massage and bodywork professionals
a community of practitioners
On MTBOK Independence
Early July is the right time to talk about independence, at least in this country - don't you think?
You have read some about the fact that the MTBOK is sponsored by six organizations well known to the profession (see the previous post with our Press Release.) In a later post I will talk a little about the many other related organizations who we will continue to include in our goal to be as inclusive as possible while we build the MTBOK. But today I wanted to say a little about the other side of the coin - the concern that one organization or another may have undue influence over our work.
I'm happy to say that in the establishment of the MTBOK development project the Steward organizations were aware of this possibility, and took steps to be sure this didn't happen. In the "ground rules" set forth by the Stewards is the following agreed upon concept:
"Independence - The initiative should be conducted by a taskforce independent from the control or undue influence of any stakeholder group or other professional entity. As part of its independence, the taskforce should share its results with the profession broadly, and should not seek “approval” or “ratification” from any stakeholder group."
In my dealings with the Steward representatives, I can tell you that these aren't just empty words - they have certainly taken them to heart.
I felt I should talk about this early on because I want to be sure you don't think the MTBOK is being driven by the agenda of any individual or group of organizations. In this way I hope to build your support for the project, and get your participation as we put out our work for vetting and comment.
So - our Steward organizations have charged us with being as open and inclusive as possible (more about these later) while assuring us that the products we produce will not come under undue influence.
Of course, we all have opinions, some of them strong, and I do expect to hear a lot of them. Its our goal to listen to them all, and then produce a baseline Phase 1 of the MTBOK. It isn't going to be easy, but the strength of an independent MTBOK is that it will be built by representatives of the broad community based upon input from as much of the profession - and allied fields - as possible.
If people participate, and a solid foundation for the MTBOK is built, it can become a living Body of Knowledge that grows with and in response to the needs of the full range of stakeholders.
And that's our vision, and how independence contributes to its success.
More about where we are in the start up process next time.
You have read some about the fact that the MTBOK is sponsored by six organizations well known to the profession (see the previous post with our Press Release.) In a later post I will talk a little about the many other related organizations who we will continue to include in our goal to be as inclusive as possible while we build the MTBOK. But today I wanted to say a little about the other side of the coin - the concern that one organization or another may have undue influence over our work.
I'm happy to say that in the establishment of the MTBOK development project the Steward organizations were aware of this possibility, and took steps to be sure this didn't happen. In the "ground rules" set forth by the Stewards is the following agreed upon concept:
"Independence - The initiative should be conducted by a taskforce independent from the control or undue influence of any stakeholder group or other professional entity. As part of its independence, the taskforce should share its results with the profession broadly, and should not seek “approval” or “ratification” from any stakeholder group."
In my dealings with the Steward representatives, I can tell you that these aren't just empty words - they have certainly taken them to heart.
I felt I should talk about this early on because I want to be sure you don't think the MTBOK is being driven by the agenda of any individual or group of organizations. In this way I hope to build your support for the project, and get your participation as we put out our work for vetting and comment.
So - our Steward organizations have charged us with being as open and inclusive as possible (more about these later) while assuring us that the products we produce will not come under undue influence.
Of course, we all have opinions, some of them strong, and I do expect to hear a lot of them. Its our goal to listen to them all, and then produce a baseline Phase 1 of the MTBOK. It isn't going to be easy, but the strength of an independent MTBOK is that it will be built by representatives of the broad community based upon input from as much of the profession - and allied fields - as possible.
If people participate, and a solid foundation for the MTBOK is built, it can become a living Body of Knowledge that grows with and in response to the needs of the full range of stakeholders.
And that's our vision, and how independence contributes to its success.
More about where we are in the start up process next time.
Views: 24
Comment
-
Comment by Christopher A. Moyer on July 22, 2009 at 8:39am
-
Thanks Chip.
-
Comment by Noel Norwick on July 21, 2009 at 4:53pm
-
Chip: Thanks for the clarification.
-
Comment by Chip Hines on July 21, 2009 at 1:25pm
-
Noel and Christopher: Im probably getting too much in the nitty gritty here - and may get poked by someone from the Task Force, since it is they, not I, that will determine what specifically is in the BOK.
Noel: My comment about your statement about massage techniques not being in our scope was because I dont think the MTBOK will be a comprehensive research access server which is what I thought you were suggesting. The MTBOK is closer to what you said in your response its about what a massage professional should be expected to know.
Christopher: The MTBOK will be grounded in science - I think there may be a misunderstanding. See my response to Noel above. I cant speak to how the Task Force will end up defining the scope and what will or will not be included. They are however aware that there is a lot practiced under the massage therapy umbrella, and are doing a lot of research about how this is currently addressed.
I will continue to encourage input, comments and suggestions to the project, and we are going to stand up a better place to do this than this blog. We expect a lot of comments - in fact we are hoping for them - so we have to be efficient in managing them and tracking what is done in response to them. In the meantime, the task force receives these comments and suggestions by me manually moving them over. The best place right now for specific suggestions is to put them in to the "Contact us" button at http://www.mtbok.org. Hopefully I will get a specific methodology set up soon.
-
-
Hi Chip.
I've been wondering how the Task Force will address the fact that there are quite a few practices that get included under the umbrella of "massage" or "massage and bodywork" that have no basis in science whatsoever. Will such things still be considered an important part of the body of knowledge, or will their exclusion from the body of knowledge be considered a step toward increasing its integrity and validity?
Just above you stated, in response to another post:
"Regarding your suggestions about the efficacy of techniques on tissue types, and being grounded in science, I dont think that falls specifically under the charge of our project"
Do I interpret that correctly to mean that to have the body of knowledge grounded in science is not a goal of the project?
If it will not be grounded in science, what will it be grounded in?
-
-
Chip: 1. Given the challenges we in California have faced regarding scope of practice overlap from the fields of chiropractic, physical therapy (and unofficially from personal training performing what's referred to as "cuing"), I look forward to what your task force eventually presents.
2. Re "the efficacy of techniques on tissue types not falling specifically under the charge of your project. Please consider that defining core "competencies" one of which is "knowledge" is part of your task force's charge. I suggest it will appear strange for an educated or specialist trained "professional" not to know and be able to explain the basic techniques that they use/apply and the effects/results that said techniques are most likely to cause.
-
-
Noel as you can see there is some commonalities in the heart of the comments that you and Jan have made, so read my response to her as well.
I agree that our challange is to produce a Scope and definition that represents what we the profession think is appropriate for our profession, and that we are clear about what is in it and what isnt. We do need to keep in mind the areas of overlap that can result and try to minimize their impact. The Task Force is working on the analysis and development work as we speak, and will be keeping this in mind as they do so.
Our charge is to address the foundational element of massage therapy in this the Phase 1 of the MTBOK. This entails defining the scope of practice and the competencies that an entry level massage therapist needs in terms of Knowledge, Skills and Abilities to be able to do that work.
To me (not, I might add, a member of the Task Force) the test will be fairly simple once that is done - if the work you are doing falls within the description of the scope, and if at some level you need the core competencies specified then you are a massage therapist and fall under the legal requirements of the jurisdiction you are in. This would be true even if you only practice advanced techniques.
But this conversation deals with implementation - which we will attempt to include in our planning as we go forward.
Regarding your suggestions about the efficacy of techniques on tissue types, and being grounded in science, I dont think that falls specifically under the charge of our project. I can tell you that the task force is focusing on the link between the KSAs we identify and the research that underlies them. Our hope is that this link helps identify where more or updated research needs to be done, and will therefore input into researchers plans for upcoming work. Research and scientific validity should support, and be tied to the required KSAs we build.
This last point takes me back to the intent that the MTBOK becomes a "living" document. To be effective, it needs to grow and change with the needs of the community and the results of scientific findings. This will only happen if the community at large supports and shows interest in the MTBOK as it becomes real.
-
-
Jan; You are right on the money with your comment on what is right now an ill - defined range of stakeholders. However, we hope to address this as part of our process. In the interest of "inclusiveness" we are going to be as broad as possible, particularly at the outset. We will invite comments from everyone, and specifically invite major organizations who have been contacted in the past, and who may have interest in the outcome.
We want to get constructive comments from as wide a group of possible, including from allied professions where there may be confusion about which group "owns" the scope of practice for related work. To be effective, we need to draw a line that does a good job of defining what work is massage therapy and what isnt. To do this, we want to do research into and get comments from other fields about their scope, terminology, etc. Ultimately I believe our work will help to better define our field, and if the job is done right, over time the law makers and regulators will adopt it as a source and it will attain legal force within those jurisdictions.
Its a big job, but hopefully we will clarify the field and help put an end to the complications and fracture. Keep in mind though, that the MTBOK will not have force of law - State and local jurisdictions implement those - and ultimately our success will depend on how well we make the profession clearer and simplify the work of State and local authorities.
-
-
Id like to thank both Jan and Noel for their comments - not just because they make good points, but because I am hoping that this blog does generate involvement and input to our process. Im going to respond to the comments, but I am also going to provide them to the Task Force who is doing the real work to get this project done. Any one who wants to give us comments can also send them via the "Contact Us" button at our website: http://www.mtbok.org.
To make things a little clearer, let me enter separate comments to respond to each of the ones received.
-
-
Chip: I appreciate your providing this open forum for discussion regarding the work that the MTBOK task force will be doing.
My concern is that your efforts are fated to fail unless (and in light of Jan's comment above) your group's efforts result in a legally defensible definition of massage (that includes all modalities "even those who don't want to be part of the massage definition'). Additionally, I hope that your group will provide the entire massage community with a clear and referenced medically/scientifically up to date descriptions of the physiological effects of each type of massage technique in terms of their proven effect(s) on each of the four medically recognized basic tissue types (connective, epithelial, muscle and nerve).
-
Comment by Jan Schwartz on July 12, 2009 at 7:57pm
-
Thanks for this post, Chip. I'm wondering how "full range of stakeholders" is being defined. It seems, in some ways, that's how massage therapy got so complicated and fractured--by wanting to include everyone who practices any kind of body/energy work--even those who don't want to be part of the massage definition.
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
You need to be a member of massage and bodywork professionals to add comments!
Join massage and bodywork professionals