dear sheila and dan
thanks for your input i agree there are confounding issues in all of
this type of research, some of which you elucidated very well.
however, i do think that if we as practitioners of a methodology want
that methodology ultimately accepted in the broader therapeutic
community, we need to submit our work (and ask our patients to submit
themselves too)too empirical research. it will inevitably be
qualitative, but i think we can do better than anecdotes alone. For
example there are standard outcome measures of interventions that can
be used, in phone interviews or face to face, which can then be
adjusted for the confounders you mention.
i think this work is effective, i believe that research could prove
it so satisfactorily to stand beside other therapeutic interventions,
and i think it is important that that be proven at some level.
i personally am not a big researcher in the empirical stakes. my phd
was by analytic semi-structured interview. however i know there are
some psychologists on the chat group, who have expertise in the
research area - perhaps they could help. i just have a willingness
becuase i feel it is an important thing we are doing with this
constellation work and i'd like to see it ultimately take its place
with other recognised interventions.
best regards to all
sarah
-- In ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "sheila saunders"
<peacefulcentre@h...> wrote:
