Return to Table of Contents

From the Editor

Editorial

Martin Williams, Ph.D.

I write this having recently returned from the MidWinter meeting of the Division 42 Board of Directors in Scottsdale, AZ. A great deal of Divisional Business was accomplished during the two days of meetings. Let me focus on two themes that caught my attention in Scottsdale.

First, the Publications and Communications Committee spent a great deal of time assessing the importance of the printed version of this publication, the Independent Practitioner. With the tremendous growth of the internet and with computers becoming as familiar as telephones in homes and offices, we grappled with the question of just how much bang for the buck we were getting by publishing the IP using old fashioned ink and paper, and paying the old fashioned post office tons of money for old fashioned postage. After all, the IP is available online and has been for a few years now. Possibilities were considered, such as a smaller IP with links to full versions of articles on the Division 42 website, eliminating the paper version all together while sending email notifications to members when a new edition has been posted to the web, offering members the option of receiving print or internet versions, or leaving things as they are.

This topic will continue to be reviewed, but our conclusion in Scottsdale was to leave the Independent Practitioner as it is. Time and Newsweek, Vanity Fair and GQ, are all published by companies who know full well how to create virtual versions of these products on the internet, yet they continue to publish print versions. We think we know why: There continues to be nothing as portable and available as a paper and ink version of a publication. Paper publications are read at the beach, in waiting rooms, in fast food restaurants and Starbucks. A copy of the IP sitting on top of the toilet tank is more likely to be read than one spinning on our web server. Before I was editor—meaning before I was compelled to read every article—the IP sat in the back seat of my car, and I typically read it while eating dinner prior to a late night of seeing patients. Even though I am someone who is connected to the internet during most of my waking hours, the paper format was the one that worked for me. Members of the Board of Directors tended to agree that separating members from the quarterly IP may well be pennywise and pound foolish. We want Division members to feel connected to the Division and to be aware of important news affecting Independent Practitioners. Perhaps when technology evolves to the point where most people have an electronic e-book reader in every room of their homes, including their bathrooms, an all electronic IP will make sense. For now, though, our highest priority is to keep members informed and connected to the division. Consequently, we will continue to give the printer and the U.S. Postal Service our business, and the IP will continue to appear in its present, physical, form in your real mailbox—not your virtual inbox.

The second interesting theme that I encountered in Scottsdale concerned the buzz phrase, evidence based practice (EBP). I won’t go into great detail about this, as it is something members will be hearing more about from many sources. I will just emphasize that EBP may be the greatest threat to hit Independent Practitioners in years. Like many threats we have faced, it comes not from without by from within, being promoted by other psychologists with the APA. The premise of EBP is that the methods we use must be substantiated by empirical research, the same kind of research that supports the efficacy of Prozac over a placebo. Some have even argued that using treatment methods that have not been substantiated by objective research ought to be made unethical. Imagine being called before the APA Ethics Committee or your state psychology board because you are accused of having made a psychodynamic interpretation. Will the board buy the argument that psychodynamic methods are difficult to study? Will they buy the argument that psychotherapy is a personal exploration between two individuals and is far too complex to subject to the same methods that might substantiate the efficacy of Viagra?

Those of us who use psychodynamic, eclectic, multimodal behavioral and humanistic methods, and who feel that psychotherapy is as much art as science, can see the dangers of holding ourselves to this kind of standard. At the same time, others in our field are ready to jump on the EBP bandwagon. My view is that the last thing we want is for any APA entity to go down the EBP path. If someone wants to practice using only methods that have been substantiated by double-blind studies, that’s fine, but don’t harass me with your ideas of what constitutes proper practice. I anticipate that we will be reading much more about EBP in the IP. Once again Independent Practitioners rediscover a great irony in our field: The greatest threat to the practice of psychology may lie not from psychiatry, not from the HMO’s, but from our own kind. Stay tuned…

Return to Top