Page 54 [54]
HEIDI MOLLER — KATRIN OELLERICH — DENISE HINN — SILJA KOTTE
to make themselves available as study patients’ as well as study therapists who
are willing to let others watch over their shoulder. It has long been the standard
practice in psychotherapy research to use students as study therapists since
they are readily available. This often diminished the generalisability of research
results on therapeutic practice. This makes the participation of experienced
practitioners all the more relevant”*.
The practitioners’ motivation for participating in research is therefore an
important element in closing the gap between science and practice. In general,
many practitioners see the need to support psychotherapy research, yet the
number of those who actually participate in studies is rather small”. This much¬
decried gulf between researchers and practitioners is itself an important topic
of therapy research”. The relationship between clinical practice and science is
characterised by mutual criticism and prejudice; clinical practitioners question
the relevance of scientific results in clinical practice and scientists question the
scientific evidence of the applied therapeutic approaches”. This highly charged
relationship also expresses itself in studies which show that practitioners rarely
read research results’, do not integrate scientific results into their work?° and
rarely carry out their own research*°.
A scientific position would imply that critical questions are being asked
about their own preferred procedures and/or methods as well. Practitioners
who have already decided on a valid truth (as they see it) might not be willing
to hear the answers to such questions”.
3 S. Taubner — G. Bruns — H. Kächele, Studienpatienten gesucht, Psychotherapeut, 52 (2007)
236-238.
Protz et al., Die Ambivalenz mit der Therapieforschung.
25 F, Bush — B. Milrod — M. Rudden — T. Shapiro - J. Roiphe — M. Singer - A. Aronson, How
treating psycho-analysts respond to psychotherapy research constraints, J Am Psychoanal
Assoc, 49 (2001) 961—983.; G. Rudolf, RcTs und die Realität des praktischen Therapierens,
Psychother Psychosom med Psychol, 58 (2008) 357-358.
6 P. Talley — H. Strupp — S. Beutler (eds.), Psychotherapy research and practice, Bridging the
gap, New York, Basic, 1994.
27 R. Elliott - C. Morrow-Bradley, Developing a working marriage between psychotherapists and
psychotherapy researchers: identifying shared purposes, in P. Talley — H. Strupp - F. Butler
(eds.), Psychotherapy research and practice: Bridging the gap, New York, Basic, 1994, 124-142.
L. Cohen, The research readership and information source reliance of clinical psychologists,
Prof Psychol res Pract, 10 (1979) 780-785.; J. Schachter — L. Luborsky, Who’s afraid of
psychoanalytic research? Analysts attitudes towards reading clinical versus empirical research
papers, Int J Psychoanal, 79 (1998) 965-969.
39 C. Morrow-Bradley — R. Elliott, Utilization of psychotherapy research by practicing
psychotherapists, Am Psychol, 41 (1986) 188-197.
J. Prochaska — J. Norcross, Contemporary psychotherapists: a national survey of characteristics,
practices, orientations, and attitudes, Psychother Theory res Pract, 20 (1983) 161-173.
3! G. Rudolf, Psychoanalyse und Forschung: unüberwindliche gegensätze? in G. Poscheschnik
24
+ 52 +