Psychiatric Rehabilitation and the Science of Possibilities.

Abstract

My mentor, Robert Carkhuff (see e. g., Carkhuff, 1969; Carkhuff & Berenson, 2000) has taught me that the science we need to study is the science of possibilities, not the science of probabilities that has dominated our field. The traditional science of probabilities is concerned with describing, predicting, and controlling, and the research questions posed reflect this orientation. For example, the science of probabilities asks, what are the characteristics that best describe people with schizophrenia? What are the chances that people with schizophrenia can live asymptomatically? Can scores on a psychological test predict that people with mental illnesses will work? In this science of probabilities we describe limited bits of knowledge with respect to how the data deviate from some norm or standard. In our experimental designs we hope to contain extraneous variance so that probability answers can be given to questions such as those above. While there is nothing inherently wrong with pursuing answers to questions generated by the science of probabilities, this traditional type of probabilities science seems to de-emphasize our world's capacity for change and growth.