Sunday, 6 April 2008
Are you a good practitioner?
Hi whoever picks this up first,
I would like this blog to be an intelligent discussion which I hope will ultimately inform the Way Forward for applied sport psych practitioners in the UK.I was privy to a conversation the other day, in which the two participants agreed that a wide base of psychological knowledge, such as that afforded by a psychology UG course with GBR, is not strictly necessary to practise effectively. This started me thinking about my own practices. I am, after all, the product of a combination of my genetics and my environment, and I bring both my innate atrributes and acquired knowledge to bear on each-and-every situation. This in turn prompted me to think about the Gestalt approach to problem-solving, and how my ability to mentally step back from a situation, to obtain a broad-brush overview of the inevitable multiple facets of the 'issue', so to speak, enables me to address it to the best of my ability.
We (psychologists) are frequently faced with skepticism - sometimes with good cause - and this is, in part, due to the lack of a clear definition of what constitutes an effective and/or capable practitioner in this field; other helping professions arguably have more clear-cut criteria. When the topic of applied sport psych practitioner effectiveness has been investigated, interpersonal skills seem to rank highly amonst athletes' preferences, as opposed to a string of qualifications. So my question is, how do YOU judge your own/others' suitability to practise? Answers in brief, please, and let's see where this takes us...
Dan
I would like this blog to be an intelligent discussion which I hope will ultimately inform the Way Forward for applied sport psych practitioners in the UK.I was privy to a conversation the other day, in which the two participants agreed that a wide base of psychological knowledge, such as that afforded by a psychology UG course with GBR, is not strictly necessary to practise effectively. This started me thinking about my own practices. I am, after all, the product of a combination of my genetics and my environment, and I bring both my innate atrributes and acquired knowledge to bear on each-and-every situation. This in turn prompted me to think about the Gestalt approach to problem-solving, and how my ability to mentally step back from a situation, to obtain a broad-brush overview of the inevitable multiple facets of the 'issue', so to speak, enables me to address it to the best of my ability.
We (psychologists) are frequently faced with skepticism - sometimes with good cause - and this is, in part, due to the lack of a clear definition of what constitutes an effective and/or capable practitioner in this field; other helping professions arguably have more clear-cut criteria. When the topic of applied sport psych practitioner effectiveness has been investigated, interpersonal skills seem to rank highly amonst athletes' preferences, as opposed to a string of qualifications. So my question is, how do YOU judge your own/others' suitability to practise? Answers in brief, please, and let's see where this takes us...
Dan
Comments:
<< Home
I use constructive feedback + or -. With the aid og Gestalt I break my strategies down and identify my limitations. Once identified in the sub component stage I will develop whatever the strategy is. I find by doing it this way I can further develop my experiences and pass them on accordingly.
Judging someones fitness to practice? Simple - are they qualified - and can they communicate with their subject/group in a manner that positively influences performance or behaviour! In my experience, too many Sports Psychies know the square root of a banana but can't peel it....you haven't a clue what they are getting at half the time...(see last post)!!
# posted by 
: 11 April 2008 10:05
: 11 April 2008 10:05
hi anonymous, like the sweeping comment a qualification does not mean your capable of doing the job. Simplistic format, it is results that counts. The old word of mouth gets passed around(more feedback)and then develop yourself. p s i love bananas
Hi people,
I like anonymous's assertion that the practitioner should be able to communicate with their group or athlete (not sure about subject...) in a manner that positively influences performance and/or behaviour. This role can often be satisfied by a good coach, though. So, when the sport-specific knowledge of a high-level coach is almost invariably greater than the sport psych's, what additional knowledge do you bring to bear?
I like anonymous's assertion that the practitioner should be able to communicate with their group or athlete (not sure about subject...) in a manner that positively influences performance and/or behaviour. This role can often be satisfied by a good coach, though. So, when the sport-specific knowledge of a high-level coach is almost invariably greater than the sport psych's, what additional knowledge do you bring to bear?
Going back to the first point made by 'anonymous', that to assess fitness to practise you must be qualified. Dan's orginal post came from a conversation where it was said that a GBR degree was not needed to practise succesfully - therefore what to we mean when we say qualified? Is it the paper qualification or is it about becoming qualified by experience?
As a training sport psychologist (coming in from a traditional mainstream psych route) the overall question regarding am I a good practitioner is one that I am concerned about after nearly every session with an athlete. On paper it would be hard to argue that I haven't got the nessacary knowledge but does that mean I am 'good'?
As a training sport psychologist (coming in from a traditional mainstream psych route) the overall question regarding am I a good practitioner is one that I am concerned about after nearly every session with an athlete. On paper it would be hard to argue that I haven't got the nessacary knowledge but does that mean I am 'good'?
Ref: Qualified! the 'qualified question' is driven by the issue of whether sports psychies deliver an 'intervention' when 'counselling' athletes. If it is - then you should demonstrate a level of proficiency that qualifies you to deliver that intervention. This is normally referred to as a qualification.Imagine a medical Dr. or physiotherapist questioning whether they need to be 'qualified on paper' to deliver an intervention. If a sports psychie were accused of professional misconduct and the case was tested in court, the first issue under scrutiny would be your right to practice as a sports psych. You couldn't spout some mumbo-jumbo about 'word of mouth and develop yourself'..or 'experience' - you'd be banged to rights. You all know what is mean't by the phrase qualified - stop fannying about with semantic quibbles. " Are you a qualified surgeon.".."No"..." then what qualifies you to remove that mans appendix"...." word of mouth your honour"...." Take him down"!
# posted by : 16 May 2008 10:04
: 16 May 2008 10:04
There is clearly no direct comparison to be made between the paper qualifications (and contributing experience) of a surgeon and a psychologist. This wasn't intended as a discussion of legalities. There are inevitable ambiguities in the daily business of a sport psychologist; ambiguities which surgeons do not face with such regularity. Back to a more simplistic version of my question: would you confidently recommend to a close friend who is also an athlete that s/he contacts any BASES-accredited psychologist from the list? Or a chartered psychologist from the BPS directory, for that matter?
Dan,
You are wrong, wrong and wrong again about the direct comparisons between 'paper' qualifications..they are entirely and wholly relevant. It's about professional accountability for the service you provide. Of course I wouldn't advise a freind to seek ANY BASES accredited Sports Psych from a list..or mainstream BPS registered Psych - but I certainly wouldn't recommend one who didn't meet either of these criteria on the basis of their part-time dabbling in the field. Why do we think Sports Psychologist's are seeking HPC registration? Why do you use the post nominal CPsychol? why do these things matter - professional identity, professional accountability and professional credibility! If you are honest with yourself Dan you know why you use the CPsychol nonclamenture! Youv'e worked hard to attain your professional quals, you've gained registration and you want people to know it - quite right too. You'd be gutted if you thought people suspected you were an enthusiastic amateur who was quite good at positive self-talk 'stuff'! Why are we all so precious about admitting we are 'qualified' to practice our trade? Why does it seem so odious to suggest a criteria to practise (the original question), should be evidence of a knowledge base and membership of relevant professional bodies? Plumbers, builders, electricians, driving instructors, swimming teachers, football league coaches, nurses, et.al all have to meet such criteria. Is there some worthy aspiration to amateurism I'm missing here? I'm going to withdraw from this debate now as I'm struggling to understand the thinking and direction of the 'qualified' argument. Your all too polite as well - blogs are mean't to be provocative and inflammatory - thats what makes them interesting - you lot just keep banging on about Gestalt and constructive feedback..zzzzzzzz!
You are wrong, wrong and wrong again about the direct comparisons between 'paper' qualifications..they are entirely and wholly relevant. It's about professional accountability for the service you provide. Of course I wouldn't advise a freind to seek ANY BASES accredited Sports Psych from a list..or mainstream BPS registered Psych - but I certainly wouldn't recommend one who didn't meet either of these criteria on the basis of their part-time dabbling in the field. Why do we think Sports Psychologist's are seeking HPC registration? Why do you use the post nominal CPsychol? why do these things matter - professional identity, professional accountability and professional credibility! If you are honest with yourself Dan you know why you use the CPsychol nonclamenture! Youv'e worked hard to attain your professional quals, you've gained registration and you want people to know it - quite right too. You'd be gutted if you thought people suspected you were an enthusiastic amateur who was quite good at positive self-talk 'stuff'! Why are we all so precious about admitting we are 'qualified' to practice our trade? Why does it seem so odious to suggest a criteria to practise (the original question), should be evidence of a knowledge base and membership of relevant professional bodies? Plumbers, builders, electricians, driving instructors, swimming teachers, football league coaches, nurses, et.al all have to meet such criteria. Is there some worthy aspiration to amateurism I'm missing here? I'm going to withdraw from this debate now as I'm struggling to understand the thinking and direction of the 'qualified' argument. Your all too polite as well - blogs are mean't to be provocative and inflammatory - thats what makes them interesting - you lot just keep banging on about Gestalt and constructive feedback..zzzzzzzz!
# posted by : 27 May 2008 09:55
: 27 May 2008 09:55
Dear Annoyed,
Thanks for your enthusiasm, even if you're now no longer debating! From viewing earlier responses, there are clearly differing criteria amongst people who purportedly practise. This is in contrast to the surgeon, whose competence may be assessed by his or her ability to remove a cancer successfully - or the plumber who's judged by his or her ability to successfully fit a central heating system. The outcomes desired by the client in each case are very clearly defined and measurable, and can be delivered fairly precisely in many cases. However, in what we do, the desired outcomes are often more nebulous and less conclusive. Of course I add the 'CPsychol' tag with pride, because I have worked hard for it. But I still maintain a good degree of self-criticality and introspection, because it benefits those whom I work with. I'm going to start a new blog...
Thanks for your enthusiasm, even if you're now no longer debating! From viewing earlier responses, there are clearly differing criteria amongst people who purportedly practise. This is in contrast to the surgeon, whose competence may be assessed by his or her ability to remove a cancer successfully - or the plumber who's judged by his or her ability to successfully fit a central heating system. The outcomes desired by the client in each case are very clearly defined and measurable, and can be delivered fairly precisely in many cases. However, in what we do, the desired outcomes are often more nebulous and less conclusive. Of course I add the 'CPsychol' tag with pride, because I have worked hard for it. But I still maintain a good degree of self-criticality and introspection, because it benefits those whom I work with. I'm going to start a new blog...
Hi to all practitioners. In light of the forthcoming DSEP Conference, at which Prof. Lavallee will be presenting on the use of pen-and-paper interventions, to what extent do you use these in your work? I find that encouraging an elaborate rationalising process on paper is a very useful method for teasing out adaptive thoughts in young athletes who are in an otherwise maladaptive state of mind. Your views...?
Post a Comment
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
