Editorial

Letters

Noticeboard

The very idea of a supershrink will be anathema to some: with its American superhero connotations of high pressure, high achievement, it epitomises values that are in so many ways opposed to the values of therapy. And yet, if we look beyond the language, what we find is simply that a team of American researchers is discovering why some therapists are more helpful to their clients than others. If it was a case of the best therapists having innate talent, not much use could be made of such a study but, as the authors of our Supershrinks article argue, we can all learn from understanding how they work. What has been emerging is that the therapists who get the best results are those who frequently check in with their clients as to how they feel about them and their work together. It’s interesting to reflect that while most research is focused on trying to measure effective therapies, this one tries to decipher what makes effective therapists.

Turning to recent debates in our letters pages, where the temperature is currently on the rise, Simon Proudlock was appalled by the ‘never-ending stream of bickering’ about different modalities. Referring to letters on IAPT, CBT and whether or not trainees should have personal therapy, Simon writes: ‘If I was a lay person picking up therapy today for the first time, hoping to get an insight into what therapy and counselling is all about, I feel I would be more confused than educated.’ Are we not getting bogged down in something that has very little to do with the client? he asks. Well, I think these are very valid points and have spent some time agonising over whether we should be washing our dirty linen quite so publicly. But then again, this journal is not aimed at clients or the public. It is the journal of a large and diverse membership organisation of a profession that is evolving and struggling to establish its identity and where else can these things be discussed transparently? Is the answer really to suppress debate and pretend that we are united? Surely that way madness lies.

I was heartened to receive an email from Ian Gilmore saying that there cannot be many professions with good quality debates such as ours occurring in the letters pages of their journals. In any case he added, far better that we vilify one another through the journal than more personally when we get together at conferences! Bring it on!

Sarah Browne