What you get from working with me
This page tells you about the type of service and experience that I offer to my clients. It highlights the importance of my research involvement, which constitutes the backbone of my practice.
Investigative Psychotherapy for in-depth work
Listening is an important aspect of my work with clients. However, in alignment with my clients’ own opinion on the matter, I find that to be effective, therapy usually requires unveiling the underlying issues (of which clients are usually unaware, or about which they do not know what to do) which lie beneath the presenting issues. This second style of therapy, which is more investigative, is the one that I practise. In this case, in addition to being talkative and offering verbal demonstrations of empathy and support, I engage in analytical and interpretative work with the aim to support my client's efforts to make sense of their issues as well as the thoughts and feelings which surround them.
The smooth passage from the presenting issues to the underlying issues does not just require skill, but also the backup of an appropriate theory. However, there are two types of relationships between therapist and theory. The therapist's theoretical orientation may either rest on passive learning of existing (and sometimes old) theories or on a personal involvement in the production of new knowledge and understanding. Below I review these two models and highlight the advantages and superiority of the latter, which is the one I follow.
Mainstream model: the practitioner learns and applies
pre-existing theories
Apart from rare exceptions, once they have gained their qualifications, therapists have no involvement in research either. This means that their theoretical knowledge and understanding rests entirely on theories which they have learned passively during their training, with no involvement or contribution whatsoever on their part.
The therapists’ complete divorce from the process of research and theory building, and corresponding adoption of a passive and external stance in relation to theoretical knowledge and understanding, places them in an absurd position. They find themselves heavily under equipped to truly and fully understand and assess the degree of empirical validity and practicality of the very theories which they are using. Indeed, how is a therapist to assess the theoretical validity and practical value of a theory if they have no part whatsoever in its production and assessment processes? Most therapists use theories and notions which they are unable to deconstruct, critically evaluate and reframe or ditch where necessary. Worse, talking from experience, few therapists are actually able to provide a detailed and in-depth description of the theory(ies) which they have learned. As for the motive which lies behind their adoption of a particular theory or set of theories, this rests less on their actual value than on fashion, personal preference and marketing strategy. A good illustration of this is the current trend which entails introducing oneself as an “integrative therapist” and claiming multiple theoretical allegiances in support of a so-called bid to make use of all powers available. This claim is paradoxical. It neglects the fact that existing theoretical approaches are often contradictory and mutually exclusive. This is how they have developed historically and in the mind of their initiators.
But there is more: therapists are generally misusing the theories which they have learned passively, for the reason that these theories were never meant to be simply taken at face value, learned and applied. Most theoreticians intend their theories to remain alive and take part of a continuous process of theory testing and refinement, as I explain further down this page. A theory which is simply memorised and applied mechanically, however skilfully, ceases to be a scientific theory and becomes a doctrine or a dogma.
Why is such an undesirable state of affairs tolerated? There is no cynicism in merely stating the bare fact that this is because theory building and assessment is extremely challenging and demanding, both for the trainees and the trainers. Very few trainers and future therapists rise to the challenge and venture in these waters because they do not feel suitably equipped (Diploma level hardly compares with PhD level). One does not improvise oneself as a quantum physicist. Similarly, one does not improvise oneself a researcher in human psychology and therapy. Years of arduous training are required.
I cannot end this little commentary without highlighting yet another paradox. A large part of the profession makes autonomy and authenticity a core element of therapy as well as their general philosophy of life. However, these values are at odd with the therapists’ general reliance on passively learned theories which have been produced by others. This contradiction lies at the very heart of the way psychotherapists are currently training and practising. Interestingly, they usually remain quiet about it. To add to the irony of the situation, academic and research literature concerning psychotherapy is also completely silent on this topic. As a quick search in Google Scholar suffices to reveal, there is abundant literature on “client autonomy” but absolutely nothing, not even a single article, on “psychotherapist autonomy”. Astonishing!
Alternative model: the practitioner updates and builds theories
In short, research and the ensuing production of theory constitute a fundamental aspect of the work of the therapists who historically produced psychotherapeutic theories, their two main professional activities being fully integrated. As far as the results of research are concerned, the originators of psychotherapeutic theories rarely intend their views to become crystallised and adopted as canons. They see their reflections or theoretical formulations as mere expressions of their current level of knowledge and understanding, therefore as temporary constructs which are waiting to be improved or superseded. This is so true that some of the great theoreticians have greatly evolved during their career, presenting different ideas, sometimes contradictory, at the beginning and at the end (Carl Rogers is a good example of this. Paradoxically, most training programs focus on his early research and ignore the more mature part of his work, probably because of spiritual overtones which were previously absent).
In these conditions, it should be obvious that the best model for psychotherapeutic training and practice is one which places research and personal development (a form of personal research) at the heart of one’s work. This model stands in sharp contrast with the prevailing model, which involves learning and applying ready-made and frozen in time theories with no research involvement and, therefore, no integration of research and personal development.
The advantages of being a practitioner-researcher
-
my analyses and interpretations are factual and grounded rather than imaginary and speculative, as research entails gathering, observing and analysing empirical data, namely facts;
-
my thinking is critical, as I am able to assess the empirical relevance and validity of the concepts which constitute the building blocks of theory, my own or that of others;
-
I am able to make use of all resources available without limiting myself to the small and limited world of psychotherapeutic theory, as facts (contrary to ideas) are not liable to disciplinary boundaries. My research spans over all relevant disciplines, including psychology, neurosciences, social sciences, historical sciences and philosophy;
-
my work of theorisation is co-extensive with the explorative work which takes place in therapy. There is a direct correlation between the two, one feeding the other (no personal data are used in my research, as my focus is on psychological structures and dynamics, not on biographical details);
-
instead of the old, sketchy and imperfect theories of my distinguished predecessors (the last major theoretical contributions are between 40 and 70 years old), I can rely on my more advanced and up to date theoretical contributions to psychological enquiry.
Benefits for my clients
-
This co-leadership allows each client to own the emerging meaning, and work with it independently. With time, they become their own therapists and develop a self-care attitude.
-
I am able to monitor on a daily basis the value of the therapeutic work that I offer to clients, and proceed to collaborative assessments with my clients at any stage of their journey with me.
My research themes
Since 1990, my research has focused on the most fundamental aspects of an individual’s psychological life, including:
-
The nature and structure of the human self and the corresponding psychological structures and processes
-
The various forms and stages of human development, from birth to death
-
The structure of the relationship between self and world, and its development (relationship with the body, socialisation)
-
The general architecture and meaning of human worlds - western and non western, modern and ancient - in which we, as individuals, have (or had) to dwell and live
-
The place of the spiritual dimension within human life and the structure of reality
-
The therapeutic process in psychotherapy
Principles on which my research is based
The quality of any research can be measured by a commitment to certain principles. Here are three important principles on which my research is based:
A grounded approach to theory making
I treat empirical work, therefore the use of empirical data, rather than existing theories, as the foundation of my knowledge and understanding. This stands in sharp contrast with many research endeavours which build theory from a mix of empirical data and pre-existing theories, which usually leads to limited and biased results.
Integration of research and personal development
I believe that the study of the human self, of human development and of our relationship with the world in which we live cannot rest entirely on external data resulting from others. The collection and analysis of personal data which contain one’s subjective and evolving experience of being human is paramount to grant access to the most fundamental aspects of human nature and psychological life.
A holistic view of the human being
Another specificity of my approach is that it encompasses the psychological, sociological, historical and spiritual aspects of human selfhood and the human condition. If you take a look at the page About me, you will see that I have qualifications in many areas. This was to counteract the limitations of excessive specialisation which unfortunately tends to be the norm in human sciences, including psychotherapy.
Where do I fit?
Selected publications
To get a taste of my writing, you can refer to my work on the process of socialisation which marked an important step in the development of my research between 2000 and 2010.
• Van de Walle, G. (2011). ‘Becoming familiar with a world’: A relational view of socialization. International
Review of Sociology, 21 (2), 315–333.
• Van de Walle, G. (2008). Durkheim and socialization. Durkheimian Studies, 14 (1), 35–58.
Clients frequently ask me why, in spite of the plethora of therapists who are offering their services nowadays, identifying a good one presents itself as a challenge. The answer is complex. Part of it is obvious. Not all therapists meet the requirements of the profession, which include the need to have a personality which is well suited for the job, to have had relevant life and professional experiences as well as a strong engagement with one’s own personal development, on top of having suitable qualifications. Another part of the answer is less obvious and gets neglected even though it plays a crucial role, namely the fact that few therapists have any involvement in theory building and assessment, in other terms in research. The fault lies with the mainstream model of professional training in counselling and psychotherapy, which is not committed to the teaching of research skills, nor to any serious engagement in research activities.
Generally, the theoreticians of psychotherapy are, or have been, therapists themselves. Their theories have emerged both in relation to the investigative nature of psychotherapeutic work (I am referring here to the actual work with clients), and to fill a gap in the surrounding culture which is very limited in terms of its knowledge and understanding of human psychology. Research is also an integral part of the experiences aimed at one’s personal development in which these practitioners-theoreticians engage themselves, which feed back into their professional development (this is more true for the humanistic tradition). The fact is that, in psychotherapy in particular, the activity of research is (or should be) an experiential venture as much as an intellectual one. It is meant to be personally transformative on top of generating knowledge and understanding. One implication of this is that the focus is not merely on the results of research but also on the process of research itself.
.jpg)
Two styles of therapy tend to dominate in practice. A first style of therapy involves listening to clients in silence, with sparse interactions or none. This is done in a climate of warmth and empathy (usually with person centred counsellors) or, alternatively, in an atmosphere of detachment and relative coldness (which is often the case with therapists who use a psychodynamic approach). This first style of therapy where the therapist is largely silent and passive is probably the most common. It is often used by therapists whose theoretical stance stipulates that the therapist’s silence and passivity stimulate the client’s ability to engage in a therapeutic process. It is assumed that this process allows self-healing, either because the client is trusted to find their own way towards a resolution of their issues (a core tenet of the person-centred approach), or because the client is expected to engage in a process which psychodynamic therapists call “transference” (it is assumed that emotions and desires which are originally associated with somebody who plays an important role in the client’s life are frequently unconsciously shifted to the psychotherapist, and that this shift provides an opportunity for healing). The "passive" style of therapy is also used by therapists who recognise limitations in their interpretive abilities and feel more comfortable and useful in the position of listener.
-
my client’s experiences remain at all times the primary point of reference in my reflections, without being polluted by abstract learned notions. As a result, my interventions in therapy are grounded, relevant, creative, open to questioning and the formulation of hypotheses, and at all times subject to critical thinking.
-
the needs of my client are more easily identified and met, new insights are allowed to emerge and a shared understanding develops between me and my client.
-
the discussions never which loose touch with reality. The lived aspect of therapy is at all times preserved, with intuition and feelings playing an important role in reflections which never loose themselves in pure abstractions.
-
my leadership style is collaborative, the client being involved in the process of exploration. Strictly speaking, they become co-leaders in the therapeutic process.
.jpg)
Within the landscape of psychotherapeutic theory, my greatest affinity is with the humanistic tradition which homes the person-centred, transpersonal and existential approaches. However, my understanding of human psychology is not reducible to any of these approaches. The theoretical work which has emerged as a result of my lifelong commitment to research and personal development is vast and complex. It is also idiosyncratic. This is why the best platform to allow the public, including my clients, to get to know this work are the three books which I am currently writing. These books, which I hope to be publishing in the near future, will present a summary of my life work.
