Dennis Goff: "However, the early research literature (e.g. Metzger, 1979; Schulz & = Aderman, 1974) did not provide much support for this stage-based model. = In addition, more than 20 years later there still is no confirmation of = its validity or reliability. In fact, some of the most knowledgeable and = sophisticated clinicians who work with those who are coping with dying = have made clear their view that the stage-based model put forth by = Kubler-Ross is inadequate, superficial, and misleading"
Jim G: I have no problem with that assessment at all. I would opine that most clinicians have attempted to find some utility in the fact the grieving process is not static, and can be characterized by moving through (to some extent) "stages." As someone on this list wisely pointed out, this discussion really isnt about Kubler-Ross, or the theory Kubler-Ross put forth. Amazingly some are still discussing her theory actually, not true. We have one individual who has abandoned that and decided to resurrect her from the dead and give her a good beating. I guess if you havent been able to make a good case for your original argument, go for the jugular. I myself dont equate person with theory and outside of psychology I have heroes that I have learned things about that caused me to lose some awe, maybe respect but not necessarily for their ideals or ideas (Dr MLK comes to mind). Anyhoo, originally we were provided with a study that was supposed to refute K-R, with the suggestion that we shouldnt bet that mental health counselors will read the data (assuming they do) and perform an about-face. And yet according to recent excerpts, such as this one, we see that clinicians HAVE distanced themselves from Kubler-Ross, long before this ground-breaking study (no pun intended) was put forth. So that comment has been proven to be false. We also saw a problem in that the study was supposed to indict grief counselors with its data, and yet the data and the participants who participated were clearly not of the ilk that seek therapy for their bereavement problems. This was acknowledged by some on the list, but not by the most ardent critics of psychotherapy. There has always been a faction on this list that seem a little too gung-ho to hold their nose at psychotherapy and its ilk and yet there are times their lack of understanding of psychotherapy and evaluating research that isnt applicable to psychotherapy as in this case became apparently obvious. In the end, part of my concern with professionals who seem a little too anti-psychotherapy is that in their work with students, who much can we trust them to be sensitive to those students who have may have legitimate personal problems? Are they furthering the problem by ignoring, rationalizing, or worse, dissuading students from seeking psychotherapy due to their own misunderstanding or biases? Given the well-documented increases in troubled students in trouble, this is a problem that requires further attention (and study through studies). Do we need to back off from ensuring scientist-practitioners are holding up the first part of that ideal? No, of course not. But we also need to ensure those who only engage in the first part are demonstrating proper respect and understanding of those heavily engaged in the second part. Especially as it may unduly affect the people that practitioners are serving. We need to be policed, but by good cops Okay, I am done with this. I am sick of hearing myself talk about it, so that means everyone else has already come to that point. On to something else... --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
