Psychological therapy, and mental health care in general, have suffered a long history of questioning and debate (e.g., Eysenck, 1952; Luborsky, Singer, & Luborsky, 1975; Smith & Glass, 1977; Wampold et.al., 1997) with reasonable concerns about the efficiency and efficacy of psychotherapy. Despite these concerns psychotherapy continues to exist and thrive, its practice and authoritative claims going far beyond what has been explained. This has resulted in a crisis of professional legitimation. Accountability of psychotherapy is the fundamental concern in establishing legitimacy, but how is accountability to be determined? This article examines the extent to which accountability can be achieved within the traditional scope of science. The question examined is how can an understanding of a client's and therapist's personal values, beliefs, and the meaning of the unique therapeutic relationship be achieved alongside neurobiological, cognitive, and behavioral examinations of psychotherapy? Although the legitimation of psychotherapy expertise has been established through a deference to one point of view--traditional scientific epistemology, I argue that therapy practice and research must be conducted with an appreciation of multiple points of view. This would require that the goals of therapy outcome research expand to include personal narratives and the qualities of a human life that extend beyond the boundaries of diagnostic concerns and related symptom relief. The method best suited for investigating psychological therapy from multiple points of view is the "natural method" (Flanagan, 1992).
Journal description