Talk:Structural Integration

message: Was this article written by a SI practitioner? It has a major favorable bias.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.141.22 (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

message: The section is wrong in tone - when it starts referring to "we" etc. If it has been released under a license which means wikipedia can use it (either PD or GFDL) then this needs to be shown, or a release sent to wikimedia. See Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission and particularly Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#When_permission_is_confirmed --81.104.39.44 (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright 

message: I am NOT commenting here on the comment of "major favorable bias" above in this discussion, which admittedly deserves its own analysis.
the bias I uncover here is internal to the Structural Integration (SI) family: the article is particularly tainted with IASI (and KMI) spin.
The relationship between schools of Structural Integration (SI), and the IASI is **NOT** akin to that for example between Massage Therapy Schools and accrediting organizations such as the American Massage Therapy Association which accredits schools of Massage Therapy. Reference established long standing schools of Structural Integration such as the Rolf Institute and the Guild for Structural Integration (both reputed to stay close to the original teachings of Dr. Rolf) do not in any way endorse the IASI. The IASI does not accredit any school. It merely lists a list of schools, which graduates it accepts to offer membership. The Kinesis Myers Institute (KMI) has been instrumental in the creation of the IASI. Ever since, the KMI training has gained much visibility as a legitimate Structural Integration training, as a result of the creation of the IASI. It should have been up to the first round of Dr. Ida Rolf disciples to set accreditation standards for schools (not individual for practitioners), in order to preserve the integrity of the original teachings. But the Rolf Institute's brand never went that way (Rolfing) and has been at odds with even more purist trainings such as the Guild for Structural Integration.
On one hand Structural Integration is a descriptive term of an intention, so admittedly, SI can evolve, in several directions, and already has (Hellerwork more psychologically oriented, KMI exploring theories on the fascia unfortunately without the level of scientific standards Ida Rolf's research was formulated and scientifically published, etc.). The way SI is allowed to evolve today in the eyes of the public without regard to the ones who know best what the original Structural Integration is supposed to be, looks and feels like rather ironic. Yet at the same time, I personally think there are some objective directions trainings could explore without changing the essence, without changing the original 10-series format. For ex: Myofascial Dysfunction Syndrome (Trigger Points), based largely on the synthesis research work of Dr. Janet Travell, who was President Kennedy's Doctor at one time (not to confuse with her therapeutic approach which was not very effective with President Kennedy). Some people seem serious about figuring out why and how working on the fascia very effectively affects muscles ( http://www.fasciacongress.org , which includes the participation of Rolf/Structural Integration professionals ). Such progresses, given a chance, could potentially decisively help reduce the tendency of some SI practitioners to work too deep, still bent on the old narrow fascia-only focus inherited from Dr. Rolf (groundbraking and historically remarkably useful, but historically also: dangerously narrow); such evolutions could help refine the quality of touch of future Structural Integrators; for instance: distinguishing between fast muscular tissue changes under manipulations, from much slower fascial changes, in the absence of such distinctions, powerful hands may go too far too easily, seeking fast changes in areas that should not be so challenged (avoiding cracking ribs and such). Yet that is not the kind of evolution we see; classical teachings have toned down the pressure levels over the years, but they still do not know how to explain why in scientific terms, they just know too many practitioners were hurting people back in the "Kamikaze Rolfing" days (1970's and before). Defacto, we just witness a leveling down of the kinds of scientific or technical standards being accepted within the Structural Integration body of written references. For instance some very imaginative theories (Anatomy Trains) of Tom Myers, KMI founder, and ex president/co founder of the IASI.
Arguably, the IASI has served some positive purposes. Particularly the ability for graduates of other schools to be identified as Structural Integrators. However, graduates of any of the school cannot be controlled as to what they practice, and some schools even offer trainings with other emphasis besides Structure (Hellerwork, with more psychological processing, but with still the ability for students to practice the 10 basic series structural format). The IASI would like everyone to believe they are the one legitimate "umbrella organization", while on the field, it depends what one considers legitimate Structural Integration (classical, versus branched out, and even modified). Such is probably the reason why graduates of various schools try to emphasize what their particular version is (The "Rolf method of SI" for classical practitioners, the Hellerwork Method of SI, the KMI method of SI, etc.). Perhaps a well rounded article could similarly mirror those distinctions...
Just to say, there is definitely an IASI spin on this article, barely hiding a KMI conflicting interest, which does not serve the public very well about Structural Integration, its roots, what is considered classical (and why), versus the kinds of evolutions we see in teachings.
97.118.8.109 (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Things To consider in Terms of Bias and Neutrality (NPOV)