两种方法比较的哲学思考与研究思路:梅塞尔的评论指明了前进的方向

M. Westerman, K. Critchfield
{"title":"两种方法比较的哲学思考与研究思路:梅塞尔的评论指明了前进的方向","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Philosophical Considerations and Research Ideas About Comparing the Two Approaches: Messer’s Comments Point the Way Forward
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信