The communicative method to psychoanalytic psychotherapy sees the relationship between a patient and a therapist as a complex system. The systems theory focuses on the close connection and interrelatedness between the system’s elements. Communicative conjecture and practice is hence principally focused on the direct connection linking the elements that encompass the therapeutic system – the process that exists between a patient and a therapist. Yet, so as to categorize a system it is necessary to identify its limitations.
Limitations are consequently essential to a system, as they differentiate it from a bigger setting. With no limitations, the system would misplace its structure and will eventually dissolve. Robinson (1980; as cited by Baer, 2001) states: “Such a system is isolated from its environment and static relative to that environment. It at all times encloses indistinguishable elements or constituents. ” Considering the identical groundwork circumstances, the conduit and outcomes are always similar. Alter the preliminary conditions and the whole lot changes with it.
The drive to communicate appears to be reliant on our need to pass on a message, and the impetus to spread a message consequently implies meaning and purpose. Communication may, as a result, be depicted as an “interaction that attempts to create a link between individuals. ” This association is being passed on through a message, which perhaps articulated in words and or actions. Conscious communication can be described as “deliberate, intended, reflective, self-aware, and logical. ” (Holmes, 1998).
The exploration for excellence and efficacy in social work is ever-present and long-standing. Topics associated to academic application, effectual treatment practices and methods that encourage the universal interests are part of the social work practice. In spite of this long history, no right harmony about techniques or determinants for assessing performance has been accomplished. Existing tendencies, such as the change of mental health services and the succeeding materialization of supervised care, have caused performance efficiency and liability more imperative.
Despite the fact that such deep-seated setting place alterations have often resulted to social workers being providers of option, treatment options are principally immediate with cost-effectiveness and responsibility as influential requisites. Above all, the dimension of treatment effects is the end result of liability. Considering all of these, assessment procedure of practice is necessary (Baer, 2001). Interest for practice assessment has also resulted to the exploration for tools that would help examine the obvious verbal and nonverbal messages in the therapeutic connection.
Taking into consideration the indefinable character of these occurrences, this duty has traditionally been weighed down with methodological and theoretical difficulties. Blythe (1995) stated that to be able to succeed in making an assessment process that would deal with the intricacy intrinsic in clinical practice would require “concrete proposals with procedural descriptions, case examples, and teaching materials” (Baer, 2001). With the emphasis of assessment is on practice.
The instrument for evaluation procedures is intended to methodically illustrate attitudes and behaviors demonstrated by the client and the social worker, and as an outcome, to confine the most important facets of their interactions. It is founded on the idea that constructive and negative features of the behavior and attitudes of the people involved in the process either aid or hinder therapeutic development. Certainly a number of researches in the literature specify that the therapeutic relationship is considerably linked with the treatment’s end result.
Studies which tested varying client-therapist demographic characteristics and a variety of therapeutic techniques also showed that the therapeutic alliance was definitely linked with post-therapy results (Baer, 2001). It is believed that the transactions in the therapeutic relationship are the core of clinical social work, and also indicates the implication of the client-social worker relationship in some related fields of social work practice:
“In public assistance, the relationship, as a minimum, helps the client accept financial assistance without the loss of his (her) sense of personal dignity and human worth. The kind and degree of the feeling and emotion will differ from client to client. The social problem and the effect of the problem upon clients will differ….
But, within these differences, there is a pattern of basic feelings and attitudes that are common, in varying degrees of intensity, to all people who need help, however temporarily, from others” (Baer, 2001). The function of the relationship between the therapist and the client as a core theory in therapy is being examined.
The chronological development of the concept of the therapeutic association on the whole and the therapeutic alliance above all is significantly being evaluated. Research confirmation concerning the noteworthy function of the alliance in therapy and the multifaceted, and at times contradictory, outcome of training on remediating complicatedness some therapists have in developing a constructive alliance is presented. Two main components of the connection from the therapist standpoint are recognized: interpersonal skills and intrapersonal dynamics.
The challenge of increasing the relational competencies of therapists involves all the critical issues linked to the nature of psychological help and the function of the therapist in the remedial process. Before one can considerately approach the query of how therapists can be guided and helped to develop strong therapeutic alliances with their clients, wrestling with core inquiries about the nature of the activity for which we train students (Horvath, 2001).