Abstract
This article presents several issues that relate to the limitations of the innovative practice of nature therapy. Drawing on examples from practice, it separates physical and psychological limitations and suggests ways in which the limitations of a framework can be bypassed, turning weakness into strength.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barkan, A.
( 2002 ). Different faces of the setting. Sihot-Dialogue , The Israel Journal of Psychotherapy , 17 , 39 -46 .
2.
Berger, R.
( 2007 ). Nature therapy: Developing a framework for practice . Unpublished doctoral dissertation , University of Abertay , Dunde , Scotland.
3.
Berger, R.
, &
McLeod, J.
(2006 ). Incorporating nature into therapy: A framework for practice . Journal of Systemic Therapies , 25 (2 ), 80 -94 .
4.
Bleger, J.
( 1967 ). Psycho-Analysis of the psychoanalytic frame . International Journal of Psychoanalysis , 48 , 511 -519 .
5.
Cutcliffe, J.R.
( 2003 ). Reconsidering reflexivity: Introducing the case for intellectual entrepreneurship . Qualitative Health Research , 13 , 136 -148 .
6.
Hertz, R.
(Ed.). (1997 ). Reflexivity and voice . Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage .
7.
McLeod, J.
( 2003 a). An introduction to counselling . Buckingham , UK: Open University .
8.
McLeod, J.
( 2003 b). Doing counselling research . London : Sage .
9.
Reason, P.
( 1998 ). Human inquiry in action . London : Sage
10.
Yalom, I.D.
( 2002 ). The gift of therapy . New York : HarperCollins .