IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rpsyxx/v8y2016i2p156-165.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Martin Buber and evidence-based practice: Can the lion really lie down with the lamb?

Author

Listed:
  • Kelly D. Buck
  • Benjamin E. Buck
  • Jay A. Hamm
  • Paul H. Lysaker

Abstract

While reserch on treatment for people diagnosed with ‘schizophrenia’ has yielded a plethora of evidence-based practices (EBP) reliably linked with positive outcomes, there is concern that core processes that promote recovery are being neglected. Beyond the description of instrumental tasks, work is needed to think about the kinds of therapeutic relationships that provide a foundation for EBPs. In particular, a theoretical model for a therapeutic relationship most supportive of recovery has not been well established. One candidate model for this therapeutic relationship is provided by the work of philosopher Martin Buber. This paper applies Buber’s work to develop a model of the reflective processes in psychotherapy that lead to meaningful and sustainable change. Specifically three constructs are discussed: (1) I–Thou vs. I–It relationships, (2) the Between, and (3) Confirmation. For each construct a definition and clinical illustration is offered. Directions for future research and model of intervention which allow for the humanities and science to lie down like the lion and the lamb are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Kelly D. Buck & Benjamin E. Buck & Jay A. Hamm & Paul H. Lysaker, 2016. "Martin Buber and evidence-based practice: Can the lion really lie down with the lamb?," Psychosis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 156-165, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rpsyxx:v:8:y:2016:i:2:p:156-165
    DOI: 10.1080/17522439.2015.1055783
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/17522439.2015.1055783
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/17522439.2015.1055783?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rpsyxx:v:8:y:2016:i:2:p:156-165. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RPSY20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.