The Future of Cross-Cultural Counseling: A Delphi Poll

The probable future of cross-cultural counseling, for the next 10 years, was predicted using the Delphi Method—the best available forecasting tool. A panel of 53 identified experts in the field of cross-cultural counseling completed a 49-item questionnaire that addressed future developments in the areas of theory and research, training and preparation, and social organization. Results indicated many probable changes in all areas and several areas that remain unclear for the next decade. Nominations for the current top cross-cultural training programs, journals, and books were also solicited, resulting in a strong consensus.     

HAVING KNOW‐HOW: INTELLECT,ACTION, AND RECENT WORK ON RYLE'S DISTINCTION BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE‐HOW AND KNOWLEDGE‐THAT

Stanley and Williamson reject Ryle's knowing‐how/knowing‐that distinction charging that it obstructs our understanding of human action. Incorrectly interpreting the distinction to imply that knowledge‐how is non‐propositional, they object that Ryle's argument for it is unsound and linguistic theory contradicts it. I show that they (and their interlocutors) misconstrue the distinction and Ryle's argument. Consequently, their objections fail. On my reading, Ryle's distinction pertains to, not knowledge, but an explanatory gap between explicit and implicit content, and his argument for it is sound. I defend the distinction's necessity in explaining human action and show that it propels a fruitful explanatory program.     

IN DEFENSE OF THE WHAT‐IT‐IS‐LIKENESS OF EXPERIENCE

It is common parlance among philosophers who inquire into the nature of consciousness to speak of there being something it is like for the subject of a mental state to be in it. The popularity of the ‘what‐it‐is‐like’ phrase stems, in part, from the assumption that it enables us to distinguish, in an intuitive and illuminating way, between conscious and unconscious mental states: conscious mental states, unlike unconscious mental states, are such that there is something it is like for their subjects to be in them. The ‘what‐it‐is‐like’ phrase, however, has not gone unopposed; some very clever philosophers have vigorously disputed it. Peter Hacker, for example, argues that the phrase should be abandoned because it is ungrammatical, and Paul Snowdon argues that it should be abandoned because the propositions expressed by its usage are either trivial or false. This paper mounts a case for the claim that neither of these conclusions is warranted. Against Hacker, it is argued that the arguments he produces for the ungrammaticality of the phrase are unpersuasive; and, against Snowdon, it is argued that he fails to consider a plausible and independently motivated interpretation of the phrase and that on this interpretation, the propositions expressed by its usage are nontrivially true.     

Development of the Multicultural Mental Health Awareness Scale

The present study describes the development of an instrument to assess the multicultural competencies of mental health professionals in Australia. The scale was developed to assess the effectiveness of a multicultural mental health training program. Mental health professionals from Queensland, Australia (N = 268) participated in the study by completing a questionnaire battery. Items on the new scale were generated to parallel the Queensland Transcultural Mental Health Centre (QTMHC) training program's objectives. The results describe a 35‐item Multicultural Mental Health Awareness Scale. Factor analysis of the scale indicated three factors of multicultural counselling competencies: Awareness, Knowledge, and Skills. These factors were in line with the Sue et al. (1982) multicultural counselling competencies. The scale has satisfactory internal consistency, test–retest reliability, concurrent validity, and discriminant validity and can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the multicultural competency training programs in mental health.     

The Personality Composition of Teams and Creativity: The Moderating Role of Team Creative Confidence

We examined the possibility that teams composed primarily of individuals with personality characteristics conducive to team creativity (e.g., high extraversion, high openness to experience, low conscientiousness, high neuroticism, low agree‐ableness) would show synergistic increases in creativity when they experienced high levels of “team creative confidence”, a shared understanding that the team is more creative than each team member individually. We tested these hypotheses using a sample of 145 three‐student teams that worked on a set of idea generation tasks at Time 1 (T1) and a second set two weeks later at Time 2 (T2). As expected, results of cross‐lagged regression analysis indicated that when team creative confidence at T1 was high, team creativity at T2 increased quadratically as the number of team members who scored high on extraversion, high on openness, or low on conscientiousness increased. However, the number of individuals composing a team who scored high on neuroticism or low on agree‐ableness had no relation to team creativity under conditions of high or low team creative confidence. Implications of these results for the design of creative teams are discussed.     

Does Cost Effectiveness Analysis Unfairly Discriminate against People with Disabilities?

Cost effectiveness analysis is a tool for evaluating the aggregate benefits of medical treatments, health care services, and public health programs. Its opponents often claim that its use leads to unfair discrimination against people with disabilities. My aim in this paper is to clarify the conditions under which this might be so. I present some ways in which the use of cost effectiveness analysis can lead to discrimination and suggest why these forms of discrimination may be unfair. I also discuss some proposals for avoiding discrimination without rejecting cost effectiveness analysis altogether. I argue that none of these proposals is ultimately convincing. I describe a different approach to the problem and conclude by answering the question in the title.