|
Article Excerpt
This article revisits the criteria outlined for definition of "paradigms" of counseling and psychotherapy. It defines the emergence of social constructivism as a philosophy with implications for counseling and psychotherapy. It delimits social constructivism by proposing several social constructivist tenets. Social constructivism is assessed against paradigm criteria, and an opinion is offered as to whether social constructivism represents a paradigm of counseling and psychotherapy. Implications of the paradigm analysis for the practice of mental health counseling are outlined.
**********
In 1992, Cottone published a book that defined the nature of "paradigms" of counseling and psychotherapy. He defined the criteria for mental health practice according to three established paradigms: (1) the organic-medical, (2) psychological, and (3) systemic-relational paradigms. He also surmised about one emerging paradigm, which he defined as the "contextual paradigm." Since that time, the "social constructionism" movement in psychology (Gergen, 1985) and the "social constructivism" movement in the fields of counseling and psychotherapy in general (see Neimeyer & Mahoney, 1995) have constituted an intellectual movement that has begun to establish itself as a paradigm contender, with several contemporary therapeutic models demonstrating allegiance to social constructivism tenets. This paper will revisit the criteria Cottone (1992) proposed to define a paradigm, and then it will explore "social constructivism" as an emerging paradigm, displacing the parallel "contextualism" movement that Cottone felt held promise as a paradigm contender.
The importance of a paradigm analysis derives from its ability to raise the level of discourse about counseling and psychotherapy to a metatheoretical level. The term "metatheory," as used here, implies that a paradigm framework is a theory about theories. It offers a higher-level perspective for viewing the practice of counseling and psychotherapy. In other words, the paradigm framework is a metatheory for describing mental health services. It helps to place accepted models of counseling into a philosophical and professional context. Understanding the paradigms that underlie counseling practice is useful not only for theoreticians and philosophers of counseling and psychotherapy, but it also will aid practitioners as they make clinical judgments in everyday practice.
The implications of the paradigm analysis for mental health counseling practice are as follows. First, the paradigm analysis addresses the possibility that social constructivism can offer mental health counseling a philosophical framework to define the mental health counselor's role in the larger mental health service network. Second, it offers counselors a means to distinguish themselves theoretically from other paradigm-linked professions, such as psychiatry, psychology, and marriage and family therapy. Finally, it assists the mental health counselor in making choices about which techniques to apply, because it provides them a framework for making decisions on philosophical and metatheoretical grounds. These implications are addressed at length at the end of this article.
DEFINING PARADIGMS OF COUNSELING AND PSYCHOTHERAPY
In Theories and Paradigms of Counseling and Psychotherapy (Cottone, 1992), several criteria were outlined as crucial to the definition of a "paradigm." The term "paradigm" was adopted and modified from Kuhn's (1970) classic work on the philosophy of science, where he defined the existence and substance of "scientific paradigms." Related to counseling paradigms, Cottone (1992) stated:
Each criterion was chosen for its potential to add (in a cumulative way) to the definition of discrete models or patterns of ideas that constitute theory beyond the therapies of everyday practice. Counseling paradigms, so conceived, represent metatheoretical frameworks for conceptualizing and analyzing the practice of counseling and psychotherapy. (p. 20)
The criteria for a counseling paradigm are summarized as follows.
First, a counseling paradigm must have a competitive paradigm against which it can be tested in a scientific way. Cottone (1992) stated, "There must be substantial anomalous anecdotal, observational, or empirical evidence that is not supportive of the competitor paradigm" (p. 20). Paradigms can be pitted against one another in competitive test of efficiency under specified circumstances. For example, the methods associated with one paradigm can be compared to methods associated with another paradigm to see which set of methods works best with a specific problem. So when one paradigm begins to show weakness addressing a set of problems in a way that holds true to its tenets, then alternative perspectives emerge, often with paradigm-relevant implications. For example, the organic-medical paradigm gave way to psychological thinking when it could not account for behavior that did not correspond to observed physical causes (Freud, 1940/1949), and the psychological paradigm gave way to relational approaches that better addressed the complex relational context within which problems imbedded themselves (Bateson, Jackson, Haley & Weakland, 1956). Similarly, the systemic-relational paradigm was challenged by theorists (Bograd, 1984, 1986; Goldner, 1985, 1991; MacKinnon & Miller, 1987) who held that its foundational circular view of causality allowed for a relinquishing of individual responsibility, which seemed abhorrent in certain circumstances of abuse (e.g., sexual abuse of an infant) (see also McConaghy & Cottone, 1998). Paradigms, or emerging paradigms, therefore, can be tested against each other in competitive tests of efficacy in specified circumstances, and new paradigms may be found to be robust when addressing areas of weakness of the other paradigms.
Second, a paradigm must be philosophically distinct from its competitors, especially related to assumptions about the nature of problems and the focus of study. For example, according to the psychological paradigm, problems are designated in the context of "non-physical things," such as egos, self-concepts, rationality, or learning, which are all assessed at the...
|
