Community-school collaborations: community counsellors’ perceptions of school counselling in Singapore

ABSTRACT

School counselling is not an isolated school-based intervention but rather as part of a more holistic social wellbeing system where there are many stakeholders. Studies have examined students’, school counsellors’, teachers’, and administrators’ perceptions of school counselling. Research that focuses on the perceptions of community counsellors of school counselling is rare. This paper reports on a quantitative survey study of community counsellors’ perceptions in Singapore. Findings indicate some expectations such as school counsellors could offer some family counselling and perceptions such as confidentiality could be strengthened in schools, were widely held among community counsellors. Findings also suggest deeper understanding of both school and community counsellors’ perceptions is needed to strengthen collaboration for better mental health support for children and youths.

KEYWORDS:

• School counselling
• community-based counsellors
• stakeholders’ perceptions

Introduction

School counselling is a growing service across many developing countries (Harris, 2013; Pham & Akos, 2020). Previous local and overseas studies have examined students, school counsellors, teachers, and education administrators’ perceptions of school counselling services (Alghamdi & Riddick, 2011; Aluede & Egbochuku, 2009; Chen & Kok, 2015; Hamilton-Roberts, 2012; Harris, 2009; Khansa, 2015; Lau, 2009; Low, 2014, 2015a, 2015b; Quinn & Chan, 2009). However, research that examines the perceptions of community counsellors of school counselling is rare.

School counsellors are a part of a larger professional community of mental health practitioners that includes psychologists, social workers and counsellors, especially those in the community where their schools are sited. Peers and fellow professionals provide an important, readily available support network for school counsellors (Bunce & Willower, 2001; McMahon & Patton, 2001). These stakeholders’ perceptions are important to school counsellors as they influence the level and quality of collaboration and information sharing between them (Low, 2015b)

A key premise of the paper is that understanding the perceptions of community counsellors is critical in providing a holistic and seamless service to the important and vulnerable demographic of young people at school. Further that by understanding the perceptions of key stakeholders and their role perception will help inform policy and service delivery modelling while avoiding duplication and confusion for clients and their families.

Literature review

Counselling practice operating within schools must be responsive to changes in society at large and the communities and regions in which they operate. These changes influence the nature of presenting problems, clients (students and parents), as well as support networks, thus posing significant challenges to school counsellors (Low, 2009). Indeed, from time to time, school counsellors may be required to interact beyond the school with other sub-systems such as the legal and healthcare systems (Low, 2009). This is especially so when students or clients are involved in crimes, have ‘at risk’ behaviours, face exponential increases in anxiety and depression or require mental health assistance for other related conditions. As such, school counselling interacts with many complimentary systems and professionals outside the school. Therefore, the development of school counselling practice needs to be holistic and informed by the perceptions and input of its key stakeholders.

For densely populated cities such as Singapore, schools are often well positioned in the neighbourhoods alongside other public, healthcare, and social services. School counselling often works in tandem with the community-based or voluntary welfare organizations in providing seamless service provision and practical help to families in the school community. These include over 50 Family Service Centres (FSCs), community counselling and youth centres scattered across the city.

Like Low’s study (2014), the term ‘community counsellor’ is used to refer specifically to a counselling practitioner working in a FSCs. In addition, counsellors in counselling and youth centres were included to broaden the base and to generate a more complete picture.

Shaw (2003) describes the emphasis on seamless delivery of services for children through partnerships between schools, voluntary organizations, business, and parents. Perceptions of counsellors in these diverse, yet complimentary segments of society are important, as close collaboration is essential for such seamless service delivery from both the community and schools as a holistic response to the counselling needs of children.

One of the critical issues related to the seamless delivery of counselling services and school-community collaboration is confidentiality (Thielking et al., 2018). Perception of how confidentiality is practiced is influential to overall collaborative behaviours of practitioners as well as organizations involved. For the purposes of this study, confidentiality is understood as not disclosing any information, documents, notes, photographs, or such materials that contain clients’ information without client’s consent unless required by law or in the cause of protecting clients from harm (Singapore Association for Counselling, 2018).

Given the close relationship between community counselling and school counselling and the rarity of research reporting on community counsellor perceptions, the purpose of the paper is to deepen the understanding of and inform the integration of this service not only in schools but also the communities with which they interact.

The current study

The current study aims to further the Low’s (2014) work which explored Singapore community counsellors’ perceptions on school counselling through a qualitative study. He highlighted several key themes including school counsellors’ involvement in family work, concerns over confidentiality in schools, school counsellors’ knowledge on community resources. To answer the overarching question of whether these findings on community counsellor’s perceptions of school counselling are shared by the broader population of community counsellors in Singapore, the current study was carried out to obtain a more representative view of community-based counsellors’ opinions on the themes reported, using a quantitative approach. The following research questions guided the enquiry based on the qualitative findings reported by Low’s (2014). The current study also tried to better understand the perceptions by exploring the relationships (if any) between the perceptions surrounding these questions.

RQ1 -

Is confidential information derived from counselling shared more freely in the school context as compared to in a community agency?

RQ2 -

How confident are community-based counsellors in sharing confidential case information with school counsellors?

RQ3 -

To what degree do community-based counsellors feel that school counsellors should do family counselling?

RQ4 -

How confident are community-based counsellors that school counsellors have good working knowledge of community resources available?

Methods

The study was confirmatory and adopted a quantitative approach. The purpose of the research was to determine to what extent Low’s (2014) results could be confirmed or otherwise by a more representative sample of the population. In so doing, external validity may be increased based on the statistical power of the sample.

A questionnaire survey with 14 items including demographics was used. The survey questions were derived mostly derived from the results of Low’s (2014) qualitative study results. After an initial pilot survey, an online survey format was adopted and deployed via a purposive sampling approach including a snowballing sampling procedure over a period of 2 months. Table 1 lists all the questions posed in the survey, except for question 8 which was an open-ended input item. It was estimated that there are approximately 700 community-based counsellors in family service centres, community-based counselling centres and other service providers such as youth services across Singapore at the time of the survey. The sample has the characteristics of the overall population.

Table 1. List questions in the survey.

Q1	Do school counsellors work with students’ families
Q2	Do school counsellors provide counselling for students’ families
Q3	Do you think school counsellor should offer family counselling?
Q4	In the school setting, information gathered during counselling is treated with strict confidence
Q5	Do you think a different standard of confidentiality should apply to counselling work in the school setting as compared to other sectors (i.e. healthcare, social care)
Q6	Do you feel confident in sharing confidential information about student/families with a school counsellor when needed?
Q7	Do school counsellors have a good knowledge of community resources
Q9	How often do you work with the school counselling service
Q10	How long have you been involved in counselling work in the community/family sector?
Q11	Your Gender
Q12	Your highest education level attained in counselling/social work/psychology or related field
Q13	Type of Community Services you are working in
Q14	Have you ever performed counselling in a school setting before? If yes, in what capacity?

Respondents

Purposive sampling of these practitioners attracted 90 community-based counsellors valid complete responses (n = 90). This translates to a response rate almost 13% of the estimated population. An analysis of the observed statistical power (Wilks Lambda at 0.95 confidence level) represented by the sample was 0.973. The data was screened for missing values, outliers, and abnormal distributions. An analysis of P-P plots, skewness and kurtosis confirmed that the data was normally distributed, and no cases were deleted or transformed.

Table 2 provides an overview of the demographic information of the survey respondents. 74.4% of the respondents were female and 60% of all the respondents have postgraduate training. The gender distribution seems consistent with that observed among social care professionals. 58.9% were working in family service centres, a further 4.4% and 17.8% were working in community counselling centres or youth services respectively. In terms of experience working within a school setting, 58.9% reported that they never had the experience. 31.1% reported that they had some exposure as counselling staff sent into schools for a short period of time as part of school social work-type engagement.

Table 2. Respondents’ demographic data n = 90.

	Male		Female		Did not disclose
Gender	21(23%)		67(74%)		2 (3%)
	Diploma		Degree	Postgraduate	Others
Highest Educational Qualifications	1(1%)		30 (33%)	54(60%)	5(6%)
	Family Service Ctr		Counselling Ctr		Youth Ctr	Others
Types of Community Services	53(59%)		4(4%)		16(18%)	17(19%)
	School Counsellor		Part time Social Worker/Counsellor (Special School)		Social Work/Counselling Exp. in school as an external vendor	No School Counselling Exp.
	F/T	P/T
Prior Involvement in School Counselling	5(6%)	3(3%)	1(1%)		28(31%)	53(59%)

66.7% reported that they worked with school counsellors once a month. A further 7.8% and 6.7% indicated once a fortnight and once a week respectively. Of the respondents, 55.2%, 22.2% and 15.6% have been involved in community-based counselling work for periods of between 1 and 5 years, 6–10 years and 11–15 years, respectively.

Results: descriptive statistics

An analysis of descriptive statistics was conducted including of the mean, standard deviation (SD) and frequencies. These are presented in Table 3. Q8 was an open-ended question, hence not reported in this analysis.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics.

Q1. Do school counsellors work with students’ families?
Not at all	Rarely	Sometimes	Most of the time	All the time
2(2.22%)	25(27.78%)	51(56.67%)	11(12.22%)	1(1.11%)
M = 2.82, Mdn = 3, SD = 0.71
Q2. Do school counsellors provide counselling for student’s families?
Not at all	Rarely	Sometimes	Most of the time	All the time
35(38.89%)	36(40%)	17(18.89%)	1(1.11%)	1(1.11%)
M = 1.86, Mdn = 2, SD = 0.84
Q3. Do you think school counsellors should offer family counselling?
No	Probably Not	Not Sure	Maybe	Yes
10(11.11%)	6(6.67%)	4(4.44%)	26(28.89%)	44(48.89%)
M = 3.98, Mdn = 4, SD = 1.35
Q4. In the school setting, information gathered during counselling is treated with strict confidence.
Not at all	Rarely	Sometimes	Most of the time	All the time
3(3.33%)	12(13.33%)	34(37.78%)	27(30%)	14(15.56%)
M = 3.41, Mdn = 3, SD = 1.02
Q5. Do you think a different standard of confidentiality should apply to counselling work in the school setting as compared to other sectors (i.e healthcare, social care)?
No	Probably Not	Not Sure	Maybe	Yes
37(41.11%)	12(13.33%)	6(6.67%)	18(20%)	17(18.89%)
M = 2.62, Mdn = 2, SD = 1.62
Q6. Do you feel confident in sharing confidential information about student/families with a school counsellor when needed?
Not at all	A little	Somewhat	Mostly	Extremely
4(4.44%)	18(20%)	34(37.78%)	27(30%)	7(7.78%)
M = 3.17, Mdn = 3, SD = 0.99
Q7. Do school counsellors have a good knowledge of community resources available?
Not at all	Little	Some	Good	Very Good
8(10%)	21(23.33%)	41(45.56%)	18(18.89%)	2(2.22%)
M = 2.8, Mdn = 3, SD = 0.94
Q9. How often do you work with the school counselling service?
Monthly	Fortnightly	Weekly	Every other day	Everyday
60(66.67%)	7(7.78%)	6(6.67%)	11(12.22%)	6(6.67%)
M = 1.81, Mdn = 1, SD = 1.35
Q10. How long have you been involved in counselling work in the community/family service sector?
1–5 years	6–10 years	11–15 years	16–20 years	>20 years
50(55.56%)	20(22.22%)	14(15.56%)	4(4.44%)	2(2.22%)
M = 1.76, Mdn = 1, SD = 1.02

Q8 is an open-ended question, not reported in this table.

Of the community-based counsellors surveyed, 56.7% were of the view that school counsellors work with students’ families some of the time. A further 27.8% felt that rarely happens (M = 2.8 (sometimes) and SD = 0.71). On whether school counsellors provided counselling for students’ families, 40% indicated that they felt that it rarely takes place and a further 38.9% went further to indicate they felt school counsellors never provide counselling for students’ families (M = 1.8 (rarely) and SD = 0.84). When asked if school counsellors should provide family counselling, 48.9% indicated clear affirmation, 28.9% accepted the possibility. Only 11.1% clearly indicated disagreement. The mean and standard deviation suggests that the sample generally agreed (M = 4 (maybe) and SD = 1.3).

On the topic of confidentiality of information in schools, 37.8% of the respondents felt that strict confidentiality was observed only some of the times. However, 30% felt that it was observed ‘most of the time’ and 15.6% reported ‘all the time’. The mean and standard deviation suggested that strict confidentiality was observed sometimes (M = 3.4 and SD = 1.0). When asked if a different standard of confidentiality should be applied in schools, 41.1% was against the idea while 18.9% agreed that a different standard should be applied. The mean suggests that the sample were generally unsure (M = 2.6 and SD = 1.6).

37.8% of the community-based counsellor respondents reported that they are somewhat confident in sharing confidential information with school counsellors in the course of work. 30% reported that they are mostly confident and a further 7.8% was extremely confident. However, 20% was only a little confident and 4% report to be not confident to do so (M = 3.2 (somewhat) and SD = 1.0).

45.6% of the respondent felt that school counsellors have some knowledge of community resources, a further 18.9% felt they have good knowledge while 23.3% felt they have little. 10% felt that school counsellors lacked knowledge in this area (M = 2.8 (some knowledge) and SD = 0.9).

Correlation analysis

Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was computed to assess whether there was a statistically significant relationship between the responses (perceptions) to the survey items at the 0.99 and 0.95 confidence levels. With reference to the correlations presented in Table 4 above, the following was observed.

Table 4. Correlation matrix.

	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q9	Q10	Q11	Q12	Q13	Q14
Q1	1	.462	−.063	.056	.048	.219	.400	.181	.11	.021	−.075	.362	.037
Q2	.462	1	.096	−.035	−.049	.165	.333	0	−.068	−.108	−.111	.103	.003
Q3	−.063	.096	1	.13	.022	.265	.032	−.292	−.241	.155	.006	−.101	.085
Q4	.056	−.035	.13	1	−.021	.570	.240	−.207	−.347	−.028	−.111	−.034	.189
Q5	.048	−.049	.022	−.021	1	−.009	−.087	.009	−.084	.103	−.144	.061	.009
Q6	.219*	.165	.265	.570	−.009	1	.364	−.065	−.149	.078	−.106	.115	.14
Q7	.400	.333	.032	.240	−.087	.364	1	−.025	−.099	−.098	.114	.332	−.058
Q9	.181	0	−.292	−.207	.009	−.065	−.025	1	.168	.181	.068	.232	−.053
Q10	.11	−.068	−.241	−.347	−.084	−.149	−.099	.168	1	.08	.325	.127	−.153
Q11	.021	−.108	.155	−.028	.103	.078	−.098	.181	.08	1	−.029	−.032	.274
Q12	−.075	−.111	.006	−.111	−.144	−.106	.114	.068	.325	−.029	1	.078	−.204
Q13	.362	.103	−.101	−.034	.061	.115	.332	.232	.127	−.032	.078	1	−.221
Q14	.037	.003	.085	.189	.009	.14	−.058	−.053	−.153	.274	−.204	−.221	1

Q8 is an open-ended question, not reported in this table.

Positive statistically significant (CI: 0.99) correlations were observed between the responses to Q1 (Do school counsellors work with students’ families) and responses to three other questions: Q2 (Do school counsellors provide counselling for students’ families), [r = 0.462, n = 90, p = .001], Q7 (Do school counsellors have a good knowledge of community resources), [r = 0.400, n = 90, p = .001], Q13 (Type of Community Services you are working in), [r = 0.362, n = 90, p = .001].

A positive statistically significant (CI: 0.99) correlation was observed between the responses to Q2 (Do school counsellors provide counselling for students’ families) and responses to Q7 (Do school counsellors have a good knowledge of community resources), [r = 0.333, n = 90, p = .001].

A positive statistically significant (CI: 0.99) correlation was observed between the responses to Q4 (In the school setting, information gathered during counselling is treated with strict confidence) and Q6 (Do you feel confident in sharing confidential information about student/families with a school counsellor when needed?), [r = 0.570, n = 90, p = .001].

On the other hand, a negative statistically significant (CI: 0.99) correlation was also observed between the responses to Q4 (In the school setting, information gathered during counselling is treated with strict confidence) and Q10 (How long have you been involved in counselling work in the community/family sector?), [r = −0.347, n = 90, p = .001]. No correlation was observed between the responses to Q5 and all other questions.

Positive statistically significant (CI: 0.95* or 0.99**) correlations were observed between the responses to Q6 (Do you feel confident in sharing confidential information about student/families with a school counsellor) and responses to Q7** (Do school counsellors have a good knowledge of community resources), [r = 0.364, n = 90, p = .001].

Positive statistically significant (CI: 0.95* or 0.99**) correlations were observed between the responses to Q7 (Do school counsellors have a good knowledge of community resources) and responses to Q13** (Type of Community Services you are working in), [r = 0.332, n = 90, p = .001].

A positive statistically significant (CI: 0.99) correlation was observed between the responses to Q10 (How long have you been involved in counselling work in the community/family sector?) and Q12 (Your highest education level attained in counselling/social work/psychology or related field), [r = 0.325, n = 90, p = .001].

Finally, a positive statistically significant (CI: 0.99) correlation was observed between the responses to Q14 (Have you ever performed counselling in a school setting before? If yes, in what capacity?) and Q11 (Your Gender), [r = 0.274, n = 90, p = .001].

Discussion

As illustrated in Table 1(a–d), respondents were mostly community-based counsellors working in family service centres, with postgraduate education, have a reasonable amount of experience in the field and work regularly with the school counselling service. The following section discusses the results and highlights the findings with reference to the research questions of the survey study.

Sharing confidential information

About 16% of the community-based counsellors surveyed felt that strict confidentiality was rarely or never observed in schools. A further one-third only observed that in schools some of the time. However, it is noteworthy that over 45% of the respondents felt that strict confidentiality was observed either most or all the time in schools. It appears that community-based counsellors seem divided on their observations of the current situation. This could be the result of inconsistent confidentiality practice in different schools that in turn varied the experiences community-based counsellors had with the school counselling service with regard to confidentiality and information sharing.

Related to the issue of confidentiality, most community-based counsellors (41.1%) clearly objected to the idea that a different standard of confidentiality should be applied in schools with 18.9% agreeing that a different standard should apply. When it comes to sharing confidential information, 37.8% reported to be somewhat confident and a further 30% mostly confident. Nevertheless, 24% were only a little confident or not confident to do so. It appears that community-based counsellors as a whole, were not extremely confident in sharing information with their counterparts in schools.

Not unexpectedly, a strong positive correlation was found in community-based counsellors’ responses to whether they felt strict confidentiality was observed in school and whether they felt confident in sharing information with school counsellors. This finding suggests that there was a close relationship between how community-based counsellors view the level of confidentiality held in the school context and how confident they feel in sharing information with their counterparts there. Given that the sharing and exchange of relevant information is critical in school–community partnership among counsellors and other care professionals (Lamont-Mills et al., 2018; Lim & Wong, 2018; Low, 2019), the current lack of confidence to share information is indeed a concern for all stakeholders involved. This warrants further research as well as practical interventions within schools and in the community to facilitate greater confidence in sharing of information among stakeholders.

A noteworthy observation was that a negative correlation was established between how much a community-based counsellor felt information was treated with strict confidentiality and how long they have been involved in counselling work in the community. One possible explanation for this observation could be that more experienced community-based counsellors could have been in the sector longer and have had experience with school counselling at its very early stage of implementation during which confidentiality may not be highly valued in the school context then (Low, 2014). In addition, community-based counsellors who have been longer in the field may hold higher expectations in terms of confidentiality in their peers, in both the community and inside schools. As highlighted in the preceding sub-section, the uneven spread of perceptions is more notable in this area. Consequently, the case for further research into the nature, quality, frequency and other factors relating to community-based counsellors’ interaction with school counsellors is increasingly justified.

Family counselling in schools

It appeared that community-based counsellors felt that school counsellors only work with students’ families some of the time and that family counselling was rarely offered. They were also positive that family counselling could be provided by counsellors in schools. Almost 78% of the respondents supported the idea. This represents community-based counsellors’ expectations for school counsellors to also cover some aspects of family counselling in their work to include students’ families.

Moderate positive correlation was registered between the perception of school counsellors’ work including students’ families and whether they ought to provide family counselling. This further suggests that community-based counsellors see family counselling as one of the main services school counsellors could and should provide when working with parents.

The clear indication of community-based counsellors’ agreement that family counselling should be provided in school and that the majority actually supported the idea, suggests that further policy and practice adjustments may be warranted. Taken together with Low’s (2014) qualitative study as well as 2013) review, one can conclude that school-based family counselling is considered a probable option by community-based counsellors in Singapore. Examples of a school-based family counselling or a close school–community partnership in serving families are noted elsewhere around the world (Gerrard, 2008; Ghaith, et. al, 2012; Kok & Low, 2017).

Low’s (2014) provided some reasons for such keen demand in Singapore. These include that community-based counsellors view that school as the natural environment to work with families as many parents are already engaged with school personnel in education or behavioural matters and family members may feel less stigmatized to visit a school as compared to visiting a counselling or family service centre, often associated with financial and other social issues.

However, the earlier study also highlighted some barriers. These include school’s operating hours and whether the school can be a ‘neutral place’ for family counselling. These may have held some community-based counsellors back when asked if they agreed that family counselling should be provided in schools.

Findings from both the early study (Low, 2014) and the current study provides evidence suggesting that community-based counsellors support the idea that school counsellors should provide family counselling. The current study’s findings not only found that this sentiment enjoys relatively broad support but that it was spread unevenly among community-based counsellors.

The negative correlation found between community-based counsellors’ frequency of working with school counselling service and whether they feel school counsellors should provide family counselling suggests that community-based counsellors’ encounters with the school counselling service influenced their perceptions. The manner and nature in which these encounters influence perceptions seem to be a worthwhile and fertile area for future research.

Knowledge of community resources

An associated finding was also observed in how community-based counsellors evaluated school counsellors’ knowledge of community resources available such as family service centres, youth services, child protection services and social assistance. Almost half (45.6%) felt school counsellors only have some knowledge, a further 18.9% felt that they have good knowledge. However, about one in three (33.3%) felt that they have little to no knowledge. The mixed responses could be attributed to the differing experiences community-based counsellors had with different school counsellors. This is particularly plausible as some school counsellors have worked in community settings before while some have not. Those who had may have brought with them relatively good knowledge of community resources as compared to those without. Further, one can also speculate that community-based counsellors’ expectations on school counsellors’ knowledge of community resources also differ one from another.

However, the indication that about one in three community-based counsellors surveyed felt that school counsellors lack knowledge on community resources is worrying. Indeed, this supported Low’s (2014) findings in Singapore that highlighted community-based counsellors’ desire for school counsellors to know more about community resources and services. This further supports the idea of further developing seamless school-community collaboration.

Conclusion

Overall, the results suggest that community-based counsellors felt that their counterparts in schools could offer more family counselling. Also, that while school-based counsellors already have some knowledge, they could become more familiar with community resources. In addition, community-based counsellors were somewhat but not fully confident in sharing confidential information with school counsellors.

These results support that of an earlier qualitative study (Low, 2014) which found that community-based counsellors were concerned about maintenance of confidentiality standards in schools and felt that their counterparts in schools lacked knowledge about community resources. In addition, the survey findings also confirm the observation of the earlier qualitative study that community-based counsellors believed that school counsellors could also provide family counselling services as a way of providing holistic and seamless services delivery. Given that Singapore had recently announced a further investment in community-based family counselling (Menon, 2021), it would seem to be an opportune time for counsellors in schools and in the community to converge and organize the further of family counselling between these two important settings for children and young people.

A notable additional insight from the current study relevant to community-based counsellors’ perceptions is that their views on the three key areas (Family counselling, Confidentiality, and knowledge of community resources) were variably distributed suggesting that the perceptions were not hegemonic. There were also signs that suggest this unevenness may be associated with differences among community-based counsellors’ experience with the school counselling service i.e. positive versus negative experiences, frequency of interaction and duplication of services. Consequently, these findings give rise to the possibility of future research studying the links between the frequency and quality of interactions between counsellors in schools and in the community and their impacts on their perceptions. Further, a similar survey study should be conducted related to the perception of school-based counsellors as a comparative analysis to those reported here.

Acknowledgments

Approval given by the University of Southern Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee for the project on ‘From a distance: Community Counsellors’ perceptions of school counselling in Singapore. Ref: H16REA153. Approval granted on 31/08/16 until 31/08/2019.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Poi Kee Low

Dr Poi Kee Low is an Associate Professor in the School of Social and Health Sciences at James Cook University Singapore. His research interests include interdisciplinary collaborations in social care and school counselling, counselling for vulnerable groups and refugees’ education and mental well-being. He is registered Psychologist, Counsellor and Social Service Practitioner in Singapore. He is also a Chartered Psychologist and Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society.

Luke van der Laan

Dr Luke van der Laan is an Associate Professor in the School of Humanities and Communication at the University of Southern Queensland, Australia. His research interests include professional cognitive abilities and work-based learning higher degree methodologies and research.