This month, for my presidential contribution to The Connection, I would like to turn our collective attention to the third proposition of our constitution’s purpose statement, which is “to encourage research in and to stimulate the further scientific development of Individual Psychology”. This priority is particularly significant now considering the growing weight of evidence-based practices in determining the theories and practices that will advance onward, and which will be forgotten to time. However, more than this, I find this calling central to the long-standing aims of Individual Psychology, which sought to replace theory steeped in concepts and assumptions lacking in capacity for falsifiability, with an approach that offered a more objective, refutable, and ultimately provable approach to treatment, education, and individual betterment. 

It is noteworthy that Adler entitled his 1930 classic, The Science of Living. To me, this always seemed to be a significant and revealing use of language, and one that gives us a hint as to how Adler might see the current charge for Individual Psychology with regards to research. Neither of the other “fathers” of depth-oriented psychology so clearly invoked science in word and concept in describing their approach as Adler did in this work.

Whereas Jung turned to spirituality and called upon archeological inquiry into understanding the centrality of concepts such archetype and the collective unconscious, Freud envisioned hidden drives and impulses that were conceived to be biological in nature but lacking in any known physiological apparatus to warrant their existence. To today’s standards, such approaches would be cast aside as examples of pseudoscience, requiring objective and replicable means of proving their assumptions. In contrast, Adler turned his attention to considering objective and measurable external factors such as organ-functioning, birth order, and social embeddedness to base his systemic inquiry of the individual upon.  Ultimately, it would be the standard of common sense, the measure of a verifiable, sustainable, and shared experience, that would mark, for Adler, the highest standard in human reason.  When we consider these three theories side-by-side, it is not surprising why Einstein made the assertion that of the prevailing perspectives of the time, Adler’s theory came closest to being a universal theory of behavior. 

We now live in a decidedly scientific era. Although a cogent critique of the prevailing zeitgeist exists in an argument against medical reductionism and “one size fits all” approaches to symptom amelioration, the larger importance that we can demonstrate efficacy of our practices and substantiate our constructs through research, remains a pressing and relevant charge of our time. After all, Individual Psychology is not a “one size fits all” approach to treatment, and our capacity to demonstrate its efficacy bodes favorably not only upon our brand of psychology, but has relevance for other humanistic, relational, and dynamically oriented approaches to treatment.

Already, the contributions of researchers such as Rebecca Dickinson, Kristin Meany-Walden, and Dalena DIilman-Taylor have advanced our cause in being able to substantively demonstrate the efficacy of Adlerian Play Therapy in seminal studies. Because of these efforts, Adlerian Play Therapy is regarded as one of the premier evidence-based practices in play therapy. I believe strongly that it is only a matter of time and opportunity that we will be able to do the same for Adlerian-based talk therapy, couples therapy, and family therapy.  

However, long-before the emergence of evidence-based research practices, the Journal of Individual Psychology has been sharing research on Adlerian psychology, covering a broad and diverse range of interests, from demonstratable positive correlates of social interest, to Adlerian perspectives on racial and ethnic disparities, to diagnostic potential of Early Recollections, and everything in between. In the past nine years, team Sperry and Sperry has been decided about attracting and showcasing scientific research and perspectives along with the scholarly, theoretical, and clinical contributions that have made the JIP stalwart publication it is. I am eager to see the new directions that our next editors, Courtney Evans and Marina Bluvshtein, will take the journal. 

How we will show up beyond our own existing field of influence is still yet to be determined. The outside world will not come to us to learn more about what we have to say or to peruse our existing annals of research and knowledge, so it will be up to us to not only create new relevant research but also to get it out to the broader world.  

When people learn about Individual Psychology and experience it firsthand, it offers a powerful and profound impact, the consequences of which are often lifechanging. Turning this experience into scientific data is a necessary outcome of some hard work and ingenuity of thought, as we transform the tools of science into instruments of discovery and clinical validation.  

 We have researchers amongst us, and access to institutions, resources, and subjects necessary to carry out these charges. We can do this, but we will need to work with purpose, cooperation, and a clear strategy. Of those of you who stuck it out to review these thoughts in entirety, who is it that feels called to make this happen? I’d love for the organization to be able to take some coordinated movement in the interest of advancing research on the efficacy of Individual Psychology, and in promoting our existing perspectives beyond the parameters of our eclectic and committed organization.