Do psychologists reject science (as Sharon Begley writes in her October 12, 2009 column in Newsweek Magazine)?
In this column, Begley states that clinical psychologists (of the Freudian or psychodynamic type) ignore scientific data in favor of their own devices and experiences. In contrast, she lauds cognitive/behavioral approaches that ostensibly and strictly speaking presumably utilize such scientific bases to their treatment.
The unalloyed truth here is that a Ph.D. in clinical psychology, or an M.S.W. in clinical social work, or an M.D. in psychiatry or an R.N. in psychiatric nursing solely, in the absence of further postgraduate work, does not really prepare a clinician to do substantial work. Therefore, Begley's position is well taken but only for clinicians who practice immediately after their graduate degree and go no further. None of these degrees unto themselves do not train anyone to do anything clinically significant. At best these are practitioners (psychologists, social workers, psychiatrists, psychiatric nurses, who are flying by the seat of their pants.
It is absolutely necessary to specialize further if one is to claim virtuosity in applied practice and further to be able to artfully apply their craft scientifically with an understanding of underlying principles of the treatment; that is, to understand how to understand why the patient came to treatment in the first place (think that's easy? Think again), or to understand how to treat a psychological symptom without getting a case of the jitters because you really haven't learned how to do it. And by the way, where is the scientific model that teaches how to cure a psychological symptom? There is only one, by Henry Kellerman, Ph.D., recently published (2008) by Springer Science. Otherwise all practitioners are improvising - and that goes for those who have great postgraduate, postdoctoral training.
As psychologist I earned a Master of Arts, Master of Science, and Ph.D. psychology, and that wasn't enough to know even my ABC's of extensive clinical work. In order to do that, I needed to take a clinical psychology internship in a city mental hospital with practically hour for hour supervision, then work for two more years as a staff clinical psychologist in a state mental hospital, and in those three years I was steeped in differential diagnostic work, and also was developing a beginning understanding of therapeutic work. The operative term in this last sentence is "beginning." Then, the real deal started insofar as I took postdoctoral training at a psychoanalytic institute for four years in psychoanalysis, and then a two year psychoanalytic institute training in psychoanalytic group psychotherapy, and then additional training in the dynamics of family and couples psychotherapy. And all of it was with supervision.
And that's what has to happen, and in many cases, does happen. I personally know a raft of professional therapists who are exceedingly well trained. And I'll bet that just as clinical psychodynamic psychologists are questioned, sooner or later, data will emerge questioning the results of cognitive/behavioral work as well.
So, psychologists don't hate science. Those who love it, take postdoctoral work and learn their art and their craft. Is that science or not? I say yes. The problem is that there are those in any of the therapeutic disciplines who just did not study further with respect to specialization. And that's the real problems because such so-called professionals are at a loss to know what to do and so they invent all this new age nonsense. They begin meditating or praying with their patients and call what they do spiritual psychotherapy. I guess praying is okay but it's not psychotherapy. And they do myriad other things that they pass as psychotherapy. But again, here we're talking solely about those untrained so-called doctors.
So, Sharon Begley, get serious. The disconnect you talk about regarding what clinicians do and what science has discovered is relevant only to these untrained types. There are scores and scores of well trained people all over the place including clinical psychologists clinical social workers, psychiatrists, and psychiatric nurses - all of whom are psychodynamic in orientation, and not at all scientifically naïve.
