Ok there’s been a recent mini-upsurge on the topic of therapists using / not using ’scientifically- proven’ approaches to helping clients, namely a Newsweek article entitled Ignoring the Evidence: Why do Psychologists Reject Science? (http://www.newsweek.com/id/216506) and other on-line articles from colleagues in the field.
Here’s my written response to this latest flurry on science and therapy that I wanted to share with you:
As a practitioner of a post-modern ( well maybe at this point even post-post modern) approach to helping people develop called social therapy (www.eastsideinstitute.org / www.Letsdevelopphilly.org) I would like to add to the conversation that there is/has been a growing body of theorists, academics and practitioners in psychology who point out the limitations and distortions of still trying to use the tools and methods of modernist science as a way to legitimize and evaluate the practice of sound, helpful and ethical approaches of therapy.
I think we need to come up with new sciences new tools and methods to help inform so-called best practices that take into consideration our subjective-ness, our non-generalize-ability, and recognizing in the most serious and sophisticated way that it is the relationship you build with your clients that helps them.
I invite us to ask whether understanding human life needs to be a cultural and philosophical activity, rather than a scientific one. Whether people the world over would be better served if we looked at the human landscape with a painter’s, poet’s, and storyteller’s sensibilities instead of with the biologist’s and physicist’s scientific tools.