On the 12th of January 2010, the MPCL II batch got to interact with a practitioner who we could not only relate to but who had also been confronted by the same dilemmas we face now as students having to make life altering choices.
It was very evident that the class greatly appreciated the opportunity to have her answer any doubts, queries or reservations they might have and be part of an open discussion wherein pressing issues from the field were discussed.
Dr. Gupta opened the session by telling us why exactly she pursued psychology after wanting to become a doctor and how it was her experience with psychologists that changed her mind as a teenager. She then traced the path that her education had taken through Lady Shri Ram College and Delhi University where she was exposed to the different but very strong views in favour of and opposing psychoanalysis. Following this she gave us a few excerpts from her internship at a government hospital where she was supervised by psychiatrists. It was surprising to learn that in certain situations sessions were taken while sitting with the client on a staircase due to the dearth of consultation rooms. She was very candid about the fact that a patient coming back for further consultation was very gratifying and also gave her an ego boost.
Moving on to her experience while doing her Psy.D at the California School of Professional Psychology, Dr. Gupta shared with us the fact that due to the syllabus she had covered in India, she was given the option of dropping some of her first year courses like Observation and Interviewing, Principles of Psychotherapy, Systems and History of Psychology, Social Psychology and Cognitive and Affective Psychology. She also warned us that while this opportunity seemed very tempting, as she could then complete some of the second year courses in her first year, it may not have been the best decision as her exposure to these areas was very limited and by not taking them she had not received any formal training in some key areas which in retrospect would have been an asset. She also shared with us the experience of being utterly lost in a class like African American Psychology, which was taught by a lawyer and a psychologist, where she had no knowledge about certain aspects that were taken for granted due to her foreign education.
From a practitioner’s perspective, she advocated that a psychologist should have a basic understanding of law proceedings as it is required in cases such a child abuse, domestic violence, etc. Her practical opinion regarding assessment was initially negative as she was against the concept of labeling people according to their prowess or proficiency on a particular test.
For her second practicum which consisted of 700 hours, she worked in a clinic for 3 days a week. The clinic was one which laid a heavy emphasis on psychoanalysis and on her first day there she thrown into the deep end by being assigned ten cases, all with very severe conditions. For every 10 clients she dealt with, she got one hour of individual supervision while group supervision sessions were for one and a half hours per week. Her process group focused on the dynamics of her relationship with her colleagues.
One client in particular, she said, had taught her the most about how practice and theory differ. She recounted her experience with an American man of Chinese descent who always asked for a consult with an Asian, female intern. He had had so much exposure to psychotherapy that he could manipulate and intimidate the intern and revel in it. On the first day he arrived with a rose and a painting as a gift for her which she flatly refused to accept which in retrospect was exactly what he had wanted. It never struck her to look at the painting and analyze why he had chosen that ver painting to give to her.
In the context of therapy for therapists, she firmly supported it and told us how she unexpectedly felt more at ease with a male therapist than she had with female ones. She said that her first year of therapy was geared more towards being in touch with oneself and accepting oneself.
She often felt the burden of being representative of the true Indian but later came to feel that she was not representative of Indians due to their diversity. In relation to her ethnicity she told us about a child who once commented on her accent which made her feel that the girl did not want to work with her. Her supervisor instead told her that it was the girl who was uncomfortable with her disability and needed someone who themselves were different. It was merely a manifestation of transference.
In response to one of the questions put forward by the class Dr. Gupta assured us that the APA does not discriminate between a PhD and a Psy.D but a PhD tends to carry more weight due to the fact that the number of people to obtain a PhD is far lower than that of those who obtain a Psy.D. She clarified that most Ivy League schools would require a PhD qualification for faculty members but professional schools would accept Psy.D holders as well. In the Indian context, people have been quite receptive to the Psy.D and accept any form of doctoral qualification. As far as recognition is concerned, she informed us that the IACP recognizes a Psy.D but the RCI does not.
One of the other questions that she had been requested to address was the competence of a therapist who had been educated abroad and was practicing in India. She completely supported the fact that she could practice as well as anyone else here even though she was educated abroad. She said that feeling incompetent and inadequate is something every young psychologist goes through and it has nothing to do with the location of one’s education.
Another query was the difference in practice in the East and West to which her answer was that they are not starkly different and that certain core processes remained the same such as connecting with a patient took approximately half a week, parents were met every month, if extended family had to be met, the child’s permission had to be taken, etc.
In response to the question of whether a client’s staunch religious beliefs can sometimes be detrimental to the progress made by psychotherapy, she disagreed. Her view on it was very interesting as she believed that it was easier for someone who believed in God to believe in a therapist. A therapist is not supposed to alter or impose religious belief. She also believed that religion helped people cope and if ever confronted with a similar situation we should attempt to work with the religious beliefs and not against them.
When asked what she would do if faced with the ethical dilemma of treating a friend or family member, her advice was not to agree to being their therapist but to offer them any help she could as a friend.
Her take on the question of further education in India or abroad tipped the scales slightly in favour of western education as she believed that in India Psychology was still not getting the recognition it deserved and while it was moving in that direction, it was not there yet.
One of the questions most people shied away from was the question of fees. Dr. Gupta categorically told us that one of the most difficult things in initial practice was to ask for fees which she said one just got used to. She said that in the case of under privileged clients, she had a particular number of slots she kept free when she would deal with clients at a lower fee.
I think it was an exceptionally informative session that allayed some of our fears and cleared up some of the foggy impressions we had about clinical practice.
Given below is the link to the book that she suggested in relation to the cultural aspects of practice.
http://openlibrary.org/b/OL14893883M/Psychotherapy_and_religion
No comments:
Post a Comment