Do You Want To Mainstream Your Practice and Can It Be Done Without Government Regulation or Compromising Our Effectiveness? I say Yes!

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Scott Sandland on November 23, 2009 at 9:42am

In theory, I like the idea of mainstreaming a practice. The down side is that I think it requires standardization of what we do. My guess is that the general population needs to know what they can expect from a modality before it can accept it into the mainstream. Hypnosis, as subjective as it is, could take a page out psychiatry's book when it comes to this.

Not every psych does things the same way, but there are a general set of protocols they follow that allows people to anticipate a generic session.

In my opinion, the public's misconceptions about what we do and the lack of consistent expectancy/standards are two of the big obstacles to becoming "mainstream."

do people agree that this is an issue? If so, do they think it's worth it? I'm not advocating anything here, just bringing up another facet of this issue as I see it.

Do we help more people by NOT being mainstream and not having to deal with the regulation that would come from "standardization" of some kind, or would there be a higher number of people helped if there was some sort of regulation on us?

Is this even a factor in becoming mainstream?

looking forward to a calm and respectful conversation on this topic.

-Scott

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roger Moore on November 23, 2009 at 10:21am

Years ago when I was looking into Master's programs for counseling, I was looking into a wide variety of programs including a Masters in Shamanic counseling. A dear friend who is a licensed psychologist and Reiki Master told me to get my traditional western certificate on the wall and with bring in all the other teachings I wanted. I listened & found it to be great advice. My hypnosis practice in many ways looks much like a traditional counseling practice and being in a medical & dental building have focused on being mainstream. This has helped my relationship in the medical community and continues to do so. I am now in discussion with two different oncology clinics about being on-sight in the clinics.

I do think it is possible to mainstream without government regulation. In Washington we do have government regulation and it does not hinder what I do.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Clark MFT on November 23, 2009 at 8:51pm

Hi Michael,

Just because I always like getting into the government regulation threads,,,

*1) What determines a hypnotist's effectiveness?

I'm not sure I get this question, Is it a trick question? I would have to say it is the hypnotist that determines his/her effectiveness.

*2) Do you want to mainstream your practice?

Mine is and yes I wanted it that way, I am subject to government regulation,

*2A ) What do you think the pro and cons might be?

I think this will differ for everyone, For me the ability to honestly work with issues beyond smoking cessation and coaching is important, Playing semantics with clients is distasteful to me,

3) Do you think it is possible to mainstream our practices without government regulation?

Nope,

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Haifleigh on November 24, 2009 at 7:20am

What does a “mainstream” practice look like (what makes it a mainstream practice) and how is it different from a non-mainstream practice?

It may be useful to begin with something similar to an Operational Definition of Mainstream. What is (how does it function) a mainstream practice? And how does it differ (in functionality) from a non-mainstream?

Being in the same conversation is usually helpful and more effective.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John R. Brochu on November 24, 2009 at 7:44am

1) What determines a hypnotist's effectiveness?
My Clients determine the effectiveness of the sessions. Results speak loudest.

2) Do you want to mainstream your practice?
What inherent advantage would Mainstreaming provide?
If mainstream causes me to work under the direction and confines of the Government or an insurance provider, I would say NO!

2A ) What do you think the pro and cons might be?
Pro= “we” may be able to reach a greater number of people.
Con: Government Regulations

3) Do you think it is possible to mainstream our practices without government regulation?
No, I don’t.
I don’t think that as an industry we have practice standards and I believe that the Government would want to impose Standards of Practice.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Aurbach on November 24, 2009 at 7:35pm

There are two senses of the word "effectiveness (maybe more) inherent in the question. One is the ability to help the particular client in front of us achieve the results that they wish and that best serve them. I'm not really seeing that in play here... having been a governmental regulator (albeit in a different field) I recognize that the regulator has neither the time nor the interest in dealing with practitioners at that level. Mostly, they just deal with the ministerial act of license administration and the processing of complaints. I'm not quite sure I understand the belief that regulation is "bad" - UNLESS the bar is set by special interests to exclude us from practicing at all - and that is an entirely different question than whether you can practice as you see fit in a regulated environment.
The other sense of "effectiveness" is reaching people. I have an extensive background in workers' compensation - an $80 billion industry where there is essentially no penetration of our profession. Those people are not being helped, and ipso facto, we are not effective in bringing a highly useful, well tested modality to bear to help them regain their lives. Why, you might ask? Because we are not regarded as mainstream, and people who play by a set of rules in that environment are not willing to risk using providers who are not mainstream - their jobs depend on conforming to expectations. So, it remains a huge potential area of expansion, with huge issues of accessibility.
I want to mainstream my practice because, as interesting as weight release and smoking cessation can be in individual cases, the issue of helping injured people regain their lives seems more vital to me - just a personal choice and I do not imply any judgment of anyone who makes different choices. And a huge proportion of those people cannot be easily reached at present until we appear safer and more predictable.
The only "con" I see is the fear that special interests will set the regulatory bar at their level of professional qualification, such that significant numbers of our brethren and sisteren can't come to the dance. I understand that, and realize there's a history - but there's also a history of DOMs and other non-mainstream disciplines getting recognized without adverse consequences to their legitimate constituencies. Perhaps it's time to re-examine this fear, and apply a little practical regulatory/legislative know how to it... I've got a lot of years of that kind of experience, and am willing to put my sweat where my mouth is.
Can we "mainstream" without some sort of governmental imprimatur? I don't see it.. It's the governmental recognition itself that will open some of the biggest doors that are currently closed to us. But, unless the regulatory framework is written by special interests, there's not going to be a hypno-cop on your doorstep... they've just got bigger and better things to do unless they are forced to look at you in that manner by a poorly written law.
Bob Aurbach

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Ellner on November 25, 2009 at 6:37pm

Scott, Roger, Richard, Michael H., Robert and future responders.


Thank your for joining this discussion - I am confident that we can make this an adventure in thinking about what we do and how we do it with the goal of EFFECTIVELY reaching and EFFECTIVELY helping the tens of millions of people who really need our help.

Michael H. is right on. Defining the terms we are using will make for a more effective discussion. Thanks Michael.

What does mainstreaming our practices mean?
Robert's post captures the essence of what I had in mind when I started this discussion. Mainstreaming our practices means EFFECTIVELY reaching and EFFECTIVELY helping the tens of millions of people who really need our help. Thank you Robert.
Note: Robert (Bob) is the editor of one of the two Peer Review Journals serving the Workers' Compensation field and the co-author of my peer reviewed article: Certified Hypnotists in Disability Settings to be published in the IAIABC Journal (International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions). These are the people who make policy.

Regarding Question 1
1) "What determines a hypnotist's effectiveness?"
Satisfied clients defines effectiveness in terms of helping our clients.
In terms of being effective in reaching out to clients and their health care providers, which is the essence of mainstreaming, I believe it would be helpful if we explore some of the existing controversies about the practice of hypnosis:
A) Is hypnosis state dependent?
B) Is hypnosis a "persuasive" art?
C) What roles do "suggestion," "beliefs," "expectations" and "exciting" a client's imagination play in effective hypnotic transactions?
D) Do we empower the techniques that we use or do the techniques that we use empower us?


Regarding Question 2
2) Do you want to mainstream your practice?
I believe that Bob's take on mainstreaming is perfect.

2A) What do you think the pro and cons might be?
There seems to be a belief that mainstreaming our profession requires standardization. That belief contains a seed of truth, but only in the sense of qualifications and generally laws of this kind "grandfather" existing practitioners. As Bob pointed out these regulatory bodies do not have the manpower or desire to concern themselves with the actual techniques we choose to use. Their interest would be consumer complaints and they would likely use basic standards of practice to determine what crosses the line. Having sex with your clients crosses the line, etc. Here's where Bob's extensive knowledge and experience could be a guiding light.

In my opinion, a basic level of standardization does not have to limit the way we practice and can legitimize us as an Independent Profession. Presently, we are back at the starting gate because when the DOT was replaced by the Standard Occupational Classification System (SOC) "Hypnotherapist" stopped being a stand-alone and independent profession.
I believe this presents a golden opportunity to reinvent our profession and practices.


Regarding Question 3
3) Do you think it is possible to mainstream our practices without government regulation?
My guess is that we could mainstream our practices with a minimum of regulation that would empower rather than limit our effectiveness in helping our clients help themselves.


Excited by the possibilities of where this discussion can take us -- I look forward to your opinions.

Michael E.


Robert Aurbach said:

There are two senses of the word "effectiveness (maybe more) inherent in the question. One is the ability to help the particular client in front of us achieve the results that they wish and that best serve them. I'm not really seeing that in play here... having been a governmental regulator (albeit in a different field) I recognize that the regulator has neither the time nor the interest in dealing with practitioners at that level. Mostly, they just deal with the ministerial act of license administration and the processing of complaints. I'm not quite sure I understand the belief that regulation is "bad" - UNLESS the bar is set by special interests to exclude us from practicing at all - and that is an entirely different question than whether you can practice as you see fit in a regulated environment.
The other sense of "effectiveness" is reaching people. I have an extensive background in workers' compensation - an $80 billion industry where there is essentially no penetration of our profession. Those people are not being helped, and ipso facto, we are not effective in bringing a highly useful, well tested modality to bear to help them regain their lives. Why, you might ask? Because we are not regarded as mainstream, and people who play by a set of rules in that environment are not willing to risk using providers who are not mainstream - their jobs depend on conforming to expectations. So, it remains a huge potential area of expansion, with huge issues of accessibility. I want to mainstream my practice because, as interesting as weight release and smoking cessation can be in individual cases, the issue of helping injured people regain their lives seems more vital to me - just a personal choice and I do not imply any judgment of anyone who makes different choices. And a huge proportion of those people cannot be easily reached at present until we appear safer and more predictable. The only "con" I see is the fear that special interests will set the regulatory bar at their level of professional qualification, such that significant numbers of our brethren and sisteren can't come to the dance. I understand that, and realize there's a history - but there's also a history of DOMs and other non-mainstream disciplines getting recognized without adverse consequences to their legitimate constituencies. Perhaps it's time to re-examine this fear, and apply a little practical regulatory/legislative know how to it... I've got a lot of years of that kind of experience, and am willing to put my sweat where my mouth is. Can we "mainstream" without some sort of governmental imprimatur? I don't see it.. It's the governmental recognition itself that will open some of the biggest doors that are currently closed to us. But, unless the regulatory framework is written by special interests, there's not going to be a hypno-cop on your doorstep... they've just got bigger and better things to do unless they are forced to look at you in that manner by a poorly written law. Bob Aurbach

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin Cole-NLPTrainingQuest.com on November 25, 2009 at 6:43pm

I'll be joining this discussion as soon as time allows... Crazy busy but I like the topic. Thanks for posting it, Michael.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion