In the week of Maragret Thatcher's funeral
I went to two other funerals
The first was Quaker Joesph's
And in the silence I heard
His friends and family praise and mourn him.
The second was for my childhood Auntie Gert
And I experienced real community warm humour and loss.
These were both quiet and dignified and private affairs
That celebrated the lives of two ordinary and remarkable people
Embedded in their own communities
Loved and missed
And given a truly royal send off.
Tuesday, 23 April 2013
Friday, 5 April 2013
Dilemma
OK so here's my dilemma. I have a good friend who is an award winning playwright and author who offered to read my Mystic Detective novel. She found it enjoyable and quirky but was not impressed by my plotting (neither am I!) and lack of real detective/police proceedures. She offered to help me work it up into something she felt would be publishable and possibly even a TV series.
The thing is with my experience of re-writing for academic publishing I hate re-writes and re-writes of re-writes and can you add this, reduce that etc. My passion shrivels up. Am I being too precious?
And the thing is I never meant Paul to be realistic. It was a bit of fun and I don't want him to be real. I love Raymond Chandler's detective Sam Spade but I don't think he is real and that detectives in LA in 1930 and 1940 were like that!
But I have dreamed of being a novelist and a poet all my life and instead I am forever being courted by academic publishers! But my pile of unpublished poems and novels gets higher and higher!
So dear friend what say you?
The thing is with my experience of re-writing for academic publishing I hate re-writes and re-writes of re-writes and can you add this, reduce that etc. My passion shrivels up. Am I being too precious?
And the thing is I never meant Paul to be realistic. It was a bit of fun and I don't want him to be real. I love Raymond Chandler's detective Sam Spade but I don't think he is real and that detectives in LA in 1930 and 1940 were like that!
But I have dreamed of being a novelist and a poet all my life and instead I am forever being courted by academic publishers! But my pile of unpublished poems and novels gets higher and higher!
So dear friend what say you?
Friday, 1 March 2013
Researching talking therapies and homeopathy (2)
Researching talking therapies and homeopathy (2)
Some further thoughts. A few years ago Professor John McLeod (probably the leading British counselling academic) told me how he had been thinking of putting together a Randomised Controlled Trial around comparing person-centred counselling with CBT. He had decided not to for these reasons:
1) If his research found that CBT was better his name wold be mud in the person centred world
2) If his research found that person centred was better then CBT people would accuse him of doing a biased study
3) He expected anyway that the likely outcome would be that they were both equally good so why bother.
The issue of both who does the research and who funds it is crucial. It would be so much better if the drug companies who fund most medical research handed their money over to say the Medical Research Council or some other independent body that then oversaw the work and made the results public in open access journals. Likewise any research funded by talking therapy bodies such as BACP needs a similar arms length approach. I believe talking therapies need to be researched by sociologists and anthropologists.
With regard to homeopathy it gets harder but the same independence is important and ideally a research team with a broad background would be established to agree protocols etc. Just because someone claims to be objective it does not mean their research is not biased. Just as the whole medical research agenda is distorted by funding largely coming from drug companies and their agenda. If we really want to do basic research into homeopathy we might well need to think outside of the box to shape the research.
Some further thoughts. A few years ago Professor John McLeod (probably the leading British counselling academic) told me how he had been thinking of putting together a Randomised Controlled Trial around comparing person-centred counselling with CBT. He had decided not to for these reasons:
1) If his research found that CBT was better his name wold be mud in the person centred world
2) If his research found that person centred was better then CBT people would accuse him of doing a biased study
3) He expected anyway that the likely outcome would be that they were both equally good so why bother.
The issue of both who does the research and who funds it is crucial. It would be so much better if the drug companies who fund most medical research handed their money over to say the Medical Research Council or some other independent body that then oversaw the work and made the results public in open access journals. Likewise any research funded by talking therapy bodies such as BACP needs a similar arms length approach. I believe talking therapies need to be researched by sociologists and anthropologists.
With regard to homeopathy it gets harder but the same independence is important and ideally a research team with a broad background would be established to agree protocols etc. Just because someone claims to be objective it does not mean their research is not biased. Just as the whole medical research agenda is distorted by funding largely coming from drug companies and their agenda. If we really want to do basic research into homeopathy we might well need to think outside of the box to shape the research.
Thursday, 28 February 2013
Researching talking therapies and homeopathy
Researching talking therapies and homeopathy
Research involving people is challenging and even more so when it is not just focussed on their physical bodies. The NHS and NICE pretend to like ‘evidence based practice’ but it not as simple as that. And even if it was we don’t have the time or money to do Randomised Controlled Trails about all that we would like to. And when money is available for trials the money source often controls whether the results are published or even made available to other researchers. For example drug companies still repress findings they don’t like; the Home Office ignores research it has funded in prisons when it does not get the results it wants. And don’t get me started on Gove and education!
Back to topic. What works for whom sounds like a good idea – choose a problem and test out possible treatments. What we find with psychological research is that what happens in the lab is not always what happens in the clinic. For example to test out a psychotherapy or CBT on a problem then participants are carefully selected to only have that problem. This is atypical. Many people present with multiple problems. You might select 20 out of several hundred possibles for your actual study. And practitioners behave differently in research than outside. For example they are more likely to follow the manual in the research lab. But it is worse than that there is a lot of variation between individual practitioners using the same approach more so than between the averages of competing approaches. And we know that it the quality of the therapeutic alliance that is the biggest factor in successful outcome not the school of psychotherapy/CBT used. Arguably all work with whom up to a ppoint.
So probably (as Arbuckle suggested back in 1967) it would be better to research the individual practitioner rather than their modality and for me that means Who works with what? In other words focus on the practitioners getting the best outcomes with particular client problems and study them. (This has been done it is apparently how NLP got started) And it is how I do and maybe good practice managers do referral.
Onto homeopathy which does not appeal to me and doesn’t seem to work for me but it does sometimes very strikingly for my wife and did so for my daughter when she was a young toddler. The problem is that homeopathy will offer differing pills for the same client problem on the basis of their curious approach to diagnoses. So the pills offered will vary according to the individual client. (The same would be true for some kinds of psychotherapy in terms of how they work also). It is really a question of whether the treatment is intended to remove the symptom or regard the symptom as part of a bigger picture that might well need addressing. Thinking giving up smoking or drinking. Who knows what problems this might be masking, how this behaviour fits a particular individual’s patterns.
Interesting homeopathy and talking therapy give people plenty of time to share their problems, both listening very carefully. Your GP does not have the time and yet millions of us are presenting them with psychological/mental health issues. In this crazy modern world we all need a good listening to, sense of belonging of family and community, until that happens the mental health epidemic will continue.
But there is a horses for courses issue here. If I have a chronic infection I want antibiotics, a broken leg I want it setting, cancer I probably want surgery. But when it is not (just) physical, say when my life feels grey or I have fallen out badly with those I love, I need to talk, I need help not drugs or pills.
Research involving people is challenging and even more so when it is not just focussed on their physical bodies. The NHS and NICE pretend to like ‘evidence based practice’ but it not as simple as that. And even if it was we don’t have the time or money to do Randomised Controlled Trails about all that we would like to. And when money is available for trials the money source often controls whether the results are published or even made available to other researchers. For example drug companies still repress findings they don’t like; the Home Office ignores research it has funded in prisons when it does not get the results it wants. And don’t get me started on Gove and education!
Back to topic. What works for whom sounds like a good idea – choose a problem and test out possible treatments. What we find with psychological research is that what happens in the lab is not always what happens in the clinic. For example to test out a psychotherapy or CBT on a problem then participants are carefully selected to only have that problem. This is atypical. Many people present with multiple problems. You might select 20 out of several hundred possibles for your actual study. And practitioners behave differently in research than outside. For example they are more likely to follow the manual in the research lab. But it is worse than that there is a lot of variation between individual practitioners using the same approach more so than between the averages of competing approaches. And we know that it the quality of the therapeutic alliance that is the biggest factor in successful outcome not the school of psychotherapy/CBT used. Arguably all work with whom up to a ppoint.
So probably (as Arbuckle suggested back in 1967) it would be better to research the individual practitioner rather than their modality and for me that means Who works with what? In other words focus on the practitioners getting the best outcomes with particular client problems and study them. (This has been done it is apparently how NLP got started) And it is how I do and maybe good practice managers do referral.
Onto homeopathy which does not appeal to me and doesn’t seem to work for me but it does sometimes very strikingly for my wife and did so for my daughter when she was a young toddler. The problem is that homeopathy will offer differing pills for the same client problem on the basis of their curious approach to diagnoses. So the pills offered will vary according to the individual client. (The same would be true for some kinds of psychotherapy in terms of how they work also). It is really a question of whether the treatment is intended to remove the symptom or regard the symptom as part of a bigger picture that might well need addressing. Thinking giving up smoking or drinking. Who knows what problems this might be masking, how this behaviour fits a particular individual’s patterns.
Interesting homeopathy and talking therapy give people plenty of time to share their problems, both listening very carefully. Your GP does not have the time and yet millions of us are presenting them with psychological/mental health issues. In this crazy modern world we all need a good listening to, sense of belonging of family and community, until that happens the mental health epidemic will continue.
But there is a horses for courses issue here. If I have a chronic infection I want antibiotics, a broken leg I want it setting, cancer I probably want surgery. But when it is not (just) physical, say when my life feels grey or I have fallen out badly with those I love, I need to talk, I need help not drugs or pills.
Tuesday, 19 February 2013
New mystic
Paul met Maurice at Croma, just off Albert Square in the centre of Manchester. Croma was a convenient for the courts, the banks and other money men – still mostly men – who worked for a (dis)honest hundred grand or two nearby. Croma was nothing special to look at but it did serve decent Italianish food, at a fair price, with an efficient, friendly but non intrusive staff. Paul had a soft spot for Croma as it was one of his daughter’s favourites. They both always eat the same food there - Americano pizza for Paul, Lasagne for Catherine, which also included shared garlic bread and a rocker leaf salad with balsamic vinegar and parmesan cheese and tiramisu to follow.
But today Paul was meeting Maurice – Rachel’s lawyer – in order to share their understandings on developments in her case. Maurice was seating in a quiet alcove waiting for Paul when he arrived on time. He didn’t look quite like a lawyer – whatever that was. He was wearing the right kind of non descript grey suit – not too expensive but certainly not cheap. He also wore a suitable tie, not quite recognisably old public school but it could be. The thing is Maurice had a rakish moustache and a grin go with it that kind of undermined his thoughtful lawyer look. He was just too alive, too dangerous if you like.
They shook hands, ordered pre lunch drinks – corona for Maurice, cappuccino for Paul.
- So why are they keeping Rachel in prison?
- It partially protective, for her own good.
- Whaaaat?
- Well since her canal boat was blown up…
- They think her life is at risk?
Maurice nodded and they paused as the waiter came to take their lunch order. Paul continued,
- But don’t they know how prison is affecting her…She’s lost weight….become withdrawn, maybe even depressed. She is at risk staying inside.
- I know but they don’t care. I need some new line to make a case for her release on bail.
- Hmm… What about her being granted bail on very restrictive conditions, where she lives, reporting regularly to a police station, even tagged?
- I’ve tried all of that.
- How about a report form a shrink or a clinical psychologist?
- On it’s way, it might just swing things.
- I can’t believe they feel she is a public risk. She is a gentle soul in my view.
- I agree, but it’s not me you need to convince.
Paul nodded and grew silent as their waiter delivered their food and offered the obligatory over sized pepper pot.
- How do you want my investigation to proceed?
- Follow up any leads with Dave Ashton. I am sure he is involved somehow but the police don’t seem at all interested in him.
- Will do.
- The police are getting nowhere in figuring out who blew up Rachel’s canal boat. You could speak to her again about it.
- Sure, I was intending to see her again soon in any case.
- I’ve got to be back in court soon.
- OK stay in touch.
Maurice nodded, shook hands with Paul and left.
Paul nursed the remains of a cup of cappuccino and let his mind go blank and his breathing slow down and deepen. In his mind’s eye he saw Rachel’s boat, bobbing on the canal. It was dark. Then he noticed a shadowy figure fixing something – was it semtex – to the stern of the boat. Paul took another slow deep breath, hoping to see more, but the image faded. Was it Ashton he saw or someone else? Paul couldn’t be sure.
But today Paul was meeting Maurice – Rachel’s lawyer – in order to share their understandings on developments in her case. Maurice was seating in a quiet alcove waiting for Paul when he arrived on time. He didn’t look quite like a lawyer – whatever that was. He was wearing the right kind of non descript grey suit – not too expensive but certainly not cheap. He also wore a suitable tie, not quite recognisably old public school but it could be. The thing is Maurice had a rakish moustache and a grin go with it that kind of undermined his thoughtful lawyer look. He was just too alive, too dangerous if you like.
They shook hands, ordered pre lunch drinks – corona for Maurice, cappuccino for Paul.
- So why are they keeping Rachel in prison?
- It partially protective, for her own good.
- Whaaaat?
- Well since her canal boat was blown up…
- They think her life is at risk?
Maurice nodded and they paused as the waiter came to take their lunch order. Paul continued,
- But don’t they know how prison is affecting her…She’s lost weight….become withdrawn, maybe even depressed. She is at risk staying inside.
- I know but they don’t care. I need some new line to make a case for her release on bail.
- Hmm… What about her being granted bail on very restrictive conditions, where she lives, reporting regularly to a police station, even tagged?
- I’ve tried all of that.
- How about a report form a shrink or a clinical psychologist?
- On it’s way, it might just swing things.
- I can’t believe they feel she is a public risk. She is a gentle soul in my view.
- I agree, but it’s not me you need to convince.
Paul nodded and grew silent as their waiter delivered their food and offered the obligatory over sized pepper pot.
- How do you want my investigation to proceed?
- Follow up any leads with Dave Ashton. I am sure he is involved somehow but the police don’t seem at all interested in him.
- Will do.
- The police are getting nowhere in figuring out who blew up Rachel’s canal boat. You could speak to her again about it.
- Sure, I was intending to see her again soon in any case.
- I’ve got to be back in court soon.
- OK stay in touch.
Maurice nodded, shook hands with Paul and left.
Paul nursed the remains of a cup of cappuccino and let his mind go blank and his breathing slow down and deepen. In his mind’s eye he saw Rachel’s boat, bobbing on the canal. It was dark. Then he noticed a shadowy figure fixing something – was it semtex – to the stern of the boat. Paul took another slow deep breath, hoping to see more, but the image faded. Was it Ashton he saw or someone else? Paul couldn’t be sure.
Thursday, 7 February 2013
Professing
As some of you will already now I have recently been appointed Visiting Professor in Counselling and Spirituality at the University of Central Lancs with my inaugural lecture set for March 7th. I am obviously made up about this and there are a few things opening up around me that I am getting excited about and a little bit scared about (more of that later) that suggests something bigger is going on.
I feel that I have earned this appointment and it was so nice to be asked out of the blue. I don’t feet that I deserve it but that’s me and my stuff. However, I wont let such feelings get in the way of the work that now becomes possible. Being a professor opens doors and I want to make the most of it in terms of promoting the kind of research and teaching that has always appealed to me.
Back to the scariness: I seem to have to scare myself at regular intervals rather than plough the same old furrow. And the something bigger, well a few times in my life with COPE, Manchester Reich Group, Energy Stream, PsychoSpiritual Initiative, my PhD group at Manchester, I have found myself part of groups of people that have come together to do something really interesting. It feels like it might well be about to happen again!
I feel that I have earned this appointment and it was so nice to be asked out of the blue. I don’t feet that I deserve it but that’s me and my stuff. However, I wont let such feelings get in the way of the work that now becomes possible. Being a professor opens doors and I want to make the most of it in terms of promoting the kind of research and teaching that has always appealed to me.
Back to the scariness: I seem to have to scare myself at regular intervals rather than plough the same old furrow. And the something bigger, well a few times in my life with COPE, Manchester Reich Group, Energy Stream, PsychoSpiritual Initiative, my PhD group at Manchester, I have found myself part of groups of people that have come together to do something really interesting. It feels like it might well be about to happen again!
Tuesday, 18 December 2012
Piano learnings again
Learning to play the piano is increasingly becoming like learning to meditate. Trying too hard, feeling tense about it, not breathing etc. When I tense I hit all of the notes hard, too hard. If I try to do it soft it goes too quiet. I need to find soft but firm/precise and this comes sometimes when I relax and let it happen. So it is not about how many hours I practice per se, its’ about my attitude and state of mind. It is really slow. It’s slow learning and the pleasure has to be in the moment. When I end the final bit of Morning by Grieg with a bit of a thrash, I smile. I know that’s not really it. But I enjoy the thrash And I know that will set me up for a quieter gentler version of Clare de Lune that I usually play next. And when that happens that sets me up for the rest of the day. About 25 or so years ago I read a spiritual book by John Diamond and he said that when you are playing, even just to yourself imagine that someone is listening and play it for them, I like that idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
