Craig/Rex
The reason Rex's mails are bouncing from the EFTC list would seem to be
that he is using his - [log in to unmask] - address. That was the address
that he originally joined the list with but he then requested that we
change it to - [log in to unmask] - which we did. If this is a problem, I
can either change it back or join him up twice (with both addresses).
Rowdy Yates
Senior Research Fellow
Scottish Addiction Studies
Sociology, Social Policy & Criminology Section
Department of Applied Social Science
University of Stirling
W: http://www.dass.stir.ac.uk/sections/scot-ad/
T: +44(0)1786 - 467737
M: 07960 - 403392
-----Original Message-----
From: Therapeutic Communities
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Fees
Sent: 28 March 2006 09:44
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Accreditation and Community of Communities
[The following is posted on behalf of Rex Haigh, whose emails keep
bouncing from the list. If you have this problem, please let us know.
This email is a follow-on from the Community of Communities Annual
Forum, and the presentations concerned can be heard again on RadioTC
International at http://www.tc-of.org.uk/wiki/index.php/On_Air . The
email to which Rex is responding is below his response, in the normal
way]
From: "Rex Haigh" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "'NICHOLAS RUSCOMBE-KING'"
Subject: RE: Accreditation and Community of Communities.
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:26:15 +0100
Hello again Gillie
I woke up thinking that this is the first time we've ever thought
about it possibly being an either/or consideration (by "we", I mean
everybody involved in TCs). What we're after - and I have seen as the
holy grail since being involved with ATC - is "being taken
seriously". The research we do is never quite good enough because we
havn't done a randomised trial for TCs (like Linehan did for DBT) -
and probably some more nebulous opposition to TCs for the bad old
days - and possibly an unconscious resentment or envy of their
ordinariness/informality/romanticism. It has been my line that if we
got ourselves properly acknowledged with the commissioning and
quality agenda, then an RCT might look unnecessary (as it would for,
say, talking to people) or impractically complex and not likely to
add enough to be worthwhile, or not do so without introducing too
much distortion. So, though I've pushed for ATC to go along both
routes - research AND quality, if you like - I've had more of my eggs
in the quality basket.
And yours is the first time I've ever heard somebody who is not a
dyed-in-the-wool oppositionist saying "no" to getting teeth through
accreditation - but doing so by research and dissemination. I wonder
if, collectively, we are frightened of saying "no" because we need to
(almost desperately) cling to anything that might make TCs be taken
seriously. Maybe we're trying TOO hard. As you might know, there are
now fairly developed plans for a randomised trial - so perhaps that
is where to put our teeth. And - in collaboration with PETT (the
Planned Environment and Therapy Trust - where Craig Fees and the
Archive are in Glos) and CHT (Charter House Group - the childrens'
TCs organisation) there is already a "Task Force" already charged
with "valididating" what TCs do - as you suggest.
The other worry I have, which this could address, is about the road
to Hell being paved with good intentions: as Paul Lelliot clearly
said at the Annual Forum, voluntary accreditation is likely to become
gradually less voluntary, as it becomes a de-facto requirement. Would
our principles of "engagement" and "reflection" similarly slide into
audit and inspection? I don't think there's any way to know - but we
do need a much more sophisticated discussion than half an hour's
large group followed by a vote. At least I now have a better idea why
I felt the need to abstain!
Rex
[Craig - could you please post this on TC-OF to see if it generates
any wider discussion, as my emails seem to bounce]
----------
From: NICHOLAS RUSCOMBE-KING [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 26 March 2006 19:12
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Accreditation and Community of Communities.
Rex - I have been thinking since Thursday ( a good day by the way) to
look towards using research findings as a way of 'proving our worth'
rather than going down the accreditation path. I would have thought
that research findings would be taken more seriously and it could
mean that C of C could stay as a more peer support/ sharing of skills
/ information organisation. Perhaps there could be a group within C
of C to look specifically at research findings as a way of
'validating' the organisation and the TCs that belong. Wanted to
share theses thoughts with you. All the best, Gillie.
Dr. Craig Fees
Planned Environment Therapy Trust Archive and Study Centre
Church Lane
Toddington
near Cheltenham
Glos. GL54 5DQ
United Kingdom
Phone/fax 01242 620125
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://www.pettarchiv.org.uk
--
The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by
charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA. Privileged/Confidential Information may
be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated
in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such
person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone
and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is
prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this
message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise
immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email
for messages of this kind.
|
