A question was recently raised in our Facebook group about the difference between integrative and eclectic counselling. There is much debate on this in the counselling and psychotherapy profession.

Both approaches combine different modalities of therapy; Rory and Ken use the analogy of cooking to illustrate how they view the differences between integrative and eclectic counselling.

In integrative therapy, the client would not be able to spot the ‘joins’ between modalities – this is rather like combining a number of ingredients into a particular culinary dish.

Of course, this may or may not turn out to taste good. The chance of it tasting good is likely to be greater if the cook is reflective and has experience. Some counselling courses are integrative, and will train you in how to blend the various modalities that you are taught.

In eclectic therapy, the client would be able to detect that different approaches were being used – this is rather like presenting a selection of raw ingredients. This approach may be adopted by a therapist who has trained in one modality but has then gone on to add others at a later stage.

A third approach – which is receiving a lot of attention currently – is pluralistic counselling, which is about offering a range of approaches and supporting the client to choose which of these they would like to try.

If you feel drawn to add other modalities to your existing one(s), you may like to reflect on what draws you to do this, and the extent to which their underlying philosophies are consistent with each other.

Rory has produced a handout on the advantages and disadvantages of the integrative approach. You can download this here, or via the Counselling Study Resource (CSR). We also have an article on integrative and eclectic counselling on our website.