George H. Frank

PSYCHOTHERAPY AS A METHOD OF SCIENCE

A measure, tool, or method is not adjudged scientific on the basis of the results it produces, but, rather, on the rationale for its use. Nonetheless, in the eyes of many, this has not been true regarding psychotherapy. There is a growing body of literature dealing with the experimental evaluation of the process and efficacy of psychotherapy, such as may be found in the recent monograph published by the A.P.A. ( 1757), and in such review articles as that by Auld and Murray (1755). However, in spite of this fairly extensive and intensive research, the ghost of skepticism, as embodied in the paper by Eysenck ( 1952 ), the inability of some to differentiate the tenets of psychotherapy from those of magic, and the general difficulty in communicating the facts about psychotherapy, the method itself is often considered unscientific and unworthy of research endeavors. The present thesis is a reiteration of an old theme, uiz., that psychotherapy is, in fact, a legitimate method of the science of psychology, whether or not we fully understand the process or know how to utilize it effectively. Such an hypothesis is intrinsic to any systematic presentation of a theory and practice of psychotherapy. However, one may only find the statement without the concomitant attempt to demonstrate the tenability of the thesis. This paper constitutes an attempt to fill such a lacuna. The proof of the contention that psychotherapy is a legitimate tool of science might begin with the statement that it is scientific because it is used by, among others, scientists and in scientific inquiry. This, however, is the weakest argument in that it may be criticized on the basis of being tautological. The most potent argument is that psychotherapy adheres to the traditional methods of science, uiz., observation, description, prediction, and control. Observation, on which data for all scientific investigation is based, is the first task of the therapist. He must utilize standard observations in order to learn the nature of the patients difficulty. The therapist must observe the patient under controlled conditions in order to be able to describe how he characteristically deals with the ordinary needs and affects of human life which, for the patient, are being gratified in ways not conducive to intra- and interpersonal adjustment. Once the scientist (in this instance, the therapist) has made sufficient observations, he may set up hypotheses regarding the meaning of these data. On the basis of the hypotheses, he then attempts to predict the nature of subsequent phenomena (in this instance, the ideas, feelings, and behavior of the patient) and observes whether his predictions are correct or not.