Seite 54 [54]
OCR
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 muchdecried 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 +
