Meehl(1997) made a strong argument why discrediting knowledge claims based solely on anecdotal impressions in clinical psychotherapy is critical. And he also made it clear that it is through scientific approaches that we can discriminate a knowledge claim that brings good credentials from one that does not. But while reading the article, I could not grasp what constitutes a solid set of credentialed knowledge. If it is a collective set of credential knowledge, I think the five noble intellectual traditions (psychometrics, applied learning theory, behavior genetics, descriptive clinical psychiatry, and psychodynamics) could be good examples? But, on a second thought, Are they all made up of credentialed knowledge? Obviously, not all the component of each tradition do consist of credentialed knowledge. What will be a sound determinant to set up a good tradition against inherent none-credentialed components? How we deal with some variation and different forms of credentialed knowledge?
In addition, if a credentialed knowledge is powerful research findings with solid scientific methods, the time required for validation to be credentialed knowledge are the same? What is the degree of deal with spectrum of possibly credential, highly credential, and credentialed knowledge? For example, behavior genetics have found out etiologies of some disorders, such as schizophrenia and affect disorders, which cannot be refutable. A recent research, in the same area of behavior genetics, found out that gene seemed to play a different level of roles in infants’ IQ according to parents’ socio-economic status. With poverty conditions, the effect of gene on IQ seemed to be controlled, while higher SES group, the effect of gene on IQ appeared to be much more influential. To me, those two finding looks credential based on data, but the former one looks more clear-cut and more credential because there are less environmental variables involved. In this case, can I say the former study is more credential than the latter one?
I was very much confused with not just for this "credential kwnoledge" issue. The issue of integration also looks quite difficult for me. In order for psycotherapy to be integrated into practice of psychology, "making whole"(Sechrest & Smith, 2004), I think credentialed knowledge is one of the key paratemeters to be considered. Then, how can I draw the link between credential knowledge and the integration of psychotherapy into practive of psychology? I came accross with so many queries I could not think of answers with my limited knowledge. Hewwww.
댓글 1개:
In a funny sense, HJ, I think your reactions are not out of line with what Meehl intended. He does argue unequivocally that credentialed knowledge should be based on empirical evidence, but also admits that this is quite difficult, quite demanding, and that, indeed, he hasn't really held himself to his own standard a lot of the time. However, it remains true that his own clinical history is not evidence that his point about credentialed knowledge is false. As for Sechrest and Smith, I will look forward to hearing some of your questions tomorrow.
댓글 쓰기