Psychodynamic Therapy

[BSWdavid]

I am considering attending a clinical social work program (PhD) that is 100% psychodynamic focused. Anyone have any recommendations as to if this a good choice? So much these days seems to be CBT focused, and I fear I will be learning an "out dated" form of therapy.

Any ideas or advice would be helpful!

Thanks,

David:

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Sendtrees]

This is not a particularly friendly forum for dynamic practice. But as someone who is staunchly dynamic in conception, I would still be cautious about joining a program that is really "100%" psychodynamic. CBT techniques can be very useful. Honestly I would be surprised if this program left them out completely.

As far as your career, I wouldn't be that worried. People will continue to choose dynamic therapists, especially free thinkers who aren't interested in insurance companies and committees telling them what health and illness are.

 

[psich]

Although I am a fan of psychodynamic theory, I would be wary of attending a program that is strictly psychodynamic because cognitive and behavioral techniques, for example, are extremely relevant, both in a practical sense (i.e. it's insurance-friendly) and in an applied sense (i.e. intervention-wise).

 

[docma]

You probably need to investigate what "100% psychodynamic" means in practice/practical terms. Both Smith and UChicago have a psychodynamic orientation but their graduates may be doing a wide range of work that is "psychodynamically informed" but pragmatically very CBT/DBT, depending on setting and their own continuing education. The advantage of enlightened, contemporary psychodynamic orientation (eg: Weiss/Sampson, McWilliams and various attachment oriented models) is that you get well grounded in developmental facts and don't overlook social systems. But flexibility is the key. If they are only teaching Melanie Klein and Betelheim you will be in a very narrow corridor that will limit opportunities down the road.

 

[DrGero]

Personally I think getting a thorough grounding in a single theoretical orientation when one is in training is the way to go, and then only later expanding one's expertise to other systems and approaches, and then learning more about how to apply approaches found within different orientations prescriptively (as in prescriptive eclecticism).

Better that than trying to become an expert in multiple orientations early on. So, I don't have anything against the idea of a "100% psychodynamic" training program myself, as long as its a quality training program (and I'll leave it to the dynamically-oriented folks to define what that looks like).

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

To the OP, it is important to find out if "100%" actually means "100%". Being "informed by" and being a dogmatic follower of one orientation are two very different things. Psychodynamic study can be quite helpful, particularly in regard to case conceptualization and being able to properly account for transference/counter-transference issues. With that being said, there is less support for straight dynamic work across settings.

It can get quite confusing as you work your way through the various branches and off-shoots, so it is important to clarify between the "camps". I find a lot of value in taking an object relational approach during case conceptualization, but rarely do I actually use traditional dynamic techniques as my primary method. Of course...I rarely do therapy anymore, so I'm probably not the best person to talk to about a purely clinical/therapy-based career.

ps. If people want to discuss EBTs/ESTs and varioud dynamic "camps", I think there is a good thread on here somewhere about it that may be worth bumping.

 

[BSWdavid]

I think for me, I am worried that psychodynamic therapy won't be practical. For example, I went to three different bookstores and couldn't find a single book dedicated to psychodynamic therapy. There were several by Carl Jung and a couple by Freud, but that was it (besides the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual); everything was CBT related.

I have taken a course in CBT that was 90% influenced by Beck's Cognitive Therapy. While I found it useful, it felt as though something was missing. Spending countless hours with thought logs, etc. seems so "boring". I finished the course wondering what I missed - there has to be something more to psychology than is presumed by cognitive and behavioral theories.

Psychodynamic theory interests me, although I must say some of the theoretical underpinnings seem alarming. Particularly Freud's psycho-sexual stages, and the notion that homosexuality is an "illness". For those of you who are familiar with or practice psychodynamic therapy, what are your opinions?

Please understand my knowledge of psychodynamic theory is quite limited. I have been reading more on the subject but have found conflicting information. For example, some note a distinct difference between psychoanalysis and psychodynamic therapy; however, it also seems that, at times, the two terms are used interchangeably. Again, trying to learn more about the subject seems daunting - I don't know where to begin.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

When I took my Object Relations class, we used mostly classic texts and articles, so I'm not as famliar with some of the newer articles out there. Some of the seminal works of Kernberg, Kohut, and Klein are all worth checking out...though they can get a bit wordy in the beginning.

Here is a random syllabi I googled that has a nice list of references. If I can dig up my old syllabi I may add a few references, though I'm guessing they will be cited in the works listed above.