Hi everyone,
I’ve been having a think about the slow adoption rate of PCT and identifying critical gaps in the overall strategy of the PCT community. Correct me if I’m wrong but historically the basic strategy of the PCT community was to focus on creating high quality research, with the idea of co-opting researchers by strength of argument, who would in turn disseminate PCT wider in publications/teacher. While necessary, it seems that this strategy alone is not sufficient to push PCT to a wider audience.
The critical issue to me is that PCT cannot be summed up in a pithy elevator pitch (like many shallow psychological theories) and it requires a degree of active engagement before understanding its significance. For example, even though I was familiar with cybernetics and system dynamics modelling, it took me a good couple of weeks to “get” that all parts of the loop were working simultaneously, as opposed to sequentially like most other models in psychology. All that time I was muttering - “yeah guys but how is this different and novel from theory x or theory y”. My own critical engagement was initially the enemy, because I needed some faith that there was something useful to learn to persist. The point is that there is steep learning curve to for PCT, and only early adoptors (malcontents) have the motivation to stick with it until all the parts of the theory are understood and adopted. Early adopters have the motivation to overcome the error and conflict of unlearning their basic conceptual models to learn PCT. This conflict could be thought of as the “switching cost” of PCT. It would seem that the switching cost for psychological researchers is high, possibly due to the amount of knowledge they have built on the conceptual models that PCT undermines, and hence a higher degree of conflict than a more naive learner. To use a military analogy, the strategy of focusing on co-opting researchers is essentially attacking a hard target, and this is rarely the best use of combat power. Better to bypass and cut them off from support until they surrender without firing a shot…
I believe that lowering switching costs and targeting psychology subgroups that have low switching costs should be the primary strategic focus for the PCT community. Essentially this is a similar idea to what Warren has been undertaking and advocating, however I believe materials should be highly targeted for specific subgroups for maximum effect. These lower switching cost groups could constitute an early majority, which eventually co-op the late majority (researchers). Two potential groups that have lower switching costs could be psychology practitioners (including related professions such as counselling) and psychology students.
Many practitioners are eclectic in their outlook, are primarily interested that a technique works in practice and are constantly looking for new tools for the tool box. Pushing MOL as a more efficient CBT modality and the trans-diagnostic approach to this group is a savvy course of action, however it does have a problem. This is due to the elegant and deceptive simplicity of MOL. While it is dead simple to learn MOL as a technique, it is an order of magnitude harder to learn the PCT that underpins it. However few practitioners will use a therapy technique unless they understand the basic rationale underlying it and that there is evidence for its efficacy. With Warren at el working on the evidence base - this still leaves communicating the basic rationale with an appropriate level of detail. While many may read a journal article or two, or even a few book chapters, I don’t believe that many practitioners will have the drive or the time to push past the switching costs to understand and adopt PCT as their primary theoretical framework. The world we live in is one of short attention spans and the expectation of instant gratification. My assessment is that PCT materials are still too scattered, suffer from too much or too little detail, or are not in an easily digestible format to do the job. Without the certainty that comes from understanding PCT, practitioners may not be convinced enough to use MOL with patients.
Therefore there is a gap in the learning materials, one that I believe can be addressed with a high quality online course that is targeted towards practitioners and students. A self paced, video based course that outlines PCT and its complexities could reduce the switching cost considerably and could provide a critical tool in disseminating PCT across the discipline and beyond. Conceptually this is an introduction to PCT, that provides enough understanding that interested people are confident enough to dive into the complexity. It also should provide enough ammunition for practitioners to defend their use of MOL, and allow them to persuade other practitioners and researchers to take an interest. It could also provide a subversive tool to target undergraduates/post grads before they adopt too many assumptions and basic conceptual models. With the exception of some scattered lectures there is nothing they can pick up quickly to learn the basics of PCT to a point that they can argue successfully against current theories (and lecturers). Also this course could be delivered face to face at universities or for practitioners opening up another dissemination avenue. The course could also be one of a pair, with this being the theory component and another course dedicated to MOL practical/certification.
A way to do this without overloading individuals, or risking a sub-optimal results is to draw on the community at large and crowd source content and editing. If we drew on the hundreds of years of PCT experience in these lists we could knock out a flagship product that could grow the community and secure the Bill’s legacy for new generations of psychologists. With good planning and oversight and a detailed scoping document to harmonise effort, I believe that we could create an excellent tool to assist understanding in PCT. This could also provide a pilot for other projects that similarly target low switching cost groups.
Would be interested in hearing your thoughts.
···
Cheers,
**Sean Mulligan **
