When I was invited to chair a discussion about an aspect of the conference theme for the 2025 World TA Conference in Montpellier, I decided to tackle the word “Legitimacy” as it affects TA professionals and clients worldwide.
I began by asking for input about what we mean by legitimacy and what is its value in our field.
Having started as a counter movement to psychoanalysis, the history of TA is that of being an outsider to what was considered legitimate in psychotherapy. Eric Berne gave two contrasting messages: we want TA to be accessible to all people, and we want transactional analysts to be seen as “real doctors.” Today, we have a journal that strives for recognition while fields of application multiply, each field with its own communities of standards.
In some countries and professions, being seen as a legitimate field of practice entitles transactional analysts to licensure, degrees, or other recognition, and in others it is simply a specialization to be combined with credentials earned in universities or other certifying agencies.
We began the discussion with comments by Emily Keller, a play therapist and play therapy supervisor, and Elvin Aydin Keles, a therapist who is serving as Director of Research and Innovation for ITAA. Among other topics, Emily spoke about the Certified Transactional Analyst designation defining legitimacy in TA circles, and Elvin brought in TA’s standing among other disciplines as identified by citations in related fields and journals.
A robust and varied conversation covered the following questions and many other reflections both internal and external to the world of TA.
Questions
What concerns about TA’s legitimacy are present in your country and / or field of practice?
How does legitimacy matter from the point of view of our clients and for people who are entering professional training?
What policies or practices increase or decrease TA’s legitimacy?
What can / should ITAA, EATA, other TA associations do to make TA legitimate, or more legitimate, in your field?
What forms does legitimacy take in different societies? Should TA be presented differently to be accepted in different contexts? How?
When do concerns about legitimacy block innovation? (For example, Eric Berne risked being ostracized to establish something new.) Are we seeing anything like that now?
What are your thoughts about legitimacy in TA as it relates to training, certification, literature, and service to clients? Please share your comments in the field below.
Lucy Freedman, MAT, CTA-P,E,O. President, ITAA Foundation
Perhaps naïvely, I thought we were past this. When I began in TA in 1970 or so, it was, as Eric reflected, a real concern for TA, Gestalt Therapy, Bioenergetics, and many others, even CBT when it started.
My thinking is that it is a non-issue. Recognition as “legitimate” from whatever today constitutes mainstream mental health practice doesn’t matter. The public sees TA as a legitimate resource, and that is all that matters.
Hi Ed. Thanks for your comment. The discussion raised questions about what is considered legitimate within TA as well as with the public, clients, and a variety of professions. Especially interesting when we were talking about it in different countries. I too was surprised to see Legitimacy as one of the theme words for the World Conference – clearly means it’s a concern for some folks. We may be “past this” in some of our own minds. Still doesn’t get you licensed to practice psychotherapy in the US. I would love to hear what indicators tell you that the public sees TA as a legitimate resource. The North America TA Association would like to believe that’s true, though we don’t see the level of interest in learning or applying TA we would expect. (my personal responses, Lucy)