| Brisbane August 2009
J:
So Alastair, you've just become a program leader for Endeavour College
of Natural Health homoeopathic department, where do you see the
future of homoeopathic education going?
A: That's the big question Jen. Let me think about
that. Of course, I am a homoeopath so the answer is, it depends!
From my travels around the world I would say the state of homoeopathic
education in Australia is fairly robust. Of course that robustness
is wafer thin if for example we lost our accreditation, or if there
was some sort of political change that we weren't in a position
to be able to adapt to. So while I'm an overwhelmingly optimistic
person, that optimism when it comes homoeopathic education is often
tempered with a nervousness and a sense of vulnerability at what's
going on around us. But that aside what seems obvious to me is that
I've inherited at Endeavour a fairly healthy ship. So far in my
few weeks on the job I haven't detected too many leaks. What we
have here is a curriculum that is balanced fairly well and is a
middle path curriculum that emphasizes all aspects and methods of
homoeopathic medicine which, to my way of thinking is a fairly healthy
posture. Boenninghausen is taught, and Vannier is taught. Isopathy
is mentioned and emphasis is placed on the value of Kent. So you
know what I mean by a middle kind of path. In addition, towards
the end of this program, the modern, so-called advanced techniques
of Scholten and Sankaran are emphasized and to my way of thinking,
it's good to have an introduction to that work, but not overemphasize
it too much. So from that perspective you understand what I mean
by the ship's pretty healthy, numbers are okay in the campuses in
Melbourne and Brisbane, and we have a really robust, healthy and
experienced level of staffing.
Casting an eye towards the future, it seems that from an educational
point of view the only thing worth talking about is the degree to
which delivering homoeopathic medicine goes online, becomes digitalised,
and becomes more user-friendly for those folks in the 21st century.
To me the biggest debate that we have to have as a profession, is
the degree to which homoeopathic philosophy, materia medica, bio-sciences
are delivered online and what degree of human contact is ever be
required. What's obvious to me is that my masters in this institution
clearly want to save money here and there. It’s a global economic
crisis. And while natural medicine seems to be weathering the storm
okay, there are still times of hardship. Of course, everyone needs
to save money, however there is a false promise and a wrong assumption
if it is assumed that money can be saved by putting curriculum online
without human contact. What ends up happening is that you rob Peter
to pay Paul because students will go to online delivery where its
flexible and able to be downloaded onto your iphone. But without
human contact you never sustain their interest.
Distance learning or virtual learning can be isolating and lonely
and we know this from years of correspondence courses. Distance
learning, flexible learning courses and the needs of the distance
students in the 21st-century generation Y student clearly involve
human contact, and I'm not sure the degree to which my bosses upstairs
are aware of this. I see part of my job now to ensure that that
happens. I think everyone is in agreement that clinical training
remains the domain of face-to-face contact. There seems to be very
little enthusiasm for any sort of clinical training being delivered
via You Tube or a virtual classroom.
So personally I'm of the opinion that quality online delivery is
possible in our field, and I see that a significant part of my work
is gently nudging homoeopathic medicine into the 21st-century, maintaining
quality and not losing any of the integrity and quality that our
teachers and their teachers and their teachers have willed to us.
Does that make any sense?
J:
Yes. You have highlighted the clinical training model that will
need to be addressed in the future. The bachelor program at Endeavour
runs clinical training on campus for 16 weeks during each semester.
Alternatively, the advanced diploma model that you use elsewhere,
has been traditionally delivered in an intensive style or with intensive
one-on-one supervision with a personalised clinical supervisor.
Do you intend to blend or adopt a particular training model?
A: This is the first job that I've ever had. Don’t
get nervous. I've done nothing else but practice homoeopathy or
teach homoeopathy for 20 years. I've had lots of experience teaching
in different colleges that have needed to adapt their clinical training
to the circumstances they see around them. This is in Ireland, England,
Malaysia, Colorado, New Zealand, Australia etc. With that kind of
breath I feel like I have a handle on some of the issues that are
at play when it comes to delivering clinical training.
But first, what is clinical training and what is it for? I have
a suspicion that over the years and with previous generations of
homoeopath's, there has been a complete overemphasis on an unhealthy
cult of personality. I understand where it comes from, because nothing
is more seductive than sitting at the feet of an expert and watching
him in action. There's something truly amazing to behold when you
watch the master working. So my suspicion is that our great historical
teachers have often had that kind of complete inspirational training.
And to some extent it seems that this is fine and works for some
people. Actually if I'm honest, it worked for me too, because one
of the reasons that I'm a homoeopath is that I watched two great
lecturers who were utterly inspirational in my training in the UK.
Inspiration counts for a lot, especially in the winter when it is
cold and your patient’s don't like you and is nothing is working.
But one of the things about these strong personalities and experts
is the over emphasis on the ‘right’ remedy.
But what I just said goes against every piece of literature we
have about adult education in the 21st-century. Everything that
I've read and with the Masters I have completed and the work that
I had to do recently for that qualification, what I heard and learned
was that the expert model works for some, but not for all. In fact,
can we ever have a model of clinical training that works for everybody?
Probably not, but one of the things that is of personal importance
to me is a sense of frustration that more students are not confident
practitioners and running meaningful practices. I hate that. I hate
the fact that there has been a poor conversion of enthusiastic homoeopath's
across-the-board… across all countries.
To my way of thinking, clinical training is without exception the
most important part of our homoeopathic students’ development.
It's in the clinic where everything comes together. So I’ve
been influenced recently to move away from demonstrating expert
skills in the clinic to students. That's a joke by the way. Because
in fact very few students learn from that. From my experience, an
expert homoeopath demonstrating how brilliant she is leaves you
inspired for a while, but then the opposite secondary action happens
where you think, “How the hell can I replicate that?”.
When I visited Belgium recently, I spoke about the use of clinical
training and technology. What we all seem to agree on is that the
model with which we want to take homoeopathy into the 21st-century
is like learning how to drive a car. The first step is you look
at the car. Someone says to you ‘this is a car’ and
you get to sit in it and touch all the bells and whistles. Then
you go in the passenger seat while someone drives the car and you
watch for a while, but then the time comes to eventually take control
of the wheel. But all the while someone is sitting there with you
the whole way through, whispering in your ear, telling you that
you are doing a good job, reminding you what the brake is for. That's
the clinical training model which to my way of thinking seems most
practical and more likely to touch the most number of students.
It is a disease in homoeopathy that we have anxious fourth year
students, which is terrible, when they should be busting out their
skin and running confidently into practice.
So to your question… It seems to me that we've got to keep
our objective in mind of developing confidence, as students go through
this process of clinical training. The continuity of supervisor
is important, but I've seen great homoeopaths come out of clinical
training models like the one at Endeavour that exists at the moment,
but also great young practitioners have come from clinical training
models where they have done a few cases that have been intensely
supervised and through repetition of a chronic case evaluation.
If you add to that the fact that our students are getting younger,
have different needs, demand flexibility and the appropriate use
of technology, then it seems that what we have to do as colleges
is be more flexible and provide options. We also have to insure
they attend to the issue of the patient’s wellbeing.
So what I would like to see is a blended delivery system that's
flexible and full of quality. It reminds me of one other thing which
I am often reminding my lecturers about. Students don't come to
any college because of the curriculum. What sustains them actually,
what they come for, is the passion and intensity and inspiration
that they receive from their amazing lecturers. All of that tells
me that no model will ever be perfect, but it's important that we
keep chipping away at it and remember that what we are doing is
providing inspirational yet grounded training for our lovely students.
J:
I agree with you. I have noticed that confidence has definitely
become a big issue with graduating students. As teachers, mentors
and colleagues how do you think we can contribute to the confidence
of our future colleagues?
A: Had you asked me that question five years ago,
I would have said ‘It's really simple, just come along to
my postgraduate course.’ The best homoeopathic education I
got until recently was Jeremy Sherr’s postgraduate course
in England. It was through that, that I had my gaps filled when
it came to some clinical skills but mostly clinical confidence.
It was an amazing experience. When I started teaching in 1998 I
was observing exactly what you've observed. Frustrating dropouts
of really really good students. I sat down in 2002 with Susanna
Shelton and we put together a postgraduate program essentially to
fill this gap. Since then I've run it in New Zealand and Australia
and online and over the years it has been of immense personal and
professional satisfaction to work with students at postgraduate
level developing confidence essentially. And we've had amazing sessions
where we talk about marketing and we talk about educating the public,
where we deconstruct our practices and looked at what qualities
busy practitioners have and model them. My intention now is that
there will be no need for a postgraduate course like that, our undergraduate
degree will be so good that we won’t have a need for a course
like that. That is not to say we won't have any postgraduate training,
but that's where for example, the amazing work of Peter Tumminello
in Australia or Rajan in India or Louis Klein in America is truly
postgraduate.
Wth this position that I've taken at Endeavour, I would love to
be a part of pushing the profession gently along the road. But it's
a road that requires a delicate navigation. We are living in an
evidence based world, and homoeopathy's place is not in the back
shed or a small college run from someone's living room. Homoeopathy
started loudly in the context of orthodox medicine. And I think
that its place quite naturally should be in that kind of context.
Recently I was in Malaysia and talking with university officials
who are establishing degrees in all sorts complementary medicine,
but slightly differently from what we're doing here at Endeavour.
What they're doing is making sure that all of their students have
common units of medical sciences. The students end up with a medical
degree specialising in homoeopathy which is slightly different from
what we are doing. Nevertheless our future is with research and
acknowledging that we must identify the evidence-base we have.
This is not to play an artificial game by finding something that
is not there, but actually to acknowledge the incredible amount
of evidence as to the efficacy that we already have and get our
students familiar with it. Students and practitioners are reluctant
to engage in research because they perceive that it's too hard.
It's not. It's about doing manageable pieces of qualitative research
that we all have the skills for, and through that, making inroads
into the scientific community. Here at Endeavour in our degree,
we have a significant proportion of our curriculum devoted to evidence
and research and developing those skills which actually are required
to take our place beside our orthodox friends and other complementary
healing modalities. Going back to your point about postgraduate
training, it seems that's the natural place to do further training
about specific health issues, irritable bowel syndrome, men's health,
diabetes, depression. For the last 10 years what I've done is teach
for whoever asked. But for the first time I've decided to pitch
my tent with a college that has the closest educational ethos and
vision to my way of thinking.
J:
Thanks Alastair so much.
-------------------------------------
Alastair Gray - MSc (UK) BAHons (NZ) ADH (NZ)
DSH (UK) PCH (UK) PCHom (Malaysia) AHA. ATMS. ARoH (Aus) RSHom (UK)
Alastair Gray trained in the UK at the School of Homeopathy and
completed his postgraduate work at the Dynamic School in London.
He has a degree in history and his interests include medical and
homeopathic history, Gestalt therapy and archery. Alastair has delivered
hundreds of lectures worldwide. He has conducted a number of provings
and published four books and numerous articles on the provings of
White Tailed Spider, Box Jelly Fish, Moreton Bay Fig, Tea Tree,
Waratah, Liquorice, Cockroach, Toad, Seahorse, Cactus, Kowhai, Pearl
Mosquito, Irukandji and Tar Tree.
# # #
|