Celebrate ABMP's 25th Anniversary!
Where is the Bar?
“Spring in Colorado” is one of those oxymorons, like “jumbo shrimp,” “crash landing,” and “clean coal.” This spring Mother Nature has been particularly moody, so last week I was pleased to seek respite from the gloom in—it’s true—Seattle. Not my typical first choice for better weather, Seattle was everything I could have asked for and more. Brilliant weather featuring our old friend Mr. Sun, punctuated by a stimulating and thoroughly enjoyable conference, Highlighting Massage Therapy in Complementary and Integrative Medicine, hosted by the Massage Therapy Foundation (MTF). A wonderful combination. And I don’t even drink coffee.
I attended the conference for a number of reasons, with one particular assignment being present for the unveiling of the Massage Therapy Body of Knowledge (MTBOK). ABMP has been a member of the Steward group of organizations that provided support for the project. ABMP committed significant financial and human resources to support the project. We are proud of the subsequent accomplishments and the hard work of the Task Force.
Not everyone feels the same way; I read a post on Facebook that stated, “Beware the Body of Knowledge.” Just today ABMP received the following email message:
Boy, I can’t tell you how disappointed I am in you, ABMP, for partnering with this. Shame on you!
Here’s a newsflash: I don’t agree with all elements of the Body of Knowledge. And it appears others do not as well. But what’s wrong with developing a body of knowledge? Isn’t that what professions do? The MTBOK represents the work of a highly qualified task force of individuals who volunteered hundreds of hours; their work was vetted by members of the profession, who submitted more than 1,400 comments. The result is not perfect. But the process by which the MTBOK was developed was fair and inclusive, which is probably all we could ask for. And the document will continue to evolve as the profession lives and works with it.
Back to Seattle. The impressive work being conducted to better define the efficacy of massage therapy is inspiring. And the individuals doing this work are very impressive—people like Michael Hamm, who five years ago was the winner of the Student Case Report Contest, and now as an instructor is leading his students’ work in research.
I have not always been beating the drum re: research in the massage field; I think that research is critical to the continued growth of the field, but I don’t believe it’s for everyone. Literate? Absolutely. Aware of what’s happening in your field? Prudent. However, just because you are a massage therapist does not mean you need to be a researcher. In my view, that has been oversold at times. I also do not believe that just because you’re a massage therapist you MUST follow the MTBOK to the letter.
These activities are growth opportunities for the field; they aren’t (and should not be) a mandate for practice. Massage therapy is a big tent; there’s room for all types. My organization and I will defend that to the mat. But we should not be afraid to recognize that progress is being made, and salute those who are doing the work.
A Blog from ABMP's President
Let's Make a Deal
Well said Les.
Maybe the MTBOK document is not what some of us would like to see, but it is perfect for what is. It offers a snapshot of the diversity (and conflicts) in our field. Although originally I did not agree with the inclusion of energy work in the document, I am actually glad that it made it in. It shows that some people had the guts to stand up to the loud voices who have been pushing the EBP dogma down our throats. Much of my background being in science and business, I agree that research is great and research literacy should be included in curricula, and that science is wonderful and should be part of what we do; but for the MTBOK to ignore an obviously large segment of practicing therapists would have been wrong. Massage academia is a whole other industry than massage therapy. I think MTBOK represents well the massage profession, even if it does not represent the massage academia.
So, many thanks to ABMP (and to the other project sponsors) for providing the resources for this project. I hope the support continues so that the MTBOK remains a live document. Also, many great thanks to Chip Hines and his team who delivered the project on time. Other organizations can learn a lot from you.
Comment by Emmanuel Bistas — May 17, 2010 @ 6:32 pm
On June 23 ABMP and AMTA will co-host a webinar, featuring members of the MTBOK task force, to help people in the profession better understand the final draft of the document and the process behind the work. More details coming soon!
Comment by Lara — May 19, 2010 @ 4:15 pm
Hi Les, Emmanuel, and everyone:
I actually disagree, Emmanuel. I agree with you that energy work should be recognized. But the way the paper is written leads one to believe that ALL massage therapists practice energy work. Which is where I disagree with the paper. A massage therapist can be a good massage therapist without practicing any energy work and vice versa. While a person can do both, they don’t have too. And, in this way, the two things are separate and should remain so. This is supposed to be a body of knowledge of massage therapy. Energy work should have it’s own, separate body of knowledge (which would be a whole other and large project to undertake). Not all massage therapists are trained to do energy work, nor want to. . .and if they don’t want to do energy work it shouldn’t be forced upon them if they want to be a massage therapist. So it should not be taught in massage school beyond an introduction that says this is what it is and if you want to learn more there are CE classes (not to mention that in places with only 500 hour programs, there simply isn’t time to teach these modalities well enough for people to walk out of school practicing them). There’s probably a simpler way to say that.
I’m not going to argue with anyone about the science, or lack thereof, behind energy work. But I will argue that it should not be included in the definition of what a massage therapist is. If this where to become nationally popular, it would turn a lot of good body workers away from the profession; some out of fear of not being able to perform energy work and others because they simply don’t want to.
With that said, I still want to say Thank You to all those people who have vested so much time and effort into this project.
Comment by Kat Farber — May 19, 2010 @ 6:26 pm
I am so excited about being part of such a wonderful industry, the growth it has seen in the past years is astounding! I am just now at a point where I am researching and WOW is it exciting to hear about all the other therapist out there who think like me, more on the scientific side of things. Thank you to everyone who sacrifices hours of their precious time to help power our work into mainstream medicine and the raise awareness to the masses! You are all AWESOME!
Comment by Stephanie Jensen — May 19, 2010 @ 8:01 pm
BOKs are typically use to determine what skills are needs and the levels needed to meet minimum levels of competency. I believe that we need such standards because it is unclear what we need to do our jobs. Unfortunately a list of what might be included in massage work detracts from such a standard. Do we really need energy skills to do Swedish massage? Developing test that gathers a scattering of skills from different modalities dilutes the effectiveness in determining competency in any one.
It also make people study modalities that they never intend to use just to pass a test and it insures that the test no longer establishes that a person is competent to do any one.
If we really want to develop respect for this profession we need to start with a real BOK that outlines real minimum skill levels based on independently measured performance. Hours are meaningless because some people are naturals and others never get it.
Because each modality requires different KSAs (Knowledge, skills and abilities) we need to start with a single modality such as basic Swedish and develop a BOK for that. Then we will have a standard for course development, testing and personal assessment to judge if people meet minimal requirements to do Swedish.
These skills should reflect what practitioners use in their daily lives. Cramming detailed anatomy they will forget because the type of work they do does not require therapeutic skills is wrong for two reasons. Firstly because it tests cramming not abilities and secondly it cheapens the public image of those partitions who do need and use those shills. When we use one test for people to do real therapy and those who do spa massage we create a public expectation that we can get therapy from any MT and also expect that they are proficient in everything from sports massage to body wraps.
Comment by Carl W. Brown — May 20, 2010 @ 1:48 pm
I stand with Les, we are a big tent and it will stay that way!!
Thank you Task Force for beginning the process of organizing the profession. This was the most indepth effort to include the industry in any decision yet. I hope there are many efforts going forward to improve this living document.
Many have their own theories and some good reasoning as to this in/this out and the way it was decided. It would have been the same if their opinions been included as well, only from another direction. So you did your best and I appreciate it.
We have begun. Now we can grow and improve. This will be a huge topic at this year’s symposium at the Festival. I look forward to the back and forth.
Keep the Faith!
Comment by Mike Hinkle — May 20, 2010 @ 5:20 pm
Hello again Les!
While I will admit that I knew pretty much nothing about the BOK before the conference at The Canyons resort this last weekend, I have to say that it sure is a heated subject.
I attended the class that the MTBOK presented and felt as if I had entered a debate war zone by the end. A lot of good information was shared, but the reason I attended the class was to learn about the BOK, not debate about it. So, I will be attending the webinar this month for even more information. I suggest that MANY therapists, directors, and school owners do the same.
I agree, what is wrong with a BOK? We need it just as much as PAs and DCs to be taken seriously and to gain respect in the medical community. I do not agree with some of the contents, but isn’t that what evolution is all about? The document is titled “Version 1″ meaning … there are more changes and updates to come. Yes?
I really look forward to being a part of this legacy, helping to form the Alliance, and workinh towards a common ground for all therapists. That is what we have been fighting for all along, isn’t it?
Cheers!
Comment by Brooke Galo — June 8, 2010 @ 3:08 pm