Some time ago, I wrote about an experience I had – a session of Emotional Freedom Technique. This was something I hadn’t heard about until my friend Alex started to study it. I chose a new keyword for this posting – Alternative Approaches – and even as I chose the keyword I recognised that this heading begs the simple question: what is an alternative approach? Today, sitting in the lounge at Heathrow Airport, I am taking some time to respond to this question. I offer no prior research – simply an opinion.

As I understand it, the word “alternative” when applied to all sorts of approaches, is used as an alternative to “mainstream”. The primary issue here seems to be one of acceptance: is an approach accepted. This in turn begs the question: who by? I think of questions of power – would it be true to say that mainstream approaches are those approaches which are recognised by those sections of society which are most powerful? However, the question of what constitutes power is a subtle one. Instead, I opt to describe the mainstream as a tide of culture which is in some way recognised and endorsed.

It’s easy, when discussing alternative and mainstream approaches, to jump to the conclusion that those approaches which are seen as mainstream are those which scientists have tested and endorsed. There is much to discuss here and much to dispute. In the field of leadership in which I work, one approach that has passed into the mainstream via academic research is the use of competencies to identify those characteristics which differentiate the most outstanding leaders. Whilst this approach is largely taken for granted now, it was originally an alternative to the prevailing idea that testing for IQ (intelligence quota) was the best way to recruit for leadership potential. It was the research of David McClelland and his colleagues which showed this widely accepted (“mainstream”) approach to be based on assumptions which were, in fact, inaccurate. Because of McClelland’s research, testing for competencies, still an alternative approach 30 years ago, has gradually become mainstream.

At the same time, scientists can be blind to evidence when it does not fit prior theories or when they struggle to explain it. Fresh from participating in a training in Transcendental Meditation (TM) I am struck by an anecdote which I had heard prior to attending the training and which I heard again whilst I was there. Some years ago, a large group of meditators spent some time meditating in Washington D.C. with the express aim of reducing crime rates. The Chief of Police was highly sceptical, predicting that it would take six feet of snow to have this effect. Still, the scientists who had been lined up to study the data had to concede that yes, crime rates did go down. A paper was written but only published some time after the event in a peer-reviewed journal, accompanied by a rather apologetic addendum. The research that supports the use of Transcendental Meditation to achieve all sorts of positive outcomes is now extensive. Has it (as yet) become a mainstream approach? No.

In what sense then, do I use the term “alternative approach” on this blog? I aim to use it entirely without prejudice, recognising the many and varied approaches that can make a difference in people’s lives. Perhaps an underlying belief that I hold, which may mark me out from the mainstream, is that far more is possible than we often imagine. The myriad of approaches available to us serve to highlight – should we choose to be aware – just what possibilities exist. In this sense, an alternative approach is simply an option and every approach to which I gave airtime on this blog is an option – an alternative approach.