Increased mobility is a fact of life thanks to advancements in travel and communication. These advancements have facilitated mobility not only with our national borders, but also across them.
 
For mobile counsellors relocating within the United States the process of gaining or transferring recognition by a state licensure board or state Department of Public Instruction (DPI) can be laborious, time consuming, expensive, and frustrating. These difficulties are compounded for counsellors trained in other parts of the world coming to the U.S. and for U.S.- trained counsellors who wish to practice in another country. This article identifies ways the counselling profession might be proactive in addressing credential and education recognition in the international context.

COUNSELLOR CREDENTIALING
Counsellor credentialing around the world has many variations. To be recognized as a professional counsellor in the U.S., one must demonstrate completion of specific coursework within a recognized master’s degree and a subsequent period of supervised practice. These requirements are a reflection of our culture’s expectations. Similarly, our counterparts in other countries may be credentialed upon meeting requirements in their home country (Bond et al., 2001). For example, a counsellor in Mexico is likely licensed as a psychologist upon completion of bachelor’s level studies and a thesis. Therefore, practitioners engaged in similar work in different countries face remarkably different requirements from country to country.

A collective counseling profession may be the answer to addressing the barriers we face as mobility of professionals increases. Looking at our own mobility problems gives us some perspective in tackling the complications of crossing international borders as professional counsellors.

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSE
Two evocative responses to the problem of credentialing across international borders are the establishment of “common space” educational and training agreements and the establishment of an agency to serve as an international repository of training equivalencies.

In essence, “common space” education and training agreements constitute the recognition of core training experiences by professional counterparts in different nations (Crespo, 2003). While it may be difficult to identify culturally universal core courses for the helping professions, opening this dialogue would be a definitive step toward development of jointuniversity programs.

Creation of an agency dedicated to comparing training and practice requirements is a possibility for the counselling profession. A framework is being established by the American Association of State Counseling Boards (AASCB) for a registry that will make education and experience documentation available to select states (AASCB, 2004). Additionally, other professions such as the medical profession have an existing entity, the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG), which is charged with comparing entry requirements across borders in an effort to facilitate advancement to residency (supervised practice) or into the workforce. These models could assist the counseling profession in addressing problems with professional recognition.

As professionals we should welcome the opportunity to be proactive in addressing globalization’s inevitable exchange of professionals. We can see the changing world and know that changing patterns of mobility in our profession are inevitable. 

REFERENCES
American Association of State Credentialing Boards. (2004). AASCB National Credential Registry. Greensboro, NC: Author.

Bond, T.; Lee, C.C.; Lowe, R.; Margarita Malayapillay, A.E.; Wheeler, S.; Banks, A.; Kurdt, K.; Mercado, M.M.; and Smiley, E. (2001). The nature of counseling: An investigation of counseling activity in selected countries. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 23, 245-260.

Crespo, I. (2003). Evaluación de la calidad y acreditación en la educación superior en el Espacio Común de Educación Superior Unión Europea, América Latina, y Caribe. In ANECA (Ed.), Evaluación de la calidad y acreditación. Madrid: ANECA.