No subject

[Adam Blatner]

Hi all, emailing from my duahgter's unfamiliar computer & keyboard, so forgive spelling errrors. 
     Problems to solvie first.  re journal:  Who will even write papers of any kind? Who will volunteer to be an editor? Who will work to increase the ASGPP membership or get subscriptions from non-asgpp members? These constraints are primary. As for content, that requires critical mass in all the areas noted.  We must refrain from asking anything of those we think should be designing the journal---rather, we should be volunteering---those who care---to undertake certain required role duties.

     Anath, there has NOT been a decade of research oriented papers, there has been a scattering. (Perhaps a little more, proportionately, because, to their credit, the editors in the 80s through the first few years of 21st century, to their credit, have endeavored to support the professional status of our field. 

    Many if not most papers published lacked much rigor in the sense of what many other journals would demand. The lack of evidence of efficacy has contributed to the loss of status of our field among the various psychotherapies, although also another factor has been the competitive growth of other approaches along with more research that supports those approaches. 
     I don't agree with reports by subjective experiences of protagonists---or maybe only if such reports were quite well-written. Most have been, well, more sophomoric. 

I agree about descriptions in greater detail about techniques of warming up as adapted to various groups or populations. I would especially like to hear more about what works or doesn't work in preparing groups for sociometric explorations. 

    I just finished at the drama therapy conference and was disturbed by the similar lack of pressure for reading and writing, though there were calls for developing these roles. The other impression was the need for more bridge-building between our fields. 

      I agree also with Erica's recognition of the need for evidence. There is a cultural lag here. Based on the psychoanalytic tradition, there is a sense of entitlement among therapists that they should be not just allowed but subsidized (i.e. paid from insurance companies or medicaid or Medicare) in engaging in a variety of approaches that have little evidence of efficacy---at least in comparison with approaches that have more evidence and also may require a shorter course of sessions. This is economic let's-get-down thinking that is essential. There is a collective denial of the fact that there are many therapists of all stripes out there whose approach is not backed up by the therapist's being capable of explaining what s/he thinks is going wrong, what the formulation is, and based on that, what the therapeutic strategy is. Fewer explain any of this to the client.

     So why should a third-party adjudicator validate the claims for time, co-therapist payment, etc., for any brand of therapy? How is psychodrama really different from scientology auditing or primal therapy or other approaches now generally seen as out of fashion? I say this with great affection for psychodrama, but also the discomfort of having a weak answer if anyone asks me for evidence of efficacy much less proof. 

   Warmly, adam
    
----- Original Message -----
From: thana ag
To: Erica Hollander ; list at grouptalkweb.org
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 8:27 PM
Subject: RE: evidence based treatment

Hi Erica,Rebeca,Adam, Kate and Everyone,

After some thought: Should  not our  journal be be something we  all look forward to read, and lok forward to share our insights,and learn from others?
 Think :  " The  Networker."
What is the  point of a publication few  wants to read or write for,?  A decade of publishing research oriented papers,written  APA format ,did not yield much  respectibility for us in the field .
During the  70ies and part of 80ies -the journal carried mainly process based articles,and we all looked forward to its arrival.
It is of course possible that we do not ask the right questions to explore the efficacy of PD.
Perhaps we could ask protagonists describe their inner experience as part of  publishing a process oriented article.
Accumulation of such reports may stir up relevant Questions..
Dr. Gene Gendlin,author of "Focusing" set  out to explore  the efficacy of different therapeutic interventions,and  arrived to the following conclusion: the success of therapy did not depend on the therapist,or the method,but on the way the client  processed the material!.Since ,he developed "focusing " as a method to teach that process,which I was privileged to study with him  the U of Chicago.
 For all we know,the efficacy of PD may lie in the warm up portion,which when successfully applied  (sort of  a light hypnotic state) leads smoothly into  further  action exploration . We all know what happens when we fail to warm up  a protagonist,or  a group sufficiently.
Just a thought.....
anath garber

> To: list at grouptalkweb.org
> From: ericahollander at comcast.net
> Subject: evidence based treatment
> Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 11:51:35 -0600
> 
> I think there is a confusion in this discussion so far between 
> evidence based treatment and statistically well supported studies. I 
> question whether any treatment should ever be other than evidence 
> based. If not based on evidence, on what? On blind faith? I hope not.
> 
> But the need for standardizing and supporting types of treatment in 
> ways that make reliable and valid studies acceptable in esteemed 
> major journals is a different thing, it seems to me. That is indeed 
> something most psychodramatists have not much taste for, it would 
> seem, based on past behavior. So perhaps Rebecca is correct that a 
> practice based journal is more in line with what most practitioners 
> need and want.
> 
> However, it surely would be fine if some of us would be willing to 
> make the positivist case for the practice. I am sure that it can be 
> made. I just don't know many of us who concern ourselves with trying 
> to do it. Indeed, at Denver we work with a population that would 
> make a terrific study, yet somehow the demands of practice are quite 
> different than the demands of research, and somehow we don't seem to 
> get it done, even though it would be well worth doing. And of 
> course funding is an issue that plagues such questions. Erica Hollander
>