The­ra­py vs. The­ra­peu­tic: Past pro­gramming foun­da­ti­ons

The terms the­ra­py and the­ra­peu­tic have long ge­ne­ra­ted con­fu­si­on wi­thin ad­ven­ture-ba­sed and na­tu­re-ba­sed pro­fes­sio­nal work. This ar­tic­le ex­plo­res the his­to­ri­cal ef­forts to di­stin­gu­ish terms, re­vi­sits the se­man­tic di­stinc­tions of the past, and si­tua­tes this ef­fort wi­thin the up­dated ap­pli­ca­ti­on of a “four-field mo­del” that has in­fluen­ced in­ter­na­tio­nal prac­ti­ce for al­most th­ree de­ca­des. The mo­del il­lus­tra­tes the prac­ti­cal im­pli­ca­ti­ons of in­ten­tio­nal dif­fe­ren­ces, pro­gram plan­ning, and prac­ti­tio­ner com­pe­tence and qua­li­fi­ca­ti­ons. It has useful ap­pli­ca­ti­on to ge­ne­ra­li­zed the­ra­peu­tic pro­grams, but is li­mi­t­ed by an ina­bi­li­ty to cap­tu­re the nu­an­ces of the­ra­py. To avo­id mi­su­s­ing the­se la­bels or caus­ing in­fla­ted claims, po­ten­ti­al ethi­cal brea­ches, and ero­si­on of mu­tu­al trust, the aut­hors call for clear lan­guage, pro­fes­sio­nal in­te­gri­ty, and pos­si­ble sys­te­mic stan­dards to sus­tain cre­di­bi­li­ty around the glo­be.