Therapeutic Recreation: A Notion Toward a Unified Profession

Abstract

Recent events within the profession (i.e. disagreement over a single philosophy, the founding of a second professional organization, disagreements over certification plans, and the inability of the National Therapeutic Recreation Society (NTRS) and the American Therapeutic Recreation Association (ATRA) to effectively communicate with one another), have increased concerns over the future of the therapeutic recreation field. Expressing this concern, Chester Land (Past-President of NTRS), commented: We are on the brink of dividing a profession that over the last ten years has been the fastest growing profession in the country. We must not allow the differences between organizations to slow the progress that has been made up to now....How can the possibility of two totally diverse and different professions be far off (1990, p.3)? Of immediate import to this writer is how the concept of therapeutic recreation is defined and interpreted within our profession. This author feels compelled to comment on what he perceives to be a fundamental  error which has been a catalyst widening the abyss between NTRS and ATRA. Simply put, this fundamental error centers on defining the concept of therapeutic recreation through. a philosophical position statement. The concept of tberapeutic recreation has been discussed extensively in the literature.  common to these discussions are the terms employed to define therapeutic recreation. A succinct meaning (definition) of the general idea (concept) of therapeutic recreation, which incorporates the terms used in previous literature, was synthesized by Carter, Van Andel and Robb (1985). Therapeutic recreation refers to the specialized application of recreation for the specific purpose of intervening in and changing some physicai, emotional, or social behavior to promote the growth and development of the individual. Therapeutic recreation may be viewed as a process or systematic use of recreatiqn activities and experiences to achieve specific objectives. This process is not limited to certain categories of individuals or a particular setting. Rather, therapeutic recreation may be applicable to any individual whose needs and goals would seem to benefit from such an intervention (p.16). This definition oftherapeutic recreation is a generic statement describing the concept of therapeutic recreation. Howan individual oran organization chooses to interpret and apply the defined concept in practice is actualized through their philosophy. As Halverson (1967) said, philosophy is a theory about how to do something. Many practitioners define therapeutic recreation by how services are provided, when they should be defining it as a concept. If a single·definition of the concept oftherapeutic recreation can be accepted, it has the potential to impact the profession in several ways: (1) It could promote consistency in describing what we do across settings and reduce the confusion within the allied disciplines as to the sature ofour services; (2) It may assist in the effort to be recognized by third party payers since all billings, regardless ofsetting, client, or intervention model would describe therapeutic recreation services consistently; and (3) It could serve to unify the profession since practitioners could identify themselves by who they are and what they do, not be fragmented and split by how they do it. One unified definition of the concept of therapeutic recreation would not dictate the choice of intervention strategy or service delivery model to be employed. Instead, ifused as an umbrella term to define what therapeutic recreation is, it would promote the interpretation and application of how services are provided (based upon diverse philosophies of professional organizations and/or specific intervention strategies). This flexibility allows for the application of any of the recognized therapeuuc·recreation service models, and allows the implementation ofnew ones as they develop. Although philosophies may differ (as will the intervention strategies employed thatretlect. them), they still represent the concept of therapeutic recreation. This issue of defining our profession by what we do versus by how we do it, will not resolve itself: In this writer's view, it is ofcritical importance for this current situation within the profession to be addressed. One approach to begin movement toward problem resolution is to initialize dialogue in a forum which permits the liberal sharing ofideas. Moreover, this vehicle should allow for any member ofthe profession to express his/her views or to respond to another's point of view. This writer believes the Therapeutic Recreation Journal (though under-utilized for this purpose in the past) is an appropriate place for such discussions to be presented under the auspices of "Letters to the Editors." It is the hope of this writer that this letter will stimulate thinking and open a dialogue to··consider what the future holds for tberapeutic recreation.