This thread is interesting.
>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?
I would imagine that this works in the same way as a degree in, say,
history, enables someone to get a career start in publishing. Most
enlightened employers view evidence of the capability to study at degree
level in one field as a transferable skill.
Having said that, I am cautious about the restrictions inherent in the
degree-only approach to counselling and therapy. I have met and heard
of degree-educated therapists who lack the empathy which I believe to be
a vital component of good therapy. (I speak as a degree-educated
trainee counselling psychologist).
>Does it not run the risk of
>counselling becoming a profession solely for the middle-class and well off
>(given the huge costs)?
It's already that, isn't it? Even to train at a basic level, at which
one doesn't necessarily need a degree, one has to pay course fees,
supervision fees and personal therapy fees. And comparatively little
therapy is provided free privately or within the Health Service.
>True, the theoretical basis for some diploma
>courses is woefully inadequate. But to what extent is this calling a
>science rather than an art?
Good question. I believe it is both. I had this discussion with
someone recently, when we were talking about the growing need for
accountability to the people who are paying for our services. It's very
difficult to explain to a provider (say, an EAP or whatever, who,
rightly or wrongly, often demand chapter and verse of what you did and
why you did it) how you think you were successful if you have little
knowledge of the theories which might be informing your work. Of course
we don't know precisely how therapy works when it does, and often,
"because it felt right" is the only reason we can give, but I believe we
stand on firmer ground with more theoretical knowledge, whether we
consciously apply it or not.
>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?
Of course, but, as I have said above, this does not absolve me from
trying to further my knowledge of how my part in the relationship might
have influenced the client and the outcome.
>
>I'm afraid that 'professionalisation' is too often about the practitioners'
>need for status rather than actual effectiveness.
I can't argue with that, Ian. As Rogers once said, there are as many
certificated charlatans as there are uncertificated good counsellors.
Sue
>
VOGEL
25 Spenser Road
BEDFORD
MK40 2AZ
Tel/fax: (01234) 308120
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
We are 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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|