1) If things are so obvious (i.e. ridding ourselves of theory and forging stronger alliances with a client), why are they not being done?
To whit I am happy to answer! I will juxtapose my psychology life with that of my political and teaching (former!) lives respectively.
As the title of this blog indicates, Kirschenbaum & Jourdan take a stab at the Clinton-era rhetoric of “It is the economy, stupid!” This fact seemed very apparent to Clinton advisors advocating for change, but for those who appreciate the status quo, i.e. those in power or with authority, why would change be necessary? In many ways, that’s admitting to the failures you’ve already done in office as well as those you’re promulgating currently, so in essence, you’re giving several reasons why you’re incompetent. Face it, politics, after all, IS all about getting re-elected…
Well, so to is the real world, in which psychologists all over are having extremely difficult times admitting to their clinical errors in working with their patients in a very paternalistic way, placing demands, theories, and methods of therapy on a client that do not work as well as others. That would be an admission that for all of these years, the training, hard work, and most importantly, knowledge the clinician obtained and outputted would be less effective than another concept. This, by itself, is a large reason why many clinicians not trained on a model of alliance would rather default to their previous training than risk being the martyr or proponent of a new cause (which, as explored in previous topics, may not have been empirically proven while going through its beginning stages in the field – after all, it takes quite a few years to gain momentum, significance, and retraining).
And, in a dorky selfish sidenote for point number two:
2) How I truly appreciate the way in which this class is organized, for the information we are reading about continues to build upon each other!
As a (former) teacher, it is very important to me that knowledge be built linearly – if we are taught something, it should be in a logical sequence that would strengthen the former concepts. That is precisely what this coursework is offering! From the beginning of our class, we have continued to look at articles that help to explain both the former and latter weeks. These articles truly built upon the concepts of paternalism vs. liberalism, clinically-based vs. empirically-based, effect-size vs. significance, etc. When reweaving these themes throughout the fabric of this class, it not only strengthens our understanding, but makes us more competent to discuss these issues in ways that would not be attained had the articles had no relevance to each other.
This was clear for me when I read K & J’s citation of Elliott’s 2003 paper as he wrote, “Working effectively with clients requires adapting the therapist’s approach to the client’s general presenting problems, the within-session task, and the client’s immediate experience in the moment.” This immediately triggered sentiments of Consumer Reports, liberalism, and efficacy. I am not only getting stronger in my arguments, but I tend to understand many sides now, and can debate from either stance.
To bring it all together, the relationship between the client and the therapist is important. This we know. But what we may not know is why therapists may be hesitant to adopt such a model (I posit that it’s due to job security, as are all things in life). We are additionally fortunate to have a method of learning that advocates many sides in a systemic building block format, allowing us to gain knowledge of multiple subjects in objective manners over the course of the semester. I appreciate this method and look forward to addressing alliance more in class, since statistically speaking, I’ll likely be called (right probability proponents?).
No comments:
Post a Comment