How nice is good for patients and for therapy outcome? The role of confrontation in the process of psychotherapy

It is well established that the therapeutic relationship contributes about as much to therapy outcome as 'technical' intervention. Furthermore, it follows clear prescriptive concepts in the same manner as technical interventions do. 'Motive Oriented Therapeutic Relationship' is such a concept for establishing a solid basis for whatever therapeutic work the patients' problems require (Grawe, 1980, 1992; Caspar, 1996). Yet, the therapeutic relationship doesn't explain everything because other factors play a significant role too. Previous studies showed that outcome is clearly better when therapists achieved a generally high quality of a therapeutic relationship when they did not shy away from possibly threatening interventions such as confrontations. This ratio of a fruitful alliance and marginally present confrontations in the same session also showed significant correlations with patient's assessment of alliance and progress in therapy (Figlioli et al., 2009).Aim: The current state of research in the field does not give any answers to questions like how good and bad confrontations can be characterized or what role does the intensity, respectively frequency of confrontations play in the process of psychotherapy. Methods: A sample of 80 therapies of 3 sessions each representing either good or bad outcome was judged moment by moment by independent raters if and how therapists used confrontative interventions. Results: Preliminary analyses show that successful confrontations are explicitly uttered, short but intense, related to important patients goals in therapy and embedded in prior complementarity. Discussion: The results will be discussed in terms of their implications for the clinical daily work.

How nice is good for patients and for therapy outcome? The role of confrontation in the process of psychotherapy

It is well established that the therapeutic relationship contributes about as much to therapy outcome as ‘technical’ intervention. Furthermore, it follows clear prescriptive concepts in the same manner as technical interventions do. ‘Motive Oriented Therapeutic Relationship’ is such a concept for establishing a solid basis for whatever therapeutic work the patients’ problems require (Grawe, 1980, 1992; Caspar, 1996). Yet, the therapeutic relationship doesn’t explain everything because other factors play a significant role too. Previous studies showed that outcome is clearly better when therapists achieved a generally high quality of a therapeutic relationship when they did not shy away from possibly threatening interventions such as confrontations. This ratio of a fruitful alliance and marginally present confrontations in the same session also showed significant correlations with patient’s assessment of alliance and progress in therapy (Figlioli et al., 2009). These findings are also very much in line with Sachse’s metaphor of accumulating, but then also using ‘relationship credits’ and Farrelly’s ‘Provocative Therapy’ (1986), as well as the ‘Intensive Short-Term Dynamic Psychotherapy’ by Davanloo (1980).Aim: The current state of research in the field does not give any answers to questions like how good and bad confrontations can be characterized or what role does the intensity, respectively frequency of confrontations play in the process of psychotherapy.Methods: A sample of 80 therapies of 3 sessions each representing either good or bad outcome was judged moment by moment by independent raters if and how therapists used confrontative interventions. Results / Discussion: The results will be discussed in terms of their implications for the clinical daily work. Preliminary analyses show that successful confrontations are explicitly uttered, short but intense, related to important patients goals in therapy and embedded in prior complementarity.

Ethics in science: enhancing the democratisation of knowledge production in transdisciplinary research partnerships for sustainable development

Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful individual and social mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. Indeed, concepts of sustainable development imply a transformation of science towards fostering democratisation of knowledge production and the development of knowledge societies as a strategic goal. This means to open the process of scientific knowledge production while simultaneously empowering people to implement their own visions for sustainable development. Advocates of sustainability science support this transformation. In transdisciplinary practice, they advance equity and accountability in the access to and production of knowledge at the science–society interface. UNESCO points to advancements, yet Northern dominance persists in knowledge production as well as in technology design and transfer. Further, transdisciplinary practice remains experimental and hampered by inadequate and asymmetrically equipped institutions in the North and South and related epistemological and operational obscurity. To help identify clear, practicable transdisciplinary approaches, I recommend examining the institutional route – i.e., the learning and adaptation process – followed in concrete cases. The transdisciplinary Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Programme (1998–2013) is a case ripe for such examination. Understanding transdisciplinarity as an integrative approach, I highlight ESAPP’s three key principles for a more democratised knowledge production for sustainable development: (1) integration of scientific and “non-scientific” knowledge systems; (2) integration of social actors and institutions; and (3) integrative learning processes. The analysis reveals ESAPP’s achievements in contributing to more democratic knowledge production and South ownership in the realm of sustainable development.