Massage Therapy Body of Knowledge

Comment

Comment by Carl W. Brown on October 20, 2009 at 5:26pm

Mike, it is great that you want this to be a living document and grown and be enhanced over the years, but this is starting out dead. What are the skills needed to be a taxi cab driver, or an airline pilot or a rodeo cowboy? Start with one and then grow it.

A BOK with just SKA descriptions is worthless without attaching the minimal skill level for each SKA that is essential for minimal performance.

It would be like describing the performance in English as:

Vocabulary
Grammar
Reading
Writing

Vocabulary could be five words or 30,000 words and a mix of active and passive. Does it include technical terms? Is the English test that the person has a sufficient command of the language to get directions on how to mow the lawn and trim the bushes? Is it enough to teach English or write the next American novel?

Without setting required minimal competencies the list of KSAs is worthless.

The reason that I am suggestion you start with Swedish is that it is a very common modality and many aspects of the training are measurable. The kinetic aspects probably can’t be included but when looking at minimal standards thouse aspects while may lead to a poor session will not cause harm

Asian and energetic modalities OTOH are hard to test and once we can actually see how a proper BOK works we may then look for ways to incorporate other modalities.

Comment by Carl W. Brown on October 20, 2009 at 5:01pm

Christopher, “Astrology was an analogy, and it makes observable claims that can be tested.” Its is interesting that I decides a couple of years ago to see what my natal chart was but I had forgotten my time of birth so I decided that if valid I know who I am so I should be able to work it backward to arrive at my time of birth. Later I looked up my time of birth and it was within 5 min. However I am still skeptical because I read such preposterous predictions based on astrology.

The problem is that we perceive things that may be valid but cannot be dealt with through reason but we try to fit intuitive perceptions into a rational scheme and follow the scheme. .Science works great when we can measure things and deal with the with our serial/rational mind.

We use our intuitive/parallel mind to deal with things too complex to deal with within the confines of science and in shifting thing to the rational we loose much in the translation. I find it far easier to throw out all right brained activity when looking for objective results but you get the best results using both haves of your brain.

It is like psychology, drugs and operant conditioning are useful tools but will only take you so far.

Comment by Christopher A. Moyer on October 20, 2009 at 3:19pm

To clarify: the mechanisms of general anesthesia are not well understood, but the effects are.

Actually, we could say much the same for massage therapy. There are some scientifically validated effects, including sizable reductions of anxiety and depression when those conditions are subclinical (scant research has been done with clinical populations). What mechanism underlies those effects? We don't know, we only have theories so far.

Comment by Stephen Jeffrey on October 20, 2009 at 3:12pm

I've learnt today the exact mechanisms of anesthesiology are scientifically unproven. Yet it is excepted worldwide. I therefore do not see that any BOK for massage need the burden/cost to gain exceptance by that same scientific community that is obviously willing to except weight of numbers/sucesses for anesthesiology .? hundreds thousands zillions ?

Comment by Mike Hinkle on October 20, 2009 at 2:47pm

Well good luck with that.

The Touch Research Institute was formally established in 1992 by Director Tiffany Field, Ph.D. at the University of Miami School of Medicine via a start-up grant from Johnson & Johnson. The TRI was the first center in the world devoted solely to the study of touch and its application in science and medicine. And they are still at it and haven't come up with the entire explanation of touch.

We are not going to wait until they do either. I am glad it is helping. I try to help everybody!

Comment by Christopher A. Moyer on October 20, 2009 at 2:34pm

Nope, that ain't enough for scientists. :)

We are identifying a difference in the way a clinician thinks and the way a scientist thinks, though. (And there is nothing personal meant by that - I'm both myself). That model may be "enough" for a clinician in the field, because the clinician doesn't care (doesn't need to care) about the *exact* cause of the changes. All (s)he really cares about is that there has been a change.

The scientist needs to know exactly what brought about the change. And, once (s)he knows that, (s)he can pass that info along to the clinician, who can use it to improve practice (hopefully).

I know that changes are observed during the practice of energy medicine, but I'm quite confident that the changes are not due to the explanations offered by energy medicine practices. This is not because I am cocky or a know-it-all; rather, it is because I know of several (many more than one) plausible explanations for why such a change could be observed even in the total absence of the energies and mechanisms posited by energy medicine.

By the way, this discussion is helping me think about and prepare for the Seattle conference. :)

Comment by Mike Hinkle on October 20, 2009 at 2:27pm

Will see you there.

You were doing so well till
...we cannot be sure that it is the intervention that made the difference occur. This is true no matter what the intervention, and this is why scientists perform randomized controlled trials (a specific type of experimental design) to control for (i.e., eliminate) alternate explanations.

This happens daily, hundreds of thousands of times, and that isn't enough for scientists? What a shame. It is enough for massage therapists. We decide based on our training which modality to perform based on our abilities. And the discomfort the client is in. There are indications and contraindications for different modalities. And if beyond our scope we refer as doctors do.

But, I guess it could be that they are in our presence, hmmmmm.

Comment by Keith Eric Grant on October 20, 2009 at 2:14pm

Noel,

On the education / knowledge framework, Frederick Reif's Applying Cognitive Science to Education, Benner et al's Expertise in Nursing Practice, 2nd ed., Gary Klein's Sources of Power -- How People Make Decisions, and Crandall et al.'s Working Mind's -- A practitioner's guide to cognitive task analysis.I also just noted that Klein has a new book on real-life decision-making, Streetlights & Shadows -- Searching for the Keys to Adaptive De.... So a lot on learning and the nature of expertise.

On the neurological level, a science writer mentor of mine came out with a nice summary of some of the neurological research that's been occurring. Sandra Blakeslee and her son Matt wrote The Body has a Mind of Its Own. I need to do an update, but I also put together a small reference list on Melzack's neuromatrix theory a few years ago.

Comment by Christopher A. Moyer on October 20, 2009 at 2:11pm

Glad you will be in Seattle, Mike.

I also support, and have been supported by, the Foundation.

Astrology was an analogy, and it makes observable claims that can be tested. I can make other analogies, if you prefer.

The visual, physical proof you ask for is only convincing when there is only one explanation for it. I'm not sure how else to state or explain this point, but it is an essential point. When the following sequence happens in practice...:

Person is unwell ---> intervention is performed ----> person is better than before

...we cannot be sure that it is the intervention that made the difference occur. This is true no matter what the intervention, and this is why scientists perform randomized controlled trials (a specific type of experimental design) to control for (i.e., eliminate) alternate explanations.

Comment by Mike Hinkle on October 20, 2009 at 2:03pm

We are not talking astrology (and I know, an analogy), we are talking visual and physical proof. I doubt people come in with complaints just to mislead our analysis. They come in with pain and leave with relief.

I repeat if scientists want this proof. Start studying. This is one reason, I promote the Massage Therapy Foundation and their research efforts.

I will be there!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 36
• 37
• 38
• 39
• 40
• …
• 51
• Next ›
• Page