Science ought to inform one’s positions and the perspective one is advocating for, not be used as a political weapon. However, it seems today that science has too often been co-opted for self-serving purposes. This, I believe, is too often the case in the outcome therapy debates in psychotherapy.
For many years I have maintained that this debate of “who’s best” is quite adolescent and not very appropriate for professional dialog. In particular, my concern is that we have been too focused on the self-serving debate of whose approach is best and not focused enough on how to work within the various approaches to make them more effective in meeting the diverse needs of our clients. This debate is a distraction that does not serve clients and does not serve the professional community.
As I have discussed in this blog series, there is plenty sufficient evidence to, at the least, cause one to seriously question the superiority of any approach to therapy. So why does the debate continue? I believe it is more about power, control, and job security than science or protecting the profession, as is often claimed. Certainly, there are some approaches to therapy, such as rebirthing and conversion therapy, that have caused harm and warrant strong suspicion. However, one is very hard-pressed to find any evidence that the majority of psychotherapy approaches cause harm. In reality, some therapists from all the different theoretical orientations cause harm. This merely suggests that any approach to therapy can be misused and cause harm.
Obviously, a personal benefit exists in being able to say that one’s approach to therapy is superior to others. To name a few, it provides better access to managed care/insurance panels, creates job security, creates openings for academic positions, and increases access to research grant money. These are strong incentives to engage in political rhetoric about the superiority of one’s approach and to wage science in an effort to bolster this position. It provides incentive to develop research to support one’s view of the superiority of their approach. Outcome research is often done by individuals with a vested interest in a particular outcome. As an example, much of the research comparing the effectiveness of medication versus psychotherapy has been supported by pharmaceutical companies. The researcher’s paycheck is part of an investment, quite literally. In other instances, individuals that practice a particular therapy orientation often are the same individuals that compare its effectiveness to other approaches. It is not surprising that the approach they advocate for often is shown to be superior.
Any time we explore a position on outcome literature, we need to take a look at the motivations, implicit and explicit. We need to consider where the funding is coming from. We need to consider other pressures that may influence how the research study is designed and how the outcomes are interpreted. This is one of the many reasons why I have more respect for the research done by individuals such as Bruce Wampold, who did not have an invested interest in how the research came out. And his research has suggested that the various therapy modalities tend to be equally effective. In the large majority of outcome research comparing the effectiveness of different modalities, there is a very clear vested interested in finding the superiority of one approach.
Even with reviews such as this blog series, one should consider the motivations and contexts. As is evident, I am invested in demonstrating that existential psychology is a valid approach to psychotherapy that produces good outcomes. Little doubt, this impacts my motivation for writing this and how I write this blog series. But I am also invested in recognizing the value of different approaches to psychotherapy. I consider myself a scientist, a philosopher, and a critical thinker. All of these identities impact the way I view the world and professional issues. I pride myself in being passionate, yet not trying to privilege my position or values over others. It is my hope that this intent, to not privilege my views, helps me take a more balanced approach to reviewing this topic. In the end, it is necessary for these ideas, too, to be critiqued.
When you look at many of the narrowly-defined scientific paradigms, they are not open to such scrutiny. They will accept critiques coming from new science, but they discount external critiques of the basis of how they understand science. I am sure that what I write in this blog series means little to them. It is simply another unscientific threat to science. I think this is unfortunate, especially in a country that produced great scientists of the likes of William James and Albert Einstein; individuals who truly engaged in a broad based approach to scholarship and science, who try to extend the limits of science, and who recognized the limitations of their own work.
In march 2010 the 'British Journal of Psychiatry' will publish an article about the publication bias in psychotherapy and depression (by Cuijpers). The facts: only the positive outcome studies about psychotherapy and depression are published. The same thing as we learned a couple of months ago: about depression and antidepressive medication. Now it's the same for psychotherapies... Will it be especially about CBT who receives a lot of money to publish their studies?
The researchers claim that psychotherapy is over-estimated in depression, because of that publication bias. For the moment you can only read an announcement of the study in Dutch: http://www.vu.nl/nl/nieuws-agenda/nieuws/2010/jan-mrt/effecten-van-psychotherapie-bij-depressie-overschat.asp
Posted by: Miek | February 24, 2010 at 02:38 PM