Response to Model Posted on ATRAnet

This morning I posted the message below on the ATRA listserv (that now has 181 members!). I thought I should share in on the RT Blog. Here is my post:

Thanks to Peg (Connolly) and Thom (Skalko) for their reactions to Jerry (Jordan). Their remarks helped to sharpen the debate over the proposed model for me.

If we, as a profession, would agree that our concern is the provision of recreational therapy interventions leading to health and wellness outcomes then we would have a direction and foundation for what we do and how we represent ourselves to others. What we share in common is using "a four-step process involving assessment, planning, implementation, and evaluation to bring about therapeutic outcomes with clients who wish to improve their levels of health through participation in activities that have the potential to produce recreational and leisure experiences" (Austin, 2011, Lessons Learned, p. 11).

The setting does not matter. It can be in adult day care or in programs conducted in the community. This point is made very well by Peg and Thom who have emphasized that all of us, as citizens and persons, support inclusive recreation for persons with disabilities. Our profession, however, needs to be defined as one that provides therapeutic outcomes related to health concerns. I totally agree with Peg that the continuum of services in the model does not represent what we stand for as a profession.

Let the members agree we are about health and wellness and then that belief will guide and direct our association, rather than argue over a model that is attached to too many assumptions.

I am sure that in proposing their model that the ATRA leadership was attempting to make an earnest effort to embrace what they saw as our field. But the model, to me, only represents a slap in the face of the founding members of ATRA by returning to the NTRS model of "being all things to all people" (as expressed by then NTRS president Gary Robb). Please ask the first presidents of ATRA, Peg Connolly and Ray West, if they don't believe that the philosophical position of those who formed ATRA was that we needed an association that would represent the clinical interests of the profession (i.e., bringing about therapeutic outcomes related to clients' health).

Let us now reexamine whether the proposed model is a unifying or dividing force. Rather than spend time on a well meaning but flawed model, I believe we should ask all RTs who meet ATRA membership requirements to join together with us in devoting themselves to promoting our entire profession, as well as their particular area of specialization.

Best to all ATRA members, Dave

David R. Austin, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Indiana University