A sociatric vision

[Peter Howie]

Hi Jenny,

I think you are correct in the there being a general absence of roles  
required to support evidence based research for psychodrama. Partly  
this is a systemic issue in Australia and probably NZ as well (not  
sure re: USA and Europe) because much research is done through  
Universities and University contexts and at present the Universities  
do not have people in them that are keen to research this area. And if  
there were then they would need to determine the types of questions  
and the types of methodologies to answer the questions. And group  
therapy is hard to research - not from the point of view of efficacy  
as there is plenty to show it and other methodologies produce good  
results but from the point of view of the "group" part of it being the  
therapeutic response in clients. i.e. is it any 'better' than the  
easier, sometimes cheaper, often more available methods.

The other aspect, and some have noted this earlier, is that there are  
a number of roles required to interact with Government agencies,  
research agencies and grant bodies and those roles are quite  
specialised and can be hard to come by. These are the roles that value  
the world view of those same agencies rather than being sceptical or  
dismissive of their world view. These roles are similar in some ways  
to the types of entrepreneurial roles required to set up in private  
practice. I have some of those entrepreneurial roles but not all  
unfortunately. I have few of the roles required to open doors for the  
work many of us do here though I am working to acquire more. And these  
roles are often not supported by members of groups like we have here.  
Sort of along the lines of "Well we know its true!" type of response.

I and my partner Diz, ran some leadership programs over a period of a  
decade. Built into the original design was a realistic evaluation  
process. It was fought against in the initial design by the other  
consultants but we got it there. In subsequent iterations of the  
programs we kept it - a minor miracle in itself. It consisted of  
individual pre-interviews with participants and their supervisors and  
a follow-up interview was done 3 months after the 12 month programs  
had concluded. This was a lot of work and we got paid a lot of money  
to do it. There was never, any time in the 50 or so programs (around  
1000 people) we ran, when any of the agencies requested or paid any  
attention to our results. Only one person showed interest when we  
tried to let them know and he was effected. And at the same time a  
small fortune (in the many $100,000's) was spent having separate  
consultancies conduct research on the outcomes. Some of which we were  
shown and some of which we had to beg to see. The most rigourous long  
term research done by one internal group was trumped after 18 months  
by and external consultant because they were more "objective". To me  
this indicates a reluctance to get real with what we know, what we  
don't know and the amount of faith operating in our lives around areas  
of reasonable ignorance.

On a more personal note I really love the rise of evidence based  
research and medicine as there are an awful lot of dodgy things being  
promoted by well intentioned doctors, therapists and community  
developers. Getting the research done poses many dilemmas, of course.  
And maybe there are things I do that I am committed to and love that  
do no more than make me feel good and add little or nothing to clients  
or perhaps even make their life harder. Not a pleasant thought. The  
ANZPA Exec is keen to support, foster, engender research but we are  
like many other Execs are a part time, volunteer mob.

On a CBT note, have you read the crossover journal from the American  
ASGPPPPPP mob for a few years ago comparing and contracting CBT and  
psychodrama? It was a special bigger edition from memory. I've seen a  
few articles but don't have a copy. Of course for the right $ it is  
available. If I was current in my Uni fees I could get a copy through  
the library.

Cheers form this side of the Tasman Sea

Peter in Brisbane


On 16/04/2009, at 10:37 AM, Jenny Wilson wrote:

> Hi
> Thanks to those contributing to this discussion - very interesting! I
> appreciate you clarifying the use of the word "therapy" Adam - that
> makes sense to me and helps me by putting Moreno's writing about  
> therapy
> in a different context.
>
> While I appreciate the wholistic vision of psychodrama I also suggest
> that unless some of the specifics are attended to within psychodrama
> theory then the here-and-now reality of psychodrama surviving as a
> therapy are under serious threat. (although no doubt in will survive  
> in
> other spheres). My primary training is in CBT. In 45 years CBT has  
> grown
> from the vision of one or two people to becoming a huge therapy  
> movement
> - much as I appreciate CBT I do not wish to see other therapies
> (particularly psychodrama) disappear before the mighty force of
> empirically supported therapies. CBT's own research tells us we need
> other options for clients for whom CBT is not useful.
>
> In New Zealand it is difficult to find other therapy options within
> publicly funded services (e.g., Health System or Corrections/Justice )
> that are not CBT based. For all its limitations CBT practitioners have
> been able to reverse roles with funders and providers, opening doors  
> for
> themselves and in the process shutting doors for other practitioners.
> While we may hope for (and work towards)a paradigm shift where many
> different options are valued and a vision of societal change, in the
> meantime we work within the system we have. A system that requires  
> clear
> definitions, explanations, specific goals and research evidence of
> effectiveness.
>
> My own biases are clear I guess. I can enter and appreciate mystery  
> and
> the unknown (my "right brain" moves me to tears again and again in the
> mystical experience of psychodrama ) but I crave clarity, academic
> rigour and delight in the creativity of an elegant theory!
>
> regards
> Jenny
>
>
> .org
>