According to Bateman, Brown & Pedder (Bateman, et al., 2000) psychotherapy is about helping those in trouble understand and resolve their predicaments.  The UKCP (UKCP, 2013) agrees in that that the aim is to help clients gain insight into their difficulties or distress, to gain a greater understanding of their motivation, and to enable them to find more appropriate ways of coping or of bringing about changes in their thinking or behaviour.  Both of these broad definitions, I believe, correlate with the understanding of the general public, the people who make up our client base; for the vast majority of them surely seek a “therapist” if they have a psychological difficulty which they want eased, or cured; without direct reference, or indeed understanding of the particular school, methodology or therapeutic philosophy the therapist was trained in, or indeed believes in.  For them, what is probably more important is the “fit”, the relationship, trust and rapport that is there within the relationship.  This, however, raises questions within my mind as to whether all therapists are trained to deal with whatever is placed before them?  Certainly, some therapists, irrespective of the initial training, decide to specialise, some will concentrate on particular age groups, such as children or adolescents, others may concentrate on specific psychological problems, such as PTSD, or bereavement and will seek to become expert within their particular field; whilst, probably the vast majority, of therapists see themselves acting as “general practitioners” and be willing to work with whatever the client brings.  However, for me, this brings into question some of the training approaches taken (within the UK at least) and TA in particular, as this is the one of which I have direct experience.  Does the curriculum truly enable the therapist to develop to be able to work with the “whole person” as urged by John Rowan (1993, p. 122)?
Read more »