The upshot for me is that the constructivism vs. objectivism dimension (1)
is not sufficient in itself to characterize a given school of therapy,
which must be "fleshed out" in terms of other dimensions as well, and (2)
is better used as a yardstick (meter stick, for non-American colleagues) to
measure developments within a particular school of therapy, than as a means
of assigning whole schools of therapy to one pole or the other on a
pre-emptive (or constellatory) basis. For example, it is quite possible to
detect non-constructivist strains in even an ardent constructivist like
Kelly, something a deconstructionist would take great satisfaction in
doing!
What I'd really like to see is more process/outcome research on these three
styles of therapy that would illuminate their meaningful differences where
the "rubber meets the road" in actual sessions. Some preliminary but
provocative forrays in this direction have recently appeared in the Journal
of Constructivist Psychology, as in the piece by Vincent & LeBow in 8, 2.
Robert A. Neimeyer, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
University of Memphis
Memphis, TN 38152
(901) 678-4680
FAX (901) 678-2579
neimeyerra@MSUVX1.MEMPHIS.EDU
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%