Post by Maddie1 on Oct 18, 2015 18:47:33 GMT
I would argue that case studies are the form of research which best display psychotherapeutic practice. This is because, case studies tend to provide detailed information about what occurs between therapist and client in the therapeutic encounter. This information is an excellent way of demonstrating to a broad spectrum of individuals and groups the ways in which psychotherapy is conducted in practice. These individuals and groups include other psychotherapists, trainee psychotherapists, legislative bodies and members of the general public. Examples of psychotherapeutic practice being well displayed in case study form are Dibs by Virginia Axline (1971) and Loves Executioner by Irvin Yalom (1989). According to McLeod (2010) these texts represented ‘[…] a significant impact on how the general public makes sense of therapy’ (3).
It is argued by some members of the psychotherapeutic community that the realities of psychotherapeutic practice are distorted by certain forms of research such as Randomised Controlled Trials:
‘[…] the main problem with the application of the RCT methodology is that the kind of therapy carried out in these studies can bear little relationship to the real world of therapeutic practice.’ (Vossler and Moller, 2015, 8)
This is in contrast to case studies which are arguably as close to the real world of psychotherapeutic practice as it is possible for research to be. As such, they are a good means of displaying psychotherapeutic practice:
’Case studies represent a methodology that is particularly sensitive to aspects of the therapy process that are hard to investigate using other methods: the relationship between therapeutic processes and the social and organisational context within which therapy takes place; the complex interplay between a wide range of potentially relevant processes and factors; the unfolding of a change process over time.’ (McLeod, Thurston & McLeod, 2015, 200)
I have a personal preference for research that takes the form of an adjudicated case study. Bohart, Berry & Wicks (2011) define this type of research well in the following quote:
‘The adjudicational method is a single case method. It was originally developed (e.g., Bohart & Humphreys, 2000) as an alternative to the randomized controlled trial model utilized in empirically supported treatments (ESTs) research (Task Force, 1995), because we believed it fit the nature of humanistic psychotherapy better. The adjudicational method is based on the metaphor of a jury trial. In a trial, jurors have a whole case record to use. They look for patterns in the evidence that lead them to make judgments that the client is guilty or not in a criminal trial, or liable for damages in a civil trial.
As applied to psychotherapy, the idea is to present individuals who act as jurors with a sufficiently rich case record and to ask them to comb it for evidence in order to answer two basic questions: (a) did the client change, and (b) if so, is there evidence that psychotherapy caused or contributed to the change?’ (Bohart, Berry & Wicks, 145, 2011)
I believe that adjudicated case studies, when used well, can display psychotherapeutic practice accurately whilst also providing robust research data in a manner which respects the inherent nature of psychotherapy.
References:
Bohart, Berry & Wicks (2011) ‘Developing a Systematic Framework for Utilizing Discrete Types of Qualitative Data as Therapy Research Evidence’ published in ‘Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy’ Volume 7, Module 1, Article 9, pp. 145-155 [accessed on 15/10/15 at pcsp.libraries.rutgers.edu/index.php/pcsp/article/viewFile/1076/2518]
McLeod, J (2010) ’Case Study Research in Counselling and Psychotherapy’ Sage, London
McLeod, J Thurston, M & McLeod, J in Vossler, A and Moller, N (2015) ‘The Counselling and Psychotherapy Research Handbook’ Sage, London
Vossler, A and Moller, N (2015) ‘The Counselling and Psychotherapy Research Handbook’ Sage, London
It is argued by some members of the psychotherapeutic community that the realities of psychotherapeutic practice are distorted by certain forms of research such as Randomised Controlled Trials:
‘[…] the main problem with the application of the RCT methodology is that the kind of therapy carried out in these studies can bear little relationship to the real world of therapeutic practice.’ (Vossler and Moller, 2015, 8)
This is in contrast to case studies which are arguably as close to the real world of psychotherapeutic practice as it is possible for research to be. As such, they are a good means of displaying psychotherapeutic practice:
’Case studies represent a methodology that is particularly sensitive to aspects of the therapy process that are hard to investigate using other methods: the relationship between therapeutic processes and the social and organisational context within which therapy takes place; the complex interplay between a wide range of potentially relevant processes and factors; the unfolding of a change process over time.’ (McLeod, Thurston & McLeod, 2015, 200)
I have a personal preference for research that takes the form of an adjudicated case study. Bohart, Berry & Wicks (2011) define this type of research well in the following quote:
‘The adjudicational method is a single case method. It was originally developed (e.g., Bohart & Humphreys, 2000) as an alternative to the randomized controlled trial model utilized in empirically supported treatments (ESTs) research (Task Force, 1995), because we believed it fit the nature of humanistic psychotherapy better. The adjudicational method is based on the metaphor of a jury trial. In a trial, jurors have a whole case record to use. They look for patterns in the evidence that lead them to make judgments that the client is guilty or not in a criminal trial, or liable for damages in a civil trial.
As applied to psychotherapy, the idea is to present individuals who act as jurors with a sufficiently rich case record and to ask them to comb it for evidence in order to answer two basic questions: (a) did the client change, and (b) if so, is there evidence that psychotherapy caused or contributed to the change?’ (Bohart, Berry & Wicks, 145, 2011)
I believe that adjudicated case studies, when used well, can display psychotherapeutic practice accurately whilst also providing robust research data in a manner which respects the inherent nature of psychotherapy.
References:
Bohart, Berry & Wicks (2011) ‘Developing a Systematic Framework for Utilizing Discrete Types of Qualitative Data as Therapy Research Evidence’ published in ‘Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy’ Volume 7, Module 1, Article 9, pp. 145-155 [accessed on 15/10/15 at pcsp.libraries.rutgers.edu/index.php/pcsp/article/viewFile/1076/2518]
McLeod, J (2010) ’Case Study Research in Counselling and Psychotherapy’ Sage, London
McLeod, J Thurston, M & McLeod, J in Vossler, A and Moller, N (2015) ‘The Counselling and Psychotherapy Research Handbook’ Sage, London
Vossler, A and Moller, N (2015) ‘The Counselling and Psychotherapy Research Handbook’ Sage, London
