Looking back on the two primary artifacts I selected for this PLO—the Professional Development Plan and the Elliott Case Study—what strikes me most is how clearly they showcase my growth, not only in my understanding of ethics but in my ability to communicate complex ideas with clarity and intention. When I revisited these documents, I had one of those humbling yet energizing moments where I could see just how far I’ve come. My writing is more succinct, my arguments more refined, and my professional identity far more integrated.

Both artifacts are rooted in ethical exploration. The Professional Development Plan (PDP) lays the foundation for a career path that must ethically navigate and distinguish between two overlapping but distinct fields: clinical mental health counseling and performance consulting. At the time of writing, I was grappling with whether these identities could coexist. That reflection process helped me recognize the value of honoring each path on its own terms. Now, as I prepare to begin the EdD in Sport and Performance Psychology with a Clinical Mental Health Counseling specialization, I see that early separation as an essential developmental step. It gave me the clarity to pursue both roles responsibly—especially knowing that I will earn my CMPC credential long before I am licensed to practice clinically.

The Elliott Case Study marked a different kind of ethical deepening. It gave me the chance to operationalize ethical reasoning through a specific scenario, using a structured framework. Revisiting it for this capstone, I brought my newly developed RISE model (Reflexive, Inclusive, Situated, Embodied) into the mix. Adding this dimension transformed the case study into something much richer. Rather than simply following a step-by-step ethical process, I now consider the complexity of context, lived experience, and embodied knowing. The RISE model (third artifact) is not just a new tool—it’s the embodiment of the practitioner I’ve become.

Together, these artifacts reflect both macro and micro growth. The PDP captures the big-picture ethical questions of scope, identity, and professional boundaries. The Elliott case study dives into the micro-level nuance of how we show up ethically in the room, with real people and real tensions.

In terms of revision, I made substantial improvements to both documents. While I didn’t receive formal feedback from instructors on the originals, I gave myself plenty of feedback as I reread them. For the PDP, I updated the language to reflect where I now stand in my career journey—emphasizing integration over separation, and adding recent developments like my CMHC enrollment and plans for licensure. For the Elliott case, I maintained the original structure but wove in RISE insights throughout, noting where my evolving model would lead to different questions or choices. I also added an appendix explaining the RISE model so that readers unfamiliar with it could follow along.

These artifacts now feel alive—no longer just assignments from earlier in the program, but living reflections of my professional evolution. They demonstrate not only that I can distinguish between ethical codes, but that I am developing a robust, nuanced, and personally aligned approach to ethical decision-making that will serve me across both domains of my future work.