Colin: In the context of disputes about real differences (or not) between counselling and psychotherapy (and other overlapping activities) going back 20 years and more, how hopeful are you that new ground can be broken on this kind of issue now?

Debra/Nash: Very hopeful, since this sort of integration is, to a large extent, driven by clients' demand. Paradoxically, it may be easier to integrate counselling and coaching than counselling and psychotherapy, because they are not so similar and there is at least some common ground about the nature of the difference. Also, personal consultancy allows practitioners to move between the two in a meaningful way.

Colin: It is true that many counsellors and some psychotherapists already offer coaching and this can be seen as an extension of skills, but can't it also be seen simply as naked opportunism, ie grabbing other markets, particularly when clients and jobs are thinner on the ground?

Debra/Nash: Yes it could be seen as opportunism, and some counsellors made a similar charge against coaching when it appeared on the scene. In any case, we see our main obligation as practitioners as being towards clients. If they can benefit from such an integration, it would be irresponsible not to offer it as an option. Actually, many counsellors are very well equipped to turn to coaching.

Colin: I think you make a very good point about there being a wider gulf between psychodynamic therapy and solution-focused therapy (SFT), than between SFT and coaching. Does this mainly reflect the confusion over names in our field(s), or is something else in play?

Debra/Nash: It was recognised very early in the history of one-to-one practices that many clients need both problem-focused and solution-focused approaches, receptive and proactive attitudes, dealing with internal conflicts and making behavioural changes. The advent of coaching only made this need more apparent.

Actually, we think that the time is ripe for an approach that allows for balance between aspirations and meaning.

Colin: I also like the idea of an umbrella term such as 'personal consultancy', that might include working both in depth and proactively/practically. What ramifications might this have, though, for example for training, professional recognition, etc?

Debra/Nash: This is a crucial issue. There are already many practitioners who combine counselling and coaching skills, albeit in an ad hoc manner. So, a systematic training in this respect can't happen soon enough. We would like to see training that would be accessible for those who are already trained as counsellors, coaches, both or neither. There are already some universities which have interest in making such provisions. We think that it would be important for there to be an early dialogue between training providers and professional bodies such as BACP that could look at how to go about providing accreditation for such a course. And in addition, what else might need to be in place for members to feel like they were being adequately supported by their professional body, if they choose to practise in this way.

Colin: To what extent do you think the integration of coaching and therapy is already happening, for example among practitioners who refer to themselves as integrative or pluralistic (or as humanistic psycho-practitioners) – and who presumably, explain their work and contract accordingly with each client?

Debra/Nash: In our experience, it’s happening on a large scale. A frequent comment when we speak with colleagues about personal consultancy is: 'Yes, we are already doing it'. However, findings from Debra’s research pointed to a number of dangers with this: lack of clarity, boundary confusion, whether people stay within their competence, etc. So we believe it needs to be brought out into the open, discussed and maybe the personal consultancy framework can be helpful in providing a structure and helping people (including clients) identify where they are and what they are doing.

Colin: Your distinction of ‘being with’ and ‘doing with’ roughly corresponds with depth work and goal-oriented work, and maybe roughly with psychodynamic and humanistic therapy on the one hand, and cognitive behavioural on the other. How are you greeted when you put these simplified ideas to colleagues?

Debra/Nash: Most of our colleagues and increasingly clients are aware of this distinction although, of course, not everybody would be happy with the terms such as depth being exclusively allocated to some therapies. Cognitive behavioural work can have great depth, if it’s done by a competent therapist. We think it is helpful to understand these terms as indicating tendencies and emphases rather than sharply demarcated boundaries. We are having conversations with more and more practitioners who say to us they are going to advertise that they offer an integrated approach. This is clearly a further move from merely saying that they do it!

Colin: Referring back to my second question, do you think now is a good time to be proposing yet more name and/or professional identity changes in such uncertain and rocky economic times?

Debra/Nash: This is exactly the time for innovation. Take technological innovations, for example, they usually flourish in times of crisis. And it is precisely these uncertain times that actually seem to make people search for meaning in their lives and careers – so one-to-one practices have to reflect that.

Colin: More generally, do you think perhaps that inevitable shifts like these must take place in the evolution of the mental health, talking therapies/psycho-education field?

Debra/Nash: We do. What will happen in the future to a large extent depends on what clients find most beneficial and useful and there are strong indications that clients want both – a chance to deal with their inner world and make concrete changes – and, if possible, with the help of the same practitioner.