My main problem with the 'graduate only' approach is that it is actually a
post-graduate approach. In what way does a degree in some other subject
enable one to be a better counsellor? Does it not run the risk of
counselling becoming a profession solely for the middle-class and well off
(given the huge costs)? True, the theoretical basis for some diploma
courses is woefully inadequate. But to what extent is this calling a
science rather than an art? Is not the overwhelming evidence that the
effectiveness of therapy is dependent on the success of the therapeutic
relationship (rather than the underlying theoretical approach) and that this
mainly arises from the personal qualities of the therapist?
I'm afraid that 'professionalisation' is too often about the practitioners'
need for status rather than actual effectiveness.
Ian.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion on theoretical and research issues in counselling
> psychology [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Paul Carney
> Sent: 16 June 2001 19:49
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> There is a place for training at all levels of 'education',
> without restricting it to any given level. To argue that
> 'academia' is a bad thing is rubbishing the research and other
> material that came out of such a background. We should also
> recognise that most of the 'founders' of therapy were
> 'academics' of one sort or another. I'm actually not sure what
> the 'beef' is about 'professionalisation'. If you mean making
> the entry gate harder for people to enter then I would agree
> that it's a problem, but for me it's also about ensuring that
> the standards of training and education, and by that the
> standard of pracice is safe and adequate for the job. I doubt
> that we would want to go to a doctor who had only served an
> apprenticeship (as in days of old) so I can't actually see why
> we would want to have people that are not equally as well
> trained to give counsel.
>
> I appreciate that, as an 'academic' I have a personal interest
> here, but I think that too often the world of academia is seen
> as bad for no apparent valid reason. My personal belief is that
> we need to become more 'professional' -- as a member of the
> sanctions panel for BACP, an ex-adjudicator, and an ex-member of
> the complaints committee, and the Standards and Ethics
> Committee, I have seen too many practitioners who were woefully
> inadequately prepared to act as counsellors. While I recognise
> that a professional standard of training in itself will not
> guarantee 'excellence', I believe that we have to grasp the
> nettle and ensure that we install adequate levels of training
> and education for oiurselves. If we don't then others WILL do it
> for us.
>
> Sorry if I sound as if I'm on my 'high horse', but I am. 8-)
> The solution to 'professionalisation' was in my opinion tried by
> Pol Pot in Cambodia -- please recognise that 'academia' itself
> isn't any more bad than a lack of it and let's work together.
>
>
>
> =====
> Best wishes
>
> Paul
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
> or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
>
|