ISSN 1359-3706
Feedback greatly appreciated: Email [if your HTML browser doesn't support "mailto:" then use a mail package and send to: C.Evans@sghms.ac.uk]
The one day meeting has changed radically from the idea reported in Network 6(2). Apologies to the two people who submitted things for the advertised meeting. Both should emerge in a more appropriate context at Ravenscar. It became clear that there were very important things going on concerning the very survival of N.H.S. psychotherapy that concern the continuum from research through audit and quality assurance to the whole basis of purchasor/provider bargaining system.
The day that has arisen from the ashes will focus on this issue. That made the title simple as we are clearly following on from the event held at the Uffculme in 1994. The core of the day will be discussion from the floor but this will be focussed by presentations in the morning and a panel in the afternoon.
The three presentations all address the problems of survival at different levels and from different viewpoints but are all critical in the current political scene. The panel discussants are being asked to pick up specific questions or answers that can be used to secure the survival of fit psychotherapy within the N.H.S. At present the panel will include a managerial, a clinical and an audit view. We decided that the researcher view will be well represented from the floor.
The first of the presentations comes from Roy Curtis, Senior Research Fellow at the Royal College of Psychiatrists Research Unit who will be discussing the "Health of the Nation Outcome Scales" (HoNOS) which are figuring in purchasors and managers requests for information in this and other parts of the country.
The second presentation will be from Tony Roth who, with Peter Fonagy, cowrote the review of the "Research on the efficacy and effectiveness of the psychotherapies" commissioned by the D.o.H. as part of their review of psychotherapy services. He wants people to understand that he will be presenting will be his view not a D.o.H. view. The review will be published later in November no doubt couched so as to be readable by mandarins as well as clinicians and researchers). However we will be hearing a condensed version and think this preview and chance to debate with one of its authors will be immensely valuable to anyone wanting to know how best to defend their own services.
The last presentation will be from Michael Rustin who gave an excellent talk earlier this year (to the Tavistock) about the way to put psychodynamic thinking back into the core of the political agenda on health.
A flyer and two application forms are being circulated with Network. Please publicise this as widely as you can.
Chris Evans (on behalf of the conference team of CE, Jo-anne Carlyle and Gill McGauley)
[Page 1 in printed version] [return to index] [More info.] {2kb}
Firstly, many congratulations to Mark Aveline on becoming our new U.K. Vice President. S.P.R. (U.K.) will be very safe in his hands as his tremendous achievements for psychotherapy and counselling within the U.K. have shown.
This will be a very small edition of Network as these have been a very hectic few months for me. Please don't let that stop you sending in anything you think should be published for that next issue probably coming out early in 1996 with information about the next Ravenscar meeting.
I have been asked by Michael Barkham to point out that the date on the accompanying voting forms for the international S.P.R. has an incorrect final return date on it of the 1st of October. This arose because the forms were so late being sent to us and we have negotiated an extension to the 1st of November just for the U.K. so don't let your vote be wasted!
All submissions by mail should be sent to:
Section of Psychotherapy,
Dept. of General Psychiatry,
St. George's Hosp. Med. School,
Cranmer Terrace,
London SW17 0RE
Please put submissions on a DOS format 3½" or 5¼"diskette
if you can. I can cope with most WP file formats but enclose an
ASCII file if your WP is esoteric
The 'phone and 'fax number is:
0181 - 725 2540
If you are 'faxing a submission please double space it,
don't use italics and do use a large font: nothing less than 12
point otherwise I have to laboriously retype everything. If your
'fax system won't work with my fax/MODEM or fax detector then
use the Departmental 'fax on:
0181-725 3350
and make it clear it's for me and please use big type and
double spacing.
My Email address is:
C.Evans@sghms.ac.uk
try using a MIME attachment of a WP file if your mailer does MIME
(but still put an ASCII draft in as well!)
Chris Evans [Page 2 in printed version] [return to index]
The results of the election held during July are as follows. A
total of 190 voting papers were sent out and 64 were returned:
a return rate of 34 per cent. The candidate receiving the most
votes was Mark Aveline and I am therefore pleased to announce
that Mark is now UK Vice-President Elect. Congratulations to Mark
and very many thanks to Chris Evans and Jane Knowles who, by standing,
made the election constitutionally possible and also showed the
strength of candidates available for this post. Also, many thanks
to Debra Kirby-Mayers for managing the election so efficiently.
The strength of candidates, together with a number of other factors,
has led Mark and myself to consider a plan to revise the current
model in which 2 years are served as VP-Elect, followed by 4 years
as VP, and then by 2 years as past-VP acting as an institutional
support. This model evolved in the developing years of the UK
chapter and it seems appropriate to review it now. The suggestion
Mark and I are making is to move from this 2+4+2 model to a 1+3+1
model. We proposed to put this forward at the AGM at Ravenscar
next year and, if approved, for it to take immediate effect. This
means that I would stand down after the international meeting
at Amelia Island (Florida) in 1996 after serving 3 years with
Mark having run his 1 year as VP-elect. The next election would
therefore be after Mark has served 2 years as VP (summer of 1998)
in order to provide the person following him their 1 year tenure
as VP-elect.
I thought it would be helpful to set this out now in NETWORK in
order to provide the whole membership with the opportunity to
comment on this proposal prior to the AGM. If people have strong
views they wish to express on this topic, please do contact me.
One of the major activities of SPR is the international meeting
held each year and the decision to hold it in Vancouver did indeed
attract the largest number of attendees yet. It also attracted
the largest number of presentations with 7 parallel sessions through
the meeting. This led to much debate about the impact on the atmosphere
of the meeting - too diverse - with the cost that some presenters
gave their talks to only a handful of people. However, as always,
there were highlights: Clara Hill embarking on some amusing self-reflection
in her Presidential Address on dreams; some great 'whoopees' when
the meeting were shown slides of the site at Lake Como which will
host the 1996 European SPR meeting; some good scenery.....oh,
and some good presentations in the areas of change processes!
There was a healthy UK contingent present and it would be good
to hear an account of the meeting from someone who attended which
could appear in NETWORK. If anyone is interested, please contact
me or Chris Evans.
Since the York meeting, I've been involved in a small project
which has culminated in a special issue of Changes on 'Outcome
in psychotherapy' which may be of interest to members, especially
as most of the contributors are close to the heart of SPR (surprise,
surprise!): Glenys Parry, Peter Fonagy, Irene Elkin, Nigel Beail,
John McLeod, John Mellor-Clark & David Shapiro, Hans Strupp,
Roberta Russell, and Bill Stiles. It's a bridge between the 'research'
world and the 'political' world which is an important interface
for SPR members to address. The one-day meeting hosted at St George's
on 3 November continues to address this interface and this is
why the meeting is important: it provides members with the opportunity
to contribute to the wider debate while aiming to keep the research
agenda central to the Ravenscar meeting. Chris Evans, Jo-anne
Carlyle, and Gill McGauley have done a tremendous job in organising
this event: it is our task to be responsive to this opportunity
and I very much look forward you there. What this one day meeting
also provides is an opportunity to go south without losing our
beloved Ravenscar - what a good position to find oneself in.
In a past issue of NETWORK, I flagged up the issues of the increase
in dues arising from the agreement taken at the York Executive
meeting that there should be parity between SPR members and that
this would be achieved by UK members increasing their rate as
from January 1996. The issue was that UK members were paying substantially
less that the $60 paid by all other chapters (including the new
South American chapter). I invited any comments from members on
this issue. No one contacted me to object. Hence, as of January
1996, all SPR(UK) members need to increase their dues to the equivalent
of $60. Taking a rate of £1=$1.50, this results in the dues
for UK members being £40. I would be very grateful if all
members could act on this over the next 3 months. We should then
look at ways of ensuring that we achieve maximum 'value for money'
from the international body.
Michael Barkham [Pages 2 to 4 in printed version]
[return to index]
... then make sure you get a chance to air it in the congenial
setting of Ravenscar next year! We are calling for papers now,
and have a deadline for submissions of FRIDAY 13 OCTOBER. Work
need not be complete, as long as you will have results to present
in March; we want a wide range of different psychotherapy research
to think about together. This could be just the stimulus, deadline
or persecutory object you need to get you to sit down and sort
out that project you always meant to get into shape!
Depending on how much there is in submitted papers, the SPR steering
committee decides whether they should be posters (with "just
a minute introductions") or verbal presentations (which are
mostly between 15 and 30 minutes). We are happy to accept joint
presenters.
If you would prefer to develop ideas in a smaller setting, and
present and discuss them in more depth, we also have submissions
for the workshops. For these, you will get 10-25 participants
and two sessions over two consecutive days with a total of about
three hours - and then feedback to the whole conference on the
last day.
If you have any other interesting ideas for conference activities
(academic or otherwise), we would be very interested to hear from
you, again by Friday 13 October. This time we have a bonus of
two American guest speakers: Jacqueline B. Persons from San Fransisco,
and Robert Elliott from Toledo, Ohio. Those of you who know Ravenscar
will probably be glad to know that we don't intend to abandon
the afternoon free to wander into Whitby, the conference dinner
(which we have a few extra plans for this year) or the charades
that follow it. From the last conference's feedback, we shall
be making the programme a little less packed and give more time
for discussion. It will be circulated early in the New Year. The
deadline for bookings to attend will be in February.
It helps if anything you submit is on an "abstract form",
so we can track you down and get details right on the programme.
You should have all been circulated with them, but Sue Robinson
will willingly supply further copies
tel.: 01734 561 250
fax.: 01734 561 251
For enquiries about the programme, submissions, abstracts and
conference activities, please contact Rex Haigh (same numbers);
for information about bookings and general conference enquiries,
please contact Debbie Kirby-Mayers
phone or fax.: 0161 442 6291
Rex Haigh [Page 4 in printed version] [return to index]
Ravenscar '95 will be remembered by me at least for its unmemorability.
That is not to say it was uninteresting - it wasn't ; or that
it was less enjoyable - it wasn't ; but that it felt like a year
of consolidation rather than change.
Its predecessor Ravenscar '93 was a sudden uncomfortable jolt,
a change of direction, new blood, new ideas, controversy, excitement
for some, a fall in standards for others. We couldn't be expected
to keep up that pace, could we?
Some of the things we tried out reappeared this year: the one
minute poster presentations, admirably chaired by Glenys Parry,
the panel discussions on a group of papers with a similar theme
- and were judged to be sucessful. Other things like the clinical
video and brainstorming workshops did not reappear, although may
not be dead and buried.
Perhaps the most notable consolidation was in the change of emphasis
away from hard quantifiable data towards a methodology for researching
the softer areas of psychotherapy - dreams- religious bias - birth
stories - therapist abuse of their patients - which more closely
reflect the clinical activities and concerns of psychotherapists
in practice. This change recieved a mixed reception. I heard animated
discussion triggered by these presentations but also critical
comments regarding lack of rigour or doubtful methodology.
Perhaps this is the time to invite an exchange of views in Network
regarding future directions for the conference. Have we got the
balance between clinicians and full time researchers about right?
Do you have other suggestions regarding the format of the conference
or bright ideas we might try out? Speak now or for ever hold thy
peace.
Content-wise there were many interesting presentations with a
strongly pragmatic flavour. The keynote address by John Clarkin
was a clear and erudite appeal for integration of the biological
and psychological in psychiatric practice.
A group of papers on therapeutic communities had more than an
eye on their future survival which can no longer be taken for
granted. Similarly the referral patterns for C.A.T.,specialist
psychotherapy and in primary care settings carry implications
which we would do well to note. It was even suggested that psychotherapists
could ultimately be replaced by computers although a computer's
ability to monitor its own countertransference must be in some
doubt!
The conference dinner marked a presentation of the Career Achievement
Award to Tony Ryle whose C.A.T. baby continues to flourish and
mature within the portals of S.P.R.
The hotel complained that we had not drunk suficient malt whisky
since they had bought in stocks specially. This was in marked
contrast to '93 when we drunk them dry of both malts and bitter!
Whether this reflects a more sober atmosphere, I'm not sure but
the charades on Tuesday evening lacked the inebriated spontaneity
of previous years.
I am sure we can look forward to many more years of rewarding
meetings in what remains a uniquely friendly informal event, distinguished
by the ability of psychotherapists from a wide variety of backgrounds
to find areas of common ground and shared interest.
Rex Haigh and Debbie Kirby-Myers are due our grateful thanks for
another sucessful and enjoyable event, with record numbers of
participants.
Ian Macilwain [Pages 3 and 4 in the printed version]
[return to index]
As reported in July Network (6(2)), the offer at the A.G.M.
of an potentially annual prize relating to this topic led to the
formation of a discussion group to make proposals to the next
S.P.R. Committee Meeting on November 3rd.
The discussion group is in favour of such a prize. We agree that
ethical issues, widely defined, are interwoven with both psychotherapy
theory and practice. Research funds are normally directed at other
issues and our understanding of both ethics and psychotherapy
could be enriched by the broader intellectual approach to ethics
(potentially arising from research) rather than a view of ethics
as a series of proscriptions.
Four themes were identified:
A prize would encourage attention to the ethical perspective on
psychotherapy not only within S.P.R. but would signal to a wider
professional and lay audience that its relevance is taken seriously
- thus also potentially good public relations for psychotherapy
and psychotherapy research. A small committee of researchers and
laymen with special knowledge or interest in ethics could jointly
evaluate submissions for the prize. The aim is not to be implicitly
critical of psychotherapy but to enrich understanding of both
ethics and psychotherapy in this difficult interpersonal domain.
S.P.R. (U.K.) was felt to be the most suitable sponsoring body
and that there would be mutual benefits in such a prize. SPR has
funds which could be used, as mentioned at the A.G.M.
The members of the discussion group wish to propose a session
on this topic at the next Ravenscar meeting and cordially invite
the following:
(a) outlines of 10 or 20 minute contributions on
to us and to Rex Haigh, the Conference Programme Coordinator before
Friday 13 October, so that we could organise an agenda for the
session.
(b) comments favouring the idea are welcome: especially also comments
unfavourable to the idea that it would be helpful to consider
before recommendations to the SPR Committee are made.
(c) advice based on experience of members in the administration
of comparable prizes
(d) suggestions for fine tuning the criteria for such a prize,
which might vary according to submissions received, in terms of
"the substantive issues, novelty of insight, clarity of expression,
value to particular audiences" etc.
Discussion group members. Gwen Adshead, Erica Brostoff, Chris
Evans, Chris Mace, Hilde Rapp. All communications welcome to coordinator
Erica Brostoff [Page 5 in printed version][return to index]
Again no submissions and no cuttings for this section, are we
all just to embroiled in local defence of our N.H.S. or other
base that we have no energy left over for campaigning? If so I
fear we're in real trouble as a community of psychotherapists
and psychotherapy researchers. I believe psychotherapy was on
the list of services that Berkshire Health Commission (I may have
that title slightly wrong but a purchasing authority for Berkshire)
put up for discussion as services that the N.H.S. could no longer
afford to fund. There are many obvious counterattacks but I think
we should be coordinating making them!
Chris Evans [Page 6 in printed version] [return to index]
Network on the Internet is now averaging two accesses a
day (I don't know how many people read how much of what's there
nor whether this is a few people coming back and back or different
people each time). I'm about to mount this and the last issue
and to push the Internet publicity much further. They can be reached
by those with the necessary connection and software at:
http://sghms.ac.uk/intro.htm
That's our Psychotherapy Section "home page" and it's
getting about 50 accesses a day and the rate is still rising steadily.
Only about 18% are from the U.K. as far as it is possible to work
out routes of access from site locations. If you have things that
are psychotherapy or psychotherapy research related and you want
them to be hung off those home pages then send them to me on diskette
and I'll mount them within three weeks if they don't seem likely
to land me in court!
Network in its paper incarnation is created using Microsoft
Publisher 2.0a and the latter is proving capricious. Anyone got
the money to buy me PageMaker 6.0 or anything guaranteed to work
reliably? Bill Gates are you listening?!
Chris Evans [Page 6 in the printed version] [return to index]
As noted in Network 6(2), Mary Burton is holding her first
exhibition of paintings at St. Botolph's Church, Aldgate (adjacent
to the Aldgate Tube Station). Mary has asked me to alert people
that the times have changed slightly from those given in 6(2).
The private view is on Sunday afternoon, the 29th
of October from 14.00 to 18.00. Members of SPR are
especially invited to attend at that time, although the exhibition
will remain open until Thursday the 16th of November. It you are
visiting London during that three-week period, you are warmly
invited to call in. The church is open on weekdays, 10.00 to 15.30
on Sundays from 11.30 to 12.30.
[Page 6 in the printed version] [return to index]
I am accumulating books sent by publishers for review. I'm also
(when I can find time) passing on specific requests from readers
to publishers. Publishers won't provide books published more than
two years ago and British based publishers are generally easier
than American but if you have requests, pass them on. For the
remainder, listed below, my system hasn't changed. Send me a cheque
for the cost of the book made out to:
S.G.H.M.S. MHGP RNFB account
That's my research account. When you do the review, I pay you
back and you have the kudos of a publication! Write to the address
shown in the editorial. Please, no matter how eminent you are,
don't just write saying you'll do one of the books on the list
without a cheque. When you've got a track record of delivering
I may start sending books out without the cheque, until then,
no go! All this is done in my free time so if you ask me to chase
a book and don't hear from me, that's because I haven't been sent
it by the publishers.
O.K. now who wants to do:
[HTML readers. I can only offer books for review to SPR(UK)
members (though I might bend on that for books that have been
around my office for say eighteen months!). If you are
an SPR(UK) member then go ahead and contact me:
C.Evans@sghms.ac.uk
Chris Evans [Pages 6 to 7 in the printed version][return to index]
McLeod, John (1994) Doing Counselling Research London:Sage.
Pp. 196(?), ISBN 0-8039-7804-9, £10.95 pbk.
This book is a wonderfully comprehensive guide to thinking about
and conducting research specifically into psychotherapy. It follows
the whole research process, beginning with reading and reviewing
the literature through deciding on a research question to writing
the final project. It covers quantitative and qualitative approaches
with constant attention to ethical and practical considerations,
and the philosophical underpinnings of each approach. It is written
with great clarity and encourages critical thought about what
is being researched and why as well as how.
The first chapter addresses the importance and use of counselling
research, giving common sense explanations of the point of research
into counselling and psychotherapy. This chapter also contains
a brilliantly down-to-earth discussion of what research is and
incorporates a very understandable history of the seminal thoughts
in the philosophy of science as they relate to considerations
of research into counselling.
This clarity continues throughout the rest of the book. The style
is very readable and discussions are easily comprehensible without
being oversimplified. Each chapter contains boxes summarising
the main elements of the discussion, and references to sources
of more specific information follow each point. The daunting task
of research is broken into digestible and less intimidating parts
in a reassuring and methodical way.
It is very difficult to single out the parts of the book that
I particularly enjoyed above others as I learned from all of it.
However, the chapter devoted to the research process, which has
practical suggestions of how to anticipate and ease the difficulties
of research helped make light of some of my fears as well as confirming
them! I was also very grateful for the chapters on qualitative
research, which outline different ways to approach the collection
of qualitative data and explain the underlying theories. These
chapters address, amongst other techniques, qualitative questionnaires,
participant observation, co-operative inquiry groups, as well
as data analysis. Other chapters address process research and
evaluations of outcome. A whole chapter discusses ethical considerations
in counselling research with practical suggestions for approaching
issues.
In fact "Doing Counselling Research" is written about
research into psychotherapy in general rather than counselling
in particular, and is intended for people at all professional
levels who aim to conduct research or read research papers critically.
As a new researcher hoping to evaluate therapeutic community treatments
using qualitative methods for a post graduate degree, I found
this book very readable, informative, and reassuring. It is even
more valuable because it explains research into psychotherapy
specifically, which fills in the gap between many research textbooks,
which approach particular research strategies, and the subject
that one wants to research. I would highly recommend it to anybody
who was looking for an introductory textbook to researching psychological
therapies and a source of references for further information on
any element of research in this area.
Fiona Warren. Assistant Psychologist, Henderson Hospital,
Surrey.
[Page 7 in the printed version][return to index]
As a member of the SPR Email list, I've received a request for
submissions for special sections of Psychotherapy Research.
The deadline for the first has fallen between two issues of
Network but the second, which feels very topical is still
one you can make.
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 95 21:18:38+010
Please consider writing something for one of the following:
Psychotherapy Research and the Demands of the Present Moment:
A Call for Papers for Two Special Sections of Psychotherapy
Research
Psychotherapy research is facing critical demands stemming from
political, economic, scientific and practical developments. These
developments have raised a number of key debates in the field.
We believe that SPR members have the expertise to take part in
these debates and that SPR's journal, Psychotherapy Research,
can provide an important forum for these debates. For this reason,
we are issuing a Call for Papers for two special sections to be
published in Psychotherapy Research. We are seeking 10-20
page papers on two topics of importance to SPR members:
(1) The Empirically Validated Treatment Controversy. In
the past two years, North America and Europe have seen an organized
movement toward the official designation of specific psychotherapies
as "empirically-validated" for insurance and training
purposes. In the USA, this movement is centered around
the APA Division 12 Guidelines for Empirically Validated Treatments,
while in Germany, Meyer et al.'s "expert statement"
endorsing specific treatments and Grawe et al.'s (1994)
Psychotherapie im Wandel are both attracting considerable
attention. For this special section, we are looking for papers
supporting and criticizing this movement. Deadline: 1 Oct. 1995.
[This was extended to Nov. 1st immediately after Network
went to press -- see the advantages of reading it on the WWW!]
(2) Health Services Research: Opportunities and Pitfalls for
Psychotherapy Researchers. Research on real-world utilization
of psychotherapeutic services is another hot topic in Europe and
North America. The managed care industry has discovered "Outcomes"
research and some psychotherapy researchers are moving into the
field of Health Services Research, including utilization patterns,
large-scale outcome, medical cost offset and burden of illness,
doseeffect, cost-effectiveness analyses, and related approaches.
However, some have argued that traditional psychotherapy research
methods are largely irrelevant for conducting useful research
of this type. Thus, Health Services Research offers both opportunities
and pitfalls for psychotherapy researchers. We are looking for
papers which point to the opportunities or warn of the pitfalls,
or both. Deadline: 1 Jan. 1996.
North American manuscripts should be submitted to Robert Elliott,
Department of Psychology, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606
USA.
European manuscripts to Bernhard Strauss: Klinik fuer Psychotherapie,
Universitaet Kiel, Niemannsweg 147, D24105 Kiel, Germany.
All others to Hans Strupp: Department of Psychology, Wilson Hall,
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37240.
Direct inquiries to Robert Elliott (fax: 419-537-8479; e-mail:
fac0029@uoft01.utoledo.edu).
Please pick up the 'phone now and ring:
01734 561250
or write to:
Sue Clarke or Sue Robinson will give you the details and send
you an application form. Then write to me and tell me what you
think of Network, or better still, write an article, a
book review or a response to anything in this edition and send
that to me [contact details]. [Page 14
in printed version] [return to index]
Vice president's message
Results of the election for UK Vice-President
From the west coast to the south coast - well almost!
IMPORTANT: Announcing an increase in SPR(UK) dues
Are you planning, doing, writing up
or wondering what to do with some interesting research?
Report on the Ravenscar Conference 1995
Annual prize for Ethics in Psychotherapy
What is the basis of ethics? What does it mean psychologically
to break a boundary? Could an in-depth view of ethics help you
in your therapeutic/research work? etc?
ethics in psychotherapy, or
psychotherapy research, or on
a prize,
Campaign Corner
I.T. Corner
Watercolour Exhibition
Books for review
ISBN 1-85302-252-7, £??.?? pbk.
Doing Counselling Research
Submissions for Psychotherapy Research
Reply-to: FAC0029@UOFT01.BITNET
Sender: spr-l@sip.medizin.uni-ulm.de
From: Robert Elliott <FAC0029@UOFT01.BITNET>
To: Multiple recipients of list <spr-l@sip.medizin.uni-ulm.de>
Subject: Call for Papers, Two Special Sections of Psychotherapy
Research
Dear SPR Colleague:
If you live in Britain and you're interested
in joining SPR(UK)
53-55 Argyle Road,
Reading RG1 7YL
Fax.: 01734 561251