D
deleted75966
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
- Joined
- May 1, 2007
- Messages
- 458
- Reaction score
- 0
Though I *really* don't agree with JS' position on some of the issues in the thread, I do agree that many of topics brought up are worse at least discussing, civilly. For example, I disagree with the assertion that social workers aren't trained or encouraged to use evidenced-based treatment--this was something that was brought up even in my university's 100-level social work class, and something that has been brought up again in my social work practice classes and will almost certainly be brought up yet again in the required social policy and research classes (and ALL accredited BSW and MSW programs are required to have mandatory research classes).
I'd also like to disagree with the statement that non-EBM treatment (i.e., EMDR) is only practiced by non-doctoral practictioners. I've seen faculty at university-based, fully funded, fairly research-heavy programs openly express an interest in EMDR. In fact, I was speaking to one of my psych professors (who is, imo, very well-trained, and who, based on numerous discussions with him as well as taking his class, is very much "into" proper research--he's one of the most prolific faculty in our program) this semester, and the topic of grief therapy came up. I pointed out that there is little--if any-- empirical support for grief therapy. His answer? "I'm not a strict empiricist. I believe that there are benefits to psychotherapy that empirical research can't capture."
I'd also like to disagree with the statement that non-EBM treatment (i.e., EMDR) is only practiced by non-doctoral practictioners. I've seen faculty at university-based, fully funded, fairly research-heavy programs openly express an interest in EMDR. In fact, I was speaking to one of my psych professors (who is, imo, very well-trained, and who, based on numerous discussions with him as well as taking his class, is very much "into" proper research--he's one of the most prolific faculty in our program) this semester, and the topic of grief therapy came up. I pointed out that there is little--if any-- empirical support for grief therapy. His answer? "I'm not a strict empiricist. I believe that there are benefits to psychotherapy that empirical research can't capture."
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,105
- Reaction score
- 3,637
While JS can be a bit rough around the edges, I do think it is important to be able to discuss these rather controversial issues. I do agree that the scope creep that is happening is a very real area for discussion/debate. I cringe when I see a laundry list of "specialty" areas, that are rarely related.
It is always a bit of a tightrope walk when discussing these issues, but I usually err on the side of leaving a thread open as long as people can keep it professional (looks at JS
).
So back on topic.....
What is being done to support SW's expansion into primary areas of therapy/diagnosis/assessment? Curriculum changes, increased req. clinical hours, increased supervision hours? My interactions with SW are similar to Jon's (social advocacy, case management, supportive work), though I don't see where the training gets to the clinician. In the previous mentioned areas they are a great asset, and they have made my life a heck of a lot easier.
The LCSW is a bit closer to "additional training", but I still think it isn't quite there. Considering what gets crammed into Doctoral training, I can't see how they can adequately get the training to do therapy/assessment/diagnosing AND the administrative/advocacy training. I know some programs offer more of a slant to one or another, but how can that all be done in 2 years, ethically?
In cases of expansion, the group wanting to expand should PROVE that there is competency, and it shouldn't be up to the current system to PROVE they are not. Unfortunately the MA/MS level lobbies are much more active than the doctoral level, and we are losing on sheer numbers and influence.
I'd like to have a discussion (Using emperically supported data and related information if at all possible) to talk about these issues.
It is always a bit of a tightrope walk when discussing these issues, but I usually err on the side of leaving a thread open as long as people can keep it professional (looks at JS
).So back on topic.....
What is being done to support SW's expansion into primary areas of therapy/diagnosis/assessment? Curriculum changes, increased req. clinical hours, increased supervision hours? My interactions with SW are similar to Jon's (social advocacy, case management, supportive work), though I don't see where the training gets to the clinician. In the previous mentioned areas they are a great asset, and they have made my life a heck of a lot easier.
The LCSW is a bit closer to "additional training", but I still think it isn't quite there. Considering what gets crammed into Doctoral training, I can't see how they can adequately get the training to do therapy/assessment/diagnosing AND the administrative/advocacy training. I know some programs offer more of a slant to one or another, but how can that all be done in 2 years, ethically?
In cases of expansion, the group wanting to expand should PROVE that there is competency, and it shouldn't be up to the current system to PROVE they are not. Unfortunately the MA/MS level lobbies are much more active than the doctoral level, and we are losing on sheer numbers and influence.
I'd like to have a discussion (Using emperically supported data and related information if at all possible) to talk about these issues.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,105
- Reaction score
- 3,637
- Status
