Abstract
ABSTRACT In this article, we address how standardisation in psychotherapeutic research and practice can create a ‘procrustean bed’ which leads to conformity rather than an ethical response to what emerges in the moment. Articulated, three points of conflict in which we discuss how the therapist or researcher may be rendered ‘ineffective’ in the name of ‘efficacy’. We explore some of the implications for idiosyncratic practices in psychotherapy, which are rooted in a foundation of ethics and philosophy, when the paradigm of empirically ‘evidence-based practices’ (EBP), which are rooted in measurement, takes centre stage and are overwhelmingly favoured in the industry of funded therapies. The first point of conflict is in relation to conversation itself; exploring the place of hermeneutics and interpretation within therapeutic dialogue and research. The second point explores what it means to take up a discovery-oriented stance and the implications this has for ‘evidence’; further delving into the way our demand for ‘evidence’ may be impacting how psychotherapeutic research and practice is carried out. The final point aims to explore the infrastructure and work environment of funded therapies in the United Kingdom.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
