{"title":"Philosophical Considerations and Research Ideas About Comparing the Two Approaches: Messer’s Comments Point the Way Forward","authors":"M. Westerman, K. Critchfield","doi":"10.14713/PCSP.V17I1.2091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In his commentary, Stanley Messer (2021) posed the question of whether it is possible to evaluate the relative merits of different case formulation approaches to psychotherapy. He went on to maintain, based on the pragmatic theory of truth, that it is possible to compare different case formulation approaches, and pointed to a program of research that he and his collaborators conducted as an example for possible future research (Collins & Messer, 1991; Holland, Roberts, & Messer, 1998; Messer, Tishby, & Spillman, 1992; Tishby & Messer, 1995). In this reply, we express our appreciation for Messer’s remarks, with which we agree in large measure, and attempt to highlight and build upon some of the points he made. We discuss Dewey’s (1896) classic critique of the reflex arc concept to point out other ways the philosophical perspective of pragmatism supports the view that different approaches to therapy are not incommensurate. We also offer a number of suggestions for future research comparing psychotherapy based on Interpersonal Defense Theory and IRT, or any two case formulation approaches to therapy. At many points, our suggestions follow along the lines of Messer’s research. We also emphasize the value of case formulation-based studies, not only with regard to research comparing approaches to treatment, but for investigating other issues about therapy as well.","PeriodicalId":53239,"journal":{"name":"Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy","volume":"17 1","pages":"109-122"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14713/PCSP.V17I1.2091","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In his commentary, Stanley Messer (2021) posed the question of whether it is possible to evaluate the relative merits of different case formulation approaches to psychotherapy. He went on to maintain, based on the pragmatic theory of truth, that it is possible to compare different case formulation approaches, and pointed to a program of research that he and his collaborators conducted as an example for possible future research (Collins & Messer, 1991; Holland, Roberts, & Messer, 1998; Messer, Tishby, & Spillman, 1992; Tishby & Messer, 1995). In this reply, we express our appreciation for Messer’s remarks, with which we agree in large measure, and attempt to highlight and build upon some of the points he made. We discuss Dewey’s (1896) classic critique of the reflex arc concept to point out other ways the philosophical perspective of pragmatism supports the view that different approaches to therapy are not incommensurate. We also offer a number of suggestions for future research comparing psychotherapy based on Interpersonal Defense Theory and IRT, or any two case formulation approaches to therapy. At many points, our suggestions follow along the lines of Messer’s research. We also emphasize the value of case formulation-based studies, not only with regard to research comparing approaches to treatment, but for investigating other issues about therapy as well.
Stanley Messer(2021)在他的评论中提出了一个问题,即是否有可能评估不同案例制定方法对心理治疗的相对优点。他继续坚持,基于真理的语用理论,可以比较不同的案例表述方法,并指出他和他的合作者进行的一项研究计划是未来可能研究的一个例子(Collins&Messer,1991;霍兰德、罗伯茨和梅塞尔,1998年;梅塞尔、蒂什比和斯皮尔曼,1992年;蒂什比与梅塞尔,1995年)。在这一答复中,我们对梅塞尔的发言表示赞赏,我们在很大程度上同意他的发言,并试图强调和巩固他提出的一些观点。我们讨论了杜威(1896)对反射弧概念的经典批判,以指出实用主义的哲学观点支持不同治疗方法并非不可通约的观点的其他方式。我们还为未来的研究提供了一些建议,比较基于人际防御理论和IRT的心理治疗,或任何两种案例制定的治疗方法。在许多方面,我们的建议遵循梅塞尔的研究思路。我们还强调了基于病例配方的研究的价值,不仅在比较治疗方法的研究方面,而且在调查其他治疗问题方面。