Theoretical Orientation
In this post, I discuss choosing a theoretical orientation. Students should try to think about choosing a theoretical orientation. Some programs will want student applicants that are interested in practicing under a particular orientation style, while other programs will not be that specific. I do not recommend that students rush into choosing a theory; however, think about the subjects discussed in this paper for future reference.
Also, be careful about speaking too adamantly for or against an orientation when writing a statement of purpose or interviewing. You may offend an admissions committee member that either disagrees with your theory or thinks you are not objective enough about a specific theory.
The bottom line is to do your research on the programs you are interested in attending. Be familiar with any practice preferences for the program and among specific faculty members. Some programs only want students interested in Neuropsychology and Cognitive Behavioral methods. Other programs might be looking for something else. Still, some programs are not specific. So, be thoughtful in your communication about your orientation, if asked to discuss it. If you are not asked about an orientation, then speak on your other strengths as a candidate. Overall, always display yourself as positive and objective!
Choosing a Theoretical Orientation
Every psychology graduate student undergoes the process of selecting a theoretical orientation in which to practice psychotherapy. Because of the diverse offerings of theoretical orientations (e.g., Psychodynamic (PD), Cognitive Behavioral therapy (CBT), and Existential-Humanistic (E-H)), students often grapple with how to narrow their practice down to one orientation. One issue that makes choosing an orientation challenging is that PD, CBT, and E-H have intersecting concepts, which results in students being attracted to several theories (Bitar, Bean, & Bermudez, 2007; Hansen & Freimuth, 1997). Also, students struggle with following a theory based on their personal viewpoints versus the popularity of the theoretical orientation (Hansen & Freimuth, 1997; Jacob & Kuruvilla, 2012). Contemporary psychotherapy literature can aid students in identifying the most essential factors in choosing a theoretical orientation. The scholarly literature highlights influences that lead to students choosing a meaningful theory like personal factors (learning style, family experience, value system, and cultural perspectives) and professional factors (building a working hypothesis, education, supervision, personal therapy experiences, exposure to clinical scenarios) (Bitar, Bean, & Bermudez, 2007; Hansen & Freimuth, 1997; Heffler & Sandell, 2009; Jacob & Kuruvilla, 2012).
Personal Factors in Choosing an Orientation
Choosing a theoretical orientation largely involves personal factors (Bitar et al., 2007). A student’s contextual factors cannot be separated from their decision to choose a psychological orientation. In fact, scholarly literature cautions students not to dismiss their personal values in this decision process (Bitar et al., 2007). Another way to think about the influence of a student clinician’s personal life and choosing an orientation is to view it as ontological (Heffler& amp; Sandell, 2009). The concept of “being” or factors that make a student practitioner unique are important in identify a theoretical approach (Heffler & Sandell, 2009). More specifically, understanding and interpreting the role of culture, family/developmental experiences, and language in a student therapist’s life is essential in selecting a psychological viewpoint for practice (Jacob & Kuruvilla, 2012). No personal student experience is exempt from influencing how one views, conceptualizes, and resolves psychological issues that arise in therapy training (i.e., according to a specific approach) (Bitar et al., 2007; Hansen & Freimuth, 1997; Jacob & Kuruvilla, 2012). The ontological influence is separate from any training or knowledge base for identifying important psychological themes.
Learning Style or Personality Traits
Heffler and Sandell (2009) identify learning style as a leading factor in choosing one’s psychological orientation style. According to Heffler and Sandell (2009), Kolb’s (1984) theory on Experience Learning Style is helpful in understanding how learning style or personality traits affect theory choice. Kolb’s learning style traits are dichotomized into polar axes based on one’s psychological approach, such as think-feel or do-watch axes (Heffler& amp; Sandell, 2009). More specifically, the four stages in Kolb’s theory include: concrete experience (feel), reflective observation (watch), abstract conceptualization (think), and active experimentation (do) (Heffler & Sandell, 2009). Kolb believed that persons fall within two dimensions of these learning style cycles similar to the think-feel or do-watch axes previously mentioned (Heffler & Sandell, 2009). Other personality trait combinations are possible like watch-feel or feel-think.
While using Kolb’s learning style theory for choosing an orientation is commendable, there are issues with reliability (Heffler & Sandell, 2009). Thus, students should use this method cautiously, since this method is not amply supported in the empirical literature for selecting one’s psychological orientation. Similarly, Hansen and Freimuth (1997) encourage psychology students to go beyond theory or proclivities in choosing an orientation, as there are other factors that contribute to adopting a theory.
Value System
Both Hansen and Freimuth (1997) and Bitar, Bean, and Bermudez (2007) reiterate the importance of adopting a theory focused on one’s personal values and experiences. Values differ from a proclivity to research or psychotherapy topic because values are at the core of one’s worldview system. Students should choose a theory that connects with their experiences and beliefs about the world, people, nature of people (good and evil), helping others, metaphysical views (origin of humankind), and so forth (Hansen & Freimuth, 1997; Jacob & Kuruvilla, 2012). Connecting one’s practice to a personal value is critical because it makes therapy work meaningful and purposeful for the student (Hansen & Freimuth, 1997; Jacob& amp; Kuruvilla, 2012).
Considering Population and Clinician Values
Interestingly, Jacob and Kuruvilla (2012) recommend that psychotherapy practitioners not just choose a therapy based on their values, but one that connects their beliefs to the shared ideas of the client base in which they are working. For instance, a therapist working with a client that had a history of prostitution mentioned using narrative therapy or an E-H paradigm to aid the client in rebuilding a new life story for herself (Bitar et al., 2007). In this manner, choosing a theory is purposeful in that the student is considering both their own values and that of the client population in which they work (Jacob & Kuruvilla, 2012). Students can take into consideration factors like language, symbolism, cultural, and spiritual views in narrowing a theory that connects with their values and that of their clients (Jacob & Kuruvilla, 2012).
Professional Factors
On the other hand, choosing a psychological orientation involves professional factors. Bitar et al. (2007) attributes professional factors like supervision, graduate education, sessions with clients, and professional training as cardinal to the process of growing as a clinician. In fact, Bitar et al. (2007) notes that the influence of supervisor/instructor comments, content, and symbolism in course/internship curriculum all influence a student’s perspective on a theoretical orientation. Yet, Heffler and Sandell (2009) recommends that it is ideal if students are exposed to all learning styles in graduate training. Students should get adequate exposure to various theories in order to adopt one that best fits their goals and values as a student therapist (Heffler & Sandell, 2009). Bitar et al. (2007) mentions an often overlooked idea-that is therapist’s preferred orientation often brings them satisfaction. When students are practicing based on their values and goals, it energizes them about the whole process of conducting psychotherapy (Bitar et al., 2007).
Building a Working Hypothesis and Conceptualization
Hansen and Freimuth (1997) remind practitioners that choosing an orientation involves more than self-reflection about one’s beliefs. Hansen and Freimuth (1997) cite the need for student’s to develop a working hypothesis for how their theory relates to the practice they engage in with clients. This requires students to narrow down the form and content of the theory they are going to choose (Hansen & Freimuth, 1997; Jacob & Kuruvilla, 2012). Students should go beyond adopting a vague orientation like E-H, Systems theory; instead, psychology students should adhere to a particular theorist, model, and conceptualization style for their practice. Thus, a student could select Virginia Satir’s Conjoint Family Therapy model and conceptualization style focused on family communication and good intentions of nuclear family unit. Furthermore, Jacob and Kuruvilla (2012) clarify that choosing a theory involves a clinician’s focus on the form of therapy and the common psychotherapeutic language in practice, while working with clients to focus on content. For example, a clinician may use Albert Ellis’ A-B-C model. The student therapist should not focus on explaining all aspects of the form of therapy and the problem, but can conceptualize the content of the client’s issue in terms that have shared meaning for both client and therapist (Jacob & Kuruvilla, 2012).
Issues with Professional Factors
A caveat to the epistemological or knowledge perspective (via education and training) of choosing an orientation is that there are many factors to sway a student towards a particular orientation. This is the issue with supervision, course curriculum, and professional training opportunities. It is imperative that students consider the reasons for adhering to the theory of a mentor, professor, seminar instructor, personal therapist, or colleague (Hansen & Freimuth, 1997). Issues like popularity in the field of psychology, fear of ridicule, career prospects, concern over empirical support, and insurance reimbursement among other issues “may” un-proportionately influence a student’s decision more than their personal values and goals. Also, Jacob and Kuruvilla (2012) mention how the recommendation to become multicultural in practice may “seemingly” influence novice practitioners to haphazardly choose an orientation that fits professional standards on diversity, but the orientation might not fit with the student’s values and professional goals. While adopting a multicultural stance is a positive move for the field of psychology, more guidance is needed in psychology programs on how to integrate multiculturalism into one’s existing theoretical orientation.
Overview of Choosing a Theory
Choosing a psychological orientation involves namely two factors, professional and personal factors. While professional factors should not be ignored in choosing a theory, often times personal factors are cited as more useful in determining one’s theory (Hansen & Freimuth, 1997; Jacob & Kuruvilla, 2012). Even with knowing the factors associated with choosing a theoretical orientation, there are implications for making a decision. Students must weigh personal values with the professional climate for choosing a theory because some orientations are preferred in work and reimbursement contexts. Essentially, students should carefully consider the personal and professional factors, view the literature on choosing an orientation, and think about their therapeutic goals and working hypothesis for practice before committing to a therapy orientation. By taking these factors into consideration, students will make an informed decision on choosing a theoretical orientation
References
Bitar, G. W., Bean, R. A., & Bermudez, J. M. (2007). Influences and processes in theoretical orientation development: A grounded theory pilot study. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 35, 109-121.
Hansen, N. E., & Freimuth, M. (1997). Piecing the puzzle together: A model for understanding the theory-Practice relationship. The Counseling Psychologist, 25, 654-673.
Heffler, B., & Sandell, R. (2009). The role of learning style in choosing one's therapeutic orientation. Psychotherapy Research, 19, 283-292.
Jacob, K. S., & Kuruvilla, A. (2012). Psychotherapy across cultures: the form-Content dichotomy. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 19, 91-95.
