When Carl Rogers (1961, p. 25) wrote, “The facts are friendly,” he
was referring to scientific research. Nevertheless, humanistic theorists and
therapists have often considered research as dehumanizing. Perhaps psycho-
logical research’sfrequent focus on mechanical cause and effect and on linear
relations among quantified variables seems to constrict the understanding of
I thank Robert Elliott, Lam, M. Leitner, and the editors of this volume for comments on drafts of
this chapter.
605
human experience (see discussion by Walsh & McElwain, this volume,
chapter 8). A sad consequence is that humanistic therapies have been
researched less than they should have been. I believe that this view of
research is too narrow, based partly on a mistaken impression that psychologi-
cal research must imitate research in chemistry or engineering.
Science encompasses any comparison of ideas with observations. Num-
bers are admittedly remarkable; compared with words, their meaning is
relatively stable across time and people, so they allow scientists to say more
or less the same thing to everybody. Likewise, experimental designs and
statistical analyses are to be admired for their precision and potential general-
ity. However, many of the most interesting phenomena with which humanis-
tic theories and therapies are concerned, such as the unique life experiences
of individuals, cannot be well represented as numbers or as variables suscep-
tible to manipulation or control using currently available techniques
(Stiles, 1993).
Humanistic researchers need not let their own or others’ admiration
of precise methods trap them into “looking under the lamppost’’ (after the
story of the inebriated man who dropped his keys in a dark alley but looked
for them under a streetlight because the light was better), that is, into using
methods that seem elegant but are nevertheless inappropriate for the topic
of interest. If a topic cannot be adequately addressed using available experi-
mental designs and linear statistical analyses-and many cannot-then
other observational techniques are available. Among these are case studies
and other qualitative approaches, such as idiographic studies, ethnography,
ethnomethodology, grounded theory, protocol analysis, discourse analysis,
conversational analysis, constructivist approaches, phenomenology, or her-
meneutic investigation (e.g., see Rennie’s chapter 4,this volume). Distinc-
tive characteristics of qualitative research that could make it suitable for
addressing humanistic topics may include the following: (a) results that are
reported in words rather than only in numbers, (b) use of many descriptors
rather than restriction to a few common dimensions or scales, (c) use of
investigators’ empathic understanding of participants’ inner experiences as
data, (d) understanding and reporting of events in their unique context,
(e) selecting participants or texts or other material to study because they
are good examples rather than because they are representative of some larger
population, (f) reports that use alternatives to traditional didactic discourse,
including narratives or hermeneutic interpretations, (8) accommodating
unpredictability due to sensitive dependence on initial conditions (small
initial events may have huge consequences), (h) empowering of participants
considered as a legitimate purpose of the research (e.g., encouraging them
to change their social conditions), and, above all, (i) tentativeness in inter-
pretations (Stiles, 1993, 1999b). Even though the conclusions of qualitative
OUTCOME RESEARCH
OUTCOME MEASUREMENT
PROCESS RESEARCH
61 2 WLLIAM B. STILES
another way, the major humanistic theories are partly implicit and continu-
ally emerging.
The deep appeal of the heroes’ visions can make them competitors
with research as means of quality control on ideas. That is, to assess the
quality of our ideas, we may turn to the words of the heroes rather than to
observations. Perhaps this is not entirely misguided. Research based on a
weak understanding of the vision (e.g., reductionistic operationalizationsof
humanistic concepts) is dismissed by proponents and hence has little impact
on quality control. Comparing a new idea with the writings of the master
may, paradoxically, offer a better test of its fit with clinical reality. However,
there are obvious long-term dangers in such a closed system, in which ideas
are judged only in relation to other ideas. Part of the research task is to
articulate the vision in ways that are simultaneouslyacceptableto proponents
and susceptible to observation.
In good research, when the ideas are compared with the observations,
the ideas are thereby changed; they are strengthened, weakened, qualified,
or elaborated. Thus, good research on humanistic concepts must put those
concepts at risk. The risk may be compounded for humanistic researchers,
whose concepts may overlap extensively with their values. Research will
not tell us what is good, though people can use research results to argue
for their own views and values. Research is most productive when researchers
have the courage to face potentially unfriendly findings with an underlying
confidence that the facts are friendly.
REFERENCES
Ablon, J. S., & Jones, E. E. (1998). How expert clinicians’ prototypes of an ideal
treatment correlate with outcome in psychodynamic and cognitive-behavioral
therapy. Psychotherapy Research, 8, 71-83.
Bohart, A. C. (1990). A cognitive client-centered perspective on borderline person-
ality development. In G. Lietaer, J. Rombauts, & R. Van Balen (Eds.), Client-
centered and experiential psychotherapy in the nineties (pp. 599-622). Leuven,
Belgium: Leuven University Press.
Bohart, A. C., O’Hara, M., & Leitner, L. M. (1998). Empirically violated treatments:
Disenfranchisement of humanistic and other psychotherapies. Psychotherapy
Research, 8, 141-157.
Elliott, R. (1996). Are client-centered/experiential therapies effective? A meta-
analysis of outcome research. In U. h e r , H. Pabst, & G.-W. Speierer (Eds.),
The power of the person-centered approach: New challenges, perspectives, answers
(pp. 125-138). Koln, Germany: GwG Verlag.
Elliott, R. (1998). Editor’s introduction: A guide to the empirically supported
treatments controversy. Psychotherapy Research, 8, 115-125.