>Ian
> I agree with Sue on this (in fact I suspect we are all in broad
> agreement). This debate seems to be about what is
> appropriate/best training for counsellors and and what the
> requirements are for a good counsellor. Pity this debate wasn't
> more open over the last few years when BACP, UKCP and
> others were making recommendations for legislation.
I suspect that this debate is why Lord Alderdyce and others have not yet
been successful in regulating the psychotherapies and related
professions.
>
> This is a wide-ranging debate which raises questions I don't
> have answers for.
>
> Some of the ones which spring immediately to mind are:
>
> 1. If personal qualities such as emotional maturity, intelligence
> and erudition are so important, why do BACP/UKCP and
> course-providers allow accreditation without attempting to
> measure those qualities?
I am not sure whether this is the case. I know that the BPS requires
regular reports from supervisors and others about trainees' work and,
implicitly, about emotional maturity, etc. I suspect that supervisors'
reports serve the same purpose within the BACP and UKCP.
>
> 2. Counselling theories are often, IMHO, heavily dependant on
> gaining acceptance thru' the logical fallacy of 'argument from
> authority' (i.e. a lot of unsubstantiated hypotheses are backed by
> the reputation of the originator, not objective supporting data.
> For example, I don't know of any real evidence to support Object
> Theory).
> However, since we don't have (and probably CANNOT have)
> objective measurements of therapeutic outcomes, we have to
> measure the validity of theories on their internal logic and our 'gut
> feeling'. Where does that leave the standing of
> counselling/therapy as an academic endeavour?
I know that some people would argue that we can have objective
measurements about therapeutic outcomes, such as clients' functioning
after successful therapy. I measure success or failure of my approaches
by more than gut feeling and internal logic - I have to account for what
I did, why I did it and how and why I think it worked (yes, in terms of
theory) to my supervisors and, as I said in an earlier email, to some of
the people who pay for my services. And because I am learning that the
approaches espoused by certain theories fit best with me (in that
clients and I can use them effectively because, among other things, I
feel comfortable about offering them to clients) I am more aware of when
my practice is informed by theory.
>
> As one of the original providers of Open Learning when it was
> still experimental, I have deep suspicions about professions
> which limit membership through mechanisms of cost, time,
> duration and conventionally demonstrable academic
> prerequisites. It seems far more sensible to provide flexible,
> affordable training where qualification is obtained through
> achieving the required knowledge and qualities, ensuring these
> are measured at a high standard.
I definitely agree. But how would you measure them, and how would the
standard be defined?
>
> 4. If a very broad range of theoretical knowledge IS a
> requirement, where does that leave practioners who do not use
> an eclectic approach, but focus their studies within a single
> theory? Replies from traditional psychoanalysts, Gestaltists, TA
> therapist and other would be interesting.
You have pointed up an important difference here between accreditation
requirements for theoretical knowledge as opposed to what might go on in
a person's practice. At the beginning of my training I was required to
have an in-depth knowledge of one core, theory-informed approach and
show evidence that I could practice that. Further down the line I am
expected to have the knowledge of at least three and to be able to
demonstrate that I can work with more than one. This seems to me to be
sensible. I am (I hope!) growing in experience all the time and am
learning all the time. My supervisors come from different core
disciplines from mine. I can hardly help taking on board what I learn
from them in supervision and blending this with my own way of being as a
counsellor. So, I still practice predominantly from within my core
approach - but I have to demonstrate knowledge of the theory of at least
three. I would call my practice integrative rather than eclectic.
Having said that, I know of quite a few counsellors who do practice
totally within one core theoretical approach. The main argument in
favour of this is that such a practitioner can achieve a considerable
level of expertise. And I would imagine that such practitioners are
well-informed about other theories regardless of whether they practice
them.
>
Sue
Sue Vogel, BA., MSc., C.Psychol.,
1 to 1 Counselling Service
25 Spenser Road
BEDFORD MK40 2AZ
and at
15 St Cuthberts Street
BEDFORD MK40 3JB
Tel: (01234) 341103
Fax: (01234) 308120
HOME PAGE: http://www.susan0.demon.co.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This communication contains information which is
confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the
exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are
not the intended recipient(s) then you are notified that any
form of distribution, copying or use of this communication
or the information in any files which may be attached to it is
strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received
this communication in error, please return it to the
senders and then delete the email and destroy any copies of it.
1 to 1 Counselling Service is not responsible for any changes
made to this email after it was sent, nor for any loss or damage
arising from its receipt or use.
We accept no responsibiity for viruses and it is your responsibility
to scan any attachments.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|