ABSTRACT
Scholars typically work within conceptual, pragmatic, and/or epistemological frameworks or paradigms (Kuhn, 1962). Figuratively speaking, most researchers and practitioners live within fairly distinct or delimited communities of knowledge seekers. As in other scientific and professional fields, distinctive frameworks or paradigms of knowledge have shaped psychotherapy and psychotherapy research (Goldfried, 2000). Theoretical orientations (e.g., cognitive behavioral, humanistic, psychodynamic, systemic), methodological preferences (e.g., quantitative, qualitative), and primary “residence” (e.g., academia, clinical milieu) have an undeniable influence on what one sees as the most relevant source or object of knowledge, as well as the most valid strategy to acquire such knowledge. At various times, the boundaries that separate different knowledge communities have been described as impassable, and the views about psychopathology and therapy prevailing within each of them have been perceived as irreconcilable. Historically, such professional and conceptual divisions have fueled hostile statements and exchanges among respected figures of our field (see Castonguay & Goldfried, 1994). One could also argue that some of these divisions have played a role in (and are being reinforced by) dichotomous and divisive positions that are parts of current discussions about the process of change, as well as the practice and training of psychotherapy (e.g., techniques vs. relationship, empirical evidence vs. clinical experience).
