Letters to the Editor

My letter to the Editor in the October InPsych generated a number of comments by email to me, some of which I believe are important to clarify.

The essence of my letter was that changing expectations from AHPRA and the profession have seen a change in the model that psychologists work under, namely the idea of the general practitioner psychologist who can be a practitioner for the family, dealing with multiple members on different problems, is now seen as a boundary violation.

I have had responses from people who provide family therapy with a sense of alarm that family therapy is no longer viable due to these changes. This is not so. Family therapy remains a viable and important service which psychologists offer; however, the issue for family therapy is ensuring that it is conducted with very clear boundaries from the outset. Family therapy works with all members of the family in a clearly defined role with clear expectations.

The family therapist is only going to get themselves into trouble when they step outside the boundaries of working within a family group and take on individual members of that family for personal work and, in the process, creating two primary clients; the first being the family, and the second, the individual.

As stated in the previous edition of InPsych, the key is to maintain good boundaries by having one primary client, and if multiple clients are necessary within a family, referring the individuals to separate individual practitioners to maintain integrity around the role with your client. Therefore, if you are a family therapist, your client is the family.

I would further recommend that family therapists have clear contracts in terms of their role of engagement which are agreed to before commencing the therapy. In that way all family members have the same expectations.

With the election of several new APS Board Directors, and changes at an executive level within the Society, it is timely to reflect upon the role of Directors. A key challenge for the Board will be to recognise its role in nurturing a range of perspectives that embrace all APS members. Making decisions that affect the full membership, individual Directors do not act as a ‘representative’ of any particular group, although they will have perspectives shaped by their background and the systems in which they have operated. The “What keeps you awake at night?” question for Directors may prompt the response: “How can we collectively shape a sustainable future for our single, member-based body while embracing the great diversity in our field?” (Boyack, Klavans, & Börner, 2005.)

Let us learn from a recent example of poor governance and leadership. The award winning exposé on CPA Australia, published in the Australian Financial Review in 2017, provides a timely reminder of the importance of transparency and member engagement. An outward perspective is necessary, not hubris, elitism or self-promotion. Accordingly, I urge the Board to commit to all APS Directors completing the full AICD course as soon as possible (if not done so already), and pursuing regular and relevant non-psychology CPD.

Few Directors (current or potential) attend broad, mainstream overseas psychology conferences which builds networks and helps Directors appreciate what is happening beyond our shores and beyond the confines of their academic and professional backgrounds. Director fees could be reduced and a travel and study stipend added, with the expectation of a comprehensive subsequent report to the membership. External advice on the fairness, implementation and relative merits of this approach would be necessary.

As one of the largest national psychology associations globally (IUPsyS figures), we need to be aware of the ‘internationalisation’ of psychology and the potential challenges to some of the accepted models and practices with which we work. The widely adopted International Declaration on Core Competences in Professional Psychology has already had its impact via revised PsyBA and APAC standards.

Critically, how do external observers view the ructions and factional divides within our profession? Probably as reflecting organisational immaturity, professional and business naivety, and even a poorly conceived guild protection mentality. Thus, I urge Directors to take a strategic approach in leading ‘Psychology Australia’ to a sustainable future, and not leaving ourselves open further to the credible charge that we have allowed ourselves to be hijacked by issues such as Medicare.

References

• Boyack, K.W., Klavans, R., & Börner, K. (2005). Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics, 64(3), 351 – 374.