Quantitative Unease
A column dedicated to demystifying psychotherapy research – love it, hate it, or both…at least try to know what it’s all about!
A Christmas Invitation: Let’s Invite & Celebrate Unpredictability
Admittedly, there is some comfort in predictability. Take Christmas. We know that it falls on 25th December every year. There are no surprises. Christmas approaches with the same predictability that it has for centuries. And so do the disagreements around the dinner table.
The debate as to whether Group Analysis is a science and whether we should carry out empirical research takes a similar predictable course. Those heated (Christmas) arguments are more predictable than group dynamics. What happens in groups often surprise us, despite our theories, clinical experience, skills and expertise. Groups are not as predictable as one would hope.
Predictability forms part of the nomothetic paradigm and science, where it’s celebrated and embraced. Does this mean that Group Analysis isn’t or can’t be a science, because it lacks predictability?
Well, I suggest Group Analysis is a science. Others might object to my assertion or even find this undesirable, if it were the case. Why? Because they may view science as too prescriptive, associated with power and control of relations. They may regard empirical research as authoritarian. Something that needs to be resisted. Possibly, because it clashes with Foulkes’ dictum that Group Analysis is for the group and by the group, including its conductor. This claim makes Group Analysis appear anti-authoritarian in contrast to empirical research. But is this so? Is empirical research authoritarian?
Recently, I’ve read an interesting view, which challenges this assumption. Empirical research is anti-authoritarian, the argument goes. Why? Because science, as such, is neither a dictatorship nor a democracy. ‘Scientific truth’ is neither dictated nor voted on. In the world of scientific research, only logic and facts count. Whilst opinions of authorities are accepted up to a certain degree, they are viewed as hypotheses that need to be refuted or validated.
This means that science and empirical research can’t be authoritarian. And, at least if we apply binary logic, they are anti-authoritarian at their core. Hence, science, empirical research and Group Analysis have a lot in common. Both are anti-authoritarian, they don’t aim to search for and establish a truth through mechanisms of authoritarian dictatorship. Both want to belong, hope to predict events and would like to understand these better. Both test their predictions. Group Analysis and empirical research should therefore make a happy couple, because they share so many fundamental aspects and Group Analysis should be viewed as a science. So why isn’t this the case?
Ultimately, we never know the outcome of empirical research, as we don’t know how a group session will develop, or how groups react. Often, we are humbled by the unpredictability of events and (group) behaviour. This allows us to research what we’re interested in finding out. If we knew it beforehand, there would be no need for (creative) research at all, right? It shows that less predictability can be more. Hence, I invite you to celebrate the unknown science of Group Analysis and leave predictability at the Christmas table.
Merry Christmas and Seasonal Greetings to all of you.
Susanne Vosmer
s.vosmer@gmail.com