PSYCHODRAMA: ONGOING WORK FOR A COMMON SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE

Presentation of a survey within the FEPTO aimed at developing a shared theoretical and methodological basis for a shared terminology

14

PAOLA DE LEONARDIS, MARCO GRECO
Translation: Sandro Sanzò, Alexsandra Andrade Murray

■ ABSTRACT
This article presents a survey aimed at activating a meaningful exchange among Psychodrama Training Institutes inside FEPTO (Federation of European Psychodrama Training Institutes) regarding the theoretical and methodological contents of their training. During the course of the 4-year survey the goals have widened in scope, resulting in the elaboration of two concept maps focused respectively on the “Specificity of psychodramatic theory and methodology” and the “Integration of psychodrama with other psychological and educational-training theories”. The work, shared step by step with many psychodramatists, foresees the possibility of developing a sort of online Psychodrama Wikipedia, which may constitute a shared and constantly in progress theoretical and methodological point of reference.

Key words: psychodramatic theory, psychodramatic methodology, psychodramatic terminology, psychodramatic glossary

Creating a common cultural platform at the international level to compare one’s own theoretical and methodological references with those of other psychodramatists and psychodrama experts, in order to have, as much as possible, a common conceptual language or at least a shared basic terminology: this is quite an ambitious goal for any discipline, but particularly for psychodrama, given the breadth of the psychological dynamics that it puts into play through action, and also because of the ways in which it originated and developed.
Its origins: about a century ago, in mythical “Mitteleurope”, a young and enthusiastic explorer of the human soul and of relations between men created Psychodrama. He also, immodestly, considered himself a messiah.
Its development: in the pragmatic United States, which codifies everything but also encourages everything, hence an almost convulsive development through the verbose writings of a J. L. Moreno full of ideas overflowing into a land of everyone and no one, with no well-defined scientific boundaries, no specific areas of research and operational expertise.
The questions, debated since the beginning and still debated to this day, concern the epistemological statute of psychodrama, its place in science and even its methodology.
Is psychodrama merely a psychotherapeutic approach and an educational method of group work, or is it a discipline that has a well-constructed reference theory? What is this theory called: Morenian theory, psychodramatic theory, psychosociodramatic theory? To which scientific fields can it be related? Psychology, social psychology, psychotherapy, pedagogy, or perhaps not: would it be better if it referred to philosophy?
A truly therapeutic procedure can only have the entire human race as its target. Yet, it is impossible to prescribe an adequate therapy as long as humankind is not a unit, organised in some kind of form and as long as this organisation remains unknown.
These are the rather cryptic concepts Moreno dealt with in his first basic work, Who Shall Survive?, with which he frees psychodrama from the strict confines of psychotherapy as early as 1934, essentially removing meaning from the very notion of psychotherapy: psychotherapy does not exist if it does not involve the whole of humanity, and cannot be appropriate without an idea of humanity itself and if one does not know the cultural and organisational form of the portion of mankind in which it is to operate.
Over the last 50 years, psychodrama – like many other disciplines – has been at the centre  reflections, experiences, explorations, processing, mainly in the field of psychology but also in other areas: in reference to many types of groups – small, medium and large – including family, work groups, social organisations, as well as internal individual groups.
This may sound pretentious, trying to create a common psychodramatic terminology, in the presence of the Morenian mixture of sharp, brilliant ideas and far-sighted intuitions, yet lacking a neat epistemological structure, and facing, at the same time, a number of inputs from other disciplines of a very different nature, from depth psychology to existentialism, to the many learning theories and the modern neuroscientific disciplines.
When faced with very vast undertakings, one must be very humble and patient. Moreover, any large undertaking may or may not have the possibility of being accomplished in the environment it was conceived. The environment in which the undertaking we are talking about here was conceived – that is, the laying of foundations for an internationally shared psychodramatic terminology (and conceptualisation) – is that of the FEPTO, which brings together more than 70 Psychodrama Training Institutes in Europe (including Israel and Turkey). We have been working on this for five years now within the FEPTO Research Committee itself, which has given us attention, cooperation, and support, particularly in the figure of its Chairman, Johannes Krall.
Ever since the 2009, the FEPTO Research Committee Meeting in Edinburgh – when Robert Elliot presented a scientific research model (the HSCED: Hermeneutic Single Case Efficacy Design) later[1] adopted in the FEPTO Training Institutes – questions regarding the theoretical and methodological basics of contemporary psychodrama continued to be discussed.
In September 2011, during the Research Meeting in Innsbruck (Austria), the idea of ‘co-creatively’, taking inspiration from the Wikipedia tool, first came to light. Its purpose was to share definitions of the fundamental concepts of psychodramatic theory. At the time, this subgroup of the RC FEPTO was called: “Identity, theory and practice of Morenian Psychodrama since Moreno”.  The tool, which we called “Psychodramapedia”, did not take off at the time, yet the idea of finding a way to exchange and reflect together on these issues was acknowledged, and in October 2012, during the Research Committee Meeting in Porto (Portugal), a subgroup of participants[2] discussed the revival of the project. It took a year before the idea became operational.
Considering that the subgroup had broken up, the authors (Paola de Leonardis and Marco Greco), decided to take over the project independently in 2014.  We, therefore, investigated the possibility of making a survey among all FEPTO Training Institutes regarding their organisation and training methods, and also the theoretical and methodological content of their training. The aim of the survey was not only informative: the main goal was to initiate, by means of an ad hoc questionnaire, a cultural exchange with those in charge of the FEPTO Training Institutes in Europe, focusing precisely on Morenian theory and methodology. This was the beginning of the project, which has now lasted for four years with some unexpected developments.
The first phase of the study – consisting of the survey described above – lasted 2 years: from 2014 to 2016. The second phase (2017-2018) explored, through other questionnaires but  especially through group discussions held during FEPTO Meetings, the basic concepts of psychodramatic theory and methodology, as well as the theoretical and methodological contributions eventually incorporated from other disciplines.
We believe it might be redundant, and in any case boring for the reader, to retrace here the lengthy process of involvement of the FEPTO Training Institutes from 2014 to the current 2018. Therefore we will limit ourselves  to listing, along with the respective dates, the procedures we followed in order to “approach” the Training Institutes and then progressively involve them in a theoretical and methodological level. The work was structured in three steps.

Survey on Identity, Theory and Methodology of Psychodrama

 1st Step – 2014-2016

  • First mailing of a three-part Questionnaire:
  1. First part: Questions aimed at getting to know the organisational data of each Institute’s psychodrama training, assuming their compliance with the FEPTO Minimal Standards (The Minimal Standards set by FEPTO are: 4 years of training, with 200-hour-training per year, divided into: theory, methodology, experimental work, exercises; plus 80-120 hours of supervision):
    – area of training (psychotherapy and/or training, educational, preventive, social and others);
    – type of training (classroom lessons, experiential lessons, mixed lessons, with direct or indirect student participation, supervised exercises, among others).
  1. Second part: questions were geared towards exploring the theoretical and technical content of the training through lists of “keywords”. For each one it was asked whether the item was considered “non-essential,” “taught in specific lessons” or “taught in other ways”, thus assigning the items into precise categories of primary or secondary importance, or of no importance. The items were subdivided into:
    – main theoretical topics;
    – main methodological topics;
    – main techniques.
  1. Third part: questions aimed at finding out which training aids are considered of primary and secondary importance, divided into two types:
    – publications and other psychodrama materials (works by Moreno and/or Zerka);
    – psychodrama manuals in the local language and/or in English;
    – more in-depth books on psychodrama in the local language and/or in English;
    – pamphlets/booklets handed out by the Institute;
    – DVDs of psychodrama sessions, etc.;
    – publications and other materials in disciplines considered complementary to psychodramatic theory (books, articles, online documentation, etc.).

The Questionnaire was presented during the FEPTO Research Committee Meeting held in Lublin, Poland, in October 2014. The mailing took place in the following months. The original, in English, can be found in the appendix to this article (Appendix 1: Questionnaire on Training in Psychodrama).
Questionnaires completed following the first mailing were returned by 21 out of 77 training Institutes

  • Second mailing of the first Questionnaire
    Four months after the first mailing of the questionnaire, a second mailing was conducted with the recipients being the Training Institutes that had not replied to the first mailing.
    Replies received after the second mailing: 9 additional training Institutes.
  • Overall results of the Questionnaire answers
    Total number of Training Institutes that answered in an exhaustive and codifiable manner: 30/77.
    The number of responses obtained after two mailings of the questionnaire was  not very high, although 30 replying institutes is not a small number either, considering that, included in the 77 Institutes registered with FEPTO, there are probably many that are no longer actively involved in training or that have not been offering training courses compatible with the FEPTO Minimal Standards for years. As far as we remember, a similar survey has never been conducted within the FEPTO world. In our opinion the number of responding institutes might trigger some questions within the FEPTO community regarding the willingness of the Institutes themselves to collaborate towards this initiative. There is always the somewhat prickly issue of how many of the FEPTO member Institutes are still active in training. But that is another problem.
    The results of this research were summarised in a 1st Step Report, which was sent, separately, to each training Institute that took part in the research.
    Subsequently, the 1st Step Report was presented in Würzburg (Germany), during the Research Committee Meeting held in February 2015, and at the Krakow (Poland) meeting held in October 2016. At the meeting in Krakow, we anticipated the upcoming initiatives that would form the Second Step of our study.
    The same Report and the anticipation of future developments were also presented at the FEPTO Annual Meeting held in May 2016 in Marathon, Greece.
    In summary, by analysing the questionnaires received in total from the Training Institutes, we were able to identify 3 main training models, which are described below:
    – Well-structured training models (30%) – This category, which includes university courses in psychodrama, features training content broken down into numerous study subjects, with a variety of reference literature, a substantial amount of experiential training, practical exercises, external internships, supervision, and training in psychotherapy.
    – Semi-structured training models (55%) – The Institutes belonging to this category offer a variety of types of lessons: classroom, interactive and active; favouring group discussion in particular,  collaboration between groups of students, methodological training through practical exercises and group supervision.
    – Unstructured training models (15%) – A minority of Institutes organise training according to an “integrated learning” model of theory and practice, in which the theoretical contents surface from time to time through experiential groups and the analyses of techniques are traced back to the theoretical principles underlying them; the students have considerable autonomy when it comes to their own theoretical and methodological preparation in collaboration with their reference tutors.
    For our purposes – in other words, knowing the basic concepts of psychodramatic theory and methodology conveyed during the training and the theoretical and methodological references that may have been borrowed and incorporated from other disciplines – the most interesting contents of the questionnaires concerned the teaching topics, both theoretical and methodological, as well as the main methods of such teaching (more or less experiential, more or less theoretical and in-depth, more or less methodological and practical).
    The questions regarding theoretical and methodological content (thus also concerning the techniques) were expressed in the form of “keywords”, for each one of which, as mentioned above, the Respondents were indirectly asked to express a hierarchy of importance (primary, secondary or not important).
    The questionnaire provided three lists of keywords, subdivided into “Theory,” “Methodology” and “Techniques”. For each of these categories, the Respondents were allowed to add keywords they considered to be missing, and rank them according to the same hierarchy of importance (primary, secondary, or not important).
    By analysing these answers, we were able to obtain an overall picture of the basic concepts (or keywords) referred specifically to psychodrama. On the whole, there was considerable agreement in attributing the “importance” (primary, secondary, or not important) to the various concepts or items.  However, there were also some surprising exceptions: for example, the tele-theory and many of the keywords related to it, such as group matrix and social atom, were deemed of secondary importance by 30% of the Institutes.
    We do not find it useful to provide here the list of items broken down by categories of importance in the training according to the answers given by the Responding Institutes, since we believe that as data in itself it would probably be of little interest. In fact, collecting such keywords was not the main purpose of our survey. Instead, the main aim was twofold: 1) to start a “common thought” regarding and 2) to get a fairly clear and faithful idea of the Responders’ familiarity with what could be considered the basic concepts of psychodramatic theory and methodology.
    We felt that the goal of this first Step was achieved.

2nd Step (2016-2017)

  • Collection of psychodrama glossaries
    Collecting the main psychodrama glossaries available online was not our original intent. We simply wanted to find out what relevant work had been done in this field so far and compare the list of keywords collected by means of our first Questionnaire with the existing glossaries. Thus, the idea of drawing upon existing glossaries appeared to us to be a natural development of our work.
    Without trying to be exhaustive, we selected a few Psychodrama Glossaries that seemed more meaningful to us than others; we then proceeded to sort them according to the number of “entries” and the extent of their explanation.
    Below is a list of the glossaries we selected, broken down according to the aforementioned types.
    – Essential glossaries, often included as an appendix to many psychodrama manuals: as an example, we have indicated René Marineau’s “Glossary of Morenian terms”, which is included as an appendix to his biography of Moreno[3].
    – Medium-length glossaries published online, in particular: the historical Glossary of Morenian terms in psychodrama and sociometry by Adam Blatner[4] and the equally historical, but perhaps less well-known in Europe, glossary by William A. Moses, Psychodrama, sociometry, and group psychotherapy – Dictionary and reference guide, of 1985. This last one, compiled mainly on the basis of Moreno’s writings – including the various “journals” (Sociometry, Group Psychotherapy, etc.) edited at Beacon by Moreno himself – featuring descriptions of the items accompanied by specific bibliographical references (the online publication is by the American Board of Examiners in Psychodrama, Sociometry, and Group Psychotherapy[5]). This category also includes the South American glossary Diccionario de Psicodrama y Sociodrama, by Carlos Maria Menegazzo, Miguel Angel Tomasini and Mònica Zuretti[6], consisting of more than three hundred entries, but in our opinion, significantly incomplete with regard to many aspects, in particular tele-theory and group dynamics.
    – Lastly, a book worth mentioning is that of Rosa Cukier, a Brazilian psychodramatist from the school of Dalmiro Bustos, who published in Spanish, later translated into English, a glossary-book entitled Words from Jacob Levy Moreno – Vocabulary of Quotations from Psychodrama, Group Psychotherapy, Sociodrama and Sociometry[7], consisting of almost 500 entries, each of which comprises short or long quotes by Moreno, with the respective bibliographical references (edition Lulu.com, 2007).
    Aiming to share the results of our research and, as a sort of reward to the Responding Training Institutes, that is to the ones that collaborated with us on the 1st Step of our study, we sent a selection of psychodrama glossaries we tracked down online.
    Our analysis of the main existing psychodrama glossaries was also presented at the FEPTO Research Committee meeting in Krakow in October 2016. On that same occasion, we also presented the structure and objectives of a new Questionnaire that we planned to send out again, both to all Training Institutes (77 in total), and – as a novelty – to founding members (to whom the Training Institutes do not necessarily report): this second questionnaire featured an entirely different format.
  • Sending of the second Questionnaire
    The new Questionnaire was sent out in the last months of 2016: it was not geared towards exploring the theoretical and methodological content of the training, but instead it had the aim of polling which general theoretical areas were considered most interesting to investigate and discuss.
    The Questionnaire included 3 open questions in 4 general Sections:
    Section 1 – Specificity of psychodrama as a psychological and/or training-educational approach.
    Section 2 – Integration of psychodrama with other psychological and/or training-educational theories.
    Section 3 – The three basic assumptions of psychodrama: spontaneity-creativity theory, role theory, and tele-theory.
    Section 4 – Scientific research in psychodrama: role and application methods.
    The Questionnaire is provided in its entirety at the end of this article (cf. Appendix 2: Focal Points in Psychodrama).
    The Questionnaire and its goals were presented to the participants of the FEPTO Research Committee Meeting held in Skopije (Macedonia) in February 2017. On that occasion, we presented the results in the form of a concept map, that was completed in 2018 (cf. Appendix 3: Psychodrama Theory).
  • Results of the second Questionnaire
    A total of 10 Training Institutes responded to the second Questionnaire. This poor result was to be expected, since answering the questionnaire entailed a rather demanding theoretical participation. In fact, it asked the participants to choose one or two Sections, among the four contained in the Questionnaire, then to explain their choice and develop a reasoned reflection. The collected responses, although not significant compared to the Training Institutes as a whole, were all located in the first two Sections: 1) theoretical and methodological specificity of psychodrama, and 2) integration of psychodramatic theory with other theoretical, educational, or psychotherapeutic approaches.
    These results suggested the need for a change of course, namely a change in the method of trying to involve as many operational psychodramatists as possible in a meaningful exchange of  psychodramatic theory and methodology, including training.

3rd Step (2017-2018)

  • Organisation of small discussion groups on “Theoretical and methodological specificity of psychodrama” and on “Integration of psychodrama with other psychological and/or educational/training theories”
  • our study originated and developed, meets regularly twice a year, each time
    The change in the communication and research method in order to achieve our goal had to be found within the FEPTO organisation, and this is precisely what we did.
    The FEPTO Research Committee, within the framework of which in a different European country. This has been the case every year since 1996, the year FEPTO was founded under the name of ISCOPE/ESCOPE after several coordination experiences between European psychodrama training institutes. In the 1990s, the first Chairperson of the Research Committee was Jorge Burmeister (1996-1998). His stated objectives were: 1) to find “an agreement on basic theories and/or terminology” in psychodrama; 2) to define recommendations/standards for process-oriented research in psychodrama; 3) to define goals and methods for effective research in psychodrama. Nevertheless, at the very first meeting of the Research Committee in Zurich, the participants understood how difficult it would be to reach a common theoretical and methodological ground (FEPTO News, vol. 1.1, 1997).
    At the present time, the FEPTO Research Committee Meeting is structured as follows: first of all, there is a lecture based on of a theoretical and/or methodological nature that opens the meeting, for which the host Training Institute is responsible; this is followed by a presentation by Committee members of scientific research initiatives on psychodrama: initiatives of a general nature or, more frequently, of its application in the psychotherapeutic, educational or training fields.  After the presentations of scientific research in psychodrama, the group of participants is split into subgroups according to topics that are formulated in advance or proposed on the spot. The subgroups engage in 2 to 4 working sessions of 2 hours each to explore and discuss the respective topics. The exchange in the subgroups usually happens  with a mix of active and verbal methods. The results are then reported to the large group and a report, drawn up by the leaders of the respective Small Groups, is published in the Newsletter sent to all FEPTO members a couple of months later.
    The FEPTO Annual General Meeting, which is held in a different country each year, also involves working in Small Groups. However, only since this year’s meeting in Pravetz, Bulgaria, and, in part,  during last year’s meeting in Sigtuna (Sweden), it was possible to work in Small Groups, each one characterised according to the various Committees into which FEPTO is subdivided (Research, Training, Ethics, among others).
    When considering the possible ways in which our research work could be developed, it was immediately clear that the Small Groups – both of the Research Committee and of the Annual Meeting provided the ideal venue for sharing and discussing the two topics that surfaced and were dear to us: Theoretical and methodological specificity of psychodrama and Integration of psychodrama with other psychological and/or educational-training theories.
    After the Small Group we held in Sigtuna, the following one took place in October 2017 at the Research Committee meeting held in Tallinn, Estonia. As a starting point for the discussion, we briefly outlined the various steps of our research at the FEPTO Training Institutes, focusing on the theoretical and methodological contents indicated as being of primary and secondary importance, and on the interest, in the two suggested topics of discussion: specificity of psychodrama and integration with other theories.
    Participation in the group was lively, highly active and constructive. All the topics under discussion – whether in active or reflective mode – were written on the board as keywords and were then split into the categories: “specificity” and “integration”.
    In February 2018 it was not possible to repeat our previous small group experience at the Research Committee Meeting held on the Isle of Man, England, as the meeting was exceptionally combined with a Conference on mental disorders and scientific research. Nevertheless, in the first months of the year, the experience of “small group discussion” on the two topics mentioned above was repeated with students and psychodramatists from Italian schools.
    The ‘key words’, collected by means of the first and second Questionnaires and through the work carried out in Small Groups were many, and since they tended to be repeated, albeit with sometimes different terms, it was decided to skip the organisation of additional Small Groups and proceed directly to the next step:
    1) selecting the keywords according to the criterion of their correspondence to the basic concepts of psychodramatic theory and its techniques.
    2) subdividing them into the two thematic areas under consideration, namely “Specificity of psychodramatic theory and methodology” and “Integration of psychodrama with other psychological and educational approaches.”
    3) categorising them according to a thematic structure consistent with the one usually followed in texts that illustrate psychological disciplines.
  • Creation of two Conceptual Maps respectively entitled:

1) “Theoretical and methodological specificity of psychodrama” and

2) “Integration of psychodrama with other psychological and educational/training theories”
In putting together the collection of “keywords”, that is, “basic concepts” relating to psychodramatic theory and methodology, it became apparent that some categories were incomplete, some were redundant, and others were missing altogether.
We therefore proceeded to the deletions, integrations and additions deemed necessary; and in order to have an overview of the two thematic areas considered – Theoretical and methodological specificity of psychodrama and Integration of psychodrama with other psychological and/or educational-training theorieswe constructed two corresponding Concept Maps, which summed up fruit of the work that had been slowly developed – even before finding out the real difficulties related to its creation – over the previous four years into a “ready-made” visual representation.
First of all, it should be noted that both Maps, as indicated next to their titles, are by no means definitive, but are to be considered as categorisation proposals: that is to say, we consider it important that they be carefully examined by psychodramatists and practitioners, all of whom are heartily invited to suggest changes in whatever area of the Maps they deem appropriate, giving reasons for their suggestions.
Not only would it be downright presumptuous to think that the Maps do not need corrections and changes; we consider intellectual collaboration on our proposed content to be essential, in order to give a more solid foundation to the work undertaken.
Enclosed with this issue of the magazine are complete full-colour graphic representations of the two Maps, published on one side in Italian and on the other side in English.
We publish instead in the form of an appendix at the end of the article the complete structures of both Maps, consisting of categories, subcategories, keywords, and sub-items (cf. Appendix 4: Structure of Map 1: Theoretical and methodological specificity of psychodrama,
and Appendix 5: Integration of psychodrama with other psychological and educational approaches). Below we limit ourselves to illustrate some general features of the contents of the Maps with a few comments.

Specificity
The Concept Map on the “Theoretical and Methodological Specificity of Psychodrama” is made up of five categories, which, in turn, comprise various sub-categories; these group together the relevant keywords, some of which include sub-categories. The main categories included in this map, with their corresponding sub-categories, are:
Specific philosophical principles, with the sub-categories: Referred to groups (4 items), Referred to the individual (3 items), Cosmic (7 items).
Psychodramatic theory: The basic assumptions, with the sub-categories: Spontaneity/creativity theory (17 items), Role theory (17 items), Tele-theory (15 items).
Specific clinical elements, with the sub-categories: Specifically activated mental functions (7 items); Specific elements of diagnosis, in turn subdivided into: Referred to roles (5 items), Referred to proto-roles (6 items); Specific change factors, in turn subdivided into: Intrapsychic factors (9 items), Interpersonal factors (8 items); Set-setting therapeutic factors, in turn subdivided into: Group factors (12 items) and Personal factors (6 items).
– Specific methodology, with the sub-categories: Setting, in turn subdivided into: Setting elements (6 items), Setting rules (5 items); Techniques, in turn subdivided into: Basic techniques (5 items), Structural techniques (8 items), Optional techniques (6 items), Process techniques (9 items); Application fields, in turn subdivided into: Professional areas (11 items), Recipients (11 items), Forms of application (9 items).
– Scientific research in psychodrama, with the sub-categories: Theoretical contributions (3 items); Specific tests, subdivided into: Outcome tests (2 items) and Process tests (1 item).

Integration
The Concept Map on the “Integration of psychodrama with other psychological and educational/training theories”  followed a different spatial distribution of the items from the previous Map since it was intended to present not a disciplinary categorisation but rather a list as orderly as possible of psychological and educational/training theories.
The map consists of five basic categories, each one comprising several sub-categories, consisting of approaches or theoretical contributions important to psychodrama, many of which were mentioned by the participants in the Small Groups dedicated to the topic during the FEPTO Meetings. In addition, for many of these theoretical and methodological approaches we added, for the purpose of a clearer presentation, the keywords that seemed indispensable to us in identifying them as well as the name(s) of the author(s).
The main categories included in this Map, with their sub-categories, are listed below.
– Psychological theories, with the following 9 sub-categories: humanistic psychology, Gestalt psychology, social and psychodynamic group psychology, relational psychoanalysis, evolutionary psychology, systemic relational theory, interpersonal neurological theories, group analysis, psychological functionalism.
– Educational-training theories, with 5 sub-categories: functional development theory, relational education, genetic epistemology, social learning theory, systems theory.
– Philosophical theories, with 5 sub-categories: phenomenology, Jewish philosophy, vitalist philosophy, philosophy of science, complexity theory.
Sociological theories: with only one category: sociopsychology.
– Psychotherapeutic approaches, with 14 sub-categories: interpersonal psychiatry, Jungian analytical psychology, Gestalt therapy, transactional analysis, systemic family therapies, existential psychotherapy, dialectical behavioural therapy, EMDR, schema therapy, emotional couple therapy, body-centred therapies, energy approaches, narrative and autobiographical therapies, new mind therapies.
– Contributions from scientific research, subdivided into theoretical contributions and outcome plus process tests.
We would like to reiterate that the structure and headings of both Maps are temporary: they are to be considered as suggestions, which need to be reflected upon and discussed by anyone who deems it useful to suggest changes, substitutions, additions and/or deletions.

  • Presentation of the two Conceptual Maps during the recent FEPTO Meeting and processing of a shared proposal in order to continue the work.

The 2018 FEPTO Annual Meeting was held in Pravetz, Bulgaria, from 13th to 17th June. The Program – distributed by the current Chairman, Nikos Takis, and by the Vice-Chairman, Krzysztof Ciepliński – contained an important new element in the approach to the work in Small Groups. Takis and Ciepliński arranged to announce three months before the meeting,  the topics on which the Small Groups would be working, asking members to join the Small Group of their choice. This made it possible to make the participants aware of the topics of the various Small Groups, which also included the topic of our research: “Theoretical and methodological specificity of psychodrama and integration with other psychological and educational-training theories.”
During the Annual Meeting, in the initial assembly session dedicated to theoretical presentations, we presented our work, with specific reference to the two Concept Maps, illustrating their contents and explaining the criteria followed for their construction. The presentation was followed with close attention and great active interest and garnered a  rewarding consensus for us.
Our work was then presented once again in greater detail and discussed in the following 4 Small Group sessions (each one lasting 90 minutes) dedicated to the twofold theme: specificity of psychodrama and its theoretical integration.
The task of collecting “key concepts” with reference to psychodramatic theory and methodology also continued during these sessions. However, once again, a sort of repetition occurred of the conceptual process that had characterised the previous Small Groups, indeed without being able to set up, as we would have wanted, a work of analysis and verification of the categories and subcategories that made up our Concept Maps.
During the last session of such work, the group of participants in the discussion focused on what could be the most appropriate ways of achieving what had been from the very beginning the main objective: to create a cultural platform on which psychodramatists and psychodrama practitioners would be able to compare their theoretical and methodological references, in order to have, as far as possible, a common language or at least a shared basic terminology.
On that occasion, taking up the old idea formulated during the RC Meeting in Innsbruck (2011), we suggested setting up a sort of Wikipedia of Psychodrama online, organised on the basis of the categories and subcategories present in the Concept Maps we had prepared, if necessary modified, revised and corrected. The suggestion was met with general approval.
Roger Schaller, a Swiss psychodramatist, took on the task of commissioning and selecting estimates for the computer programming needed to proceed with the project.

  • The next steps: checking and completing the Conceptual Maps and launching the online program.
    In the months following the Annual Meeting mentioned above, and based on the exchanges between psychodramatists that took place at that meeting and subsequently through some e-mails received from Nikos Takis (current FEPTO President) and others, we checked and edited several “items” in both Maps. Roger Schaller himself added a category that had been omitted in our Map on “Specificity”: that of “Application fields of psychodrama.”  We also added some categories, at the prompting of some speakers at our last Small Group, among them the one concerning the “Specific Philosophical Principles of Psychodrama,” the creation of which was rather troublesome.
    Indeed, as we all know, Moreno’s philosophy is based on  on mystical-humanistic approaches  and the ones, among his philosophical ideas, that we can consider “specific” only make sense if correlated with each other in the vision of man whose life was inspired by freedom, respect, the appreciation of diversity, trust in the cooperative will of man, and by the evolutionary power of spontaneity and creativity referring to all that is animate as well as inanimate in the entire universe.
    Lastly, we can also announce that in the last few months, Roger Schaller has been writing  first draft of an online platform called Psychodrama World, broken down into three major sections: 1) theory and techniques; 2) integration with other approaches; 3) fields of application. The draft platform will be discussed, developed, and revised based on our two Concept Maps during the Research Committee Meeting to be held in Padua in February 2019. In May of the same year, the platform will be presented during the FEPTO Annual Meeting in Tallinn (Estonia).
    The platform will probably be in English but it will also be equipped with software to facilitate its translation into the various local languages of the FEPTO institutes. The cost is expected to be around €5,000, to raise this sum, several solutions are being considered, including crowdfunding.

 A final thought
An initiative undertaken by us, four years ago with a certain casualness (the mantra was “let’s see where it takes us”) – moved by the desire to shake the apparent indifference of many FEPTO members towards the cultural aspects and “contents” of psychodramatic training, rather than inspired by the belief that we could achieve a real sharing regarding the psychodramatic theory and methodology – ended up reversing our expectationswe now truly believe that an attempt can be made towards a meaningful cultural exchange.
We are aware of the fact that we are not even halfway through the work; that so far, we have only laid down a basic framework for the work, albeit in a fairly credible and productive manner.
Whether or not the initiative will continue will depend on how and to what extent psychodramatists will want to verify and perfect the items in our Concept Maps and then “feed” them with personal contributions that an editorial board, yet to be established, will review for the online publication.
This in the best-case scenario. In the worst case, the two Concept Maps will remain as a guide to the theoretical and methodological identity of psychodrama, naturally always open to improvements, changes, and additions.
Again, in conclusion, we invite anyone who is part of the psychodrama community to contribute to the work of revising and completing the Maps and associated structures. On our part, we guarantee constant attention to the suggested changes and a timely update on any further steps towards the creation of the much-expected Wikipedia of Psychodrama.  ■

 

 

APPENDIX 1 – PSYCHODRAMA TRAINING QUESTIONNAIRE    

PROPOSAL 2015:

PSYCHODRAMA TEACHING IN THE MANYFOLD FEPTO WORLD

presented by the RC subgroup “Morenian identity, theory and methodology”.

Aims:     1) to make a survey research within the FEPTO Training Institutes on their curricula and essential didactic modalities, having care, later on, to spread that information around to all Training Institutes;

2) to stimulate the FEPTO Training Institutes to find ways for sharing theoretical and methodological items and problems, included the PD research ones, which can help to identify and strengthen a common Morenian identity.

 

Please, fill up the Questionnaire and send it to:
Paola de Leonardis: paoladeleonardis@fastwebnet.it

Marco Greco: marcomariagreco@katamail.com

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

QUESTIONNAIRE N. 1 – PSYCHODRAMA THEORY AND TECHNIQUES TEACHING  

Premise –   We are aware that the training FEPTO Institutes present a variety of teaching models and tools, and we think that this diversity is an asset for psychodrama (PD) development.
The present survey aims to know more about those models and tools, respecting and preserving free choices on how to teach as well as on what to teach inside the large field of PD.
In particular, this Questionnaire intends to collect some information regarding on the Institutes curricula (study plans) and on the teaching organization, possibly identifying some theoretical and methodological contents.

Name of the Training Institute

 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

City ……….…………………………………………………….   Country ……………………………………

 

Our Institute trains as
Psychodramatists for psychotherapy                Psychodramatists in other fields

□                                                            □

 

Date ………………………………………………………………

 

 

1 –  How does your Training Institute organize the teaching of PD theory? (multiple answers possible)

□  1a – Specific theoretical lectures for each of the 4 years course

□  1b – Specific theoretical lectures for some of the 4 years course

□  1c – Giving a bibliography

□  1d – Asking students for written papers

□  1e – Organizing group discussions on specific topics

□  1f –  Working on  recorded sessions of psychodrama

□  1g – During processing and/or group supervisions of PD sessions

□  1h – In other ways

Please, specify in which other ways:

 

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

2 – We have collected some basic PD theoretical topics. Do you agree on their importance inside PD theoretical teaching? And if you do, how are they taught in your institute?  (multiple answers possible).

 

Theoretical Topics         Not essential        Taught in specific           Taught
lesson                            in other ways 

 

Spontaneity/Creativity Theory             □                        □                                  □

 

Role theory                                       □                        □                                  □

 

Tele theory                                        □                        □                                  □

 

PD childhood development theory       □                         □                                 □

 

PD structure and functioning of personality   □                □                                 □

 

Morenian psychology of the groups          □                     □                                □

 

Group Dynamics                                    □                      □                                □

 

Basics of sociometry                                □                     □                                □

 

Basics of sociodrama                               □                      □                               □

 

Diagnostic orientation in psychodrama      □                       □                               □

 

Factors of change in psychodrama[8]        □                       □                               □

 

PD theory of the technique [9]                  □                        □                               □

 

Research in psychodrama: aims and tools    □                       □                               □

 

 

If you think it necessary, please add other important theoretical topics                                                                              

 

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

 

3 – How does your Training Institute organize the teaching of PD techniques? (multiple answers possible)

□  3a –  Specific front lectures

□  3b –  Specific object lessons

□  3c –  A mix of the two kinds of lessons

□  3d –  Organizing group discussions based on specific techniques

□  3e –  During practice supervisions and/or processing

□  3f –  Working on  recorded sessions of psychodrama

□  3g –  Other ways

Please, specify in which ways:

 

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

 

4- We have collected some basic PD techniques and technical topics. Do you agree on their importance inside PD teaching? And if you do, how are they taught in your institute?  (multiple answers possible).

 

Techniques and technical topics  Not essential   Taught in specific      Taught
lessons                     in other ways

4a – Structure of PD sessions             □                                □                            □

4b – Warm up techniques                   □                                □                            □

4c – Basic techniques: double, mirror, role reversing    □        □                            □

4d – Work with the protagonist            □                                □                            □

4e – Work with the whole group           □                                 □                           □

4f – Integration (balcony, plus reality scenes)     □                    □                           □

4g – Amplification                                  □                               □                          □

4h – Symbolic concretization (metaphor, sculptures)□                □                           □

4i – Symbolic realization                      □                                  □                           □

4j – Auxiliary chairs (empty chair, hot chair etc.) □                     □                          □

4l – Group Sociometry techniques       □                                   □                           □

4m Social atom / personal sociometry  □                                    □                         □

4n – Sociodrama techniques                □                                    □                         □

4o – Role-playing techniques               □                                    □                          □

4p- Role-training techniques                □                                    □                          □

4q – Sharing method                          □                                    □                          □

4r – Final verbal feedback method       □                                     □                          □

 

Please add other important techniques or technical topics,                                                              

 

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

 

 5 – Does your Institute have an obligatory/recommended bibliography (including books, articles papers, lecture notes, booklets, Institute material, online material, others)

 

                                         Yes                                                                No

                                          □                                                                    □

 

5a – If no

No, we do not use any kind of literature                No, students look for their own literature

□                                           □

 

5b – If yes               

Yes, only obligatory           Yes, only recommended          Yes, both obligatory and                                                                                                  recommended

□                                   □                                          □

 

6 – Does your bibliography include only PD literature or also non-PD literature?

      (“literature” here includes all published and online work)

 

                        Only PD literature                                     Also  non-PD literature

                                 □                                                                   □

             

 7 – What kind of literature do you use in your Institute for training purpose? (multiple answers possible)

                           

 Literature                                                      Obligatory                      Recommended                                                   

7a – Books (or part of) by Moreno                                  □                                  □

7b – Books (or part of) by other PD authors                     □                                 □

7c – PD Journals (or specialised journal articles)              □                                 □

7d – Papers on PD subjects                                             □                                 □

7e – Trainers’ lecture notes on PD subjects                       □                                 □

7f – Online material on PD subjects                                  □                                □

7g – Recorded PD sessions or subjects                              □                                □

7h – Other types of literature or material on PD subjects     □                                □

 

Please, specify which other type of literature or material used:

 

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

 

8 – How is the literature/material distributed throughout the 4 years course?

      □ as a list for the whole course                          □ in different lists for each/some of                                                                                     the course’s years

 9 – Are there any works academic of literature (books, articles, papers, lecture notes, booklets, online material, others) or other type of material that you consider to be the most useful ones in your PD teaching?

                                                        □   Yes                                         □   No

If yes, please specify which ones.  

           

1)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

2)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

3)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

4)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

5)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

 

 Do you use lecture notes/booklets or other type of material specifically prepared for the lessons?

□ No                                                     □ Yes

If yes:

 

10aOn which subjects?

 

1)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

2)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

3)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

 

11 – Do you use online material?

□   Yes                                                     □   No

 

11a – In your opinion, which are the most useful online references?

 

1)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

2)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

3)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

4)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

5)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

6)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

7)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

YOUR OBSERVATIONS ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Do you think that this Questionnaire can works for collecting significant data from FEPTO Training Institutes?

□ Yes                              □ Maybe                             □ No

 

Please, give us your opinions and suggestions:

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

 

APPENDIX 2. QUESTIONNAIRE ON FOCAL POINTS IN PSYCHODRAMA

FEPTO Research Committee: Survey by the Subgroup

 Morenian identity, theory and methodology

2nd STEP 2016-2018

Following our survey on PD training organization and contents between FEPTO Training Institutes (published on FEPTO News 2017), we are keen to know your expert opinion on some main items concerning contemporary Psychodrama.

This request has been sent to all FEPTO Training Institutes and eminent psychodramatists in Europe.

Below you will find some main items divided into 4 SECTIONS:

– Section 1 – Specificity of Psychodrama as a psychological or educational approach

– Section 2 – Integration of Psychodrama with other psychological or educational theories

– Section 3 – The three basic theoretical assumptions of Psychodrama

– Section 4 – Scientific research in Psychodrama

Please, choose at least one section and write down, preferably in English, Spanish, French, German, or Italian, your thought on the chosen items. You can also invite some of your colleagues and have her/him answering questions of another section.

  • Your contribution will be collected with others of the same section.
  • All contributions from ach section will be sent back to you for revision.
  • Finally, all collected material will be presented and used in FEPTO Research Committee and in Training Committee, and it will be sent to PD Journals in Europe, with the right to publish it.

 

We think that this procedure may be a good starting point to exchange theoretical and technical ideas. We consider this work to be an important step to reach a shared Psychodrama Glossary, useful for our PD Training Activity as well as creating a Common Thinking Plan.

 

 FOCAL POINTS ON PSYCHODRAMA

Section 1 – Specificity of Psychodrama as a psychological or educational approach

1a) Which aspect of contemporary Psychodrama interests you most, and which will you express a comment?
1b) In your opinion, what distinguishes contemporary Psychodrama considering the context of other modern psychological or educational disciplines?
1c) In your experience, do you think that the present Psychodrama literature meets PD training needs? What kind of new PD literature would you actually need?

Section 2 – Integration of Psychodrama with other psychological or educational theories

2a) Psychodrama theory is often integrated with other psychological disciplines: what do you think of this general trend, and what is the integration you use?
2b) What other theories/techniques/approaches do you include in your PD training?
2c) Freudian and Jungian Psychodrama is nowadays quite widespread. In your opinion, is the psychoanalytic model fully, partially, or not at all congruent with Morenian Classic Psychodrama? ­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Section 3 – The three basic assumptions of Psychodrama

3a) In your opinion, what is the importance of Morenian “spontaneity-creativity theory” inside contemporary Psychodrama and for what reasons?
3b) How important is the Morenian “role theory” inside contemporary Psychodrama and for what reasons?
3c) Along with the Morenian basic assumptions, can we speak of a “tele theory” and how important do you think it is in contemporary Psychodrama?

Section 4 – Scientific research in Psychodrama

4a) How important do you think research is for contemporary Psychodrama?
4b) Do you think that the scientific research applied to Psychodrama outcome and process
is a reliable one?
4c) What kind of research do you consider to be the most useful for the best diffusion
and reliability of Psychodrama? (please, answer considering your main application
field: psychotherapy, education, organizations, etc.).

 

NOTES

[1] The sub-group working on these topics included, among others: Marco Greco, Daniele Reggianini, Agnes Dudler, Anna Esposito, Melinda Meyer, Gabriela Moita, Ann Helleday.

[2] The group comprised: Gabriela Moita, Marco Greco, Ivan Fossati, Mari Rautiainen, Reijo Kauppila, Zoran Đurić, Tamara Cavic, Zsuzsa Marlok, Sirkka Varonen, Christian Stadler, Maria Silvia Guglielmin, Paola de Leonardis.

[3] Marineau R.F., Jacob Levi Moreno, 1889-1974 – Father of psychodrama, sociometry and group psychotherapy, Tavistock/Routledge, London-New York, 1989.

[4] Cf.: http://cristinaschmidt.com/blog-post/a-glossary-of-terms-in-psychodrama-and-sociometry/.

[5] http://www.psychodramacertification.org/docs/glossaryofterms.pdf

[6] http://centrozerkamoreno.net/it/Servizi/diccionario-de-psicodrama-y-sociodrama/

[7] http://www.lulu.com/shop/rosa-cukier/words-from-jacob-levi-moreno/paperback/product-2465888.html.

[8] For instance: group cohesion, group dynamics, self-expression, positive internal dialogue, catharsis effect, etc..

[9] Theory of the technique indicates “the theoretical basics of the main psychodramatic techniques” (i.e. double, mirror, role reversal, balcony, soliloquy, scene of desire – plus reality). For instance: the double is a PD basic technique, doubling is a primary communication function usually used by the caregiver with the newborn child.

Structure Map 1 Spec. EN.

map_PDspec_13_EN

Structure Map 2 Int. EN

map_PDint_13_EN