Qualified area?

The guidance for posting on www.ClinPsy.org.uk and any comments on the forum, suggestions for improvements, etc. Also information about our e-magazine, Aspire, and how to contribute or download your copy.
Post Reply
User avatar
jane doe
Posts: 432
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:19 pm
Location: The South West

Post by jane doe » Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:28 am

choirgirl wrote:
russ wrote:ClinPsy.org.uk drinks are always welcome though :)
Is that for all of us, or just qualifieds?! :twisted: :P
No, Choirgirl, just qualified clinical psychs :twisted: :lol:

Bella
Posts: 333
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:41 pm

Post by Bella » Wed Aug 04, 2010 12:34 pm

Interesting topic .

I personally don't think it's a good idea. Applied psychology is hierarchical and eletist at the best of times and this further division of 'qualified' and 'unqualified' adds to the power dynamic.

I think the forum should be open to all, not have 'special' sections for those who have X, Y or Z. It doesn't feel inclusive or supportive. Same would go for a trainee area. Banning people from certain areas of the forum feels rather offensive to me.

User avatar
Mr Ben
Posts: 535
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 5:26 pm
Location: 15 minutes outside of Oxford

Post by Mr Ben » Wed Aug 04, 2010 1:11 pm

Bella wrote:Interesting topic .

I personally don't think it's a good idea. Applied psychology is hierarchical and eletist at the best of times and this further division of 'qualified' and 'unqualified' adds to the power dynamic.

I think the forum should be open to all, not have 'special' sections for those who have X, Y or Z. It doesn't feel inclusive or supportive. Same would go for a trainee area. Banning people from certain areas of the forum feels rather offensive to me.
I'm clearly struggling to understand this - so sorry about that, 'dur-brain in the room' :roll: :oops: , But why does having a seperate area for CPs to talk about stuff that can't really be public, be elitist? Or hierachial?

How many CPs on the forum have 'voted' "yes" for a seperate area and how many have 'voted' "no"? To thos who want it - or who are happy with it, why do you want it and what do you expect to use it for? Why do you feel you need it??

Plus, if having a seperate area means that CPs will stick around - is that not a compromise? Is it a good thing that CPs stick around? Do we need CP input? Do we want it? Would we really end up with no CP input if an area for them didn't exist? Would this matter? I just don't get why people want it so much - and why people are against it so much...

Sorry, I know I'm being dim and I clearly don't 'get' either argument... I'm not sure why that is - I suspect it is because, as I've eluded to previousy, I really don't care - whatever really. Maybe it should bother me, but it doesn't. For someone who doesn't care I'm writing a lot - but that's because I'm procrastinating! :wink:

Mr B.

Edit: I guess there is an assumption made by this new section, that the site needs CPs around - that a site for Aspiring CPs needs input from qualified members... So the question is, does it? Psyclick worked very well without CPs around much of the time (granted, it's down at the moment, but that has nothing to do with level of CP input).

So is this new section assuming that - that this site needs CP input - and is that assumption valid?
just...keep.........going...

sally
Posts: 189
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:37 pm

Post by sally » Wed Aug 04, 2010 1:38 pm

I'm one of the people that is pleased to see a restricted area. It isn't about 'banning' people, but for me it is more about knowing that the material that I post can't be read by the general public, and that the people that do read it share a common professional framework to understand that work, and are bound by the same code of ethics that I am. Consequently there is a good chance that I'll pop in here more often than I have done in the past, because I now have somewhere to talk about issues that I can't in a general forum, mostly because what I do is quite specific, and therefore my service setting potentially identifiable.

User avatar
steve79
Posts: 496
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:36 pm
Location: Leeds

Post by steve79 » Wed Aug 04, 2010 1:51 pm

sally wrote:I'm one of the people that is pleased to see a restricted area. It isn't about 'banning' people, but for me it is more about knowing that the material that I post can't be read by the general public, and that the people that do read it share a common professional framework to understand that work, and are bound by the same code of ethics that I am. .
Yes I agree Sally, but do other groups not want this and deserve this too? APs, trainees and others who work clinically.

For me this argument is all about everyone having the same privelages

ste :)

User avatar
nettyb
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:11 pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Post by nettyb » Wed Aug 04, 2010 2:01 pm

I'm pleased that there is a separate area. I don't like hierarchies either but I do recognise that as a qualified CP I need to have a space where I can share concerns and professional issues with like minded colleagues. I like the idea of it being private and password protected for the reasons that others have stated, a truly confidential space is important within any peer supervision group not least to provide a contained and safe space where people can be open and honest but we also have to remember that as clinically responsible clinicians we are at risk of identification etc and that this can cause all sorts of problems. Another issue specific to us qualified folk concerns our HPC registration. Although I do know that any space in the open forum would be used professionally there is always a risk that on the internet comments can be taken out of context and misinterpreted, which could result in disciplinary action and I know that this has, in the past, prevented me from posting about a couple of issues.

I guess I’m intrigued to know why people here think we would be talking about them in a qualified area, I can assure you (given my very high risk clients, the significant service issues I am facing, the risk of redundancy etc etc) I don’t personally have the time or thinking space to think or talk about the wider members of this forum. To be honest I don’t really want to either since that isn’t what the space is intended for …

User avatar
Dr.Dot
Posts: 1511
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 7:14 pm
Location: Yellow brick road.

Post by Dr.Dot » Wed Aug 04, 2010 2:17 pm

Mr Ben wrote: Edit: I guess there is an assumption made by this new section, that the site needs CPs around - that a site for Aspiring CPs needs input from qualified members... So the question is, does it? Psyclick worked very well without CPs around much of the time (granted, it's down at the moment, but that has nothing to do with level of CP input).

So is this new section assuming that - that this site needs CP input - and is that assumption valid?
There is an assumption that we need qualified CPs around yes, in part because miriam and russ are qualified and they run the site. Psyclick went down when there were no CPs present. If the site wasn't run by CPs how could it be sustainable? Surely psyclick is actually evidence for that. If a site like this, or this site had no CPs the person in 'charge of the site' will either not be successful in the profession and leave (ie. psyclick), or be successful and leave if their needs are not met within it...as is being raised here.

It seems that there was enough desire for this development to occur for the admin team to go ahead with the development, so it is all a bit of a moot point now anyway. In relation to the divide in opinion overall, I am generally wondering if people are this resistant to service development in other areas of their life!

I guess my basic assumption is that if there was a space on another forum that was only for qualifieds and all the content was locked (as Spatch brought up) people wouldn't have a problem with it. And if that assumption is correct, what is the issue with qulaifieds having a space here instead of having a break-away group? It's a basic stepped care model after all!

To use that analogy: would you rather the the qaulifieds were locked up in what is being suggested as some powerful ivory tower in the 'psychatric unit', only working with their complex clients and not offering consultation/advice/supervision/teaching/support to primary and secondary care workers? We will always be kept out of things that we may want access to, unless we are a sector head/chief exec.

I understand and appreciate that the development of the area is in someways mirroring what is seen as a heirarchy within the profession, and I understand the frustration that this may not be fair or valid in all circumstances. But that position assumes that hierarchy is inherently bad. I am not sure that is valid. If we were all the same, there would be less opportunity to be scaffolded by and scaffold others which develops us all.

To be honest I find it quite offensive that there is envy and aggression towards the qualifieds who contribute to this site by saying that they should not be afforded the same opportunities as other contributing members of the site, along with the people who just lurk members or not. It's not about being better, its just about being different. It' the difference that means it has to be private.
Dorothy: Now which way do we go?

User avatar
eponymous85
Posts: 1898
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:44 pm
Location: Midlands

Post by eponymous85 » Wed Aug 04, 2010 2:40 pm

nettyb wrote:
I guess I’m intrigued to know why people here think we would be talking about them in a qualified area, I can assure you (given my very high risk clients, the significant service issues I am facing, the risk of redundancy etc etc) I don’t personally have the time or thinking space to think or talk about the wider members of this forum. To be honest I don’t really want to either since that isn’t what the space is intended for …
For my part I wasn't assuming there would be discussions about forum members in terms of their online presence. I was thinking about the potential that forum members may be working for qualified members 'in the real world', and that there may be discussions about being a supervisor. As Miriam has already clarified though, these discussions are likely to be general, thematic discussions rather than discussing people in any identifiable way.

Bella
Posts: 333
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:41 pm

Post by Bella » Wed Aug 04, 2010 2:54 pm

steve79 wrote:For me this argument is all about everyone having the same privelage
Same for me, I don't get why some people need a 'special place.'

As for people worrying that the qualifieds may talk about the forum posts we make that's what happens when you have a secret part of a forum, people will 'wonder' and 'worry.'

User avatar
BenJMan
Moderator
Posts: 2216
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:16 pm
Location: Lancashire

Post by BenJMan » Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:47 pm

Dr.Dot wrote:To be honest I find it quite offensive that there is envy and aggression towards the qualified who contribute to this site by saying that they should not be afforded the same opportunities as other contributing members of the site, along with the people who just lurk members or not. It's not about being better; it’s just about being different. It' the difference that means it has to be private.

I think 'Envy' and 'Aggression' are rather grandiose terms for the discussion that is going on here... curiosity and questioning necessity perhaps are more appropriate. As for finding it offensive, no one has made derogatory marks about anyone else... or towards qualifieds or aspiring... it seems like healthy debate... I'm not entirely sure what there is to be offended about, but then, everyone is entitled to feel the way they feel, but that’s rather paradoxical... by accepting that you are entitled to feel offended by others feeling this new modification is not appropriate, we must also accept that their feelings are equally valid which in turn means it doesn’t make sense to be offended by them, but if we aren’t offended by them then the validation of that feeling is removed and therefore the validation of the original feeling of inappropriateness can be once again questioned and we all hurtle round and round in circles until we die of dizziness. Fun aint it?

On your second point of 'saying that they should not be afforded the same opportunities as other contributing members of the site' , I think it is exactly the issue of qualified psychologists being afforded something that others are not, that is the issue in the first place.. So I'm not entirely sure how that stacks up? By all means explain...

I should say I have become rather neutral to the concept... having moved from my position of being slightly against the idea... I think I struggle to find myself settling or understanding the logic for either camp, I won't go over that because it's almost entirely contained within Mr Ben's earlier post.

User avatar
Dr.Dot
Posts: 1511
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 7:14 pm
Location: Yellow brick road.

Post by Dr.Dot » Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:11 pm

Of course there is offence on both sides. My descriptors may well be grandiose to others, but it is how I have experienced it.
Bdawson wrote: On your second point of 'saying that they should not be afforded the same opportunities as other contributing members of the site' , I think it is exactly the issue of qualified psychologists being afforded something that others are not, that is the issue in the first place.. So I'm not entirely sure how that stacks up? By all means explain...
My point is that the majority of this site allows aspiring clinical psychologists to be scaffolded and supported and to scaffold and support others. The site as it stood did not allow that to qualified clinical psychologists because the professional issues are different once qualified, as nettyb and sally amongst others have highlighted. The thing that is not afforded to the rest of the site is privacy. Privacy is not as important when you don't have HPC registration and you are not liable etc. So qualifieds were not being afforded what those who are aspiring to be qulaified were, because they can't post openly as we do, and that stopped them from using the site to their benefit.
Dorothy: Now which way do we go?

User avatar
steve79
Posts: 496
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:36 pm
Location: Leeds

Post by steve79 » Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:40 pm

Dr.Dot wrote:Privacy is not as important when you don't have HPC registration and you are not liable etc.
Dotty Im sorry, but I strongly disagree with this. I think privacy is important to all members if they engage in peer supervision. It may not be that a trainee or AP can get "struck off", but I think other serious implications can occur.

steve :)

User avatar
matt.berlin
Posts: 653
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:06 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by matt.berlin » Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:55 pm

Bdawson wrote:I'm not entirely sure what there is to be offended about, but then, everyone is entitled to feel the way they feel, but that’s rather paradoxical... by accepting that you are entitled to feel offended by others feeling this new modification is not appropriate, we must also accept that their feelings are equally valid which in turn means it doesn’t make sense to be offended by them, but if we aren’t offended by them then the validation of that feeling is removed and therefore the validation of the original feeling of inappropriateness can be once again questioned and we all hurtle round and round in circles until we die of dizziness.
That sentence alone makes me dizzy! :lol:
steve79 wrote:Dotty Im sorry, but I strongly disagree with this. I think privacy is important to all members if they engage in peer supervision. It may not be that a trainee or AP can get "struck off", but I think other serious implications can occur.
True, there can be implications, which in the worst case scenario could lead to you not having the jobs that would lead to you getting HPC registration in the future. But, I can see the point that there is a greater burden on qualified CPs.

On the other point that has been raised, about whether qualifieds are being given special privileges / opportunities not given to others on the site, I think the argument goes that those of us lower down the career ladder are more likely to have an appropriate supervisory forum available to us, that isn't so easily available to qualified CPs offline. And there it is - you now have me arguing for the private qualified area!
Last edited by matt.berlin on Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
BenJMan
Moderator
Posts: 2216
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:16 pm
Location: Lancashire

Post by BenJMan » Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:56 pm

I think as an Assistant Psychologist I'm just as likely to get struck off for misconduct on a forum like this as any qualified psychologist...

User avatar
BlueCat
Site Admin
Posts: 2844
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:42 pm

Post by BlueCat » Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:01 pm

Bdawson wrote:I think as an Assistant Psychologist I'm just as likely to get struck off for misconduct on a forum like this as any qualified psychologist...
But you can't be. From where would you be struck? Which codes are you legally bound by?
There's no such thing as bad weather, just the wrong clothes. Billy Connolly.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests