Posted by
Dr. Scott on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 2:07:53 PM
I was asked today by one of my Marriage and Family Therapy (MFT) graduate students the following questions today that touched on the topic of why have the field of MFT when there is overlap with social work (MSWs), psychologists, mental health counselors, etc.:
"I was wanting to ask you as a Phd person in the field, is there a lot of MFT people doing research?
"The other question I wanted to ask is why is so many of these mental health fields crossing into other areas? As an example: MSW people are doing substance abuse, counselors are doing MFT therapy, MFT people say that most of their practice involves seeing individuals... I am new to this field and am tring to understand why so many labels seem to cross into the same areas of mental health. Can you help me understand?"
I've included my response below:
Those are great questions. In terms of research numbers, we are a smaller field, so there is less research out there that is strictly MFT. There are only a few handfuls of doctoral programs in our field, and not every Masters student does original research for her/his thesis, and even fewer go out and get theirs published. There is also, as you have mentioned, a lot of cross-fertilization. It was pointed out to me a few years ago that the largest section in the American Psychological Association (APA) is the family psychology section. There are a lot of psychologists that work with families, and they see their work as on par with (or better than) ours; they usually don't see the need for separate training for MFT work. Needless to say, when you are looking for "MFT" research, it is always good to look beyond just that acronym and see what is out there under "couple counselng," "relationship therapy," "family counseling," etc., because there are people from other fields who also contribute to our work.
There is a definite need for this field, and the training that we receive fills a niche that others do not. I think that the defining differences are systemic thinking and a focus on relationships. I wouldn't say that the majority of my work is with individuals; I see about 20% couples, 50% children with parents (which I call family therapy), and about 30% individuals. There are a lot of cases where someone starts out seeking individual therapy, because they just assume that would be the modality of our work together, and I get them on board with the idea that family and significant others are an important part of their framework for change. For example, if a person is coming in for depression and she is married, I invite her to include her husband. Many other counselors/therapists wouldn't. But I tell her that a person's support network is very important to getting better, and that therapy often goes faster and is often more effective when it utilizes the client's closest relationships.
Our way of conceptualizing problems and solutions is relationally-focused, something that I can't say about the other therapists that I work with at the community mental health agency where I do therapy. I find that clients find the approach very refershing and positive. That touches on another difference with MFTs that isn't universally true, but tends to be true: we tend to be more collaborate, non-pathologizing, and a bit avante-garde in our approach to mental health. For example, we tend to go for alternative approaches rather than the standard approach, to question the status quo, and to want to bring new perspectives to the table. I think we add a lot of spice and flavor wherever we work, and I think the mental health industry serves people better with our option added to the mix on the mental health menu.