How does evidence-based practice in psychology work? – As an ethical demarcation

Abstract

ABSTRACTEvidence-based practice in psychology (EBPP) is ordinarily understood to demarcate between legitimate and illegitimate psychotherapy practice, based upon the epistemic demarcation distinguishing scientific from non-scientific knowledge. EBPP emphasizes the value of effective and efficient interventions identified through randomized controlled trials and cost-benefit analyses. Basing the template for choice of action or strategy on randomized controlled trials and cost-benefit analyses create a deceptive appearance of ethical neutrality. However, there is an implicit ethical demarcation at work in EBPP, which favors a non-articulated specific position in normative ethics. More particularly, evidence-based practice in psychology is structured according to a utilitarian framework, severely limiting the kinds of ethical perspectives available to assess psychotherapy practice. The latter point is illustrated through a new mode of delivering psychotherapy services called “Internet-based guided self-help” (IBGSH). In EBPP the only relevant ethical question is to what extent any intervention, such as IBGSH, is effective and efficient. Some of the limiting effects of the ethical, utilitarian, demarcation are showcased by presenting three alternative ethical perspectives by which psychotherapy practice in general and IBGSH in particular can be analyzed. The analysis concludes that EBPP is not suited to ethically regulate the practice of psychotherapy.