@@Counsellingtutor1 There are different forms of Integration. Technical Ecclecicism, Theoretical Assimilation, Pluralism etc…Theoretical Assimilation accommodates common factors of theories and philosophies rather than selection of techniques as in an eclectic approach. The difference between Integration and Eclecticism is explained beautifully by Andrew M. Pomerantz using the analogy of the difference between a fruit salad and a smoothie. “A fruit salad includes a variety of ingredients, but each bite brings only one flavour. The fork may stab a strawberry first, a blueberry next, and a pineapple chunk third. Each piece is pure, discrete, and easily distinguished from the others. But in a smoothie made of these ingredients, every sip includes the same combination of ingredients, and the taste of every sip, reflects that unique blend. Mixed together the ingredients create a distinct concoction, with a taste wholly its own.” (Pomerantz, 2016). Not all Integrative practitioners have a foundation in a core approach. I work from the framework of Clarkson, and that doesn’t, but it does integrate Psychodynamic and Transpersonal.
Thank you for all your posts Rory they are so helpful. Reading through the comments I gather one can use any combination of theories should the situation require, would that be correct?
Yes, perhaps there should be a bit more emphasis on the rigidity and standardisation of Integrative therapies, but still a good (albeit general) overview, nonetheless.
Yep. This isn’t Integrative. Integrative is about incorporating philosophical assumptions and components of modalities, not modalities. Integrative also has its own frameworks such as Clarkson and RIM. Framework provides accountability to our practice and decision making. You wouldn’t be PC without the framework of the Core Conditions for example.
I agree. This is eclectic not integrative. No mention of Richard Erskine, the model of human development behind integrative, and its importance in assessing the efficacy of the approach.
the only philosophical part of integrative is that of phenomenology.. which is just how each individual interprets their own world.. I think eclectic and integrative are more or less the same thing..
Sorry, Louise. You were not taught correctly. They are different, though in practice they may appear the same. Eclectic simply draws on the tools that the practitioner feels like drawing on, which they can have acquired in all sorts of different ways; some rigorous and others not. In integrative, the practitioner is expected to have a core training and then a solid understanding of both a variety of alternative approaches and the evidence-based contexts in which they apply. In this way, an integrative practitioner's work can be assessed for its efficacy, an eclectic one's cannot. Integrative psychotherapy was very clearly defined and documented by Richard Erskine whereas there is no definitive text for 'eclectic' approaches because they all differ. On top of this is the concept of pluralistic psychotherapy, proposed by Mick Cooper, which is where the practitioner has their core training, understands its limitations and the contexts in which other approaches might be more effective, and maintains a network of peers to whom they can refer clients.
@@GrahamWilsonPhD There are different forms of Integration. Technical Ecclecicism, Theoretical Assimilation, Pluralism etc…Theoretical Assimilation accommodates common factors of theories and philosophies rather than selection of techniques as in an eclectic approach. The difference between Integration and Eclecticism is explained beautifully by Andrew M. Pomerantz using the analogy of the difference between a fruit salad and a smoothie. “A fruit salad includes a variety of ingredients, but each bite brings only one flavour. The fork may stab a strawberry first, a blueberry next, and a pineapple chunk third. Each piece is pure, discrete, and easily distinguished from the others. But in a smoothie made of these ingredients, every sip includes the same combination of ingredients, and the taste of every sip, reflects that unique blend. Mixed together the ingredients create a distinct concoction, with a taste wholly its own.” (Pomerantz, 2016). Not all Integrative practitioners have a foundation in a core approach. I work from the framework of Clarkson, and that doesn’t, but it does integrate Psychodynamic and Transpersonal.
@@gripplehound Yes, there are different forms of integration, and I agree with Pomerantz's analogy - that is what I was saying too. However, 'integration' is a process, whereas "integrative psychotherapy" is a philosophy. There's only one Integrative Psychotherapy - which is the model proposed by Erskine. Petruska Clarkson's contribution came from intense study of various modalities - she had more than one PhD and two professorial positions. It is a huge shame that despite her prolific writing, I don't think that she ever produced a work that presented an overarching integrative approach or reflected on Erskine's. Her writing tended to concentrate on the therapeutic relationship, specific applications of therapy, or the insights that psychotherapeutic theory could offer to other disciplines. If she did, then I'd love to have the reference.
Clear and easy to understand. This channel looks like being resource I'm going to be glad I found. Thanks
Integrative counselling person centred & psychodynamic
This was explained so well, thank you!
thank for your videos very well made and easy to understand ...great teacher
I would argue that what you have presented here is technical eclecticism!
great! carry on
@@Counsellingtutor1 There are different forms of Integration. Technical Ecclecicism, Theoretical Assimilation, Pluralism etc…Theoretical Assimilation accommodates common factors of theories and philosophies rather than selection of techniques as in an eclectic approach.
The difference between Integration and Eclecticism is explained beautifully by Andrew M. Pomerantz using the analogy of the difference between a fruit salad and a smoothie.
“A fruit salad includes a variety of ingredients, but each bite brings only one flavour. The fork may stab a strawberry first, a blueberry next, and a pineapple chunk third. Each piece is pure, discrete, and easily distinguished from the others. But in a smoothie made of these ingredients, every sip includes the same combination of ingredients, and the taste of every sip, reflects that unique blend. Mixed together the ingredients create a distinct concoction, with a taste wholly its own.” (Pomerantz, 2016).
Not all Integrative practitioners have a foundation in a core approach. I work from the framework of Clarkson, and that doesn’t, but it does integrate Psychodynamic and Transpersonal.
Excellent video and really explained and answered my central question on what is integrative therapy.
Very well presented, just studying counselling, hopefully start degree in sep 😁 enjoyed this video 😁
Thank you for all your posts Rory they are so helpful.
Reading through the comments I gather one can use any combination of theories should the situation require, would that be correct?
Just the video I've been waiting for! Thanks! :)
MrKenBing Yes, me too! 😁
Very useful info. Thanks :)
Great Vidio, really helpful. Although I can't find link for Joe Kooks Blog...?
Really helpfull and Great
Thank you I appreciate this
This explanation feel more like eclectic counselling than integrative to me?
Yes, perhaps there should be a bit more emphasis on the rigidity and standardisation of Integrative therapies, but still a good (albeit general) overview, nonetheless.
The line is quite blurred , I have given my view , other have differing opinions.
Yep. This isn’t Integrative. Integrative is about incorporating philosophical assumptions and components of modalities, not modalities.
Integrative also has its own frameworks such as Clarkson and RIM. Framework provides accountability to our practice and decision making. You wouldn’t be PC without the framework of the Core Conditions for example.
I agree. This is eclectic not integrative. No mention of Richard Erskine, the model of human development behind integrative, and its importance in assessing the efficacy of the approach.
Eclectic and Integrative are one of the same... or so I was taught...
Thank you
the only philosophical part of integrative is that of phenomenology.. which is just how each individual interprets their own world.. I think eclectic and integrative are more or less the same thing..
Sorry, Louise. You were not taught correctly. They are different, though in practice they may appear the same. Eclectic simply draws on the tools that the practitioner feels like drawing on, which they can have acquired in all sorts of different ways; some rigorous and others not. In integrative, the practitioner is expected to have a core training and then a solid understanding of both a variety of alternative approaches and the evidence-based contexts in which they apply. In this way, an integrative practitioner's work can be assessed for its efficacy, an eclectic one's cannot. Integrative psychotherapy was very clearly defined and documented by Richard Erskine whereas there is no definitive text for 'eclectic' approaches because they all differ. On top of this is the concept of pluralistic psychotherapy, proposed by Mick Cooper, which is where the practitioner has their core training, understands its limitations and the contexts in which other approaches might be more effective, and maintains a network of peers to whom they can refer clients.
@@GrahamWilsonPhD There are different forms of Integration. Technical Ecclecicism, Theoretical Assimilation, Pluralism etc…Theoretical Assimilation accommodates common factors of theories and philosophies rather than selection of techniques as in an eclectic approach.
The difference between Integration and Eclecticism is explained beautifully by Andrew M. Pomerantz using the analogy of the difference between a fruit salad and a smoothie.
“A fruit salad includes a variety of ingredients, but each bite brings only one flavour. The fork may stab a strawberry first, a blueberry next, and a pineapple chunk third. Each piece is pure, discrete, and easily distinguished from the others. But in a smoothie made of these ingredients, every sip includes the same combination of ingredients, and the taste of every sip, reflects that unique blend. Mixed together the ingredients create a distinct concoction, with a taste wholly its own.” (Pomerantz, 2016).
Not all Integrative practitioners have a foundation in a core approach. I work from the framework of Clarkson, and that doesn’t, but it does integrate Psychodynamic and Transpersonal.
@@gripplehound Yes, there are different forms of integration, and I agree with Pomerantz's analogy - that is what I was saying too. However, 'integration' is a process, whereas "integrative psychotherapy" is a philosophy. There's only one Integrative Psychotherapy - which is the model proposed by Erskine. Petruska Clarkson's contribution came from intense study of various modalities - she had more than one PhD and two professorial positions. It is a huge shame that despite her prolific writing, I don't think that she ever produced a work that presented an overarching integrative approach or reflected on Erskine's. Her writing tended to concentrate on the therapeutic relationship, specific applications of therapy, or the insights that psychotherapeutic theory could offer to other disciplines. If she did, then I'd love to have the reference.