The American Massage Therapy Association has put out the call for Subject Matter Experts (SME) in the field of myofascial release.
A statement on their website says: “As part of AMTA’s longtime commitment to provide massage therapists with ongoing education opportunities, it is seeking Instructors and Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to assist in developing a comprehensive continuing education program for massage therapy in the area of myofascial release. SMEs will be expected to conduct research and review the existing literature to determine the knowledge and skills required for the area and to develop the content for the printed materials and for the face-to-face component of the continuing education program. ”
While I applaud any efforts towards furthering the causes of research and education, and AMTA has many, I do have a couple of questions about this initiative. Since the MTBOK is a project in progress, and the NCBTMB has their advanced certification project in progress, I am wondering at the timing and motivation behind this. Are they trying to give the NCB a run for their money? Since AMTA doesn’t currently approve CE providers, that seems like a stretch.
However, it’s not a stretch to see that the logical outcome is ultimately a certification of some sort. Defining a body of KSAs is usually done with credentialing of some sort in mind. Furthermore, why choose myofascial release? I don’t have anything against it, but why have they singled out that modality? According to a source at the NCB, the comments that have come in so far about the advanced cert project have been overwhelmingly in favor of an advanced certification in oncology massage, not myofascial release.
I also wonder what this means to the CE providers who currently teach myofascial release, since one assumes that some of them are AMTA members, and some are not. If you’re a member, and you don’t sign on as one of AMTA’s instructors, does that put you in direct competition with your own organization?
Subject Matter Experts are asked to reply by January 15. They apparently want to get this show on the road. Directions for applying are on the website.
Peace & Prosperity,
Laura Allen
December 30th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
I’m a little confused. So does that mean they are looking for volunteers to create comprehensive CE in myofascial work that the AMTA can then sell–and compete with what other members have already done? Why not help members promote what has already been created?
December 31st, 2009 at 5:22 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by massagemag, Laura Allen and Laura Allen, Laura Allen. Laura Allen said: What is AMTA Thinking? http://massagemag.com/massage-blog/massage-collage/2009/12/29/amta-calls-for-subject-matter-experts/ [...]
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The comment’s server IP (208.74.66.43) doesn’t match the comment’s URL host IP (74.112.128.10) and so is spam.
December 31st, 2009 at 7:04 am
Has anyone asked AMTA?
December 31st, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Liz Lucas won’t answer these questions for you?
December 31st, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Good points, Laura. “Myofascial release” has been as “hot” as hot stones a few years back. Of course, its meaning is a bit amorphous and it is not really a longstanding, trademarked specialty so anyone can claim to practice it as far as I know. In fact, in the real world, I don’t see there as being much meaning in half the terms that are used to market massage services. I guess it is supposed to be different from Neuromuscular Therapy, but who really knows what that is, either
My point is that we are offering services that the public has no way of differentiating, and for which there may not be meaningful, standard definitions. Perhaps AMTA is seeking to standardize a definition of “Myofascial Release” just to see if it can be done.
In real practice, most of us combine a whole lot of different styles and modalities, don’t we? At least that’s what the curriculum was like when I went to school. And, unless I’m missing something, sometimes we don’t even really know when we are doing something from one particular modality or another. Comment?
January 8th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
I wouldn’t read too much into this current Amta action. It, to me, is the logical next step for that org.
I have long felt that with their long sustained push for licensing was more for the benefit of the schools, not for the practitioner.
With the spin off of their COS, and their rejection of their own NCE, they can now focus on providing more services to their practicing membership.
Maybe in the future, they will return to their original roots and rename the org to fit. The started as the American Association of Masseurs and Masseuses.
Maybe they will become the American Association of Massage Therapists.
The Rev
January 8th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
and of course, since CEU’s are required by many states, Amta could easily become an accepted provider having to meet state requirements rather than NCE or other org requirements for CEU’s.
The Rev