Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Implications for Family Therapy Research

The purpose of this study was to explor client and therapist evaluations of direct practice in a university‐based training center using an ethnographic research methodology. Client and therapist perceptions about the strengths and limitations of ethnographic practice evaluation were also analyzed. A domain analysis was performed on postsession interviews with both clients and practitioners over a 4‐ month period. Six core categories of client and therapist perceptions of therapy effectiveness emerged from a domain analysis: (a) changes associated with counseling, (b) important practitioner qualities, (c) effective interventions or techniques, (d) ineffective interventions or techniques, (e) recommendations for future sessions, and (f) strengths and limitations of ethnographic practice evaluation. Implications of this study for clinical practice, training, and future research are discussed.

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Ethnographic Study of Client and Therapist Perceptions of Therapy Effectiveness in a University‐based Training Clinic

Sells

Smith

Moon

1996

“…about whether such research is even appropriate to questions arising from family therapy. Traditional research methods and designs are labeled irrelevant and indicative of the outdated epistemology that family therapy has sought to replace (Atkinson & Heath, 1987;Morris, 1987;. Systemic thinking ke., family therapy) needs systemic research, say these proponents, not anachronistic, reductionistic thinking that represents the research traditions of the physical science^.^ Further, some proclaim that key questions about the relative effectiveness of various family therapy approaches will not be resolved in the empirical arena a t all but instead through "sociocultural evolution" (p. 431).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirical Values and the Culture of Family Therapy*

Liddle

1991

The research‐clinical practice connection is weak in family therapy. Some have argued, in an inordinate ideological and political tone, that traditional research methods are inappropriate for family therapy. This position mischaracterizes modern day clinical researchers and research. In presenting 10 key dimensions of the research‐clinical practice issue in family therapy, this paper addresses some of these misrepresentations. If research and practice are to interact more productively, a major commitment, the scope and implications of which have not yet been realized, will need to be made. Actualizing the research‐practice link is a training problem and a fundamental professional issue. Progress in this realm would change the particulars of clinical practice as we know it. These processes will involve nothing less than remaking the culture of family therapy.

“…While we agree that the insights generated through qualitative research need to be scrutinized and evaluated, we believe that the trustworthiness of hypotheses, insights, or explanations cannot be established by individual researchers, regardless of the methods they use (Atkinson, Heath, & Chenail, 1990). Rather, the legitimization of knowledge requires the judgment of an entire community of observers and is most appropriately a democratic process in which all stakeholders have equal input (Atkinson, 1990;Atkinson & Heath, 1987, 1989Atkinson, Heath, & Chenail, 1990;Bernstein, 1983;Rorty, 1982Rorty, , 1985Rorty, , 1987. Walters (1990) has argued convincingly that there is simply no compelling evidence to support the idea that the quality of an insight is related to the process by which the insight was generated.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Qualitative Research and the Legitimization of Knowledge

Atkinson

Heath

Chenail

1991

Reservations about qualitative research often center around contentions that, since qualitative methods are so subjective and uncontrolled, the results of qualitative research are not valid and reliable. While many qualitative researchers in education have attempted to improve the trustworthiness of their results by making their methods more systematic, we argue that qualitative researchers cannot establish the trustworthiness of their findings, regardless of the methods they use. Rather, the legitimization of knowledge requires the judgment of an entire community of stakeholders. In the absence of certainty, knowledge is an ethical matter, one in which the judgement of each stakeholder must count.