Beyond directive or nondirective: Moving the conversation forward.

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to examine the "directive versus nondirective" debate in the play therapy field and propose the field move beyond this divisive issue to more fruitful discussions. The authors explore the context of this debate, reasons for aligning with a specific play therapy approach, and issues with selecting a single approach. Better questions for the field of play therapy to consider are proposed and discussed. Implications of shifting the focus from the "directive versus nondirective" debate onto the proposed areas are explored.

Therapeutic presence in play therapy.

“…Specific and structured interventions can assist with therapeutic goals, as will be illustrated in the case illustration of Eddy and Tim. Rather than the dichotomy of “being” versus “doing,” both are of value, especially when the “doing” emerges from the “being” (Kenney-Noziska, Schaefer, & Homeyer, 2012).…”

Is Individual Child Play Therapy Effective?

“…There are many different forms of play therapy. Play therapies are often categorized as either nondirective (Lebo, 1953) or directive (Leggett & Boswell, 2017) in approach, though some models employ both nondirective and direct components (Efron, 1981; Kenney-Noziska, Schaefer, & Homeyer, 2012). There are many named models of play therapy, including child-centered play therapy (CCPT), Theraplay, cognitive behavioral play therapy, sandtray, and others.…”

Using integrated directive and nondirective play interventions for abused and traumatized children.

“…(p. 4). Several authors have advocated for integration, blending, and incorporating approaches and techniques (Drewes, Bratton, & Schaefer, 2011;Gil, 2006;Kenney-Noziska, Schaefer, & Homeyer, 2012;Shelby & Felix, 2005). However, each of these approaches differs in its choices and use of techniques as determined by its theoretical foundation.…”