Assessing Evidence-Based Psychotherapy

这个博士后奖学金将支持一项为期两年的研究，调查以证据为基础的谈话治疗干预措施的兴起。这项研究将包括对培训组织的文件、认证要求、保险报销准则和期刊出版物的机构和历史分析。这些数据将补充作者广泛的人种学观察和与临床医生的访谈，以促进文章和专著的出版。作者将共同努力，向从业人员传播研究结果。此外，该项目还将提供机会，培训本科生从事研究实践，培养他们对科学技术研究和医学社会学的兴趣。最后，这项研究将产生一个教学模块，重点是围绕心理科学中的“证据”进行辩论。该模块将结合分析观点和主要材料，并将在网络上免费提供。技术摘要该研究将对现有的奖学金作出四项贡献。首先，它将阐明新的概念工具和实践在知识领域之间旅行的过程;特别是，它将提供一个帐户的“疗效”和“证据”的概念最初与药物测试来谈话治疗研究的标准。第二，这项研究将揭示在人文科学的基础上，通过证明可信的知识，可以在研究试验和临床之间旅行的建设取决于保险公司的调解。第三，它将有助于目前关于医疗行业地位的辩论，因为它表明标准可以巩固而不是削弱专家的管辖权和权威主张。第四，它将填补现有文献中的经验空白，通过追踪一系列被很大程度上忽视的方法，即认知行为疗法的发展和上升到主导地位。总体目标是展示谈话科学如何挑战认知行为疗法优势的标准解释。在这项研究中提出的另一个解释机制是经济可行性;它是用来集中注意力的共同宪法的特定概念的“好的科学”和经济制度，有利于精神疾病的可解释的概念。这些结果将与政策制定者、临床医生和患者相关。他们还将有助于在心理治疗领域的经验验证的精神分析干预和临床工作中的这种做法的持续相关性正在进行的辩论。

General Audience SummaryThis postdoctoral fellowship will support a two-year study that investigates the rise of evidence-based, talk-therapeutic interventions. The study will include institutional and historical analyses of documents from training organizations, accreditation requirements, insurance reimbursement guidelines, and journal publications. These data will complement the author's extensive ethnographic observations and interviews with clinicians to facilitate the publication of articles and a monograph. The author will engage in a concerted effort to disseminate the study's findings to practitioners. Moreover, this project will include opportunities for training undergraduate students in research practices and developing their interests in science and technology studies and the sociology of medicine. Lastly, this study will result in a teaching module focused on contestations around "evidence" in the psychological sciences. The module will incorporate both analytical perspectives and primary materials, and will be freely available on the web.Technical SummaryThe study will make four contributions to existing scholarship. First, it will illuminate the processes by which novel conceptual tools and practices travel between domains of knowledge; specifically, it will provide an account of how notions of "efficacy" and "evidence" originally associated with pharmaceutical drug testing came to be the standards in talk therapeutic research. Second, this study will shed light on contestations within the human sciences by demonstrating that the construction of credible knowledge that can travel between the research trial and the clinic depends on the mediation of insurance companies. Third, it will contribute to current debates about the status of the medical profession by suggesting that standards can solidify rather than undermine experts' jurisdictional and authority claims. Fourth, it will fill an empirical gap in existing literature by tracing the development and rise to dominance of a set of approaches that has been largely overlooked, namely cognitive behavioral therapies. The overarching goal is to show how the science of talk challenges the standard interpretation of the ascendancy of cognitive behavior therapies. Another explanatory mechanism advanced in this study is economic viability; it is used to focus attention on the co-constitution of particular notions of "good science" and an economic regime that favors standardizable conceptions of mental illness. These results will be relevant to policy-makers, clinicians, and patients. They will also contribute to ongoing debates in the psychotherapy field regarding the empirical validation of psychoanalytic interventions and the continued relevance of such practices in clinical work.