2015).
Lipsky’s (
1980,
2010) concept of street-level bureaucracy can be helpful for understanding how counsellors manage conflicting or ambiguous policy guidelines. Lipsky’s contribution provides a framework for understanding professionals’ attempts to cope with difficulties and ambiguities. Street-level bureaucrats are ‘public servants who work with residents daily and who must constantly make discretionary assessments’ (Lipsky,
1980, p. 3). We understand counsellors as street-level bureaucrats because their priorities in daily counselling practice put policy into action. Street-level bureaucrats are ‘public servants who work with residents daily and who must constantly make discretionary assessments’ (Lipsky,
1980, p. 3). In addition, ‘they cannot do the job according to ideal conceptions of the practice because of the limitations of work structure’ (Lipsky,
2010, p. xvii). Street-level bureaucrats’ actions, appraisals and priorities determine what services recipients receive (Lipsky,
1980). Furthermore, they are mediators between two worlds that are out of tune: the state and society (Zacka,
2017, p. 24). There is a growing body of policy-focused studies; however, they rarely indicate opposition or resistance to policy aims as street-level practitioners understand them (Brodkin,
2012, p. 944). Tummers and Bekkers (
2014, pp. 540–541) find that street-level bureaucrats’ discretion influences their willingness to implement policy in two ways. First, discretion allows them to tailor their decisions and practices to the needs of their clients. Second, discretion has a positive effect on bureaucrats’ perceptions of client meaningfulness, which strongly influences their willingness to implement policy. The street-level bureaucracy theory is relevant for analysing counsellors’ views as they participate in discussions and decision-making about how to organise the counselling services at their schools. In this context, counsellors are actors who translate policy into action; they decide how and in which form pupils receive guidance.
Hence, from their unique professional point of view, counsellors interpret and adjust their local practices to policy and ethical guidelines.
Interpretative flexibility (Pinch & Bijker,
1987) is a notion used to describe how artefacts are interpreted differently by different actors into local knowledge. By this, Pinch and Bijker (
1987) mean ‘not only that there is a flexibility in
how people think of or interpret artefacts but also that there is flexibility in
how artefacts are designed’(p. 40). They further hold that ‘a problem is defined as such only when there is a social group for which it constitutes a “problem”’ (Pinch & Bijker,
1987, p. 30). Buland (
1996) shows how interpretative flexibility can be used to understand how policy is interpreted differently by different actors when applying the concept to the analysis of the implementation of new technology in Norwegian public sector. Applying the concept of interpretative flexibility in the current study provides access for exploring counsellors’ responses to policy and offers insights into how policy is interpreted differently in this field. In the counsellor context, policy needs to be operationalised within the schools where the counsellors work [e.g., Frostenson (
2015), Irgens (
2010)]. Thus, when policy recommendations are not clearly formulated, they have interpretative flexibility. Counsellors practice within different local contexts and, therefore, might have different understandings of both policy content and intentions. This is supported by Frostenson’s (
2015) discussion on how the local organisational context impacts professional autonomy. Also, Rosvall (
2019) emphasises the importance of local conditions for pedagogic practice. In extension, Irgens (
2010, pp. 133–134) emphasises how ‘a good school is not created by individual work alone’ and that ‘the teachers at collectively oriented schools are more positive about collaboration than their colleagues at individually oriented schools’. Thus, policy’s interpretative flexibility might result in different practices and understandings.
Counsellors are a part of the Norwegian school system and engage with pupils on a daily basis as street-level bureaucrats (Lipsky,
1980); they convert policy into action within institutions governed by neoliberalistic goal orientation. In some respects, they are in limbo between their organisational professionalism and occupational professionalism (Evetts,
2009). They use their professional knowledge to analyse each pupil’s needs and devote specific meaning to their observations through their professional craft (Abbott,
1988). Furthermore, counsellors are largely left to their own assessments to balance between different expectations. However, both separate counselling services and a holistic approach are interpretatively flexible (Pinch & Bijker,
1987) concepts that counsellors must interpret into their local context (Irgens,
2010).
Results
When asking counsellors how they felt about separate counselling services, we noticed that the views on how to organise the two functions of counselling services in Norwegian schools and the counsellor’s basic values were closely intertwined. Three different lines of argument dominated their responses: (1) integrated counselling, a holistic approach; (2) separate counselling, a collective holistic approach; and (3) separate counselling, a reductionist approach. In the following, we will describe these three views, as discussed in the focus groups.
Integrated counselling, a holistic approach
The first stance comprised counsellors who were negative when it came to separate counselling services. They were concerned about safeguarding holistic values in counselling and expressed scepticism towards the separation of the services, regardless of how it was organised. One counsellor in a focus group said, ‘Educational welfare, career guidance and future planning are all closely connected’. The rest of the focus group acknowledged her viewpoint. This view resembles a holistic approach. She explained, ‘It’s like this: when a pupil comes to us, then he comes with an easy question and a harmless problem, but it turns out to have a more complex background’. The counsellor further argued that when counsellors’ functions are integrated as one person’s responsibility, it is easier for the counsellor to safeguard the whole pupil. One counsellor stated that ‘an individual is a whole after all, and then, it is both the educational welfare and [career guidance] […] everything is connected, you know’. This indicates flexibility as a prerequisite for the services. It also appears to highlight the importance of addressing concerns about how separating services could affect the accessibility of both career guidance and social welfare guidance to pupils. The counsellors who supported this stance appeared to assume that separate counselling services would equal little collaboration between the functions. Furthermore, they seemed to believe that integrated services were the only way to safeguard the pupils’ best interests and a holistic approach. One counsellor explained, ‘We follow the pupils. The whole pupil. We think it is an unnatural choice to separate educational welfare and career guidance’. Their assumption of separate counselling as a limitation regarding seeing the whole pupil led to their professional consideration of separate counselling services as a poor way to organise the services. Thus, this stance appears to gather a holistic view of the pupil, a holistic approach to counselling services and safeguarding the pupils’ best interests in general, as integrated, intertwined and interdependent parts of counselling as professional practice.
Separate counselling, a collective holistic approach
The second line of arguments was positive towards separate counselling with extended collaboration found in teams of counsellors. The different parts of the team would safeguard different functions, thus securing a holistic approach towards the pupils and counselling. In one focus group, the following statement about experience with separate counselling was presented and gained consensus:
It works well. It is effective. Because we use each other, [...] as a ‘happy street’, right? Including all pupils’ services, counsellors, practical pedagogical services, the follow-up services, the health nurse and so on. We all sit over here together, and then, we can use each other so much more. […] It is much more effective when we can use our competence on the pupil instead of having to sit with everything ourselves.
In her case, all the student services were colocated, which made it easier to collaborate and offer different expertise to the pupils. Collaboration was essential in the provision of counselling services to pupils. In another focus group, a counsellor argued this in the following way: ‘I believe that we can work with the same person in different ways. […] And then we balance it’. It appeared to be important to have a balance between the functions, thus safeguarding all aspects of a pupil’s life through teamwork. This stance views separate counselling as positive yet with a holistic approach to counselling through extensive cooperation. The counsellors clarified this view in a focus group: ‘There can’t be watertight bulkheads because, […] it must be a collaboration. The fact that both [functions] may well join in when we have summoned a meeting and then get the overall picture [is crucial]’. These counsellors were concerned about how to collaborate to ensure a holistic approach; they presupposed that separate counselling denoted collaboration between functions.
At another school, they explained how they work: ‘We have our clear areas, but it is the sharing culture that is so important to be able to be together in holistic thinking’. Thus, these counsellors valued the need to see the whole pupil and were positive towards separate counselling. Yet this approach depended on collaboration and could lead to performing tasks not formally assigned to their function. In one focus group, a counsellor told us, ‘Pupil issues are often a volunteer job. Everyone must contribute. Often, you may need to do a thing that may not be within your job description. That’s because it’s no doubt who’s in focus: it is the pupil’. She valued separate services because ‘with separate counselling services, you get the opportunity to specialise in your field’. According to this, separate services can contribute to counteracting resource scarcity and creating room for personal development through interpretative flexibility. This suggests that separate counselling services with extensive collaboration can safeguard a holistic approach to counselling and pupils.
Separate counselling, a reductionistic approach
The third stance suggests that a separation of the services could shield career guidance from the extensive need for educational welfare guidance. This was one argument for separate counselling services in NOU 2016:7. Limited resources appeared to cause frustration amongst the counsellors, and separate counselling services were suggested as a possible solution. One counsellor addressed this in a focus group:
It [career guidance] does not get better until we separate the counselling services. […] as it [the resource situation] is now, I see no other solution than simply having to have waterproof bulkheads […] between the services [educational welfare and career guidance]. For here, one cannot manage to shield the career guidance at all as it is now – [with] emergency cases all the way within the educational welfare guidance.
His statement indicates an overwhelming workload within educational welfare guidance, and he was supported in the group discussion. Some informants expressed scepticism towards a holistic approach. This group argued that a counsellor does not need to know everything about a person to provide guidance. One career counsellor stated the following during a focus group:
It was good for them to come here just to talk about educational choice, not to talk about ‘how do you feel inside now’ […] that part was put away, so we only talked about their resources for further education.
The interviewee valued the opportunity to represent a place where the students could talk about their future in a positive setting without having to address other difficulties in their lives, which was understood as of little importance when it came to career guidance. She argued that a holistic approach should be voluntary and that a reductionistic approach is sometimes in the pupils’ best interest. Further, this argumentation promoted separating counselling services on the grounds of a need for professionalising the services. These counsellors were concerned about developing the skills and practices of counsellors. In a focus group, they argued, ‘We talk of professionalisation, you know. […] If we are going to get better in our functions, then of course we must have a separation. We cannot be equally good in both areas’. The reasoning was that the separation makes room for focus and professional development. Furthermore, as one participant stated, ‘You get more time for career guidance, you know… educational welfare guidance takes all the time and is very unpredictable’. This can also be connected to counsellors safeguarding their own work environments and mechanisms for handling extensive workloads.
Interpretative connections
Our findings indicate that negative or positive attitudes towards separate counselling can be explained by the combination of interpretations regarding the implications of separate counselling services for a holistic approach. Table
2 depicts the contextualised analysis of the holistic versus reductionistic approach to guidance in the context of separate or integrated services.
Table 2
Matrix for views on separate counselling services
Counselling approaches | | | |
Holistic approach | It is in the pupil’s best interest that one counsellor sees the whole of the pupil’s life. Therefore, we need integrated counselling services | | |
Collective holistic approach | | It is in the pupil’s best interest that an extended team sees the whole pupil. Therefore, we need separate counselling services with extensive collaboration | |
Reductionistic approach | | | It is in the pupil’s best interest to have a free space where they can talk of future career choices disconnected from all the bad things in life and to ensure that the resources for career guidance are not absorbed by other tasks. Therefore, we need to have separate services with only a minimum of collaboration |
As seen in Table
2, in the
first combination, the counsellors were negative towards separate counselling services and appeared to assume that this organisational form equals no collaboration between the various functions. This stance viewed integrated services as the only way to safeguard a holistic approach in the pupils’ best interests.
The second combination represents counsellors who were positive towards separate counselling but with extensive collaboration. They believed that several counsellors could collectively safeguard a holistic approach.
The third combination was counsellors who promoted separate counselling services, arguing that a reductionistic approach with room for focusing solely on career guidance was in the best interest of pupils.
Conclusion
In the current study, we have explored how counsellors interpret and understand the recommendations for separating counselling services in schools. Our findings reveal three different approaches to these recommendations. The approaches appear as different outcomes of counsellors in encounters with interpretative flexible policy recommendations. The counsellors utilise their positions as street-level bureaucrats in their processes of interpretation, responding to the recommendation based on their judgement of what is in their pupils’ best interest.
The present study was conducted in Norwegian schools. Hence, the specific characteristics of the Nordic context for guidance counselling may contain some limitations regarding the transferability of our findings. Further, participation was voluntary, and data were collected at a single point in time. Separate counselling services were only one part of the themes discussed in the focus group interviews. Thus, the current study might not capture every critical aspect of counsellors’ interpretations of separate counselling services.
Areas for further research are to further explore the concept of interpretative flexibility in relation to policy implementations and street-level bureaucracy; this could provide insights into how to ensure the effective implementation of policy recommendations. Another interesting topic for research is whether individual- or collective-oriented schools have significance for practice development and policy implementation. Implications for practice are that school leaders, counsellors and policy makers need to recognise the ambiguities between policy and ethical values in guidance counselling and consider how local characteristics such as collectiveness or individualisation in schools might affect interpretation and responses to new policy interventions. Finally, we suggest that the findings of the present study may be relevant for the current process of implementing a new quality framework (Haug et al.,
2019) for career guidance in Norwegian schools. This is because a successful implementation process would need to consider the interpretative flexibility of policy, counsellors’ professional and ethical values and the local school contexts for implementation, along with how these elements affect how politics become a practice in each school.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.