Not long ago I interviewed a psychoanalyst/author about the concepts of transference, countertransference and dream interpretation and one blog commenter almost right away insisted that psychoanalysis was not "evidence based". What struck me about the comment (and which I'm thinking of focusing on in an upcoming episode), is the knee-jerk reaction of "Well, it has to be evidence-based!" It's almost become a mantra.
Recently we've all become even more focused of the need to strengthen our research techniques, but we all know that all our approaches have their strengths and weaknesses. We know that evidence "points toward a conclusion" and the more evidence that so the better. So I'm wondering: when does any technique get the "evidence-based" stamp of approval? Certainly, some of our techniques have a strong base of evidence in support of their effectiveness (say, systematic desensitization for example) but what does it take to get the evidence-based "badge"? For that matter, where did the term come from? Also, I'm wondering if there aren't politics involved here. It would be interesting if so-called "evidence-based" techniques also happen to be the short-term, less expensive ones that also happen to be covered by insurance.... Feedback welcome. Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. [email protected] http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: mbritt --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=24968 or send a blank email to leave-24968-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
