The Conception and Purpose of This Volume

So far, I have tried to indicate that essentially there are two kinds of research approaches to the psychotherapeutic process: the clinical, used preponderantly by practicing analysts and therapists; and the experimental, exemplified chiefly by clinical research psychologists. While changes are gradually taking place, it appears that clinical penetration and scientific rigor have varied inversely. Furthermore, the two approaches undoubtedly reflect the temperaments of the proponents. If the advances of psychoanalysis as a therapeutic technique are compared with the experimental research contributions, there can be little argument as to which has more profoundly enriched theory and practice of psychotherapy. To make the point more boldly, I believe that, up to the present, research contributions have had exceedingly little influence on the practical procedures of psychotherapy. This, in view of the advocacy of more and more research, the expansion of facilities and the greater availability of federal and private financial support, is a deeply disquieting state of affairs requiring closer scrutiny. Why is this so? Why have research contributions had so little impact? Is it that they have nothing to teach the practicing therapist? Are therapists so impervious to scientific findings that they are unable to profit from them? Is our knowledge of the subject matter so rudimentary that at this stage research cannot possibly by expected to have left its mark on clinical practices? I raise these questions, not as a therapeutic nihilist but as a researcher who feels that important answers should come from research. But, I must confess that I am not fully convinced that they will. A closer look at the contemporary scene may not enable one to discern trends to forecast the future, but it may help to clarify the schism that divides practicing therapists and investigators doing research on the therapeutic process. (Strupp, 1960, p. 63)

This book is the story of the Psychotherapy Re