I am writing to ask if you would consider giving some serious thought to changing the terminology by which some therapists are officially designated as having reached a higher level of experience and (maybe) skill.

I am quite experienced and, I hope, quite skilled. I am not however accredited, not having managed to get the requisite number of hours within the requisite timeframe. Not being accredited is quite a disadvantage; I am debarred from an EMDR training course, certain organisations will not refer to me, and on various counselling websites people are recommended to use an accredited counsellor/psychotherapist which means that they are steered away from using me and others like me. This means, of course, that it is harder to get the hours needed for accreditation.

The problem with using the word ‘accreditation’ is that to people who are not au fait with BACP terminology, it sounds like one is not endorsed as sufficiently well-qualified to work competently if one is not accredited... and that one should therefore be avoided. I looked up ‘accredit’ in the online Oxford dictionary and this is what it came up with:

‘accredit’ verb (accredited, accrediting):
1. (accredit to) attribute (something) to (someone);
2. give official authorisation to;
3. send (a diplomat or journalist) to a particular place or post.
— derivatives: accreditation noun.
— origin: French accréditer, from crédit ‘credit’.

It is clearly definition number 2 that applies in this instance; therefore not being accredited can be reasonably understood as ‘not give official authorisation to’, which is how many outside bodies seem to understand it.

But it is not how BACP means it – so can you find a change in the terminology in order to be better understood?

Pam Laurance
MBACP