Learner Therapist (63) …
How real can Skype therapy be?
Torrey
Orton*
July
20, 2015
Last year I was called by
a colleague in Europe chasing up a therapist for the CEO of a digital start-up.
I had come to mind because, aside from my family violence case-load, I have a
broad spectrum of business experience internationally and, by chance, occasionally
in IT. I have used Skype for various private and public relationships for
years, including executive coaching, therapy and peer supervision.
More recently, I was
encouraging a reluctant friend to do some connecting with me on Skype which he
resisted on the grounds it just couldn’t be real. It can but that, like many
matters of fact, cannot be disputed into existence by arguments from conflicting
faiths. Here’s my experience in fact.
I took on the offer and
met the CEO face-to-face for the first time three weeks ago, having done four
months of twice a week Skype therapy sessions from September to December ’14.
What follows are observations about the medium from this experience and
subsequent work in the company.
Some Skype virtues -
1)
It really is just like being there with
the patient. All the non-verbals are accessible and to some extent more so than
in ‘live’ therapy because the cameras bring us closer than my normal seating
distance live (which is about 75 centimetres knee to knee). So we were there
together for those hours. The proof of this sense was that when we finally met
face-to-face it was almost unreal; it was no surprise; it was as if we had
always known each other ‘live’!
2)
The real time, ‘live’ nature of Skype also
allows real time SMS communication within the Skype system. This is
particularly useful for short chats between normal longer sessions prosecuted
by keyboard in real time but only in type. A decision to go to video can be
made without starting at full exposure, and commentary and sharing of data can
accompany the fully live event. One can see if the other is on deck from the
contacts list down the left side of the Skype screen.
3)
Skype allows an out of time SMS service,
too, through which I can leave a comment about some matter relevant to that
relationship, propose a formal meeting (live, video, etc.). This can serve to
‘ping’ the contact without forcing them to reject a live call if it is
inconvenient. Often it’s a matter of negotiating a few minutes leeway to
prepare this or leave that.
4)
Then there’s the video message option which
arises about ten rings into a connection attempt, which is the same
presentation as a live event, but for viewing at the receiver’s preferred
time/place. The message’s 3 minute time limit is short enough to prevent any
ranting tendencies in the messager.
5)
Skype allows multiparty meetings of which
I’ve done quite a few too, with remarkable clarity, etc. A good headset and
higher class camera mounting is important to get best mileage out of the
service.
Skype shortcomings
It is highly sensitive to
bandwidth problems, which advanced practitioners can mitigate by selective
deletion of functionality, notably turning off video while audio stays live, as
does the SMS feature. These mitigations can be negotiated between participants
live, with one turning video off and the other keeping it on, etc. This also
makes the administration of the event a joint responsibility not just that of
the therapist, coach, boss…
Skype also seems to have
a therapeutic hour self-concept…it begins to threaten the process with
performance warnings around the 50 minute mark. Longer on Skype, especially in
group sessions, is strenuous for some reasons I suspect having to do with too
much unbroken screen time.
*I am a 72 year old, AHPRA
registered male psychotherapist with a large caseload out of family violences. There
the question of what is ‘live’ in real life is the central existential
challenge and how to live better the central developmental one.
