Client's Theory Of ChangeThis essay Client's Theory Of Change is available for you on Essays24.com! Search Term Papers, College Essay Examples and Free Essays on Essays24.com - full papers database.
Autor: anton • December 23, 2010 • 7,993 Words (32 Pages) • 409 Views
Running Head: CLIENTÐ²Ð‚™S THEORY OF CHANGE
The ClientÐ²Ð‚™s Theory of Change:
Consulting the Client in the Integrative Process
This article casts a critical eye upon the integration literature and asserts that, like psychotherapy in general, the client has been woefully left out of the therapeutic process. An alternative that privileges the clientÐ²Ð‚™s voice as the source of wisdom and solution is presented. It is proposed that conducting therapy within the context of the clientÐ²Ð‚™s own theory of change offers ways of integrating multiple therapy perspectives. An argument is made for not only recasting the client as the star of the drama of therapy, but also giving the heroic client directorial control of the action as it unfolds.
THE CLIENTÐ²Ð‚™S THEORY OF CHANGE: CONSULTING
THE CLIENT IN THE INTEGRATIVE PROCESS
We feel that it would be fruitful to explain patientÐ²Ð‚™s
own ideas about psychotherapy and what they expect from it.
Many therapists have made the disappointing discovery that any given model that purports to ameliorate human suffering is limited. One size does not fit all. The fieldÐ²Ð‚™s response has been rival schools, brand names, and high fashion in the therapy boutique of techniques. Thus, therapists have not suffered a dearth of models from which to choose; indeed, there are now more choices than Baskin and Robbins and Howard JohnsonÐ²Ð‚™s combined.
The up side, of course, is that under certain circumstances a given flavor may really hit the spot. The lure of increasing the efficiency of therapy through the selective application of disparate models has fueled interest in integrative strategies for practice. Eclectic theorists have sought to find relevant client characteristics beyond diagnosis to guide the selection process (e.g., the groundbreaking work of Beutler & Clarkin, 1990). Recent efforts have added an emphasis on matching relational methods (e.g., Blatt, 1992; Lazarus, 1993; Norcross & Beutler, 1997) looking for Ð²Ð‚Ñšrelationships of choiceÐ²Ð‚Ñœ (Norcross & Beutler, 1997, p.44).
While the eclectic movement has not suffered from the Ð²Ð‚Ñšdogma eat dogmaÐ²Ð‚Ñœ (Saltzman & Norcross, 1990) mentality of warring factions of therapy, it is beginning to resemble the field as a whole with its immense heterogeneity. Norcross (1997) summarizes:
We have the prescriptive eclectics, pragmatically blending methods; we have the theoretical integrationists, actively smushing theories; we have the common factorists, relentlessly searching for underlying commonalities; and we have the system complementarists, astutely sequencing psychotherapy systems to maximize their domains of expertiseÐ²Ð‚¦ (p. 87).
Despite significant advances, Norcross (1997) suggests that the integration field invites confusion and irrelevancy unless the immense differences are defined, and the Ð²Ð‚Ñšme and not meÐ²Ð‚Ñœ are established (p.87). In the spirit of addressing this concern, this article casts a critical eye upon the integration literature and asserts that, like psychotherapy in general, the client has been woefully left out of the therapeutic process. An alternative that privileges the clientÐ²Ð‚™s voice as the source of wisdom, solution, and model selection is presented.
A Tale of Two Dinosaurs
While the intellectual appeal of theoretical integration is compelling, the search for a unified metatheory is reminiscent of the rapid-fire development of models in search of the Holy Grail. The field has Ð²Ð‚Ñšbeen there, done that.Ð²Ð‚Ñœ Given that model and technique only account for 15% of outcome variance (Assay & Lambert, 1999; Lambert, 1992; Miller, Duncan, & Hubble, 1997), theoretical integration efforts focus on the weakest link in the chain of factors accounting for change.
The love affair with models blinds therapists to the roles clients play in bringing about change (Duncan, Sparks, & Miller, 2000). As models proliferate, so do their specialized languages, systems of categories, and arsenal of techniques. All such articulations take place outside the awareness of those most affected. When models, whether integrative or not, crowd the thinking of therapists, there is little room left for clientsÐ²Ð‚™ modelsÐ²Ð‚"their ideas about their predicaments and what it might take to fix themÐ²Ð‚"to take shape. ClientÐ²Ð‚™s ideas, are, at best, patronized for the sake of friendliness or compliance; at worst, part and parcel of the problem, those very elements needing to be eradicated or transformed (Duncan, Miller, & Sparks, 2000).
A technical eclecticism based on empirically validated techniques (EVT) suffers the same problems that EVTÐ²Ð‚™s bring to non-eclectic therapists. Efficacy over placebo or customary treatment is not differential efficacy over other approaches (Duncan & Miller, 2000). Where differences do occur over other models, they are often trivial and explainable by chance alone (Wampold, 1997). Further, efficacy speaks more to the approachÐ²Ð‚™s privilege of being researched (Hubble, Duncan, & Miller, 1999) rather than how such research should be privileged. Finally, efficacy in randomized clinical trials does not equate to effectiveness in clinical settings; internal validity does not ensure external validity (Goldfried & Wolfe, 1998). More importantly, any technique, EVT or the plain variety of everyday practice, gains its power to change from its ability to enlist clientÐ²Ð‚™s resources, court the alliance, and fit the clientÐ²Ð‚™s view of what is helpful (Duncan, Hubble, & Miller, 1997).
The problem that plagues integrative efforts is the same problem that has all but reduced psychotherapy to medical diagnoses and the prescription of empirically validated treatmentsÐ²Ð‚"the key figure, the client, has been left out of the loop. Most, if not all integrative efforts focus exclusively