Note: This winter Lorna Hecht-Zablow published a well written piece in Family Systems Forum on erosion of theory. I talked to Lorna, then published a response this spring. There is some connection between that piece and this one.
These thoughts were stimulated after Patrick Stinson’s visit to the Network for Advancement of Bowen Theory Meeting 5-25
Principles of leadership at Vermont Center for Family Studies
Business strategist Jim Collins wrote a book called Good to Great which presents his research study of the characteristics that made a company go from good to great. His first principle is that these organizations recognized the one thing they did better than anyone else and stopped doing other things. I think it’s relevant to the Bowen network, but my focus is leading VCFS. These principles are being used in Vermont.
- The Bowen Center and its network is a valuable wisdom tradition with a rich relationship with the accepted sciences.
- Patrick Stinson’s app project is one positive outcome of this tradition and should be supported. But there are many others. I will work to introduce advanced students to it.
- According to Stinson, the Bowen network is, and has been, a consumer of accepted science, not a producer of it.
- The Bowen Center’s current mission, to lead the effort to make Bowen theory an accepted science, seems misaligned with what it actually is.
- At VCFS this is not our mission. Our mission is to strengthen the families by training expert advisors, therapists, coaches, etc.
- The notion that the connection between Bowen theory and the accepted sciences is growing reflects confirmation bias. No such growth has occurred. The connection has weakened over the decades. Noble efforts in this area have occurred, and students have benefited. Yet no symposium guest scientist has published a scientific research paper using Bowen theory. An example is Mark Flinn. The Bowen network has benefitted from consuming Flinn’s research. Yet Bowen never became part of his research, according to personal communication with Bob Noone. Decades of evidence suggests that this pattern is unlikely to change.
- Stinson believes that making progress toward the accepted sciences cannot be done by existing network members. It must be done by professional scientists. He believes they would have to start this project early in their careers. By the time a professional is in their 50’s they rarely change career trajectory, including scientific publishing.
- The network tends to overstate the degree to which Bowen theory is based in science.
- This is a product of confirmation bias that threatens the health of the Bowen center and its network. It has some of the characteristics of pseudo self. VCFS will avoid this.
- Stinson is the only professional scientist in the Bowen network.
- VCFS, like the larger Bowen network, is led by uniquely wise professional helpers and teachers, who have a unique relationship with science.
- VCFS will make a disciplined effort to face confirmation bias of this type and align mission and strategy with reality. This is a smaller pivot than it first appears.
- VCFS leaders of the future should recognize what we are, and have long been, a valuable wisdom tradition with a unique relationship with science. This is what we do best.
- VCFS will recognize that our most valuable resource is what we actually are.
What is a professional scientist?
My definition would include you Jim Edd, due to your academic career and the nature of your presentations at The Bowen Center. But not most Bowen trained therapists who have only published their fine work in Family Systems. Bob Noone has unique definition of science: “what is”.
I didn’t get a science education in my clinical training. Some of the basics are only now being recognized. Data quality, vigorously seeking disconfirming data, peer review by scientists outside the in-group, replication.
The authors of Good to Great are Jim Collins and Jerry Porras.
Erik, This reads as a powerful belief statement for yourself and for VCFS.
I don’t disagree with the points that you make about the distance between Bowen theory, the practioners and science. No one in the network is a natural scientist, a biologically based scientist, IMO. Chuck Snowdon and David Crews recognized and used Bowen theory, however. They published in the journal and collected papers. Toni Ziegler is collaborating on a physiology and family systems research project I hope to see published. Barbara Smuts used Bowen theory in her research on triangles in baboons and dogs. Steve Suomi benefited from his connections with Bowen theory, tho he always considered himself to be based in Bowlby. It would make an interesting paper to describe the evidence for the influence of Bowen theory in the work of scientists who had more than passing connections to Bowen theory, Maybe someone will do that. My list is long already!
Good summary of the progress made- Thanks Victoria.
Erik,
Thanks for this refreshing post. Appreciate the thought you put into it.
in my view, Bowen’s discoveries, including the natural, automatic variation in DoS within a sibling group, and by extension, emotional process in any relationship or social or family group, are important scientific breakthroughs. Yes, it takes time, but the human will probably eventually accept a more accurate view of social reality.
Laurie
This is an encouraging meeting. Thinking aloud with you Laurie- I wonder- Bowen’s work seems uniquely valuable now for therapy. I hear about the therapy typically offered from clients and VCFS faculty who are in practice, and it’s commonly polarizing, focused on early abuse, and marked by alliance with the client against their oppressors. Yet I’m not sure I would call Bowen’s concepts a SCIENTIFIC breakthrough any more. It’s been half a century and the ideas have not been tested by professional scientists who aren’t in the network. There is no scientific measure of differentiation in use. Maybe someday. If I had more time I might use google scholar to research “variation in maturity among siblings” to see if work is being done there in accepted science. I wouldn’t expect it to be as inspiring or useful as Bowen’s ideas- but it would be interesting to know.