This first issue of the third volume of the Ejournal includes several cutting edge contributions. Each push the field by their innovations.The classic case of Mary is presented by Roger Callahan, the inventor of Thought Field Therapy. This is the first reported case of the use of TFT, then it was in it's very early stages.
The essay by David Baldwin needs no explanation. It is well-written and quite direct. Here he focuses on the American Psychological Association Working Group Final Report and EMDR as classic conflicts between research and practicing psychologists. In his final section, after noting the views of both camps, he urges consensus building, though admitting that it is complex business. This is especially so in the field of traumatology that is supercharged by those we study and treat, the victimized. He suggests that consensus will require resolving disagreements over the metric of change, among other things. Baldwin settles for a method, suggested by Laudan in his 1996 book, Beyond Positivism and Relativism, that a single theory of traumatizaiton be identified and that rival theories must prove it's superiority by following the various standards of the field. The suggestion is ". . . that we identify differences in values, standards, and definitions across opposing groups, and seek reconciliation."
Yet the battle the paper really addresses is not between competing theories as much as the issues he points out, between researchers and practitioners. In his last paragraph he emphasizes the utility of both sides joining together on common causes. For-profit managed care was noted as a candidate.
David Baldwin mentioned that the study Joyce Carbonell and I conducted was a good example of collaboration between researchers and practitioners. In the study of four treatment approaches claiming cures for PTSD, Master Practitioners came to our laboratory to treat the research clients we had recruited for the study. Before and after their clinical work they met for three hours with area traumatologists (mostly psychologists and social workers). The FSU research team collaborated with these practitioners in understanding the special characteristics of the treatment approaches we were examining. Practitioners did not want our research team to be fooled by poor therapy or unsubstantiated claims. In the end both groups benefited because we were able to provide a kind of Consumer Reports report on what we found. We found all four worthy of additional and more careful research and experimental use by our practitioner colleagues.
As we attempt to join practitioners with researchers on projects such as the FSU Active Ingredient Project, we must search for consensus to create a theory of the traumatization process. This call is not new. I made a similar call in the first article of the first issue of the Journal of Traumatic Stress in 1988 (January). The most recent issue of the Journal includes a very passionate plea for theory development. Perhaps there is now sufficient support to call for a conference on the development of a unifying theory of traumatology. If any institution deserves the opportunity it would be the National PTSD Center. They more than any other have fueled interest in traumatology by focusing on the immediate and long-term psychosocial and medical consequences of war on combatants and those who support them.
There are two reviews. The first, by Thomas and Jacobs, reviews Schacter's "Searching for Memory The Brain, the Mind, and the Past." The reviewers lead the reader through the book and pointing out the interesting and useful discoveries that inform our understanding of memory. Similar to their praise of Schacter's book, Thomas and Jacobs also provides ". . . painless introduction to cognitive neuroscience, a field from which some clinicians have traditionally been distant" (p. 6). They note that according to some recent research, there may be as many as four or five memory systems. Among other recommendations, they urge practitioners to review these important discoveries and tailor their treatment procedures accordingly. Thus, multiple personality disorder is a dysfunctional version of multiple memories with multiple identities. These are exciting times in the traumatology field.
The second review is by Joseph Plaud from the University of North Dakota. He reviews the Red River Valley flood of 1997. Though admitting the task of analyzing and comprehending the suffering in his town of Grand Forks and throughout the valley, the effort is useful commentary. This is a product of an invitation to tell the story today of his experiences and the experiences of those that he observed. The review was accepted by the Editorial Board as it was received. One Board member wrote:
I would like to hear more about the issues Joseph raises in his final, paragraph i.e., disagreements over community issues directly related to the common experience-the disaster. I'm not aware of anything in the trauma literature on such long term issues as the ones Joseph raises.
Are we to understand disagreements over how to "recover" or learn from the exposure to disaster as components of a community's long-term adjustment after a disaster? Are there important personality variables which determine/shape what issues become "issues"? (Joseph cites disagreements over who benefited from the Angel's benevolence and where to locate the new levee. What other things is the community debating/disagreeing about?)
The only thing close I can recall to what I think Joseph is touching on is the discussion, as described by Wil Scott, when Oklahoma City leaders were considering moving the annual 4th of July pyrotechnics from downtown-the usual venue-to a more remote location in the Summer following the bombing. In OKLAHOMA CITY, this discussion related to a once a year event. Joseph suggests long-term/permanent issues-perhaps a scarlet letter worn by "unworthy" Angel beneficiaries, and certainly, where to locate the new flood control structures.
Can you impose on Joseph to write more about these issues? If not now, maybe for a later issue. At any rate, I appreciate the perspective Joseph brings. Thanks to him and you for sharing this.These contributions, in their own way, impose on all of the authors to write more. The case description of Mary begs for more discussion and speculations. The Baldwin essay and the two reviews all represent a call for collaboration.
We hope that they have stimulated your interest and that you will be more interested in making a contribution yourself. If so, please see the homepage for directions on how to make a submission to the Ejournal.
Charles R. Figley, Ph.D., Professor and EditorEmail: cfigley@garnet.acns.fsu.edu
GreenCrossProjects HomePage: http://www.fsu.edu/~gcp
Editor of the ejournal,
TRAUMATOLOGYe: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/trauma/traumaj.html.Copyright © 1997 Traumatology Forum
Green Cross
Forum
