Email this article [The Study Days on reporting as an intervention method in Clinical Psychology] - The report and the diagnosis.
Abstract
In a previous work (Carli, 2007)1 I proposed a definition of the report and some methodological suggestions for its use in clinical psychology.
The report acquires meaning and usefulness only in a specific conception of clinical psychology, where the relationship is considered the means and the object of the intervention.
Focusing the relationship means the development of a theory of the technique that is to be used in intervening in the relationship, in a way that is consistent with the individual-context paradigm.
This approach is in contrast with other different visions of clinical psychology, which identify it with the study and treatment of psychopathological phenomena. When clinical psychology is likened to the diagnosis and treatment of psychopathological disorders, since psychopathology characterizes the individual, one implicitly accepts an individualistic vision of “psychological” problems. Psychopathology, in other words, conceptually and pragmatically limits its interest to the individual and to the deficit presented by the individual, as a deviation from normality.
I will briefly consider two of these visions of clinical psychology, both trying to confirm the identification of clinical psychology with the diagnosis2 and treatment of specific forms of psychopathology. One of these schools of thought is linked to the “verification of psychotherapy”; the other to “health psychology”. The first, as we shall see, mustliken clinical psychology to psychopathology, to be able to anchor the verification to a modification of the conditions diagnosed before the application of psychotherapy; but also to understand the psychotherapy process in psychopathological terms. The secondmust relegate clinical psychology to the domain of diagnosis and treatment of the psychopathology, in order to occupy the theoretical and pragmatic space that clinical psychology is thus forced to “vacate”. The reasons are different, as can be seen, but both aim to restrict the theoretical and pragmatic domain of clinical psychology.
Before making some comments on the report, I intend to present some brief critical comments on the two models that reduce clinical psychology to psychopathology which, as I have just said, can be called “verification of psychotherapy” on the one hand, and “health psychology” on the other.
The report acquires meaning and usefulness only in a specific conception of clinical psychology, where the relationship is considered the means and the object of the intervention.
Focusing the relationship means the development of a theory of the technique that is to be used in intervening in the relationship, in a way that is consistent with the individual-context paradigm.
This approach is in contrast with other different visions of clinical psychology, which identify it with the study and treatment of psychopathological phenomena. When clinical psychology is likened to the diagnosis and treatment of psychopathological disorders, since psychopathology characterizes the individual, one implicitly accepts an individualistic vision of “psychological” problems. Psychopathology, in other words, conceptually and pragmatically limits its interest to the individual and to the deficit presented by the individual, as a deviation from normality.
I will briefly consider two of these visions of clinical psychology, both trying to confirm the identification of clinical psychology with the diagnosis2 and treatment of specific forms of psychopathology. One of these schools of thought is linked to the “verification of psychotherapy”; the other to “health psychology”. The first, as we shall see, mustliken clinical psychology to psychopathology, to be able to anchor the verification to a modification of the conditions diagnosed before the application of psychotherapy; but also to understand the psychotherapy process in psychopathological terms. The secondmust relegate clinical psychology to the domain of diagnosis and treatment of the psychopathology, in order to occupy the theoretical and pragmatic space that clinical psychology is thus forced to “vacate”. The reasons are different, as can be seen, but both aim to restrict the theoretical and pragmatic domain of clinical psychology.
Before making some comments on the report, I intend to present some brief critical comments on the two models that reduce clinical psychology to psychopathology which, as I have just said, can be called “verification of psychotherapy” on the one hand, and “health psychology” on the other.
Copyright (c)
Rivista di Psicologia Clinica. Teoria e metodi dell'intervento
Rivista Telematica a Carattere Scientifico Registrazione presso il Tribunale civile di Roma (n.149/2006 del 17/03/2006)
ISSN 1828-9363