psychodrama research - medium length and not too hard for a Christmas day
Peter Howie
peterhowie at macquariehouse.com.au
Wed Dec 24 14:14:33 CST 2008
Hi Adam,
How about you both continue here for a bit and we the great unwashed
can delete if it gets too much. On other lists and oft times here
folks will putr something like "Long" or "rather complex" in the
subject line to alert us to the type of post.
Oh and by the way - Merry Chrstmas - I know Walter got there first,
being in New Zealand, but I wrote here first - woo woo to me! I win -
oops too much Simpsons again.
And on this subject briefly - Adam you initial post has a few errors
not so much to do with them being philosophical rather I think,
reading your mind through your words, you are displaying your
frustration and something akin to despair in this area and feel
overwhelmed at the task. I think some of it falls into the "how to
eat and elephant" type scenario - one slice at a time. And
reductionist research is no the only type - there is some good
grounded theory methodologies that are worthy, there are some
processes being developed by the Person Centred mobs - the old
Rogerians, bless their hearts. And all your criticisms can
legitimately be levelled at much psychology research and indeed human
research per se. There are different purposes to research - and the
one of proving to others the efficacy of the method is a rather dull
one. Doing it to work out the causal, important, principle factors we
are all working with - now that interests me. And I think that was
what interested Moreno at different times. I think what we want to
find out is something along the lines of "what is that that I do that
has an effect irrespective of who gets it to happen or does it?" For
instance asking questions like "What is the therapeutic effect of a
person stepping forward in a group to be a protagonist?" - it has to
be immense for some people. It has always been important when I have
done it.........running out of early morning puff
I'll go and read your article Walter - I though your response to Adam
was a real gem - thank you. I sand a little song after reading it.
Cheers for now on this sunny Christmas morning - it will be a cool day
today - probablu only get up to 32 or 34 degrees - that is roughly 90
- 95 with high humidity. I hope you all out there have had or are
going to have a good enough day
Peter in Brisbane
On 25/12/2008, at 3:03 AM, Adam Blatner wrote:
> Dear Walter,
> I was quite impressed with your paper : http://www.psybernet.co.nz/writing/forum-science-050525.pdf
>
> It shows a wrestling with fundamental categories, an approach to
> theory, and a breadth of intellect and vision that is rare and quite
> wonderful.
>
> I am as yet not convinced of your position and am warming-up to a
> response. Grouptalk is likely not the place for this, as it might
> take some analysis that many would find to be too detailed, perhaps
> even quibbling. (Yet my response does bring forth some very basic
> questions about degrees of objectivity, specificity, voluntariness,
> and so forth.)
>
> Let me know if you wish to dialog further.
>
> Is it any of my (our) business why you seemed to drop out of our
> field for a number of years, or should we just be delighted that
> you've returned to play with us?
>
> Warmly, Adam
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Walter Logeman" <walter at psybernet.co.nz
> >
> To: <list at grouptalkweb.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:24 PM
> Subject: Re: psychodrama research
>
>
>> Hi Adam,
>>
>> David? (I missed the post you are replying to Adam)
>>
>> Just a quick note to link to a blog post from a few years ago:
>> http://psyberspace.walterlogeman.com/?p=880
>>
>> It is on my mind as I am committed to re-writing the article I wrote
>> on Moreno & Science 1n 2005. (link in the blog post). It is on the
>> agenda for the next Australia and New Zealand Psychodrama Association
>> Journal. It will be shorter and more focussed on Moreno.
>>
>> The main point that is important here is that Moreno's Sociometry
>> IS a
>> research method in its own right. Moreno was a critic of the
>> application of science as we know it in the physical world to the
>> world of people.
>>
>> I just found in Psychodrama vol III where Moreno proposes Psychodrama
>> as a way to research a variety of modalities. It may sound strange
>> but I think this has great potential. I would like to explore micro
>> interventions I use in psychotherapy. Validity in such work is
>> different to the validity in the physical sciences, but as you make
>> clear in your post (below) Adam the possibility of repeating an
>> experiment and getting the same results is not a realistic goal. We
>> often get something that looks like science but it is flawed when
>> applied to individuals.
>>
>> Below I quote Moreno at length, as not everyone may have access, and
>> it is a complex idea. p 87, 88 Psychodrama voll III. Moreno is
>> writing in response to Cholden.
>>
>>
>> Warm wishes,
>>
>> Walter
>>
>>
>>
>> //
>> 4) SCIENTIFIC VALIDATION OF THERAPEUTIC PROCESSES
>>
>> CHOLDEN "I wonder about the validity of studying the
>> psychotherapeutic
>> situation by the 'role playing' method. For no matter how much
>> psychotherapists and subject are attempting to imitate the therapy
>> situation, it seems quite impossible that the situation can be
>> successfully acted out.
>>
>> For by definition the major drive in the psychotherapeutic situation
>> would be lacking, namely, the motivation to achieve a therapeutic
>> goal." The misunderstanding may come to an extent from the abusive
>> use
>> of the term role "playing." I coined the term but it has gone out of
>> hand and it is now used without discrimination. The emphasis that
>> something is played has obvious connotations that it is not sincere
>> and real. As a matter of fact, the technique of setting up a
>> therapeutic experiment of the type described is to make it as
>> "role-real" as possible and as little as possible "role-played". What
>> are the criteria involved in the "motivation" to achieve a
>> therapeutic
>> goal? a) It must be a real patient and a real therapist, that is, the
>> patient must have an actual problem which needs treatment and the
>> therapist must be a professionally trained person. b) The patient
>> must
>> have chosen this particular therapist to treat him. They are not
>> forced upon each other. c) The therapist is compensated in the
>> customary way for his services. In our culture he is paid in money,
>> in
>> other cultures it may be a method of charity or honor. If these
>> criteria are met then there should be a "motivation" emerging to
>> achieve a therapeutic goal. The only modification from the normal
>> therapeutic process is the presence of a third person, a professional
>> therapist himself, who asks questions and interviews both parties
>> during or after the session. If patient and therapist agree to his
>> presence (or that of a jury) and if it is made clear to him that it
>> may be of benefit to the therapeutic session, he may appreciate this
>> modification as an asset rather than a disadvantage. It is obvious
>> that this must be carried out in accord with the therapeutic format
>> and an honest desire of a third party to consolidate it and not to
>> disrupt it. The "experimenter" is a protective agent and not a cold
>> judge.
>> In order to meet with the special character of psychotherapeutic
>> processes, the difficulty of framing them into an experimental
>> design,
>> it may be useful to differentiate two kinds of validity, scientific
>> validation as currently considered unexceptional in the scientific
>> fraternity, and "existential" validation which looms in all
>> psychotherapeutic practices and is the cause of many
>> misunderstandings
>> of what is scientific and what is not. The meaning of existential
>> validation should be clearly spelled out as making claims of validity
>> only in situ, in the here and now without any attempt to confirm the
>> past or to predict the future. It should be classified as more than
>> art, although when people talk about the art of psychotherapy it is
>> implied that what takes place has existential validation. Scientific
>> and existential validation do not exclude one another, they should be
>> constructed as a continuum.
>> //
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2008/12/23 Adam Blatner <ablatner at verizon.net>:
>>> My problem with psychodrama research is that it is like exercise
>>> research.
>>> There are twenty to a hundred components that may be supportive
>>> of health,
>>> therapeutic. There is also the variable of the maturity and
>>> personality of
>>> the therapist, aside from the technique: and the match between
>>> therapist and
>>> client. I don't know that I believe that any therapy (as a method)
>>> is
>>> necessarily supportable. I think that any therapy can be conducted
>>> in a flat
>>> or even anti-therapeutic fashion, and that most therapies can be
>>> practiced
>>> by brilliant, medium-smart, talented, no-talented, and very mediocre
>>> practitioners. If this is correct, then it makes research of a
>>> method---not
>>> of the whole process of psychotherapy---but the method---
>>> problematical,
>>> because it may well not be the method that's the major therapeutic
>>> agent.
>>> David, I want to promote professionalism, and don't want to
>>> undercut a
>>> modicum of effort---so my concern about saying this is that it
>>> colludes with
>>> those who cop out on the whole endeavor. There are many ways to
>>> pursue and
>>> establish a more seriously intellectual foundation for
>>> psychodrama---including recognizing that it is not a unitary
>>> process.
>>> There are many components that I think could be researched, such
>>> as the
>>> value of role reversal with significant others---perhaps not those
>>> perpetrating major trauma or doing this early in the treatment,
>>> but my
>>> concern is that in mid-treatment or beyond, we may not be asking
>>> clients to
>>> move to a more mature stance and relinquish the victim role.
>>> Another component (or group of them) is simply the use of action
>>> methods
>>> to build group cohesion. Again, this must be done with care lest
>>> warm-ups
>>> become merely a technique to substitute for real group process.
>>> (Yalom
>>> points this out.) Anyway, who else do you know out there in our
>>> field who is
>>> wrestling with these kinds of issues. I am not claiming to be
>>> correct, but
>>> rather putting in just enough of my "two cents" to try to find a
>>> few others
>>> in the network who are considering these problems. Warmly, Adam
>>>
>>>
>>> Grouptalk mailing list
>>> List at grouptalkweb.org
>>> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
>>>
>>
>> Grouptalk mailing list
>> List at grouptalkweb.org
>> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.0/1862 - Release Date:
> 12/23/2008 12:08 PM
>
>
> Grouptalk mailing list
> List at grouptalkweb.org
> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
>
More information about the List
mailing list