Resource Therapy (RT) vs. Internal Family Systems (IFS): A Comparative Analysis
As parts-based therapeutic models continue to gain recognition and take the therapy world by storm, two approaches have emerged as leaders in the field: Resource Therapy (RT) and Internal Family Systems (IFS).
Both methodologies recognise the multiplicity of the human mind and offer powerful tools for psychological healing. However, they differ significantly in theory, application, and outcomes. For psychologists, therapists and other mental health clinicians, understanding these differences can guide the choice of approach for optimising client outcomes.
So let’s explore some of the key differences and similarities between RT and IFS to help you determine which approach might best suit your practice. Parts therapy and the power work it offers is huge game changer and a lot of fun at times. Whatever floats your boat!
1. Theoretical Framework
IFS: Developed by Dr. Richard Schwartz, IFS views the psyche as an internal family system composed of parts categorised as “managers,” “firefighters,” and “exiles.” Central to IFS is the concept of the “Self,” a core, compassionate entity that can lead the internal system toward harmony. The model often involves identifying burdens carried by parts and helping them release these through unburdening techniques.
RT: Conceived by Professor Gordon Emmerson, RT identifies distinct “Resources, as personality parts” each with a specific role, such as protector, nurturer, or performer. The part is respectfully asked what it would like to be called. Unlike IFS, RT does not rely on a central “Self” but instead empowers individual Resources to fulfill their intended functions. RT emerges from the Ego State Therapy tradition, offering a well-established theoretical foundation with a lengthy history. It emphasizes action while acknowledging past trauma with a theory that underpins it and provides therapists with a clear roadmap of 15 RT actions to take to resolve trauma.
Comparison: While both models embrace the idea of internal multiplicity, IFS leans heavily on introspection and abstract concepts, whereas RT provides a straightforward, actionable framework. For clinicians seeking a clear and practical approach, RT is often the preferred choice.
2. Accessing Parts
IFS: Accessing parts in IFS often involves talking to many parts within internal environment for parts to emerge through exploratory techniques. This process can be time-intensive and may require strong reflective capacities from clients.
RT: RT excels in both short-term and long-term therapeutic settings. It works directly with the part holding pain or distress. Addressing the client’s presenting issue while incorporating attachment-focused strategies for holistic healing.
Unlike other methods, RT uniquely identifies and directly engages the active Resource in distress, offering compassion, acknowledgement, and empowerment with targeted interventions that result in rapid and meaningful progress. Its versatility ensures lasting impact across a wide spectrum of client needs. This leads to lasting results.
Comparison: IFS offers depth and exploration, while RT delivers speed and precision. Clients seeking transformative, evidence-based solutions will find RT particularly effective. Its structured and action-oriented approach not only addresses immediate concerns but also fosters deep, sustainable healing, making it an unparalleled choice for comprehensive care.
3. Addressing Client Issues
IFS: IFS often delves into the historical origins of parts, working to release the burdens they carry from past experiences. This approach fosters deep insight and emotional healing but may require extended sessions to achieve significant progress.
RT: RT works with the presenting issue and is centred on a client’s goals to address their needs using a variety of techniques. These may involve floating back to the original historical issue or working contemporarily. RT’s extensive framework includes a catalogue of ways states can be impacted, such as Vaded, Retro, Dissonant, Conflicted, or in normal condition. Tools like Retro State Negotiation ensure comprehensive and lasting change. Similar to unburdening, when our parts are free they can enjoy life, and we feel a sense of inner harmony.
Comparison: Both RT and IFS are ideal for clients seeking deep historical insight. RT’s Client values-focused approach to access these stories is better suited for clients prioritizing immediate, practical solutions.
4. Therapist Role and Client Empowerment
IFS: In IFS, the therapist acts as a guide, helping clients connect with their Self and create a safe space for parts to express themselves. This requires the client to take an introspective role, which may not suit all individuals. Sometimes clients find it hard to access and utilise the Self energy.
RT: The self is usually known as “inner strength” and is a form of a guidance system within or what the part names itself. It may be more of a nonjudgmental part offering wisdom as opposed to taking action.
RT therapists at times take on a more active role, guiding clients to directly interact with their Resources and equipping them with tools for resolution with respect and cooperation. RT emphasizes validating all parts, empowering clients to address challenges autonomously in future scenarios.
When we have the best Captain of our ship out on deck driving us in the direction we wish to go.
Comparison: RT provides a more structured, therapist-client facilitated approach, which can be especially beneficial for clients who feel overwhelmed or uncertain.
5. Practicality for Clinicians
IFS: Mastering IFS training can be confusing to navigate its complex framework and techniques. While rewarding, this can be a barrier for new practitioners or those with limited time.
RT: RT offers straightforward protocols that are easy to learn and implement. Its user-friendly structure allows clinicians to integrate RT seamlessly into existing practices, providing immediate value to their clients. RT’s Clinical Therapy Certification is 10 days and you can become an Advanced Clinician with a further 5 days of training. RT gets you up and running from your first training session.
Comparison: RT is more accessible for clinicians seeking an efficient, adaptable therapeutic model, while IFS may appeal to those with the time and resources to delve into its framework.
6. Outcomes and Applications
IFS: IFS is useful cases where clients benefit from exploring deep-seated trauma and achieving insight into their internal world. Its unburdening process is particularly effective for those with a strong reflective capacity.
RT: RT excels in addressing acute issues such as anxiety, trauma, and relational conflicts. Its focus on immediate problem-solving makes it ideal for clients seeking quick, tangible results.
Comparison: Both approaches deliver transformative outcomes, but RT’s practical focus makes it a standout choice for busy clinics and clients with pressing concerns. Rewriting the historical origins clears the path for other parts to take the wheel who have the skills and ability.
Choosing the Right Approach
While IFS and RT share a common goal of fostering internal harmony, their methods and applications differ significantly. For clinicians prioritising a straightforward, efficient, and action-oriented model, Resource Therapy offers unparalleled advantages. Its direct access to Resources, client solution-focused framework, and ease of integration make it a powerful tool for addressing a wide range of client needs.
Advance Your Practice with RT
If you’re ready to enhance your therapeutic practice, consider joining our Clinical Resource Therapy Training Program. Whether you prefer online sessions or an immersive Bali experience, our program equips you with the skills to transform lives.
Don’t miss out. Spaces filling fast.
Sign up today and discover how Resource Therapy can revolutionise your approach to client care.
