Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ

Welcome from the editor

As I walked along an expanse of sandy beach recently, I ponderedÌýon the many footsteps that would disappear with each tide, erasingÌýthose people’s evidence of existence. And this reminded me of myÌýclients over the last 10 years. Their names have vanished from my mind,Ìýbut the encounters live on inside me, having contributed to my professionalÌýdevelopment by fuelling new understanding of young people and myÌýtherapeutic work.

OK, I told myself, that’s a great idea, but trite. The words positively trippedÌýoff the tongue. What I needed to ask myself is: in exactly which way has myÌýwork developed over the years. And the specific words that accurately sumÌýit up are ‘gut instinct’, ‘flexibility’, and ‘willingness to learn from client toÌýclient’ – all based in my theory, of course, but not kowtowing to manualisedÌýevidence-based treatment. (The phrase didn’t exist when I first started,Ìýanyway, which shows what gigantic wheels the ‘proof’ wagon has recentlyÌýrolled on.)

In this respect, I quite like Chris Scalzo’s article on existentialism, whichÌýat first seems hard to differentiate from the person-centred approach. ButÌýwhen it comes to acknowledging and accepting the two givens (birth andÌýdeath – plus a few others for young people) and emphasising relationship,Ìýresponsibility and making choices, then that really does free up everythingÌýelse. Existentialism, in one sense, seems to give a carte blanche to work inÌýthe most intuitively creative way we can, grounded in the philosophy andÌýtheory of the model. Proper training plus seat-of-the-pants.

But as we move towards establishing good guidelines for the training ofÌýCYP counsellors, what do we really mean by ‘proper training’? Trained toÌýwork only to the initial model, and/or to evidence-based systems, and/orÌýfrom a manual? Or trained to know the theory and understand how toÌýwork creatively? Which doesn’t necessarily mean handing out worksheetsÌýfrom the plethora of books on sale or using someone else’s games, thoughÌýthey have their part to play. WhatÌýI understand by creativity (and by my chosen words of ‘gut instinct’ andÌý‘flexibility’ is the sort mentioned by Duncan and Miller¹: ‘Experienced therapistsÌýknow that the work requires the tailoring of any approach to a particularÌýclient’s unique circumstances. The nuances and creativity of an actualÌýencounter flow from the moment-to-moment interaction of the participantsÌý– from the client, relational and therapist idiographic mix – not from step AÌýto step B on page 39.’

Now this is what we learn as we go, as we develop as counsellors andÌýtherapists – but surely there must be a way to introduce such competence,Ìýby degrees, into training for counsellors working with young people? In onlyÌý10 years I have met far too many rigidly ‘correct’ counsellors, checkingÌýformalities with their supervisors and self-righteously toeing the official lineÌýfrom session to session. Let’s erase that kind of work and revel in opportunitiesÌýto forget page 39, even as the sand forgets the footprints that covered it.ÌýEvery article in this issue points that way forward.

Eleanor Patrick
Editor

Reference

1 Quoted in Haen C. (ed) Engaging boys in treatment. (p25) London: Routledge; 2011.