massage and bodywork professionals
a community of practitioners
I'm sorry, I just don't get research....
I started another blog post on the future of the massage profession and happened to mention research. It turned into a discussion on research. I decided to start a new blog post.
I'm sorry, I just don't get research. I'm not interested in it really even though I do have more of a science background than most massage therapists (AA degree in Biology). I am interested enough that I do keep trying to learn about it but I am just not getting it. The way researchers talk is beyond me. The best thing I can think of is the theories in a book called "Made to Stick" where they talk about a few things like the "Curse of Knowledge" where people know too much and forget that others don't know what they know and how to take info and put it into usable formats so that all understand.
What good will it do to have one or two studies that show promise in one area? All of the research on cancer and we still don't have a cure for it although Candace Pert says she has one but she can't get funding to study it. No one wants the answer. (updated post - actually I think Candace Pert says she has the cure for aids not cancer - my mistake!)
So what if there were 20 or 100 studies done on a topic? Would that prove that it works? No, not really. When I took a research class on cancer with Tracy Walton a few years ago she said to say something like 'research shows promising results in this area".
I am also quite skeptical having a friend in research at a prominent univ. where she manages researchers who are always skewing the results and throwing out data that doesn't fit their hypothesis. It is funded by big drug companies of course and the researchers want to continue to play and have their jobs.
Who is interpreting research for us? Is there someone who is going through research and analyzing it saying things like who did funded the study, what were the results, how good of a study was it etc? I would guess that people reading research could interpret the results the way they want to see them. How is research being used? How will it improve my business or practice? I do mainly injury work but don't feel any need for research. If massage doesn't work within a few weeks or a month, I send people on their way maybe even to another massage therapist. If research says it will work -does that mean my technique and presence will work?
And speaking of research - What I would like to see researched is how many hours of training do we need as a massage therapist? Is massage licensing needed or even working to do anything for the profession? I would love to see research on just using presence and the healing process. How would you measure that?
So I don't really know where I am going with this. I sort of have this interest but bad taste about research. I am going to the conference so I am sure I will be writing about it later!
Julie
I'm sorry, I just don't get research. I'm not interested in it really even though I do have more of a science background than most massage therapists (AA degree in Biology). I am interested enough that I do keep trying to learn about it but I am just not getting it. The way researchers talk is beyond me. The best thing I can think of is the theories in a book called "Made to Stick" where they talk about a few things like the "Curse of Knowledge" where people know too much and forget that others don't know what they know and how to take info and put it into usable formats so that all understand.
What good will it do to have one or two studies that show promise in one area? All of the research on cancer and we still don't have a cure for it although Candace Pert says she has one but she can't get funding to study it. No one wants the answer. (updated post - actually I think Candace Pert says she has the cure for aids not cancer - my mistake!)
So what if there were 20 or 100 studies done on a topic? Would that prove that it works? No, not really. When I took a research class on cancer with Tracy Walton a few years ago she said to say something like 'research shows promising results in this area".
I am also quite skeptical having a friend in research at a prominent univ. where she manages researchers who are always skewing the results and throwing out data that doesn't fit their hypothesis. It is funded by big drug companies of course and the researchers want to continue to play and have their jobs.
Who is interpreting research for us? Is there someone who is going through research and analyzing it saying things like who did funded the study, what were the results, how good of a study was it etc? I would guess that people reading research could interpret the results the way they want to see them. How is research being used? How will it improve my business or practice? I do mainly injury work but don't feel any need for research. If massage doesn't work within a few weeks or a month, I send people on their way maybe even to another massage therapist. If research says it will work -does that mean my technique and presence will work?
And speaking of research - What I would like to see researched is how many hours of training do we need as a massage therapist? Is massage licensing needed or even working to do anything for the profession? I would love to see research on just using presence and the healing process. How would you measure that?
So I don't really know where I am going with this. I sort of have this interest but bad taste about research. I am going to the conference so I am sure I will be writing about it later!
Julie
Views: 171
Comment
-
Comment by Stephen Jeffrey on April 14, 2010 at 4:45am
-
Vlad, I can understand your fustration if there is a general lack of interest in something you are passionate about. But resorting to using teminology that labels your own profession as a joke and your fellow professionals as sh1t shovelers isn't likely to win anybody over to considering your point of view ?
NO ONE is denying that we should intuitively evolve techniques as we experiment within the mini-laboratory of our bodywork practices. NO ONE is saying we should ignore intuition, forget caring, deny relationships.
Stefanie, I guess I was just wanting to see where MTs draw the defining line in wether or not to use a technique/modality however learned/evolved. For some, the weight of research, provides enough validation to withdraw its use, for others it does not.
Now then....where did I leave my shovel :)
-
Comment by Stefanie Adams on April 13, 2010 at 10:59pm
-
Stephen, here's your original question: "I'm just curious to know if you or a collegue ever intuitivly developed an amazing unique technique that subsiquent research could not validate would you drop that technique?"
Your conclusion does not follow: "The fact that you would stop using a technique, intuitively evolved from your uniquely effective client therapist relationship, due to research results, I think, would be BONKERS. "
In your original question you didn't ask about a technique that evolved. You asked about an ORIGINAL technique. An evolved technique is not original. We all evolve the techniques we learned in school as we develop unique relationships with our clients. It's the natural process.
WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF THE ORIGINAL TECHNIQUES TAUGHT IN SCHOOL AND CONTINUING ED CLASSES.
NO ONE is denying that we should intuitively evolve techniques as we experiment within the mini-laboratory of our bodywork practices. NO ONE is saying we should ignore intuition, forget caring, deny relationships.
We are saying this: start by learning techniques that have been scientifically proven to get good results. Then use them. Humanize them. Let them evolve into practices that suit your unique style as a therapist and your unique client relationships. But constantly refer back to the scientific method to re-evaluate your practices and gain new knowledge.
We need a balanced feedback mechanism to stay true to our profession: internal sources (our feelings & intuition), interpersonal sources (our relationships), AND external sources - RESEARCH. Without research we get stuck in ourselves.
-
Comment by Vlad on April 13, 2010 at 6:08pm
-
Right - just let your clients "jump into the arms of big placebo", as Specter said.
To me it's bonkers for anyone to accept big placebo as justification for anything. But then again, do most therapists even think about the placebo effect in their practice? "Sure, the clients and I see results. They feel better. What's the harm in me keeping on doing it even if it's been shown scientifically to have no effect? What the client feels is all that matters"
If people can't see that's there's something wrong with that, then there's no point in even doing research and the profession will always be a joke in the eyes of scientists and the medical community.
I've come to the conclusion it's a lost cause anyway. The fact that there are so few interested in what is going on in research shows the state of the profession. People can't even see the logic in why it's important. They can't even see the ethical aspects of it. So yeah, it doesn't matter, Stephen. Our profession will always be full of crap. We'll sell crap and believe in crap and if the crap makes the client feel better, then why not?
The fact that you would stop using a technique, intuitively evolved fom your uniquely effective client therapist relationship, due to research results, I think, would be BONKERS.
I'm a bit confused by that. Sometime uniquely evolved? The client/therapist relationship isn't a modality. Intuition isn't a modality either. I'm referring to modalities that are taught in the classroom or in books or DVDs where claims are made and unsubstantiated theories are made out to be fact.
This site has become too depressing for me to look at.
I'm signing off for a while.
-
-
I'm finding this a very interesting and challenging discussion. At least I've learned some new words for persons such as myself who would prefere continued practice in modalitys that may not stand up to research, but do no harm to the client and offer improved recovery.:)
The fact that you would stop using a technique, intuitively evolved fom your uniquely effective client therapist relationship, due to research results, I think, would be BONKERS.
-
-
Vlad/Kim I'm just curious to know if you or a collegue ever intuitivly developed an amazing unique technique that subsiquent research could not validate would you drop that technique ?
" intuitivly developed an amazing unique technique".
How many times is that actually true in our profession? Most of us just go by what we're taught and what the public demands. Plus we buy into whatever is being printed in magazines or taught in schools or just hearing that something is "cooooolllll".
I think each of us use our own intuition in our work and we'd be mad to just ignore intuition. I don't view us as machines that methodically go through a protocol. We have relationships with our clients. We have massive levels empathy and each of us does our best to help our clients. Intuition comes into our work - there is no doubt about that.
If you're saying "I've come up with a new modality that's fab. I see results in my practice and everyone needs to be trained on it" and then good studies show that it has no effect, then yeah, it should be dropped. It should be dropped because of the ethical aspect. It should be dropped by the schools too if they sell classes in it, but it probably wouldn't be. There's a reason for that. Money. It should dropped by the profession. But it's not. There's a reason for that. Money. We should be re-educating the public that something doesn't work. But we don't. There's a reason for that. Money. Our leaders should be shouting about how our whole profession is being poisoned by pseudoscientific brown smelly stuff. But they're not. There's a reason for that. Money. Power. Control. Basically all of the horrible aspects of human nature that make me really depressed.
Good science has purity. I can recognize it. It stands on it's own. The brown smelly stuff that poisons our profession is not recognized or acknowledged. Until that happens and until some of our leaders that have some level of ethics and are willing to take on the ethical question over the money, power, control and everything that goes with it, then we'll continue on the road of allowing ourselves to be brainwashed and telling ourselves it's all OK.
"C'mon all ye little therapists and take on every modality under the sun. I'll play my pipe. It doesn't matter what those horrible scientists say. Come dance with me and we'll all be happy swimming in our little sea of brown smelly stuff" The Pied Piper of Unethical Shenanigans
-
Comment by Christopher A. Moyer on April 13, 2010 at 12:34pm
-
Maybe we all achieve peace of mind in diffirent ways :)
No doubt! This is probably true.
I think their is more potential to harm to a profession by doing 20/30 sessions ( by failing to refere on sooner ) of "researched" modality's that fail/harm the client. IMO. ( another discussion I know )
Could you restate that? I don't understand it as you've written it, Stephen.
Vlad/Kim I'm just curious to know if you or a collegue ever intuitivly developed an amazing unique technique that subsiquent research could not validate would you drop that technique ?
I'm not Vlad or Kim, but I hope you won't mind if I chime in, especially as I'm going to partially side with your position. I would say it depends - it depends on what risks are involved, what other techniques might be applied and how well research those other techniques are, and what claims are being made.
There is definitely a place for intuition in all forms of therapy. The problems, as I see them, arise when therapists strongly cling to intuition in the face of clear counter evidence.
-
-
I'm with you, Kim. Until the research was final, I would consider the underlying scientific principles and the evidence supporting those before choosing to practice it or not. I would refer back to those pesky laws of nature for an initial evaluation of the technique. If it doesn't do any harm, I might add it. If subsequent researched proved it invalid, I'd drop, it and educate my clients that new research has proven the technique to be ineffective.
The peace of mind issue is not only a sticky wicket for ourselves as practitioners, but for our clients as well. Its difficult to shake up the beliefs of clients who firmly believe a disproven therapy has helped them. Educating them on not only the research but why rational people sometimes believe irrational things is TOUGH. When this happens we not only challenge their beliefs in the treatment process but their faith in us as practitioners. It is so much safer and easier to just stick with your beliefs as they are, without challenging them.
-
Comment by Kim Goral on April 13, 2010 at 10:19am
-
"Vlad/Kim I'm just curious to know if you or a collegue ever intuitivly developed an amazing unique technique that subsiquent research could not validate would you drop that technique ? "
Yes, absolutely. I believe in helping my client with proven methods over serving my own ego. Let me rephrase the question a bit for you. If you went to a doctor for treatment for some problem you were having, would you prefer that he use this really neat method that he likes and has scattered anecdotal "evidence" for but failed to live up to hype in controlled trials or a method that has been shown to work repeatedly in controlled trials but that isn't as "neat" and he didn't develop? Me, I'd rather go with the known than the failed hype. But maybe that's just me. But anyhow, why should I expect to give my clients any less than what I would want for myself? Part of our responsibility is educating our clients about what works and what doesn't; we are the experts, not them.
-
-
Maybe we all achieve peace of mind in diffirent ways :)
I think their is more potential to harm to a profession by doing 20/30 sessions ( by failing to refere on sooner ) of "researched" modality's that fail/harm the client. IMO. ( another discussion I know )
Vlad/Kim I'm just curious to know if you or a collegue ever intuitivly developed an amazing unique technique that subsiquent research could not validate would you drop that technique ?
-
-
Kim - I read his book, "Denialism", about a month ago.
He's cool. The book is an easy, interesting read.
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
You need to be a member of massage and bodywork professionals to add comments!
Join massage and bodywork professionals