Some Detail re the ESR System's Procedures
The mandatory Efficacy Study Research system was developed and instituted by Ian White in 1994. At that time it had four main purposes.
The ESR system still retains these points as illustrators of "purpose." In more recent years, with an increase in the number of people training in countries other than Australia, the existence of the ESR system and its permanence and apparent rigorous nature has been shown to be a comforting qualifier for those people considering undertaking therapy.
The manner of operation of the ESR system is permanent and inalienable.
In order to produce as authentic an efficacy report as is possible, the system ensures that ex-clients fully understand that the CONTENT and flavor of their report remains unavailable to their therapist.
What this means is that all ESR activities and processing remain the task specifically of the Guild, while details of either content or source remain undisclosed to the therapist.
The therapist receives only data related to (a) percentage return of questionnaires over a given period (usually bi-monthly) and (b) percentage of those questionnaires returned that report positive change and satisfaction after a period of "maturity of effect" - typically of four to five months.
BENEFITS OF THE SYSTEM
In spite of some discomfort experienced by a small number of therapists who are accustomed to not being 'judged' by their work, OR have deep-seated 'fear' of observing data related to their performance, the benefits of the ESR system are immense.
This particular ESR method of independent assessment of practitioner performance is unique within professions, and cements our claim that we have put clients and their health first.
DRAWBACKS TO THE SYSTEM
The ESR system has no flaws, but some drawbacks regarding its perception by other regulatory bodies (example: University research implementers).
These may be stated as
The Guild rejects these concerns and honors the ability and capacity of persons to judge subjectively, their current "experience of life" without the influence of formal assessment bodies or their therapists' overview. The Guild considers the use of terms such as "only subjective" or "merely nuncupative" as being insulting to a person's right of self-determinative assessment.
Some Affectology Therapists do not avail themselves of the service as they see the 'drawbacks' as being
The Guild respects affectology therapists' right to opinion as to the value of the ESR system, but cannot support the work done by that therapist in the same way as support is offered to ESR contributors.