Making Sense of Epistemological Conflict in the Evaluation of Narrative Therapy and Evidence-Based Psychotherapy
Loading...
Date
2011
DOI
Open Access Location
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Massey University
Rights
Abstract
This paper outlines the epistemological and theoretical
formation of narrative therapy and implications for its
evaluation. Two authoritative paradigms of psychotherapy
evaluation have emerged in psychology since the mid-
1990s. The Clinical Division of the American Psychological
Association established the empirically supported
treatment (EST) movement. A more inclusive but medically
emulative model of evidence based practice in psychology
(EBPP) then emerged. Some therapies such as
narrative therapy do not share the theoretical commitments
of these paradigms. Narrative therapy is an approach
that values a non-expert based, collaborative, political
and contextual stance to practice that is critical of
normalising practices of medical objectification and reductionism.
Post-positivist theoretical influences constitute
narrative therapy as a practice that values the social
production and multiplicity of meaning. This paper problematises
a conflictual relationship (a differend) between
the evaluation of narrative therapy and evidence based
psychotherapy. Firstly, it briefly outlines the EST and
EBPP paradigms and their epistemology. This paper
then provides an overview of some of the key epistemological
and theoretical underpinnings of narrative therapy
and concludes with some cautionary notes on its evaluation.
Description
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License
Keywords
Evidence-based psychotherapy evaluation, Narrative therapy, Post-positivism, Empirically supported treatments, Evidence-based practice, Differend, Epistemology, Symbolic interactionism