Clinical controversy and the domains of scientific evidence.

J. Z. Sadler, Y. F. Hulgus

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The diversity of mental health care "schools" or therapeutic perspectives poses problems in selecting and using any single therapeutic perspective. This article describes the genesis of clinical controversy--that is, how two or more therapeutic perspectives of the same clinical situation can be so different yet not necessarily differ in outcome. Ideas drawn from contemporary philosophy of science show how different "schools" derive separate, incompatible sets of scientific evidence from the same clinical situation. The school or theory determines (in part) not just what evidence is used, but what evidence is actually perceived. The authors conclude by recommending a pluralistic approach to mental health care; they map out some consequences of this pluralism and suggest some strategies for minimizing the disadvantages of "mixing and matching" therapeutic perspectives.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)21-36
Number of pages16
JournalFamily Process
Volume30
Issue number1
StatePublished - Mar 1991

Fingerprint

evidence
Mental Health
mental health
school
health care
Delivery of Health Care
Cultural Diversity
philosophy of science
Therapeutics
pluralism

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)
  • Clinical Psychology
  • Social Sciences (miscellaneous)

Cite this

Clinical controversy and the domains of scientific evidence. / Sadler, J. Z.; Hulgus, Y. F.

In: Family Process, Vol. 30, No. 1, 03.1991, p. 21-36.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sadler, J. Z. ; Hulgus, Y. F. / Clinical controversy and the domains of scientific evidence. In: Family Process. 1991 ; Vol. 30, No. 1. pp. 21-36.
@article{b9587e8cf5cf469bb762298601df44ba,
title = "Clinical controversy and the domains of scientific evidence.",
abstract = "The diversity of mental health care {"}schools{"} or therapeutic perspectives poses problems in selecting and using any single therapeutic perspective. This article describes the genesis of clinical controversy--that is, how two or more therapeutic perspectives of the same clinical situation can be so different yet not necessarily differ in outcome. Ideas drawn from contemporary philosophy of science show how different {"}schools{"} derive separate, incompatible sets of scientific evidence from the same clinical situation. The school or theory determines (in part) not just what evidence is used, but what evidence is actually perceived. The authors conclude by recommending a pluralistic approach to mental health care; they map out some consequences of this pluralism and suggest some strategies for minimizing the disadvantages of {"}mixing and matching{"} therapeutic perspectives.",
author = "Sadler, {J. Z.} and Hulgus, {Y. F.}",
year = "1991",
month = "3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "30",
pages = "21--36",
journal = "Family Process",
issn = "0014-7370",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical controversy and the domains of scientific evidence.

AU - Sadler, J. Z.

AU - Hulgus, Y. F.

PY - 1991/3

Y1 - 1991/3

N2 - The diversity of mental health care "schools" or therapeutic perspectives poses problems in selecting and using any single therapeutic perspective. This article describes the genesis of clinical controversy--that is, how two or more therapeutic perspectives of the same clinical situation can be so different yet not necessarily differ in outcome. Ideas drawn from contemporary philosophy of science show how different "schools" derive separate, incompatible sets of scientific evidence from the same clinical situation. The school or theory determines (in part) not just what evidence is used, but what evidence is actually perceived. The authors conclude by recommending a pluralistic approach to mental health care; they map out some consequences of this pluralism and suggest some strategies for minimizing the disadvantages of "mixing and matching" therapeutic perspectives.

AB - The diversity of mental health care "schools" or therapeutic perspectives poses problems in selecting and using any single therapeutic perspective. This article describes the genesis of clinical controversy--that is, how two or more therapeutic perspectives of the same clinical situation can be so different yet not necessarily differ in outcome. Ideas drawn from contemporary philosophy of science show how different "schools" derive separate, incompatible sets of scientific evidence from the same clinical situation. The school or theory determines (in part) not just what evidence is used, but what evidence is actually perceived. The authors conclude by recommending a pluralistic approach to mental health care; they map out some consequences of this pluralism and suggest some strategies for minimizing the disadvantages of "mixing and matching" therapeutic perspectives.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0026129770&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0026129770&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 2044748

AN - SCOPUS:0026129770

VL - 30

SP - 21

EP - 36

JO - Family Process

JF - Family Process

SN - 0014-7370

IS - 1

ER -