Training The Person of The Therapist in An Academic Setting: Drexel University

 

 Journal of Marital and Family Therapy  doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2009.00123.x October 2009, Vol. 35, No. 4, 381–394

TRAINING THE PERSON OF THE THERAPIST IN AN ACADEMIC SETTING Harry J. Aponte Drexel University

Frankie Denise Powell The University of North Carolina at Pembroke

Stephanie Brooks, Marlene F. Watson, Cheryl Litzke Drexel University

John Lawless Empire State College

Eric Johnson Drexel University

Drexel University’s Couple and Family Therapy Department recently introduced a formal  course on training the person of a therapist. The course is based on Aponte’s Person-ofthe-Therapist Training Model that up until now has only been applied in private, nonacademic institutes therapists. The model attempts to putvulnerabilities into practice in a  philosophy that with viewspostgraduate the full person of therapists, and their personal  particular, as the central tool through which therapists do their work in the context of the client–therapist relationship. This article offers a description of how this model has been tested with a group of volunteer students, and subsequently what had to be considered to  formally structure the training into the Drexel curriculum. Historically the Commission on Accreditation for Marriage and Family Therapy Education (COAMF (CO AMFTE TE)) has str strugg uggled led wit with h how to int integr egrate ate sel self-o f-of-th f-the-t e-ther herapi apist st tra traini ining ng int into o sch school ool curric cur ricula ula (Wa (Watso tson, n, 199 1993). 3). The There re are at lea least st thr three ee cur curren rentt cha challe llenge ngess tha thatt req requir uiree edu educat cation ional al programs to revisit their stance on how to conduct this training in an efficacious and ethical manner. First, the impending development of the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy’s clinical competencies (www.aamft.org) will require educational programs to determine how to instruct and evaluate competency in the area of the self of the therapist. Second, traini tra ining ng pro progra grams ms wil willl gra grappl pplee wit with h how to ass assist ist the thera rapis pists’ ts’ dev develo elopme pment nt at a per person sonal al lev level el that is in keeping with accreditation standards and does not morph into therapy. Third, as the profes pro fessio sion n mov moves es tow toward ard mor moree int integr egrati ative ve app approa roache ches, s, the que questi stion on pre presen sents ts its itself elf of how to positi pos ition on sel self-o f-of-th f-the-t e-ther herapi apist st tra traini ining ng int into o cur curric ricula ula tha thatt are com compat patibl iblee wit with h a yet evo evolvi lving ng complex of therapy models.

Harry J. Apon Harry Aponte, te, MSW, LCSW, LMFT LMFT,, Clinic Clinical al Asso Associat ciatee Prof Professo essor, r, Drex Drexel el Unive University rsity;; Fran Frankie kie Deni Denise se Powell, Powe ll, PhD, Asso Associate ciate Professor, Professor, Depa Departme rtment nt of Prof Professi essiona onall Educ Education ation Programs, Programs, The Unive University rsity of Nort North h Carolina at Pembroke; Stephanie Brooks, MSW, LCSW, LMFT, Clinical Assistant Professor, Director, Master of Fam Family ily The Therap rapy y and Po Post st Mas Master ter’s ’s Ce Certi rtific ficate ate Pro Progra gram, m, Dre Drexel xel Uni Univer versit sity; y; Mar Marlen lenee F. Wat Watso son, n, PhD PhD,, Associate Professor and Chair, Couple and Family Therapy Department, Drexel University; Cheryl Litzke, PhD, LMFT, Clinical Assistant Professor, Drexel University; John J. Lawless, PhD, LMFT, Empire State College; Eric Johnson, PhD, LMFT, Clinical Assistant Professor, Drexel University. Address Addr ess correspond correspondence ence to Dr. Harry J. Apon Aponte, te, MSW, LCSW LCSW,, LMFT LMFT,, 1420 Walnut Street, Suite 920, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102; E-mail: [email protected]

Octoberr 2009 Octobe

 

JOURNAL JOUR NAL OF MARI MARITAL TAL AND FAMI FAMILY LY THER THERAPY  APY 

 

381

 

The purpose of this article is twofold: to further the conceptualization and articulation of  self-of-theself-o f-the-thera therapist pist training in grad graduate uate programs, programs, as well as to illus illustrate trate how one academic institu ins titutio tion, n, Dre Drexel xel Uni Univer versit sity’s y’s Cou Couple ple and Fam Family ily The Therap rapy y Dep Depart artmen ment, t, is att attemp emptin ting g to implement one model of training on the use of self, the Person-of-the-Therapist Training Model (POTT) (PO TT).. We wil willl des descri cribe be the the theory ory,, the app applic licati ation on of the mod model, el, and som somee adm admini inistr strati ative ve challenges to institutionalizing the model.

THE PERSON-OF-THE-THERAPIST TRAINING MODEL Theoretical Framework The POTT model calls for mastery of self to meet the personal challenges clients present to us in bot both h the tec techni hnical cal ven venue ue and the the therap rapeut eutic ic rel relati ations onship hip.. The model pro proffer fferss thr three ee basic goals of the training. First, in order to be able to achieve this personal mastery in the profes pro fessio sional nal con contex textt of the therap rapy, y, the therap rapist istss mus mustt   know   themselves themselves,, parti particular cularly ly the domin dominant ant personal perso nal chall challenges enges—psyc —psycholog hological, ical, cultur cultural, al, and spiri spiritual— tual—that that mark their lives lives,, alon along g with the history and current status of their struggle with these life themes. Models for the use of self  normal nor mally ly foc focus us alm almost ost exc exclus lusive ively ly on the emo emotio tional nal asp aspect ectss of the therap rapist ists’ s’ liv lives. es. The POT POTT T model also lends weight to therapists’ culture, values, and spirituality, which are as vital as their psycho psy cholog logy y in for formin ming g the their ir out outloo looks ks tow toward ard lif lifee and its cha challe llenge nges. s. Sec Second ond,, cli clinic nician ianss mus mustt have the ability to ability  to observe, have access to, and exercise judgment about judgment  about the emotions, memories, and behavior behaviorss tha thatt spr spring ing from the their ir own personal personal themes themes whi while le in the act actual ual drama drama of the therapeutic process. Third, they must be able to   manage   their own person, with all the emotional, cultural, and spiritual forces operating in them, actively and purposely in line with their therapeutic goals. This last implies the ability of therapists to utilize their personal life history and inn inner er emo emotio tional nal exp experi erienc ences es to bot both h   identify   with and and   differentiate   themselves themselves from their clients. Therapists must be able to recognize the common elements of the human experience in their clients’ life-struggles to the point of being able to track clients’ personal journeys through a conscious connection with their own personal journeys. Therapists must also be so grounded in their own life’s pilgrimage that they do not so embroil themselves in their clients’ affective churni chu rnings ngs tha thatt the they y los losee the emo emotio tional nal dis distan tance ce nec necess essary ary to see see,, and con conseq sequen uently tly cha challe llenge nge their clients in their reality. The predecessors of the POTT model focused primarily on self-improvement. Satir spoke of Freud’s requirement of a didactic analysis for trainees as a way of preventing therapists from harming patients. Her goal was ‘‘the positive use of self [in order to] be of positive value in treatment’’ (Satir, 2000, p. 26). For her, this meant ‘‘becoming a more integrated self’’ in order to be ‘‘a ‘‘able ble to mak makee gre greate aterr con contac tactt wit with h the other person person [th [thee cli client ent]’’ ]’’ (p. 24 24). ). In con contra trast, st, POTT lends greater emphasis to training on   how how to  to use the self in the clinical context, than on how therapists achieve a certain level of personal growth and resolution as a precondition to an effective use of self. Murray Mur ray Bowen (1972), (1972), on the oth other er han hand, d, aim aimed ed for the fam family ily therapis therapistt ‘‘t ‘‘to o lis listen ten and obse ob serv rvee an and d fu func ncti tion on fr from om a po posi siti tion on at le leas astt pa part rtia iall lly y ‘o ‘out utsi side de’’ th thee em emot otio iona nall fie field ld of th thee family’’ (Bowen, p. 112). The training of therapists in the Bowen model ‘‘focused on helping the trainee work on his or her own emotional functioning, particularly in his or her own family’’ (Kerr, 1981, p. 262). Bowen asserted that those trainees who through coaching ‘‘had been most mo st su succ cces essf sful ul wi with th th thei eirr [o [own wn]] fa fami mili lies es de deve velo lope ped d un unus usua uall sk skil illl an and d fle flexi xibi bili lity ty as fa fami mily ly psychotherapists’’ (Bowen, 1972, p. 164). While the POTT model agrees that resolving personal issues frees a therapist to make a fuller use of self, it attends more emphatically to   how   the therapist works with what he or she brings of the self to the therapeutic process, especially to the existential reality of  today’s encounter.   today’s  encounter. Bochner (2000) speaks of the use of self in terms of the psychoanalytic concept of  counter  countertransference.. He recognizes that countertransference ‘‘has been elevated from an obstacle to be transference

382

 

JOURNAL JOUR NAL OF MARI MARITAL TAL AND FAMI FAMILY LY THER THERAPY  APY 

 

Octoberr 2009 Octobe

 

avoided (Freud, 1910) to a tool that is often very useful in understanding the patient’’ (p. 1). The POTT model agrees except that it views the self of the therapist not just in terms of Bochner’s definition of countertransference, namely ‘‘the therapist’s reactions’’ to the client based on particular ‘‘characteristics of the client or client-family as well as of the therapist’’ (p. 1). The POTT model also considers the whole person of the therapist, with all that the therapist brings to the therapeutic relationship, including the therapist’s human vulnerabilities, as assets through whic wh ich h th thee cl clin inic icia ian n pr prac acti tice cess hi hiss or he herr cr craf aft. t. Ce Cert rtai ainl nly, y, th thee PO POTT TT mo mode dell co conc ncur urss th that at th thee unique uni que rel relati ations onship hip eve every ry the therap rapist ist for forms ms wit with h eac each h cli client ent doe doess ind indeed eed dra draw w out rea reacti ctions ons in both therapist and client that create the singular character of the human connection within the professional context of each therapeutic relationship. However, within the environment of this unique relationship therapists and clients do not simply react to each other. Therapists need to active act ively ly con contri tribut butee fro from m the their ir lif lifee exp experi erienc encee to the for format mation ion of a rel relati ations onship hip tha thatt sup suppor ports ts thee te th tech chni nica call st stru ruct ctur uree of th thee th ther erap apeu euti ticc pr proc oces ess. s. Th This is is wh why y th ther erap apis ists ts al alwa ways ys be bear ar responsibility for how they consciously and purposefully choose to work with and through the therapist–client relationship. Both the Satir and Bowen models underscored that a positive change in the self of the therapist by its very nature translated into a more competent therapist. The POTT model (Aponte, 1994b, 199 4b, pp. 147 147–16 –167; 7; Apo Aponte nte & Win Winter ter,, 200 2000) 0) enc encour ourage agess the effo efforts rts of the therap rapist istss loo lookin king g to ‘‘free’’ (Bowen, 1972, p. 164) themselves of dysfunctional ties to their own families and achieve a healthier self. However, it concentrates more closely on therapists’ ability to use the person they are   today, today, rather than who they aspire to be tomorrow. Moreover, in this article we are weighing in on the challenge of how one conducts this very personal kind of training (Aponte, 1994a) in an academic context. The Underlying Philosophy and Structure of the Model in the Academic Setting The POTT model referred to earlier in the Aponte and Winter (2000) article was originally put into practice with postgraduate therapists who committed to the training program one year at a time, but who could recommit from year to year indefinitely. They came from a variety of  different agencies and practice settings. The trainees were pledged to confidentiality, and supervisors or administrators were not to be in the same group with someone over whom they held the power or responsibility to evaluate, hire, or fire. This structure allowed the participants to freely fre ely explore explore the their ir per person sonal al iss issues ues,, and wor work k on the them m as the they y man manife ifeste sted d the themse mselve lvess in the trainees’ clinical practice. The structure encouraged the pursuit of personal insight, and efforts to confront personal issues, although the trainers never assumed the role of therapists to the trainees. The trainers functioned more as coaches in this regard, who supported trainees’ efforts to seek changes in their personal lives that would also further their professional development. Trainees also commonly received support to pursue personal therapy while in training. In the original application of the model, more attention was paid to trainees looking to achieve personal growth and change than has been considered appropriate in the academic setting of the Drexel program. For one, the private trainees faced no limits to how long they could continue in this personal training effort. Another reason for the difference was that trainees were contracting explicitly for this personal work, albeit related to their professional performance, which allowe all owed d for a str struct ucture ure that did not hav havee to acc accomm ommoda odate te oth other er con consid sidera eratio tions, ns, such as the priorities prior ities of a grad graduate uate program to provi provide de a compl complete ete profe profession ssional al train training ing and educa educationa tionall experience. It wa wass th thee co conv nvic icti tion on of th thee ne need ed fo forr mo more re sy syst stem emat atic ic tr trai aini ning ng on th thee us usee of se self lf th that at prompted Marlene Watson (1993), the program director of Drexel’s Couple and Family Therapy Department, to invite Harry Aponte to test his POTT model at Drexel. The Drexel program had had a course, ‘‘The Therapist’s Experience,’’ that helped students become aware of  their family-of-origin issues (Braverman, 1997, pp. 352–353), but did not take the next step to teach them what to do in their clinical practice with what they had learned about themselves. It

Octoberr 2009 Octobe

 

JOURNAL JOUR NAL OF MARI MARITAL TAL AND FAMI FAMILY LY THER THERAPY  APY 

 

383

 

cert rtai ainl nly y di did d no nott at atte temp mptt to te teac ach h th them em ho how w to ma make ke us usee of th thei eirr ow own n li life fe’s ’s st stru rugg ggle less an and d ce vulnerabilities to become more insightful and empathic therapists. This latter concept presented the most unique feature of the POTT model. The person-of-the-therapist training was introduced expressly to hone students’ skills in the use of themselves in their therapy. This goal calls for heightened self-awareness at a deep personal son al lev level, el, and the con conseq sequen uentt ass assump umptio tion n of gre greate aterr res respon ponsib sibili ility ty for one one’s ’s sel selff and one one’s ’s issues in the therapeutic encounter with clients. The cornerstone of this personal exploration is the of the   signature theme. The theme.  The philosophy the termand is that welife. all live our veryconcept own unique-to-each-person signature strugglesbehind with ourselves with Our with biology, our family histories, our gender, race, ethnicity, cultures, and spirituality, along with the effects of the choices we have made in life, all shape who we are today. Woven into the fabric of these lifee exp lif experi erienc ences es ar aree hur hurts, ts, dis disapp appoin ointme tments nts,, and los losses ses tha thatt for form m the cor coree of eac each h per person son’s ’s lifelong personal emotional vulnerabilities, which we here label  signature themes.  These personal themes the mes imp imprin rintt the themse mselve lvess int into o our att attitu itudes des,, emo emotio tions, ns, and beh behavi aviors ors in bot both h our per person sonal al and professional lives. However, just as in the private version of this model, a fuller, conscious connection with self requires that students be more empathic toward themselves about their struggles with their personal vulnerabilities and failings. This self-acceptance (not to be confused with self-pity or self-i sel f-indu ndulge lgence nce)) pro promot motes es a fre freedo edom m fro from m the tyr tyrann anny y of sha shame me abo about ut the their ir han hang-u g-ups ps tha thatt allows all ows the them m to act active ively ly eng engage age wit with h the their ir vul vulner nerabi abilit lities ies in the ser servic vicee of the their ir the therap rapeut eutic ic efforts effo rts.. Per Person sonal al gr growt owth h and cha change nge oft often en fol follow low the rea realiz lizati ation on of thi thiss fre freedo edom, m, a des desira irable ble but incidental result of the training. Students wanting to pursue personal growth often also seek out personal therapy for themselves. By the very nature of our work, we as therapists deal with the emotional wounds of our clients. We conduct this undertaking of therapy through our own wounds, and so may properly be called ‘‘wounded healers’’ (Nouwen, 1972). Through our own life’s struggles we understand and emp empath athize ize wit with h the str strugg uggles les of our cli client ents. s. Thr Throug ough h our sha shared red wou wounde nded d hum humani anity ty we connect at an intuitive depth with the personal vulnerabilities of our clients. Hence, the centrality of the concept of the signature the  signature theme. Moreover, the ability to relate to clients’ efforts to contend with their life battles will be proportionate to the commitment we, as therapists, make to challenge ourselves to engage the  journey of our own personal growth and change. This freedom to face our signature themes and an d gr grap appl plee po posi siti tive vely ly wi with th th them em op open enss us to vi view ewin ing g th thes esee pe pers rson onal al wo woun unds ds as po port rtal alss through which we can reach beyond our usual limitations to new insights and new behaviors. Thiss phi Thi philos losoph ophy y abo about ut lif life’s e’s tro troubl ubles, es, esp especi eciall ally y tho those se we car carry ry wit within hin our oursel selves ves,, as spe specia ciall oppo op port rtun unit itie iess fo forr pe pers rson onal al gr grow owth th an and d ch chan ange ge li lies es at th thee ce cent nter er of th thee PO POTT TT mo mode del. l. Th Thee school that tak school takes es on thi thiss tra traini ining ng des design ign will be car carryi rying ng thi thiss cor coree phi philos losoph ophy y int into o the cla classssroom and supervisory session.

INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF THE POTT MODEL The POTT Model in the Drexel Curriculum The Master Master of Fam Family ily Therapy Therapy Pro Progra gram m is hou housed sed in the Cou Couple ple and Family Family The Therap rapy y Depart Dep artmen mentt at Dre Drexel xel.. The MFT pro progra gram m pro provid vides es stu studen dents ts wit with h ful fulll exp exposu osure re to the maj major or family fam ily the thera rapy py app approa roache ches, s, and mak makes es a spe specia ciall effo effort rt to inc includ ludee sch school oolss usi using ng lar larger ger sys system tem and cultural cultural context context fra framew mework orks. s. The first yea yearr of the pro progra gram m is des design igned ed to int introd roduce uce the foundational knowledge and theories of the field, and to start students in practicum experiences that will socialize them to the profession. It is with the goal of orienting students to the connection tio n bet betwee ween n the per person sonal al dim dimens ension ion of the therap rapy y and tec techni hnical cal fac facet et of cli clinic nical al wor work k tha thatt the faculty decided to introduce POTT to students in their first year instead of later in their training. Person-of-the-therapist training would expose these aspiring therapists to the notion that

384

 

JOURNAL JOUR NAL OF MARI MARITAL TAL AND FAMI FAMILY LY THER THERAPY  APY 

 

Octoberr 2009 Octobe

 

their own person will be engaging very real people with very human struggles, not unlike their own.. The own They y wou would ld lea learn rn to rel relate ate to the per person sonal al dim dimens ension ion of the the therap rapeut eutic ic pro proces cesss eve even n as th they ey be beco come me fa fami mili liar ar wi with th th thee th theo eori ries es an and d te tech chni niqu ques es of th thee va vari riou ouss sc scho hool olss of fa fami mily ly therapy. Because the early applications of the POTT model (Aponte & Winter, 2000) were implemented men ted in pri priva vate te set settin tings gs wit with h gra gradua duated ted the therap rapist ists, s, the Dre Drexel xel pro progra gram m fac faced ed a sig signifi nifican cantt task in adapting the model to an academic setting with novice clinicians. The faculty considered POTT’s philosophy of normalizing the challenge of our human strugglestoinstudents life’s journey key contribution to the orientation of aspiring therapists. Giving permission to not adeny and hide their human flaws along with their personal struggles is an attitude reorientation that challenged their assumptions and fantasies about what makes a ‘‘good’’ or ‘‘flawless’’ marriage and family thera therapist. pist. Although personal personal and professional professional improvement improvement is a lifelo lifelong ng goal goal,, the people who are doing the therapy at any moment in time are the people they are right then with wi th al alll th thei eirr hu huma man n fa fail ilin ings gs.. Th Thee st stud uden ents ts co coul uld d no now w co cons nsid ider er th thee ch chal alle leng ngee of th thei eirr ow own n humanity as a bridge, instead of an impediment, to their clients’ humanity. Implementation of the Model  The Drexel program first tested the model in the fall of 2002 with a volunteer pilot group of six students (refer to ‘‘Reflections of Two Trainees,’’ Lutz & Irizarry, in press). The faculty witnessed a significant growth in the clinical sensitivity and acuity of the students who persevered through the volunteer POTT experience for the full two years. This exposure also confirmed the usefulness of the person-training in helping to identify problems for the structure of  the academic program. Because the pilot was a no-credit, volunteer experience, it was an addon to an already demanding curriculum. The pilot highlighted how the training needed to be fully integrated into the schedule and curricula of the program. Adding such a demanding experience as an extra to a very full schedule drew complaints and dropouts. In the third year, the POTT experience became part of the curriculum for all first-year students, and their class load was adjusted accordingly. (The traditional second-year group supervision by POTT-experienced facult fac ulty y sim simply ply kep keptt the firs first-y t-year ear POT POTT T gro groups ups int intact act,, mak making ing for a pri primar mary y cli clinic nical al foc focus us enriched by the person-of-the-therapist perspective.) For the faculty the opportunity of the program to syste systematic matically ally introduce introduce perso person-of-t n-of-the-the he-therapis rapistt train training ing offered a means not only to enhanc enh ancee stu studen dents’ ts’ cli clinic nical al ski skills lls,, but als also o to ide identi ntify fy ear early ly pro proble blemat matic ic iss issues ues of ind indivi ividua duall students. Faculty could act promptly to offer students specific support. The structure of the new classes aimed for no more than ten students per class with two faculty members to lead. Classes ran on quarters. The first quarter emphasized students identifying their personal signature themes. The second quarter looked for students to recognize how their emotional issues and personal values manifested themselves in their work with clients. The third quarter asked students to focus on choosing how they utilized their personal selves therapeutica peu tically lly in the their ir rel relati ations onship hipss wit with h cli client entss and in the tech technic nical al asp aspect ectss of the their ir wor work, k, fro from m assessment to goal setting to interventions. Classes were scheduled for 2 hr, with one student presenting each hour. In the first two quarters, they submitted ahead of time a write-up that follow fol lowed ed eit either her the   personal   thee   clinical   outline (se (seee app append endix) ix).. Whe When n pre presen sentin ting g on the their ir personal   or th clinical   outline signat sig nature ure the themes mes,, stu studen dents ts des descri cribed bed eith either er a per person sonal al inc incide ident nt or cli clinic nical al exp experi erienc encee tha thatt highlighted their personal issue. When they presented their clinical work they were expected to play a segment of videotape that they believed provided a good example of their personal issues manifesting in their clinical performance. In both situations the individual student would work with the trainers for about 50 min, leaving the last 10 min for the other students to react to the presentation. The instructions for the nonpresenters were for them to be supportive while offering personal insights about how the presentation spoke to their issues. Sharing the commonality of experience would hopefully promote self-acceptance and empathy among the students. In the third quarter, students had the opportunity to receive live supervision with families played by

Octoberr 2009 Octobe

 

JOURNAL JOUR NAL OF MARI MARITAL TAL AND FAMI FAMILY LY THER THERAPY  APY 

 

385

 

paid d act actors ors who sim simula ulated ted str strugg uggles les wit with h pre prepla planne nned d iss issues ues.. The stu studen dents ts were were ins instru tructed cted to pai pay special attention to their use of self, and to fill out a questionnaire after the session related to the use of their person (see appendix). The Role of Trainers The decision from the beginning was to use two trainers to lead the groups. Past experience in the private sector had demonstrated that the added trainer provided another source of emotional support, guidance, and torson the Each coleader another world vision from fr om th the e vi view ewpo poin intt of hi his s orinsight herr pe he pers onal alprocess. life li fe ex expe peri rien ence ces, s, an and d offers poss po ssib ibly ly et ethn hnic icit ity, y, ge gend nder er,, cultur cul ture, e, and spi spirit ritual uality ity.. In add additi ition, on, the cot cotrai rainer ner ser serves ves as a pro profes fessio sional nal com comple plemen mentt and emotional support to his or her partner. The personal nature of the presentations is emotionally demanding on the trainers, who need to be alert not only to the needs of the student presenting, but also to the other members of the group who are resonating and reacting to the presenter’s material. The second group leader is that extra needed resource. Before each presentation, the trainers review the student’s written material and discuss the conten con tent. t. The They y coo coordi rdinat natee the their ir thi thinki nking ng abo about ut the iss issue ue the stu studen dentt is pre presen sentin ting, g, and the their ir strategy for handling it. Over time the trainers articulate specific goals and strategies for each student linked directly to how their signature themes relate to their clinical performance. For each student presentation one trainer takes the lead. They usually assume the lead by rotation, but may for particular circumstances decide that on that day one trainer or the other should lead with a particular student. Trainers need to be highly conscious of their particular process with each presenting student. The very special challenge faculty face in conducting such personal training in an academic setting is the matter of helping students connect deeply with and learn to work with their personal life issues clearly within the boundaries of their roles as therapists. In a process parallel to what students are to learn, the trainers are sensitive to how they use themselves in their work with the presenting students. However, what has to be firmly established from the beginning with the training faculty is that the training is not therapy (Aponte, 1994a). It is a personal preparation for doing professional counseling. The trainers are guided by three basic objectives. They are to help students conceptualize their signature themes, develop the ability to recognize and be in touch with how their themes relate to their therapy, and, finally, develop the skills to actively utilize their themes for doing better bet ter the therap rapy. y. Con Concep ceptua tualiz lizing ing the sig signat nature ure the theme me cal calls ls for put puttin ting g a nam namee and wor workab kable le description to the signature theme. The aim is to help students gain a handle on their thematic life struggles, making it easier for them to reference their own personal experiences when they are thinking about how to work through their person in therapy. The label gives them some emotional distance from their history and life experience so that they can call on it as needed, and not get so lost in the emotional intensity of their personal issues that they cannot use them as thera therapeutic peutic tools. The tra traine iners rs als also o wan wantt stu studen dents ts to ach achiev ievee a cer certai tain n com comfor fortt and familiar familiarity ity wit with h the their ir issues to gain them greater freedom to work with and through their personal experience in the therapeutic process. They seek to have students reach into how they experience the memories, needs, hurts, and emotions connected to their signature themes in the context of doing therapy. They attempt to help students recognize how their personal values and worldviews shade and shape their perspectives on clients and client issues. They look to have ongoing dialogue with students about their personal stuff so that it comes to feel quite natural for students to look into themselves as they engage with clients. The faculty leaders help train students to interpret their personal experience in the therapeutic process as clues to understanding their clients, as signals to what in themselves they may be able to use to better connect with their clients, and as ind indica icator torss abo about ut how to uti utiliz lizee the themse mselve lvess str strate ategic gicall ally y in the imp implem lement entati ation on of tec techni hnical cal interventions.

386

 

JOURNAL JOUR NAL OF MARI MARITAL TAL AND FAMI FAMILY LY THER THERAPY  APY 

 

Octoberr 2009 Octobe

 

Two Brief Examples We will relate the stories of two students here, focusing on one’s efforts around her signature theme, and the other’s personal struggle with a case that touched on both emotional and cultural issues for her. We will call the first one Mary. She is in her mid-twenties and is a first-year student. Her mother died when she was very young. She is an immigrant who was raised by her father and stepmother stepm other in extra extraordin ordinarily arily difficult socia sociall and econom economic ic circum circumstanc stances. es. She initia initially lly identi identified fied her as her anxiety doingatthings ‘‘perfectly,’’ especiallyShe as ittold pertained to her signature academic theme performance. She laidabout the blame the feet of her stepmother. the story of being in the fourth grade and receiving all A’s on her report card except for one B. Her stepmoth mo ther er ‘‘ ‘‘ye yell lled ed’’ ’’ at he herr ab abou outt th that at B, an and d ca call lled ed he herr ‘‘ ‘‘al alll so sort rtss of na name mes. s.’’ ’’ He Herr st step epmo moth ther er wanted wan ted to rai raise se her as an edu educat cated, ed, ind indepe epende ndent nt wom woman an who cou could ld sup suppor portt her hersel selff wha whatev tever er life circumstances she faced. Mary grew up fearful that she would never become as successful as her stepmother expected her to be. It follows that initially Mary was fearful in class that her presentations would not be good enough to avert criticism from her teachers. Her anxiety could be disabling because when anxious she would be overcome with tears, and find it very difficult to give voice to her feelings. She worried about ‘‘freezing’’ with clients, so fearful of saying the wrong thing that she would be unable to speak. In later class presentations and in her journal notes, she dug deeper into what was going on inside her. She got in touch with how the death of her biological mother at a tender age left her with the fear of losing a second mother. She also came to realize how ‘‘enmeshed’’ she was with her stepmother. A key insight she had during the course was that her stepmother, anxious for her hus husban band’s d’s approval approval,, was trying trying to pro prove ve her hersel selff a goo good d wif wifee and mother mother by mak making ing Mary a success. It became clearer to Mary that, on her part, she had grown to believe that for her to gain the acceptance of this new mother, it was crucial that she fulfill her stepmother’s aspirations for her. Mary reported that through the training experience she had begun to realize thatt she cou tha could ld ‘‘s ‘‘surv urvive ive wit withou houtt hav having ing to alw always ays ple please ase [he [herr ste stepmo pmothe ther]. r].’’ ’’ Tod Today, ay, she has come to see that she does not need to continue to carry her stepmother’s anxieties. From these insights, Mary has drawn some implications for her clinical work. This is important in my future clinical work. . . . I don’t think I have to necessarily ‘‘work-out’’—but understand my many issues with my [step]mother so that I am aware of how these issue[s] can paralyze me in my personal life as well as in my clinical work. If I am aware, then I might be able to treat a client mother as a human being if she reminds me of my [step]mother. If I am able to treat her like a human being then I will be able to build a relationship with her. Mary also progressed in her ability to manage her anxiety. She began to appreciate that she was more afraid of the ‘‘feeling of failure’’ than of failure itself. Over time she became more comfortable with the notion of failure as a universal human experience, rather than it being her own pri privat vatee nig nightm htmare are.. The emo emotio tional nal dis distan tance ce fro from m the these se int intens ensee rea reacti ctions ons gav gavee her gre greate aterr ability to harness her emotions when she became anxious. Subsequently in one of her class presentations she played a video segment of herself frozen into the dreaded silence on witnessing a client cli ent mot mother her har harshl shly y cri critic ticize ize her son son.. How Howeve ever, r, dur during ing the pre presen sentat tation ion she rec recogn ognize ized d tha thatt she had not been able to address the behavior because she felt ‘‘critical’’ of the mother who was treating her son as Mary’s stepmother had treated her. She subsequently reported that in herr ne he next xt se sess ssio ion n wi with th th thee cl clie ient nt,, sh shee wa wass ab able le to se seee pa past st th thee be beha havi vior or an and d en enga gage ge wi with th th thee mother as a person, as woman to woman. In the second case, we also have someone who as a first-year graduate student was a novice to the world of therapy. This student, whom we shall call Sue, is in her thirties; becoming a

Octoberr 2009 Octobe

 

JOURNAL JOUR NAL OF MARI MARITAL TAL AND FAMI FAMILY LY THER THERAPY  APY 

 

387

 

therapist is a second career. She too is an immigrant. Sue grew up in a large family where she was the oldest, and carried a great deal of responsibility for the care of the younger children. In her family of origin she had accepted her role as culturally expected. However, in retrospect she recalls feeling great pressure to reach all of her mother’s standards for the care of the children, putting aside her own needs as a young girl. Suee at fir Su first st id iden enti tifie fied d he herr si sign gnat atur uree th them emee as ne need edin ing g to be ‘‘ ‘‘in in co cont ntro rol. l.’’ ’’ Be Behi hind nd th that at need nee d lay much anx anxiet iety y abo about ut mak making ing mistakes mistakes,, of fai failin ling. g. She was also fea fearfu rfull of con confro fronta nta-tio tion, n, she arisin ari sing g fro from m feelings her dre dread ad of dis disapp appoin ting gher herown mother mot her.. In tha that t lig light htOver it is the unders und erstan tandab dable that repressed having to doointin with emotional needs. course of le a number of presentations, Sue became progressively more conscious of how deeply suppressed were her emotions. In her clinical work she became aware of how she put pressure on herself  to ens ensure ure results, results, but wit with h lit little tle attention attention to wha whatt was happenin happening g in the process process to her relationsh tio nship ip wit with h cli client ents. s. As a con conseq sequen uence ce of her pre presen sentat tation ions, s, she awo awoke ke to the con connec nectio tions ns between the pressure to succeed as a new therapist and to perform perfectly as a parentified child. On one occasion she presented a case that highlighted in bold type this link between the person per sonal al and the pro profes fessio sional nal.. Sue des descri cribed bed an imm immigr igrant ant fam family ily fro from m her own cou countr ntry y in which the parents had left their very young son behind when they moved to the United States to set up a business and start a new life. Their son, who is now 12, did not rejoin his parents until he was 9 years old. As a result of the early separation, the boy had not bonded with his parents, and became a major disciplinary problem for them. In school he was inattentive and unproductive. He grew to be a source of embarrassment and distress for his bewildered parents. His behavior was culturally dissonant to them. The boy’s father presented Sue with the greatest challenge. First of all, the parents worked in the family business day and night, and had little time to develop a relationship with the boy. Yet, the father in particular expected obedience, respect, and industriousness from his son, as fitti fit ting ng fo forr a ch chil ild d of th thei eirr cu cult ltur ure. e. Su Sue, e, wh who o ha had d pa pain infu full ch chil ildh dhoo ood d me memo mori ries es of ju just st su such ch demands on her, had difficulty witnessing these pressures on the boy when he was receiving so little nurturance from the parents. She expressed it in these terms: However I felt frustrated that Tom’s father only focused on Tom’s problems. He did not spend time with Tom. He insisted that only harsh discipline discipline would change Tom’s behavior. behavior. Sue was candid about how her cultural training about male authority figures affected her reactions to the father: I felt that I was intimidated by Tom’s father. He was trying to use his parental authority to discipline Tom. He wanted me to be on his side to point out Tom’s shortcomings and force Tom to change. He tried to control his son and my therapy. And yet, I hesitated to confront him. In class, Sue showed a video clip of her session with the father and son. With the help of  the group leaders she readily saw how the urgency with which she tried to convince the father of the wrongness of his approach was only resulting in a therapeutic logjam. The father became only more insistent on the need for harsh discipline. As Sue pressed her point, he shut out her voice. Once Sue accepted the invitation to reflect on her own early home life, she was able to gain some distance from the intensity of her feelings. She had viscerally identified with a boy who receiv rec eived ed lit little tle par parent ental al nur nurtur turanc ance, e, and who whose se exp experi erienc encee of his fat father her was of int intimi imidat dating ing demand dem andss to con confor form m and perform— perform—all all too clo close se to wha whatt she knew as a you youngs ngster ter at hom home. e. Taking a fresh look in class at what was happening between her and the father freed her to

388

 

JOURNAL JOUR NAL OF MARI MARITAL TAL AND FAMI FAMILY LY THER THERAPY  APY 

 

Octoberr 2009 Octobe

 

look k bey beyond ond the fat father her’s ’s ste stern rn dem demean eanor. or. She con consid sidere ered d the lik likeli elihoo hood d tha thatt he was anx anxiou iouss loo about seeing his son as a failure, and feeling guilt about the years he had left his son behind. Sue eased up on the pressure she felt to change the father’s attitudes and behavior. She decided to meet with both parents alone, making space to become better acquainted with them. She knew they needed to feel empathy from her about their pain over their son’s troubles. Hopefull fu lly y he herr pa pati tien ence ce an and d un unde ders rsta tand ndin ing g wi with th th them em wo woul uld d al allo low w th them em to be mo more re pa pati tien entt an and d understanding with their son. She would give them something of what she had wished she had had fromexp her parents, andvert what shepre believed their son needed them. waserstan able to use her life experi erienc encee to con conver t the pressu ssure re ‘‘t ‘‘to o do’ do’’ ’ int into o the from compas com passio sion n Sue to und unders tand. d. She voiced that this training episode represented a pivotal shift within her in her personal view of  herself and the use of herself as a therapist. The changes in Sue were evident in her follow-up presentations. As she let up on the self-imposed pressure to perform, she related more to the people who were her clients. Other Training Aides Studen Stu dents ts are eas eased ed int into o thi thiss int intens ensee per person sonal al tra traini ining ng exp experi erienc encee wit with h a per period iod of tim timee intended to facilitate not only their becoming acquainted with the model, but also their getting a more personal feel for the faculty. They hear descriptions of the training model, the thinking behind it, and how it works. Students also view and discuss videotapes of therapy sessions that the teachers use to demonstrate how therapists can and do work with and through their own person per son.. The They y eng engag agee in dis discus cussio sions ns bas based ed on rea readin dings gs abo about ut the POT POTT T mod model. el. Som Somee of the reading materials used in this introduction to the POTT model are as follows: •   The Use Use of Self Self in Thera Therapy py,, Second Edition (Baldwin, 2000) •   The Person and Practice Practice of the Therapist: Therapist: Treatment Treatment and Training (Aponte (Aponte & Winter Winter,, 2000) •   How Personal Personal Can Training Training Get? (Aponte, (Aponte, 1994a) 1994a) •   Spiri Spiritualit tuality: y: The Heart of Therapy Therapy (Aponte, (Aponte, 2002) •   The Soul of the Marriage Marriage and Family Therapis Therapistt (Aponte, 2003) 2003) They ge They gett a ch chan ance ce to sh shar aree wi with th th thee fa facu cult lty y an and d ea each ch ot othe herr qu ques esti tion onss an and d co conc ncer erns ns about what to expect. The teachers begin to create an environment in which it is normal to spea sp eak k of th thee pe pers rson onal al in th thee co cont ntex extt of th thee pr prof ofes essi sion onal al.. Th Thee st stud uden ents ts ne need ed to fe feel el so some me comf co mfor ortt an and d tr trus ustt in an un unus usua uall cl clas asss en envi viro ronm nmen ent, t, on onee th that at is go goin ing g to ca call ll fo forr so some me pe perrsonall risk. sona Videotaping and journaling are also used to help students better see themselves and get in touch with their own process during the training. Each training session is videotaped so that students can review their own presentations after class. When presenting, students expectedly are anxious, and their memories of what happened are colored by their emotional state during the work on their material. Viewing the tape of their presentation  with another student who was  present gives  present  gives them some emotional distance from the experience, and allows them to better take in wh what at th they ey le lear arne ned. d. At th thee en end d of th thee ye year ar,, st stud uden ents ts re rece ceiv ivee a CD re reco cord rdin ing g of al alll th thei eirr presen pre sentat tation ions. s. Rev Review iewing ing the vid videot eotape apess als also o hel helps ps the them m to bet better ter hon honee the ski skill ll to obs observ ervee themselves, and draw judgments about themselves while in the emotional throes of a therapeutic encounter. Studen Stu dents ts are als also o ask asked ed to mai mainta ntain in jou journa rnals ls of the their ir exp experi erienc encee of the tra traini ining ng ses sessio sions, ns, whether they are presenting or observing, which they are to submit to their trainers each month. Like the videotaping, this is another learning device meant to help them develop their ability to reflect on their personal experience in an environment dealing with their professional lives. This platform of self-observation prepares them to create the distance that will allow them to make delibe del iberat ratee cho choice icess abo about ut how to use the themse mselve lvess whi while le eng engage aged d wit with h cli client ents. s. The jou journa rnals ls als also o serve the faculty as a data source about the students’ individual progress, as well as about the

Octoberr 2009 Octobe

 

JOURNAL JOUR NAL OF MARI MARITAL TAL AND FAMI FAMILY LY THER THERAPY  APY 

 

389

 

effecti ctiven veness ess of the tra traini ining ng pro progra gram m in gen genera eral. l. The article article in thi thiss tri trilog logy y of pap papers ers ent entitl itled ed effe ‘‘Reflections of Two Trainees’’ (Lutz & Irizarry, in press) provides a window into the students’ views of this experience. experience.

DISCUSSION Challenges to Implementation for Students Because thisicy training isatment very ital follows that theHow school needs ad well-defin well-d efined ed pol policy about abo ut model the tre treatm entpersonal, of per person sonal inform inf ormati ation. on. Howeve ever, r, thi thisstoisarticulate easier eas ier sai said than tha n don donee bec becaus ausee enf enforc orcing ing str strict ict con confide fidenti ntiali ality ty abo about ut a stu studen dent’s t’s per person sonal al mat materi erial al tha thatt is shared in POTT classes is impossible in a program that expects students to purposely take into account their personal issues when talking about their clinical practice. Nevertheless, an importantt dis tan distin tincti ction on can be ma made de bet betwee ween n stu studen dents’ ts’ sig signat nature ure the themes mes and the their ir per person sonal al his histor tories ies.. On the one hand, personal signature themes are core issues that students will need to address openly with trainers and supervisors to the extent they affect their work with clients. On the other oth er han hand, d, the their ir per person sonal al his histor tories ies,, whi which ch are tied to the their ir gen genogr ograms ams and exp explor lored ed in the POTT classes, need not be shared in other parts of the program. At th thee ti time me of th this is wr writi iting ng,, th thee sc scho hool ol ha hass no nott co codi difie fied d it itss co confi nfide dent ntia iali lity ty po poli licy cy.. St Stuudent de ntss ar aree as aske ked d to ke keep ep wh what at th they ey le lear arn n ab abou outt ea each ch ot othe herr in th thee PO POTT TT cl clas asss am amon ong g th them em-selves, and to speak to such personal information outside the POTT class only to the extent that th at th thee in indi divi vidu dual al be bein ing g re refe fere renc nced ed is pr pres esen entt an and d in invi vite tess th thee co conv nver ersa sati tion on.. Th Thee on only ly except exc eption ion to thi thiss ag agree reemen mentt occ occurs urs when stu studen dents ts jou journa rnall on the imp impact act of oth other er stu studen dents’ ts’ person per sonal al inf inform ormati ation on on the them m as par partt of the their ir per person sonal al refl reflect ection ionss in the their ir con confide fidenti ntial al cla class ss  journals. Students are told not to feel obligated to reveal personal history in other classes, or in group or individual supervision. Moreover, it is made clear to them that in all circumstance sta ncess wha whatt the they y dec decide ide to rev reveal eal abo about ut the themse mselve lvess to fac facult ulty y and other stu studen dents ts is str strict ictly ly their the ir cho choice ice.. Stu Studen dents ts are made awa aware re tha thatt the per person sonal al mat materi erial al the they y sha share re in the their ir POT POTT T pres pr esen enta tati tion onss is no nott ke kept pt co confi nfide dent ntia iall fr from om fa facu cult lty y wh who o ha have ve re resp spon onsi sibi bili lity ty to ma make ke ju judg dg-ments men ts abo about ut the their ir pro profes fessio sional nal dev develo elopme pment. nt. How Howeve ever, r, sch school ool fac facult ulty y do not sha share re stu studen dents’ ts’ personal histories from their POTT classes with field supervisors or anyone else in their field placem pla cement ents. s. The sch school ool is wor workin king g on a con confide fidenti ntiali ality ty pol policy icy for thi thiss pro progra gram m tha thatt tre treats ats respectfull respe ctfully y perso personal nal infor informatio mation n abou aboutt stude students nts in an envir environmen onmentt that encourages encourages the purpose po sefu full an and d re resp spon onsi sibl blee in integ tegra rati tion on of th thee pe pers rson onal al wi with th th thee pr prof ofes essi sion onal al on th thee pa part rt of a therapist. Nevert Nev erthel heless ess,, it is wor worth th not noting ing tha thatt whi while le the pub public lic pre presen sentat tation ion inin-gro group up may at firs firstt feell ris fee risky ky to a stu studen dent, t, it als also o pro produc duces es ben benefit efitss not ava availa ilable ble in ind indivi ividua duall sup superv ervisi ision. on. Our experience has been such that as students see others presenting on their signature themes, they grow more comfortable sharing their own stories. More importantly, however, they often tell of gai gainin ning g ins insigh ights ts fro from m see seeing ing iss issues ues lik likee the their ir own bei being ng add addres ressed sed in the pre presen sentat tation ionss of  their colleagues that they had not gleaned when making their own presentations. As witnesses to th thei eirr co coll llea eagu gues es’’ pr pres esen enta tati tion ons, s, st stud uden ents ts ar aree le less ss an anxi xiou ous, s, an and d th ther eref efor oree le less ss in ne need ed of  defending against self-insight. They also feel freer to do more creative thinking about how they can utilize in their clinical practice what they are learning about themselves. Finally, they have a chance to exercise an empathy toward their colleagues that they need for themselves about their the ir own iss issues ues,, and eve eventu ntuall ally y for the their ir cli client entss who whom m the they y hav havee lea learne rned d als also o sha share re sim simila ilarr issues. The faculty were able to note these changes in the students not only from their ongoing presentations in class, but also from what some of the same faculty saw of the students’ clinical presentations in group supervision. However, the most compelling feedback came from the students themselves, who spoke in class and journaled about how much more they were able to see of the themse mselve lvess in the their ir int intera eracti ctions ons with cli client ents, s, and how muc much h mor moree ope open n emo emotio tional nally ly

390

 

JOURNAL JOUR NAL OF MARI MARITAL TAL AND FAMI FAMILY LY THER THERAPY  APY 

 

Octoberr 2009 Octobe

 

they were to their clients. They felt more personally in command of themselves when working with clients. Challenges to Implementation for Faculty For faculty, faculty, they fou found nd a nee need d to reo reorie rient nt the their ir att attitu itudes des about the place of the therap rapist ists’ s’ hang-ups in the conduct of their therapy. The faculty had to learn to prioritize not how difficult were we re st stud uden ents ts’’ pe pers rson onal al is issu sues es,, bu butt ho how w we well ll th they ey we were re ab able le to re resp spon onsi sibl bly y wo work rk wi with th an and d through their issues for the benefit of their clients. The faculty needed to learn to not the brokenness of students, as much as their capacity to use that brokenness to measure make themselves better clinicians. Nevertheless, ethically the program must intervene when students’ personal issues override their ability to be helpful to their clients. At times, students needed some individual help from their faculty advisors with issues raised for them by their presentations. Of  course, when all else fails, counseling out of the program is always the option of last resort. Admini Adm inistr strati ativel vely, y, the POT POTT T fac facet et of the Dre Drexel xel pro progra gram m req requir uired ed car carefu efull coo coordi rdinat nation ion.. The Associate Director of the master’s program who was responsible for organizing its clinical components also oversaw POTT. This role involved assigning students to their personal training gro groups ups,, as wel welll as to the their ir pra practi cticum cum,, whi while le int interf erfaci acing ng wit with h tea teachi ching ng fac facult ulty y and cli clinic nical al supervisors. The coordination needed to take into particular account the personal match-ups in the training and supervisory groups. The arranging sought a healthy mix in the groups by gender, age, race, culture, and life experience. What was learned about students’ personal life and issues iss ues als also o infl influen uenced ced dec decisi isions ons abo about ut the kin kind d of cli clinic nical al exp experi erienc encee the these se nov novice ice the therap rapist istss should first have. In ano anothe therr rel relate ated d are area, a, an imp import ortant ant con concer cern n was pro provid viding ing ori orient entati ation on for all cli clinic nical al superviso super visors rs to the POTT model model,, and its impli implication cationss for individual individual super supervisio vision. n. The supervisorss wer sor weree req requir uired ed to par partic ticipa ipate te in an ori orient entati ation, on, and were als also o offe offered red the opp opport ortuni unity ty to volu vo lunt ntee eerr ti time me fo forr a di dire rect ct pe pers rson onal al ex expe peri rien ence ce of th thei eirr ow own n wi with th th thee mo mode del. l. Th Thee pr prog ogra ram m emphas emp hasize ized d how sup superv ervisi ision, on, in con contra trast st to tra traini ining, ng, wit within hin the POT POTT T mod model el is exc exclus lusive ively ly focused on students’ use of themselves within their clinical practice. Unless the issues directly relate rel ate to the their ir cli clinic nical al pra practi ctice, ce, sup superv erviso isors rs are not to exp explor loree per person sonal al mat materi erial al of the stu stu-dents in super supervisio vision n even if the stude students nts volunteer personal personal infor informatio mation. n. Perso Personal nal material is to be looked at only in the light of how it affects the cases students present for supervision, and to det determ ermine ine how to use the self mor moree effe effecti ctivel vely y wit with h cli client ents. s. The outline outline dev develo eloped ped in the acc accomp ompany anying ing art articl iclee of thi thiss tri trilog logy y of pap papers ers,, ‘‘A ‘‘An n Ins Instru trumen mentt for Per Person son-of -of-th -the-T e-Ther heraapistt Sup pis Superv ervisi ision’ on’’’ (Ap (Apont ontee and Car Carlse lsen, n, in pre press) ss),,   is des design igned ed spe specifi cifical cally ly to hel help p sup superv erviso isors rs and students take into account the use of self in the context of a clinical focus. Moreover, a crucial message for supervisors was that the POTT model is not limited to any one school of  therapy, but can be applied across all therapeutic approaches in which therapists are expected to mak makee a con consci scious ous use of sel selff in the their ir cli clinic nical al pra practi ctice. ce. The tra traini ining ng exp experi erienc encee in sch school ool work wo rkss wi with th bo both th th thee pe pers rson onal al an and d th thee pr prof ofes essi sion onal al wh whil ilee th thee su supe perv rvis isor or’s ’s jo job b is to re rema main in focused on the clinical. Positioning POTT in the Curricula Administrators and faculty have learned that the POTT experience calls for some special planni pla nning ng con consid sidera eratio tion. n. The There re nee needs ds to be rec recogn ogniti ition on tha thatt stu studen dents ts eng engag aged ed in thi thiss per person sonal al training will undergo some significant emotional reactions. When these personal training classes are held, thought should be given to the emotional energy required of students, and allow for downtime after the classes of at least an hour. Moreov Mor eover, er, in ord order er for POT POTT T to be suc succes cessfu sfully lly imp implem lement ented, ed, fac facult ulty y req requir uires es per person sonal al exposu exp osure re in the mod model, el, and at lea least st two yea years rs of app appren rentic ticesh eship ip con conduc ductin ting g POT POTT T gro groups ups.. Facu Fa culty lty wh who o as aspi pire re to be tr trai aine ners rs in th thee PO POTT TT mo mode dell ar aree ex expe pect cted ed to un unde derg rgo o a pe pers rson onal al training experience with a seasoned trainer on the relationship of their signature themes to their

Octoberr 2009 Octobe

 

JOURNAL JOUR NAL OF MARI MARITAL TAL AND FAMI FAMILY LY THER THERAPY  APY 

 

391

 

clinical al pract practice ice (or super supervisor visory y pract practice). ice). This train training ing exper experience ience should mimic the train training ing clinic they will be offering, and should therefore be done in-group, with videotaped examples of their work, and with at least one personal and one clinical presentation. Like the students, faculty members should only expose personal themes that they are interested in exploring in relation to their professional work. The two-year apprenticeship with a senior trainer should follow. Once the personal training is launched with the students, a monthly meeting of the training faculty to share experiences, questions, and issues regarding the training would also be supportive of  the entire training effort. Dealing the personal experiences ofstions students presents affect aff ect their the ir academ aca demic ic and clinic cli nical alwith develo dev elopme pment. nt. Ine Inevit vitabl ably y que questi ons ari arise se about abo ut issues how that bestt bes to han handle dle del delica icate te and sometime sometimess hig highly hly cha charge rged d iss issues ues that sur surfac facee in the tra traini ining ng for the studen stu dents. ts. Fac Facult ulty y wil willl ben benefit efit fro from m sha sharin ring g the their ir col collec lectiv tivee wis wisdom dom and sup suppor port. t. The gre greate atest st challe cha llenge nge to dat datee in imp implem lement enting ing the POT POTT T pro progra gram m has been in find finding ing the tim timee to tra train in faculty to lead these labor-intensive groups.

CONCLUSIONS Person-of-the-therapist training is not just a method. It is also a philosophy. It is a way of th thin inki king ng ab abou outt th thee us usee of se self lf in th ther erap apy. y. It is a be beli lief ef th that at be beca caus usee th thee me medi dium um th thro roug ugh h which whi ch we do the therap rapy y is our ‘‘selves ‘‘selves’’ ’’ in rel relati ations onship hip wit with h cli client ents, s, we nee need d tra traini ining ng abo about ut the use of our own person—our history, culture, values, family life experiences, personal psychology,, and the ogy themat matic ic per person sonal al str strugg uggles les—in —in the dev develo elopme pment nt of our oursel selves ves as the therap rapist ists. s. A key compon com ponent ent of thi thiss phi philos losoph ophy y is the vie view w tha thatt we are wounded wounded hea healer lers, s, and that the these se ver very y wounds can enable us to relate more effectively to the wounds of our clients. However, this usee of se us self lf re requ quir ires es no nott on only ly se self lf-k -kno nowl wled edge ge,, bu butt al also so th thee sk skil illl to us usee th this is se self lf-a -awa ware rene ness ss in clinical practice. The POTT experience is meant to complement and infuse life into the technical nic al for format mation ion of the pro profes fessio sional nal therapis therapist. t. The POT POTT T tra traini ining ng is now an int integr egral al par partt in the firs first-y t-year ear curricul curriculum um of the Dre Drexel xel pro progra gram. m. In the sec second ond yea yearr the gro group up sup superv erviso isors, rs, who wh o ha have ve be been en tr trai aine ned d in th thee mo mode del, l, wi will ll be ov over erse seei eing ng th thee ca case sess fr from om a pe pers rson on-o -off-th theetherap the rapist ist per perspe specti ctive. ve. Whe Whethe therr to ext extend end the int intens ensive ive for formal mal cou course rsess int into o the sec second ond yea yearr is being considered.

REFERENCES Aponte, H. J. (1994a). How personal can training get?  Journal of Marital and Family Therapy ,   20, 3–15. Aponte, H. J. (1994b).  Bread & spirit: Therapy with the new poor. New York: Norton. The Jou Journa rnall of Fam Family ily Psy Psycho chothe therap rapy y,   13(1  ⁄  2), Apon Ap onte te,, H. J. (2 (200 002) 2).. Sp Spir irit itua ualit lity: y: Th Thee he hear artt of th ther erap apy. y.   The 2), 13–27. Aponte, H. J. (2003). The soul of the marriage and family therapist.  Family Therapy Magazine,   2, 14–19. Aponte, H. J., & Carlsen, J. C. (in press). An instrument for person-of-the-therapist supervision. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. Aponte, H. J., & Winter, J. E. (2000). The person and practice of the therapist: Treatment and training. In M. Baldwin (Ed.),  The use of self in therapy  (2nd ed., pp. 127–166). New York: Haworth. Baldwin, Baldw in, M. (Ed.), (Ed.), (200 (2000). 0). The use of self in therapy. (2nd ed.). New York: Haworth. Bochner, D. A. (2000).  The therapist’s use of self in family therapy. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson. Bowen, M. (1972). Toward a differentiation of a self in one’s family. In James L. Framo (Ed.),   Family interaction (pp. 111–173). New York: Springer. Braverman, S. (1997). The use of genograms in supervision. In T. C. Todd & C. L. Storm (Eds.), The complete systemic supervisor  (pp. 349–362). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Freud, S. (1910). The future prospects of psychoanalytic psychotherapy.  Standard Edition,  11 , 139–1 139–151. 51. Kerr, M. E. (1981). Family systems theory and therapy. In A. S. Gurman & D. P. Kniskern (Eds.),  Handbook of   family therapy  (pp. 226–264). New York: Brunner  ⁄  Mazel. Mazel.

392

 

JOURNAL JOUR NAL OF MARI MARITAL TAL AND FAMI FAMILY LY THER THERAPY  APY 

 

Octoberr 2009 Octobe

 

Lutz, L., & Irizarry, S. S. (in press). Reflections of two trainees: Person-of-the-therapist training for marriage and family therapists. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy . Nouwen, H. J. M. (1972).  The wounded healer. New York: Doubleday. Satir, V. (2000). The therapist story. In M. Baldwin (Ed.),   The use of self in therapy   (2nd ed., pp. 17–28). New York: Haworth. Watson, Wats on, M. (1993 (1993). ). Supe Supervisi rvising ng the person of the ther therapist apist:: Issu Issues, es, chal challenge lenges, s, and dilemmas. dilemmas.  Contemporary Family Therapy,   15, 21–31.

APPENDIX Person of the Therapist Training Outline for Case Presentation Your Signature Theme(s). (Briefly describe how you conceptualize your signature theme(s) today.) Case Identification. (Names (Na mes,, age ages, s, and rel relati ations onship hipss amo among ng cli client ents; s; aus auspic pices es of tre treatm atment ent;; whe when n tre treatm atment ent began, and number of sessions to date) Genograms: Client’s & Yours. (To be attached) Focal Issue. (What you and the clients have agreed to work on) Clinical Hypotheses. (Contr (Co ntribu ibutin ting g ind indivi ividua duall and fam family ily dyn dynami amics; cs; his histor tory y and mot motiva ivatio tion n tha thatt hel help p exp explai lain n

why the client(s) faces this issue today) Treatment Process—Clinical Strategy & Use of Self. (Describe your therapeutic strategy, the actual course of the therapy, and its effectiveness and lack of effectiveness. Include how you purposefully used your  self .) .) Person of Therapist. (How are you meeting the personal challenges you face in this case in regard to both the focal issue of the case and the relationship with the client?) Questions. (What specific questions do you have today about the case, your clinical strategy, and your use of self?) Person of the Therapist Training Personal Outline Your Signature Theme. (Briefly remind the group of your signature theme. This formulation should include modifications or insights you have made from previous presentations.) Your Genogram & Client’s Genogram, if presenting yourself in the context of a case. (To be attached) The Event Reflective of the Signature Theme You Will Present on Today. (Descr (De scribe ibe a per person sonal al or cli clinic nical al eve event nt tha thatt may help us und unders erstan tand d how you yourr sig signat nature ure theme presents a challenge for you today.) Your Hypotheses About the Significance of the Event. (What individual individual and famil family y dyna dynamics— mics—histo history ry and motiv motivation ation—do —do you believ believee expla explain in what drives the issue in today’s event?) How You Tried  ⁄  Are Are Trying to Meet the Challenge. (How effective have your efforts been, and what have you learned about yourself from this experience?) Person of Therapist. (How do you believe these personal issues play out in your clinical practice?) Questions. (What specific questions about this particular issue do you wish to address today?)

Octoberr 2009 Octobe

 

JOURNAL JOUR NAL OF MARI MARITAL TAL AND FAMI FAMILY LY THER THERAPY  APY 

 

393

 

OUTLINE FOR POST SIMULATION—3RD QUARTER What was triggered for you personally in this session—emotionally and  ⁄  or or values-wise? a) In the relationship with the clients b) In dealing with their issues How did you choose to use yourself clinically? a) In how you related to your clients

b)did In you howfind youmost worked with their What challenging forissues yourself personally in the session? How did it affect your performance as a therapist?

394

 

JOURNAL JOUR NAL OF MARI MARITAL TAL AND FAMI FAMILY LY THER THERAPY  APY 

 

Octoberr 2009 Octobe