Science and Psychotherapy

Abstract

Being a psychotherapist involves the development of a reflexive capacity to draw on diverse sources of knowledge, including personal, practical, and research-based ways of knowing. The professional status and accountability of psychotherapy require that it take seriously the need to be research informed. Although a substantial amount of psychotherapy research is carried out and published each year, it has had a limited impact on practice. This paper examines issues and challenges associated with the task of creating reliable scientific evidence around the process and outcomes of psychotherapy. It is suggested that the key principles for the conduct of science, as identified by philosophers of science, call for a collective approach organized around a research community that embraces a critical approach to theory accompanied by flexibility around method. The implications of these principles for psychotherapy research are discussed in relation to strategically significant aspects of contemporary psychotherapy research. The paper concludes by offering some suggestions for making the most effective use of the research resources available to the psychotherapy profession.

A Pluralistic Perspective on Research in Psychotherapy: Harnessing Passion, Difference and Dialogue to Promote Justice and Relevance

“…Because therapy research is fragmented into sub-communities (e.g. groups who study psychodynamic therapies, or CBT, or humanistic therapies), most research reports are only read by those who are already broadly predisposed to agree with what is being reported (McLeod, 2017). In addition, major groups of possible stakeholders who might have a view on the findings of a study, such as practitioners and clients, rarely or never read research papers.…”

How patients and clinicians experience the utility of a personalized clinical feedback system in routine practice

“…Researchers and policymakers point to the benefits of using routine outcome measures/clinical feedback systems (ROM/CFS, hereafter termed clinical feedback) in the treatment of mental illness. McLeod (2017, p. 93) argued that alongside mindfulness interventions, CFS represents “… the most significant innovation in therapy practice within the past 20 years.” Most studies of clinical feedback have demonstrated that it has positive effects on therapy outcomes compared to treatment as usual (Brattland et al, 2018; Carlier et al, 2012; Delgadillo et al, 2018; Gondek, Edbrooke‐Childs, Fink, Deighton, & Wolpert, 2016; Knaup, Koesters, Schoefer, Becker, & Puschner, 2009; Lambert, Whipple, & Kleinstäuber, 2018; Østergård, Randa, & Hougaard, 2018). The superior effects of clinical feedback seem to depend on the quality of its implementation and clinical use.…”