Editing Talk:Co-counselling (section)

==Therapeutic Context==
John / others, do you feel these two paras are good? I am starting to see them as quite rambling and incoherant - I will propose a rewrite and see what you think. [[User:MarkThomas|MarkThomas]] 11:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you say more, or suggest your alterations here, Mark?  All 5 sentances seem to be accurate and make relevant, separate points, but maybe the language could be improved.[[User:John Talbut|John Talbut]] 06:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

:What do you think John, have I made it worse?! Trying to distinguish the issues, I don't think Humanistic Psychology draws heavily on co-counselling or vica-versa, they arise from different traditions - also do you think we should mention Rogerian counselling? [[User:MarkThomas|MarkThomas]] 19:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

:I think "broadly similar" understates the case.  In [[http://www.ahpweb.org/rowan_bibliography/ | A Guide to Humanistic Psychology]] co-counselling is listed alongside the other humanistic approaches.  I used the word "core" firstly, because it meets all the criteria for humanistic approaches and secondly because it provides a sound basis for humanistic practioners own learning/self development (my own belief is that all human development practitioners should be co-counsellors, if not what are they avoiding).

:With regard to Rogerian counselling, I sometimes say that co-counselling is the logical extension of this approach - from client centred to client in charge.  However, I think mentioning it here may confuse rather than illuminate, especially as the Rogerian approach is, in my view, only partially humanistic as it does not meet all the criteria, particularly around valuing and working with emotions.[[User:John Talbut|John Talbut]] 20:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

:Oh, OK, I see where you're coming from now. I think my issue then was with the sentence construction, it looked previously (to me) as though you were saying you thought co-counselling had at it's core HP, whereas co-counselling really arose separately to HP and I would say from my understanding of it, RC was one of the influences on HP along with Rogerian and church-inspired groups, and people like RD Laing. I agree about the confusion and think we will get very bogged down though if we go with too much detail. I know HP people often use co-counselling, but to my mind as an RC'er this simply adds to the confusion; if co-co works well, why not offer the skills as widely as possible instead of adopting a "professional" stance? Of course, I realise not all agree with this viewpoint. :-) [[User:MarkThomas|MarkThomas]] 20:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

:Right, I understand.  I have tried a different wording, see what you think.  I think that acknowledging a connection between co-counselling and HP does not suggest professionalisation, although some think it does and this objection is acknowledged in the article.  HP includes self-help approaches and it was, perhaps, better when it was called the Human Potential Movement.  Sheila Ernst and Lucy Dickeson's book "In Our Own Hands" describes how to use some of the main approaches in HP, including co-counselling, in self-help groups (it is subtitled "A Book of Self-Help Therapy").[[User:John Talbut|John Talbut]] 05:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

::I think we improved it, clearer what that means now. Not worried if I personally agree it's a key approach in HP although I'm sure it is! [[User:MarkThomas|MarkThomas]] 06:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)