[Heidi Heron]

(Reply from Frank Bourke)

Ueli,

As with Rick Gray I never received enquiries from you regarding the removal of NLP from our official name, our web site, etc. As Lisa de Rijk has pointed out, the “NLP Research and Recognition Project” was incorporated as a Not for Profit Corporation here in the US in 2008. The name was changed, officially deleting “NLP” from the Corporate name, after 28 million dollars of well designed, University sponsored, research grants were denied (many obviously never even having been reviewed per the denials). Additionally, numerous direct attempts to forge collaborative/supportive relationships with established psychological researchers were rejected on the basis of our association with NLP.

Most of us at the Research and Recognition Project believe;
1. NLP materials represent the largest advance in clinical psychology in the last 75 years.

2. The only way NLP will receive widespread recognition and practice is after it has demonstrated its’ effectiveness through sound scientific research.

3. Given, that even small pilot clinical research studies cost between $300,000 and $500,000, NLP research will have to start with raising appreciable amounts of money from sources generally hostile to NLP. (Our first and only “NLP” funding drive accessed 22,000 NLP practitioners, took six months to conduct and yielded $12,000, of which $9000 was personally donated by 4 NLP Institute owners).

4. The best strategy to success organizationally is to pace the professional community by gaining recognition for NLP clinical protocols in standard psychological research formats and after demonstrating scientifically the clinical efficacy of specific protocols move on to larger clinical trials based upon their performance and then, make the NLP association.

To that end, our first two studies of the RTM’s performance (NLP derived protocol for the treatment of PTSD, costing $550,000 directly to run) are gaining widespread professional support and recognition across some 8 University research laboratories, a number of them being among the most prestigious in their field (PTSD). Somewhere down the line here we are hoping that the Leadership Group and larger segments of the sound NLP community will lend formal support and physical help to both NLPt and our research efforts in Europe, here in the U.S., and internationally.

Frank

[Heidi Heron]

(Reply from Hugh Comerford)

Thanks Lisa and Hugh and all,

I run 20 day practitioner courses in Japan. Most NLP courses in Japan run for 10 days. I have seen an interesting discussion on a Japanese language forum which concluded that longer is definitely better but that it doesn’t suit the shorter vacation and free time of people in Japan.
Like Hugh, I agree that 20 days is too short to really raise people to the standard that I would like to achieve in order to ‘certify’ them. To raise standards further, I’ve started giving a lot more assignments between modules. I also teach at a university (not NLP) and we of course give regular homework, outside reading, and preview work. It seems odd to me that there is so little homework and preview provided as part of NLP courses. Another area that is clearly under-utilized is practice groups. For some modules, I have compulsory out-of-class practical assignments (e.g. practice of perceptual positions etc.) which students can do in person or over Skype etc. One reason that I am able to do out-of-class assignments is that I generally run the practitioner over a year with one module per month. Clearly, there is less scope for outside work if the course is run on 20 consecutive days.

To achieve deeper and higher standard learning, I consider it fairly necessary to spread courses over longer periods of time, and to increase out-of-class practice and study.

All the best,
Brian Cullen

[Heidi Heron]

(Reply from Hugh Comerford)

Thanks Lisa,

Yes and, as a measure of training rigor, the number of instruction hours is not a radical or unique concept. Many (most?) professions a the number of training hours as a criteria for certification. Is NLP so unique (or are others such brilliant trainers) that you can train to excellence in 1 or 2 or 5 or 8 days? If you can, please let me know how.

It’s the old saw but it’s a valid one: do you want the brain surgeon who was certified in a 4-day brain surgery course? Because that’s what we have going on in the field.

Content, standards, supervision are great. Instructional time matters as well.

As far as I can tell, the 2nd longest course in Canada is 9-days in duration. Does anyone reading this believe that a 9-day practitioner certification is equal to or greater than a 20-day practitioner certification all things being equal?

As I said, and I believe this, we can either do something about increasing the credibility of NLP via training standards (as one part, granted), or we can simply accept things as they are.

It puts the conversation on the table, at least here in Canada. . I’ve had people attend others introductory sessions where the Trainer said, “You can be certified in 6 days! Why would you want to do a 20-day certification training??!” as if a) 20 days is a waste of time and b) 6 days is more than sufficient for excellence to be transferred and c) Certification is more important than education and skill…

I wouldn’t have any problem whatsoever doing a hybrid model where we can have (and I’m just making this up):

a) NLP Professional Practitioner that follows Peter’s standards,
b) NLP Certified Practitioner that follows the training criteria that’s been floating around for +/-20 years that I shifted to accommodate (120hrs etc)
c) NLP Technician certification (or something similar) which can be the catch-all for training that doesn’t meet shared criteria (i.e. the self-referenced crowd creating their own accreditation criteria with a puppet certification ‘board’).

I don’t pretend to have any control over NLP in Canada, but via my own actions I do have some influence to change the conversation, or at least put it on the table. As a group the influence we wield could reframe the perception of the field in a positive way. I think we all want that…but to steal Lisa’s line, I think we need to be brave enough…

The truth is I don’t feel 20 days is enough…but it’s enough for now.

[Heidi Heron]

(Reply from Lisa Rijk)

HI Hugh
These are interesting thoughts.
My emails earlier have picked up on some of this and I would like to address the hours issue here.
For me it is about content, standards of training, standards of assessment, supervision and scope of practice both while in training and post training.
As a leadership group it was clear at the summit that we can’t monitor or police the entire field, what we can do is be examplars.
There is some work being done on curricula, but not standards per se. Does anyone want to take that on????
Lisa

Lisa de Rijk (formerly Wake) MSc, RGN, PhD Cand.

[Heidi Heron]

(reply from Peter Schutz on 12 April)

http://www.nlpt.at/literatur.htm#E

suggest you use right mouse button update frame
peter

[Heidi Heron]

(Reply from Peter Schutz)

In 1985 we started with 37 day Practitioner Courses
Max 25 Students , 4 OR 5 different trainers , and a personal interview with Each student during the First two seminars

We quickly understood that One of The key structures creating the bad name For NLP was the selfreference …

Since 1990 we require video Feedback of a coaching Session , First audited by the Peer group, then by a trainer

Professional NLP standard

This led to a good competence standard of our graduates
And s high appreciation For NLP with psychologists And MDs

1993 the First published Research was started .,

Around 1995 the quicky sects appeared
Cashing in with 1-2 Week 150 Student Seminars, referring to various US standards …..

We still do Professional standard , 37 day Pract

( this has nothing To do with psychotherapy )

Would be Great if the Summit colleguages would come on Board To Level 4 http://www.icpnlp.org

This also would mean a big Investment in PR , clearly drawing lines To the many crooks and sectoids in the NLP field

And Now , 30 years After the murder of Corinne Christensen , make an official statement , that whoever was involved
Is ethically not reccomended as a trainer …and the graduations of this
” Tribe” will not be respected

Brave enough for that ??
Peter

[Heidi Heron]

(Reply from Anneke Durlinger)

Thanks Jaap in relationship to the list of NLP models and techniques

Also taking in account your feedback, Lisa

I think there might be in preparation of the next leadership summit different overviews

One overview of NLP associations (we are now in the process of defining what should be mentioned in this overview)
The different curricula (practitioners, master and trainers)
One (more general) overview of NLP models and techniques
Standards
And the more difficult one: how to ensure these standard are met.
(I have for instance a certificate saying I performed excellent but nobody assessed me!)

Still quite some work to do.
And with all the input, it will get clearer. A nice work in progress

Happy greetings

Anneke

[Heidi Heron]

(Reply from Connirae Andreas)

Thank you Peter, for your suggestions!
I’ll send you the dissertation, and I will pass on your info on peer reviewed journals to the research team.

Also I realize I forgot to include my email, so that if anyone else wants a copy of the dissertation/research, you can email me directly.

[Heidi Heron]

(Reply from Peter Schutz)

Thank you Connirae , very good to read !!!

publication of the full article on a university hp might mean that good journals will not take the article any more…..

which blind peer reviewed journal do you head to publish the article ? hopefully impact factor above 1.3

here some ideas

http://eanlpt.org/journals.pdf

pls check the current impact factor 🙂

friendly from vienna
peter

[Heidi Heron]

(Reply from Juan Francisco)

Dear Connirae,

Would you please send to me the full dissertation? I think our Master Degree on NLP students would love to have access to this.

Much love to you and Steve

Juan Francisco

[Author]

Posts