Post by Maddie1 on Oct 8, 2015 19:58:16 GMT
My views about research conducted under the auspices of various professional bodies relates to the quality of the research conducted by these bodies and the potential for misrepresentation of research outcomes in order that products, services and/or ideologies may be ‘sold’ to the public. A useful definition of a professional body is as follows:
‘A professional association (also called a professional body, professional organization, or professional society) is usually a nonprofit organization seeking to further a particular profession, the interests of individuals engaged in that profession and the public interest.’ (wikipedia)
One example of such a body is The British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies (BABCP). On their website, this professional body explains that ‘The aim of BABCP is to promote the theory and practice of behavioural and cognitive therapy. One of the ways we do this is to fund research […]’
It can be argued that there is a conflict of interest with regards to the research conducted by this professional body. This is because research results that demonstrate ways in which behavioural and cognitive psychotherapies have not been effective would not promote the theory and practice of the approach. Such research would therefore not support the agenda of this professional body.
Another example of a professional body’s relationship to research is that of The British Association for the Person-Centred Approach (BAPCA). The BAPCA’s website states that they are ‘[…] an organisation that embraces and promotes the person-centred way-of-being.’ Again, unsurprisingly, like the BABCP they have a clear agenda. The research page on their website is somewhat out of date, with the last meeting of their research group being listed as November 2013. There is however, a call on their website for individuals ‘[…] to participate in a study aiming to increase awareness of the Person Centred Approach in relation to working with more severe psychological conditions.’ The apparent aim of this research is therefore to highlight and promote the suitability of person-centred psychotherapy as a method for treating severe psychological conditions.
Again, this raises the issue of a potential conflict of interest between the aims of the professional body and the research project being undertaken by one of its members. It is a question of what the BAPCA would do if that particular research study ultimately demonstrated that person-centred psychotherapy was not an effective as method for treating severe psychological conditions. Would they be willing to share these results with the public even though this would not be a good way of achieving their aim of promoting a person-centred way-of-being?
It is of course totally possible that both of the above professional bodies would and do maintain high ethical standards in relation to research conducted by their members. High ethical standards in this instance would mean that the professional body is interested in, and willing to share with the public, not only in the successes of their approach as highlighted by research but the limitations or contradictions that might be uncovered (Bond, 2015).
According to Mearns, Thorne and McLeod (2013) research into client-centred counselling conducted under Carl Rogers is an example of a time when such ethical standards were adhered to: ‘[…] the client-centred group always invited the involvement of research consultants from different therapy traditions. They tried to understand therapy outcome and process from as many perspectives as possible (the client, the therapist, external observers). They were interested in understanding what was happening in cases where therapy was not effective. They were genuinely interested in following the data where it led them, rather than viewing research as a means of ‘selling a product.’ (183)
Unfortunately, there are some persuasive arguments to suggest that research conducted under the auspices of professional bodies often is not unbiased or free of researcher allegiance:
‘Indeed, on the basis of Luborsky et al’s data, Westen and colleagues (2004) calculate that, in more than nine out of ten instances, the results of a comparative trial can be predicted by knowing the researchers’ allegiances alone.’ (Cooper, 2012, 47).
Furthermore, Coyne and Niels Kok (2014) argue forcefully that researcher allegiance and conflicts of interest are big problems in the field of psychotherapy research:
‘[… research in psychotherapy is] too heavily depend on underpowered, flawed studies conducted by investigators with strong allegiances to a particular treatment or to finding that psychotherapy is in general efficacious.’ (110)
According to Coyne and Niels Kok (2014), positive results are frequently ‘cherry picked’ by professional bodies in order to support their cause. They point to the conflict of interest that may exist when researchers are relying on positive outcomes of research in order to sell their services as therapists.
Having a good working knowledge of the realities of research within psychotherapy is clearly important. If we know that research data can be manipulated by professional bodies (either knowingly or unknowingly), we can be wary of this and endeavour to check the credibility of the research we use to inform our professional practice. It is of course deeply concerning that an average member of the public seeking therapy may not be equipped with this knowledge and may be sold a treatment by a professional body on the basis of low quality research.
Bond, T (2015) in ‘The Counselling and Psychotherapy Research Handbook’ Sage, London [Edited by Vossler, A and Moller, N: 2015]
Cooper, M (2012) ‘Essential Research Findings in Counselling and Psychotherapy; The Facts are Friendly’ Sage, London
Coyne, C and Niels Kok, J (2014) 'Salvaging Psychotherapy Reseach: A Manifesto’ [accessed on 08/10/15 at www.researchgate.net/publication/266020903_Salvaging_psychotherapy_research_A_manifesto]
Mearns, D, Thorne, B and McLeod, J (2013) 'Person-Centred Counselling in Action' Sage, London [ed. Dryden, W]
Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_association [accessed on 08/10/15]
BABCP reference: www.babcp.com/Membership/Research-Fund.aspx [accessed on 08/10/15]
BAPCA reference: www.bapca.org.uk/blog/751-research-participants-required.html [accessed on 08/10/15]
‘A professional association (also called a professional body, professional organization, or professional society) is usually a nonprofit organization seeking to further a particular profession, the interests of individuals engaged in that profession and the public interest.’ (wikipedia)
One example of such a body is The British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies (BABCP). On their website, this professional body explains that ‘The aim of BABCP is to promote the theory and practice of behavioural and cognitive therapy. One of the ways we do this is to fund research […]’
It can be argued that there is a conflict of interest with regards to the research conducted by this professional body. This is because research results that demonstrate ways in which behavioural and cognitive psychotherapies have not been effective would not promote the theory and practice of the approach. Such research would therefore not support the agenda of this professional body.
Another example of a professional body’s relationship to research is that of The British Association for the Person-Centred Approach (BAPCA). The BAPCA’s website states that they are ‘[…] an organisation that embraces and promotes the person-centred way-of-being.’ Again, unsurprisingly, like the BABCP they have a clear agenda. The research page on their website is somewhat out of date, with the last meeting of their research group being listed as November 2013. There is however, a call on their website for individuals ‘[…] to participate in a study aiming to increase awareness of the Person Centred Approach in relation to working with more severe psychological conditions.’ The apparent aim of this research is therefore to highlight and promote the suitability of person-centred psychotherapy as a method for treating severe psychological conditions.
Again, this raises the issue of a potential conflict of interest between the aims of the professional body and the research project being undertaken by one of its members. It is a question of what the BAPCA would do if that particular research study ultimately demonstrated that person-centred psychotherapy was not an effective as method for treating severe psychological conditions. Would they be willing to share these results with the public even though this would not be a good way of achieving their aim of promoting a person-centred way-of-being?
It is of course totally possible that both of the above professional bodies would and do maintain high ethical standards in relation to research conducted by their members. High ethical standards in this instance would mean that the professional body is interested in, and willing to share with the public, not only in the successes of their approach as highlighted by research but the limitations or contradictions that might be uncovered (Bond, 2015).
According to Mearns, Thorne and McLeod (2013) research into client-centred counselling conducted under Carl Rogers is an example of a time when such ethical standards were adhered to: ‘[…] the client-centred group always invited the involvement of research consultants from different therapy traditions. They tried to understand therapy outcome and process from as many perspectives as possible (the client, the therapist, external observers). They were interested in understanding what was happening in cases where therapy was not effective. They were genuinely interested in following the data where it led them, rather than viewing research as a means of ‘selling a product.’ (183)
Unfortunately, there are some persuasive arguments to suggest that research conducted under the auspices of professional bodies often is not unbiased or free of researcher allegiance:
‘Indeed, on the basis of Luborsky et al’s data, Westen and colleagues (2004) calculate that, in more than nine out of ten instances, the results of a comparative trial can be predicted by knowing the researchers’ allegiances alone.’ (Cooper, 2012, 47).
Furthermore, Coyne and Niels Kok (2014) argue forcefully that researcher allegiance and conflicts of interest are big problems in the field of psychotherapy research:
‘[… research in psychotherapy is] too heavily depend on underpowered, flawed studies conducted by investigators with strong allegiances to a particular treatment or to finding that psychotherapy is in general efficacious.’ (110)
According to Coyne and Niels Kok (2014), positive results are frequently ‘cherry picked’ by professional bodies in order to support their cause. They point to the conflict of interest that may exist when researchers are relying on positive outcomes of research in order to sell their services as therapists.
Having a good working knowledge of the realities of research within psychotherapy is clearly important. If we know that research data can be manipulated by professional bodies (either knowingly or unknowingly), we can be wary of this and endeavour to check the credibility of the research we use to inform our professional practice. It is of course deeply concerning that an average member of the public seeking therapy may not be equipped with this knowledge and may be sold a treatment by a professional body on the basis of low quality research.
Bond, T (2015) in ‘The Counselling and Psychotherapy Research Handbook’ Sage, London [Edited by Vossler, A and Moller, N: 2015]
Cooper, M (2012) ‘Essential Research Findings in Counselling and Psychotherapy; The Facts are Friendly’ Sage, London
Coyne, C and Niels Kok, J (2014) 'Salvaging Psychotherapy Reseach: A Manifesto’ [accessed on 08/10/15 at www.researchgate.net/publication/266020903_Salvaging_psychotherapy_research_A_manifesto]
Mearns, D, Thorne, B and McLeod, J (2013) 'Person-Centred Counselling in Action' Sage, London [ed. Dryden, W]
Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_association [accessed on 08/10/15]
BABCP reference: www.babcp.com/Membership/Research-Fund.aspx [accessed on 08/10/15]
BAPCA reference: www.bapca.org.uk/blog/751-research-participants-required.html [accessed on 08/10/15]
