I have a very busy 10 days behind me. Finally, I took my opportunity to sit down today and put these thoughts into a brief post. I was planning to do it since I saw A. Sutton’s blog earlier this month.
Andrew has posted an interesting note on „multidisciplinary” in his blog on 3th of October. He wrote the following regarding to Interconnections Multidisciplinary Information Service:
Andrew has posted an interesting note on „multidisciplinary” in his blog on 3th of October. He wrote the following regarding to Interconnections Multidisciplinary Information Service:
"I personally have never really understood the concept of ‘multidisciplinary’ as manifest in public services in the United Kingdom. The phrase ‘jack of all trades...’ springs to mind. More formally, I wonder, either there is a place and need for a ‘discipline’ or there is not. It is interesting therefore to see critical comment arise from within the paradigm itself.
If this is an emerging trend, then it is one meriting careful monitoring by the conductive movement."
This post caught my attention as I was lucky enough to work just about seven years in multidisciplinary team settings in Conductive Education. They were two different settings in two parts of the world but the similar idea of using CE. As I first joined to a multidisciplinary team I accepted at the beginning the idea of combining CE with something else which was meant to enhance the quality of the local service and I really wanted to give my best as a professional to it. As time passed by and I had worked some years through in this sorts of model I realised the real downsides of multidisciplinary as well.
(Why) Does Conductive Education need multidisciplinary setting?
It is a fact that multidisciplinary Conductive Education initiatives can be mostly found out of Hungary. It undeniably is because of the difficulty of adaption of CE into those places where the local system has not been able to recognise CE as a profession and the CE professionals. Therefore, founders find it easier to fit CE to the local system through multidisciplinary way. In this context, multidisciplinary meant to facilitate the business, operation, sustainability of CE on abroad but not to change the principals of CE or challenge a new system. Thus, answering the question from above: I believe CE does not necessarily need to be mixed with different methods.
Why?
All aspects of, and the nature of CE have been written in many papers, books and they can be found at many other sources, so I do not wish to deal with this. However, if one takes the opportunity and time to read those information or have already known the conductive pedagogy system can tell that CE is quite flexible in many areas and anyway, it is changing towards the better service. It is exactly because of its philosophical, pedagogical, holistic nature; making the whole kind of character.
My seven years experience in multidisciplinary CE service let me to assume that CE multidisciplinary settings are useful to look at, or to learn from but they do not seem to be providing a more successful habilitation, rehabilitation, education or motor-development service comparing to the “original” CE approach. One of the well defined reasons why that happens is that those services missing out the power of the teamwork of “holistic” trained conductors, the similar point of view of approach.
My conclusion is therefore that one can understand why certain initiatives move towards multidisciplinary out of Hungary but it would be ideal to put more effort to keep the well developed system as it is and modify it to local needs in between sense boundaries.
Please feel free to argue with this opinion!
Link to Andrew Sutton's blog:
This post caught my attention as I was lucky enough to work just about seven years in multidisciplinary team settings in Conductive Education. They were two different settings in two parts of the world but the similar idea of using CE. As I first joined to a multidisciplinary team I accepted at the beginning the idea of combining CE with something else which was meant to enhance the quality of the local service and I really wanted to give my best as a professional to it. As time passed by and I had worked some years through in this sorts of model I realised the real downsides of multidisciplinary as well.
(Why) Does Conductive Education need multidisciplinary setting?
It is a fact that multidisciplinary Conductive Education initiatives can be mostly found out of Hungary. It undeniably is because of the difficulty of adaption of CE into those places where the local system has not been able to recognise CE as a profession and the CE professionals. Therefore, founders find it easier to fit CE to the local system through multidisciplinary way. In this context, multidisciplinary meant to facilitate the business, operation, sustainability of CE on abroad but not to change the principals of CE or challenge a new system. Thus, answering the question from above: I believe CE does not necessarily need to be mixed with different methods.
Why?
All aspects of, and the nature of CE have been written in many papers, books and they can be found at many other sources, so I do not wish to deal with this. However, if one takes the opportunity and time to read those information or have already known the conductive pedagogy system can tell that CE is quite flexible in many areas and anyway, it is changing towards the better service. It is exactly because of its philosophical, pedagogical, holistic nature; making the whole kind of character.
My seven years experience in multidisciplinary CE service let me to assume that CE multidisciplinary settings are useful to look at, or to learn from but they do not seem to be providing a more successful habilitation, rehabilitation, education or motor-development service comparing to the “original” CE approach. One of the well defined reasons why that happens is that those services missing out the power of the teamwork of “holistic” trained conductors, the similar point of view of approach.
My conclusion is therefore that one can understand why certain initiatives move towards multidisciplinary out of Hungary but it would be ideal to put more effort to keep the well developed system as it is and modify it to local needs in between sense boundaries.
Please feel free to argue with this opinion!
Link to Andrew Sutton's blog:
2 comments:
Hello Laszlo.
I don't know about 'multidisciplinary' teams, but it was once suggested to me that we have 'multi-professional' teams simply because we have 'multi-professions'. They've all got to get a look in and nobody questions it.
Norman
Hi Norman,
I saw your model in Scheffield and that is the one I thought is in between very good "sense of bounderies".
Any other "multidisciplinary" places I have seen doing the service through a different ruling. Your model has been balanced by putting CE forward and I think it is not missing out the power of the real teamwork, therefore it is so symphatetic to me. Additionally, it is part of the British School system. I really think it is outstanding.
My best Laszlo
Post a Comment