Comments on: Where is the Bar?

By: Brooke Galo

Brooke Galo — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 21:08:14 +0000

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!

By: Mike Hinkle

Mike Hinkle — Thu, 20 May 2010 23:20:10 +0000

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!

By: Carl W. Brown

Carl W. Brown — Thu, 20 May 2010 19:48:54 +0000

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.

By: Stephanie Jensen

Stephanie Jensen — Thu, 20 May 2010 02:01:23 +0000

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!

By: Kat Farber

Kat Farber — Thu, 20 May 2010 00:26:24 +0000

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.

By: Lara

Lara — Wed, 19 May 2010 22:15:40 +0000

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!

By: Emmanuel Bistas

Emmanuel Bistas — Tue, 18 May 2010 00:32:12 +0000

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.