ABSTRACT
Who reads these discussions? I start this way because it is the "who" of psychotherapy research I wish to emphasize.
My experience has been in the fields of biological sciences, medicine, psy chiatry, psychoanalysis, psychology and computer science. For years I have read critiques in journals such as this one, lining up the good guys versus the bad guys, groaning over banal recitals of factional loyalties, hoping to hear a new idea, enjoying a good fight, celebrating a talent like Meehl and shooting down mountebanks like Eysenck. I n each of these fields, when it comes time to lament about progress, discussants address themselves to the "what" and "how" of research. In biological and computer sciences this is indeed the main point because, having a steady supply of high-quality people for re search, they need not be concerned about the "who." But in clinician-domi nated fields there exists a crucial but little noted problem in that, over time, high quality researchers no longer appear, or if they do they get pushed in some other direction. Then the field sits around and discusses at length the
"what" and "how" of research without recognizing a higher priority problem of the "who."
