Methodological pluralism: A framework for psychotherapy research

Slife, Brent D.; Gantt, Edwin E.

doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4679(199912)55:12<1453::aid-jclp4>3.0.co;2-c

Cited by 61 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Virtually any qualitative methods text describes these assumptions, and many such texts compare them to traditional scientific assumptions (e.g., Kvale, 1996). In their proposal for methodological pluralism, Slife and Gantt (1999) describe five contrasting philosophical assumptions involving subject matter, epistemology, and ontology.…”

Section: Assumptions Of Qualitative Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Testing the limits of Henriques' proposal: Wittgensteinian lessons and hermeneutic dialogue

Slife

2004

J Clin Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The limits of Henriques' "overarching conceptions" approach to defining psychology is first tested by comparing and contrasting his conceptions to two burgeoning movements within psychology: qualitative research and spiritual therapy strategies. These movements were selected because they represent many other fragments of a fragmented psychology that could fall outside Henriques' disciplinary matrix. This comparison reveals how the broader discipline of psychology resists propositional definitions, such as Henriques' proposal. As the later work of Wittgenstein (1958) reveals, one cannot unite the various language games of a discipline's discourse communities through common overarching features. Next, another approach to unification and definition is outlined-hermeneutic dialogue. Unlike an overarching framework, hermeneutic dialogue does not require "joint points." In fact, it assumes that the richness and vitality of a discipline can be drained away by such "unifying" principles. Instead, hermeneutic dialogue is a way of relating and unifying while preserving the integrity and identity of even incommensurable factions within a discipline. Henriques should be congratulated. With his provocative proposal for defining psychology (Henriques, 2004), he has brought to the fore some of the more befuddling conceptual issues of the discipline. As Henriques (2003Henriques ( , 2004 observes and I have noted elsewhere (Slife, 2004;Slife & Williams, 1995;Slife & Williams, 1997), psychologists have too often proceeded as if there were no befuddling conceptual issues. Many seem to believe (or hope) that the application of a rigorous method will save them from having to address these philosophical issues. However, as Henriques recognizes, the application of a rigorous method is itself bound up in the epistemological issues that he is attempting to address.

show abstract

Section: Assumptions Of Qualitative Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The bottom line for many qualitative researchers is that meanings, such as love, are not best studied through methods that depend upon sensory experiences exclusively. Qualitative methods are considered necessary that are underlain with completely divergent epistemological assumptions (Slife & Gantt, 1999). …”

Section: Assumptions Of Qualitative Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing the limits of Henriques' proposal: Wittgensteinian lessons and hermeneutic dialogue

Slife

2004

J Clin Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, we want to clarify our theoretical perspective regarding early adverse childhood experiences. In this respect we rely on the extensive body of research on how early relational trauma is associated with later problems with affect regulation, regulation of self and other, increased vulnerability for stress and strains (Liotti, 2006;Lyons-Ruth, Dutra, Schuder, & Bianchi, 2006;Shore, 2003), as well as challenges in building trust and a therapeutic bond (Ogden & Fisher, 2015;Porges, 2001). …”

Section: Conceptualizing the Process Of Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptualizing the Complexity of Change in Psychotherapy: The Case of "Cora"

Halvorsen¹,

McLeod²,

Benum³

et al. 2016

PCSP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we respond to the commentaries by Altman and Miller (2016), Bohart (2016), and Timulak and Keogh (2016) on our case of "Cora," which involved over 121 psychotherapy sessions with a client with a history of severe relational trauma that had led to difficulty in forming close relationships, as well as a series of suicide attempts (Halvorsen, Benum, Haavind, & McLeod, 2016). The commentaries differ in their view of the value of Cora's case, interpretations of the material, and methodological preferences. Together the commentaries illustrate the complexity of change in psychotherapy, how we need multifaceted approaches to understand change, and the challenges in writing up a case in this context. We call for further dialogue within the psychotherapy research community around the nature and implications of methodological choices arising from the conduct of case study research in this field.

show abstract

“…The emphasis is on the use of clinical expertise to weave scientific findings into practice. EBPP takes a position of methodological pluralism to recognize the unique roles each research methodology plays in illuminating different aspects of psychotherapy and change (Slife & Gantt, 1999).…”

Section: Comparisonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competing Models of Evidence and Corroborating Research Strategies: Shaping the Landscape of Psychotherapy Research in the Era of Evidence-Based Practice

Iwakabe

2013

PSYCHOLOGIA -An International Journal of Psychological Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Empirically supported treatments have brought much enthusiasm for establishing a firm empirical basis for clinical practice. However controversies about what constitutes evidence in psychotherapy and what research methodologies qualify as sufficiently rigorous to produce such evidence also abound. Although most psychotherapy researchers are in agreement with the underlying rationale that psychotherapy should be based on rigorous scientific research, many are in disagreement as to what constitutes ideal scientific practice in evidence-based psychotherapy; alternative frameworks of evidence have been proposed. This paper first reviews different models of evidence, namely empirically supported treatments, empirically supported psychotherapy relationships, research informed principles of therapeutic change, and evidence-based practice in psychology, and discusses their relative strengths and limitations. Secondly, it illustrates three research topics and corresponding strategies that both supplement these evidence models and deepen an understanding of process and outcome in psychotherapy. These three areas are: mechanisms of change, systematic case studies, and researcher-practitioner collaboration.

show abstract

Methodological pluralism: A framework for psychotherapy research

Cited by 61 publications

References 18 publications

Testing the limits of Henriques' proposal: Wittgensteinian lessons and hermeneutic dialogue

Testing the limits of Henriques' proposal: Wittgensteinian lessons and hermeneutic dialogue

Conceptualizing the Complexity of Change in Psychotherapy: The Case of "Cora"

Competing Models of Evidence and Corroborating Research Strategies: Shaping the Landscape of Psychotherapy Research in the Era of Evidence-Based Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About