related schools

Fri Nov 16 16:52:39 CST 2007

Hi, Rory, thanks for playing with us. Sorry for not responding further. I wonder if there are any folks on the Board or if these emails are sent by any of you to any of your contacts who are on the Board...     
     I warm up to your paragraph 4 middle--- the respondent should not assume the reader knows anything about the area being alluded to, and the way the test-taker can explain the related method and defend the rationale for how it may relate to psychodrama, compare and contrast, whatever... is part of the question: How articulate can this professional be?
         My criterion for passing is that I imagine the test-taker to be a guest presenter at a professional group, and I invited him or her to present. During the questions from the audience---professionals in my community--- I could be okay about not agreeing with the speaker's response, but would I be proud or humiliated by the degree of professionalism, articulate plausibility, shown by the test taker. If what is written in the paper seems plausible, is coherent, that's the manifestation of professionalism. It may not be fair to ask that our colleagues can present their rationale for their behavior before strangers and come off looking good, but I think it is.

    Comments from others? 

   Warmly, Adam 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Remer, Rory 
  To: Adam Blatner ; Peter Howie 
  Cc: list at grouptalkweb.org 
  Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 11:42 AM
  Subject: RE: related schools

  Adam (et al.)

  In principle I agree totally. I think anything that would qualify as a related area should be allowed. Such practice would encourage cross fertilization and seeing connections, while encouraging the psychodrama community members to "go out and share the word."

  In practice...well? Having read exams for years now I think we need not only be fair to the examinee but also the examiner. I don't feel qualified to judge the acceptability of certain "related areas" (e.g., most recently EMDR was requested). I'm not sure I feel qualified to read a response focused on some of the areas already listed. A comprehensive, extensive listing seems an unmanageable task. 

  I was thinking, perhaps we should have clear and strict criteria for what is NOT acceptable, but that goal is just as problematic as what is acceptable.

  In the response should we require/one of the criteria for an acceptable and passable response that an adequate description and explanation of the related area chosen be included? Perhaps part of the response should be judged on the inclusion and adequacy of defending the choice of related area. Those requirements seem to be beyond the time limits of the question. And just as unwieldy as anything else (e.g., how is adequacy judged?).

  Maybe the Related Fields question is "just a good idea" that is unimplementable practically. The Board has discussed and is discussing the problem, including considering dropping the question entirely.

        2
      R

  PS: I am still alive and kicking, though not as often or as vehemently. Thanks for asking and sorry I haven't gotten back to you before this. More later...maybe.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: list-bounces at grouptalkweb.org [mailto:list-bounces at grouptalkweb.org] On Behalf Of Adam Blatner
  Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 6:58 AM
  To: Peter Howie
  Cc: list at grouptalkweb.org
  Subject: related schools

       Hello, Listserve, what do y'all think of this discussion? To restate, I would like to influence the Board of Examiners to expand and refine their policy and section on "related methods" in the Board Exams. As in the guide, it... well, it needs re-examination. 

           The exchange with Peter Howie below may add to this exploration. 

  I've considered a number of other related fields. 
      In my book on Interactive & Improvisational Drama (an anthology that I edited), there are chapters on over 30 approaches that are as related to psychodrama as, say, Montessori education----and one could well argue that their relation is even closer. Approaches such as process drama in education, theatre in education, Theatre of the Oppressed, Playback Theatre, bibliodrama, etc.--- all might be considered.
       In my chapter on psychodrama in Corsini & Wedding's Current Psychotherapies text, I note other related fields, such as the Pesso-Boyden System Psychomotor (see their book, Movement in Therapy)--- which some psychodramatists have been integrating; Hal & Sidra Stone's "Voice Dialogue." In Corsini's Handbook of Innovative Psychotherapy, there are many other approaches. 
        Related to drama therapy, there's also expressive arts therapy (mixing two or more modalities, including drama)--- and again some international psychodramatists do this. All the variations of drama therapy are also related.
        There are approaches to improvisational dance/movement work that bridge to the spontaneity work in psychodrama.
               and on and on. 

     ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Peter Howie 
    To: Adam Blatner 
    Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 12:20 AM
    Subject: Re: related schools

    Hi Adam,

    Yes lets keep the conversation in the open space.

    Cheers

    Peter

    At 10:05 PM 10/26/2007 -0500, you wrote:

      Yes, I agree, that Ellis is an important school---becoming increasingly obscure here.  Funny you should say that he's in any way at all like Moreno. I can't see it, but perhaps if you prod me I will. 

         Re postmodern, I've been messing with that. Let's just say that any trend---liberalism, existentialism, new age, postmodernism, etc. can be done foolishly as well as wisely. So those who espouse postmodernism to excuse bland anything goes are misusing some good ideas. It shouldn't be seen as a coherent specific movement, though.
          As for science being the criterion for assessing psychotherapy---i.e., hard data--- in the USA, cognitive behavior therapy is a modality that can be assessed more specifically. However, I think it misses many things.
           I'm pretty dubious about the degrees to which science can measure or assess much of value in psychology. It hasn't addressed love much, or "cute," or meaning. A bit more on happiness, and little that isn't pretty intuitively obvious. 
            I might concede that this or that research has shifted our thinking, but 96.92% (I just make these numbers up) are "Duh," as in "Duh, that's pretty obvious, dude."   Research done by college and grad students to get their careers started. Perhaps I'm unduly cynical. 

             One postmodern concept I do sustain is the inclination to view as a political maneuver (to inflate status and be worthy of increased salaries, grants, etc.) the efforts to claim the aura of great science by following the methods. Basically, I see this as equivalent to being a loyal toady in the church and thus being promoted. Authority, I suspect, is at least 53.6% given not on the basis of demonstrated competence in or for the role but on the basis of loyal service, nepotism, heredity, ruthless psychopathy, being non-threatening to a superior, or malleable, being bought (simony), etc. I refer to authority in almost all human institutions. 

            Anyway, do you want to include listserve again in this conversation? 

        ----- Original Message ----- 

        From: Peter Howie 

        To: list at grouptalkweb.org 

        Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 6:13 PM

        Subject: Re: related schools

        Hi Adam,

        I don't think The RET folks think they are out of date - they have a somewhat thriving or at least enthusiastic mob around here. Having been 'done on stage' by Albert Ellis on one of his many Aussie trips I can heartily endorse people knowing about his perspective - his essential ideas are Morenian in many ways - i.e. biases in our worldviews lead to view our experiences as bad or miserable. What I liked most about him was the ways he talked about other therapies and approaches - he was scathing about psychoanalysis, jung, glasser and almost everybody else for whom there was no research or didn't agree with his perspective. It was refreshing to hear given that there is so much post-modern acceptance of almost everything as good. 

        I would have though that there needed to be some organisational development models as well - the Systems Theorists - Snowden et al and others, perhaps Action Learning and Action Research. But I am not sure if sociodrama and hence cultural, community and organisational theories are part of the North American training process.

        Keeping standards up to date is a labor of love and invaluable to members. go for it.

        Cheers

        Peter Howie

        Brisbane, Australia

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
  Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1097 - Release Date: 10/28/2007 1:58 PM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20071116/b148ee1d/attachment.html 