Overview of ethical considerations
 Case example: Korean female
international students
 Contributing factors including cultural
context
 How we handled
 Future Directions (e.g., prevention)
 Discussion

Confidentiality
 Selection/De-selection
 Multicultural populations

• Limits in groups (Yalom, 2005; Appelbaum & Greer, 1993)
• Fears about the lack of confidentiality
 Gossip
 Technological barriers
 Casual encounters
 Misunderstanding what is confidential
information
 Misunderstanding when information is
confidential (within group boundaries)

Good group therapy begins with good
client selections (Yalom, 2005, p. 231)
› “The great majority of clinicians do not select
for group therapy. Instead, they deselect” (p.
231).
› This process tends to be based on clinical
wisdom rather than empirically derived (Kincade,
2004)
Severe psychopathology
 Having a personality disorder
 Being actively suicidal
 Lack of fit with other members (Kincade, 2004)

Can be the ideal place to explore
concerns process experiences of
oppression and exclusion (Johnson, 2009; Lee, 1997)
 May be asked to be the “spokesperson” for
their group (Johnson, 2009)
 When the community is small, the group
members may see each other often (Lee, 1997)

 Similar to a small college or small town, when you
see another student frequently on campus, it is
difficult to reveal personal information in the group
(Kincade, 2004)
LGBT community
 International students from the same
countries
 Graduate students from the same
programs
 Individuals from the same residence hall
or hometown

Six South Korean women studying at U. of
Minn.; seeking services at UCCS
 Two open process groups; one
Assertiveness Workshop

› Potential members brought their concerns
about joining during screening
› Initial group meeting, appeared familiar with
each other
› Potentially transfer to alternate group;
Korean co-facilitator
A
Screened for WIG, wanted Grad Women
Screened for Grad Women– In
Mentioned B
B
Screened for Grad Women, wanted Grad Women or Assert
Mentioned A
Screened for Assertiveness Workshop – In
C
D
E
F
Screened for WIG – In
Was an older undergraduate
On first day of WIG, knew D. Decided to drop out. Considered
Discussed Conundrum in Group
USO group.
Sup
Screened for WIG – In
Discussed: will be other Korean in group during screening. Ok by
D
On
first day
WIG, knew C.– In
Decided to stay in WIG
Screened
forofAssertiveness
Despite the fact that 2 Korean women in Assertiveness
Workshop, the issue never came up. It seemed to be a safe
enough environment.
Screened for Grad Women
Asked if other Korean women in the group.
Said she was not willing to join such a group, decided to do
individual work
GWG
Asser
A
WIG
B
C
D
E
F
USO
Intern’s contribution to increasing
awareness of UCCS services within Korean
community
 Cohesion of Korean community
 Few Korean colleges; graduate students
likely already knew each other from their
undergraduate institutions in Korea
 Small general population in Korea; events
reported back become well-known in
community


Multiple sub-groups within Korean
community:
› Graduate / Undergraduate
› Asian-American / Korean International
› Independently financed / Scholarship
recipients
› Male / Female
No secret
 Gossip
 Saving face -> reputation as a
professional
 Double standard in dating -> reputation
as a potential marriage partner

› Expression of interest in two groups
› Preference for Grad Women’s group
› Self-chosen de-selection
› Preference for individual counseling
Importance of supervision and peer
consultation
 Use of Korean intern as our “bridgeperson”
 Confront assumptions about specific
communities
 Lack of conversation about group
therapy modality in multicultural training
 Raised ethical considerations otherwise
not discussed (i.e., confidentiality)


Address the issue within group screening

Questions of confidentiality/priming
Outreach to Korean communities on
campus
 Provide space at UCCS for social
gatherings/support
 International Student & Scholar
Services—collaborate to decrease
stigma

Reactions to case; critique of resolution
 Concerns with other populations
 Similar experiences at other campuses?
 Other service limitations
 Confidentiality issues
