Summary and table of contents of my doctoral dissertation

I wrote my doctoral dissertation in 2018 in Japanese:

Hideo Tanaka (2018). The early days of Focusing and the theory of experiencing: studies on the background of how focusing was formed and practiced. Doctoral Dissertation, Kansai University (Full text in Japanese).

I have now prepared the additional English summary and table of contents of it.

Short Summary

In his dissertation, Tanaka clarified Wilhelm Dilthey’s influence on the philosopher Gendlin, the continuity of Carl Rogers and Eugene Gendlin in their collaborative research efforts when Focusing was being developed, and the theoretical difference between Gendlin and Rogers that Gendlin himself did not fully pursue. This clarification enabled him to illuminate the present-day Focusing practices.

Table of Contents

Part I. The problem and purpose of this dissertation

Chapter I. The problem and purpose
1. A myth: the Wisconsin Project and Focusing
2. Gendlin’s periodization: featuring his relationship with Carl Rogers
3. Overview of Gendlin terms
4. Three problems in previous studies on Gendlin
5. Gendlin as a research scientist
6. Discreet reference to Rogers
7. Discrepancies between theory and practice in Gendlin’s writings
8. Purpose and method of this dissertation
9. Stance and structure of this dissertation

Part II. Gendlin’s position in Rogers Group

Chapter 2. From Gendlin’s master’s thesis to his first research study
1. From the beginning of his career as a student of Rogers
2. Gendlin’s master’s thesis (1950)
3. From philosophy to psychotherapy (Before 1952)
4. Paper: The qualities or dimensions of experiencing and their change (1955)
5. Gendlin’s first conference presentation: Counselor ratings of process and outcome in client-centered therapy (1956)
6. Conclusion

Chapter 3. Process variables in Gendlin’s psychotherapy research
1. What is “process” contrasted with?
2. Polysemy of the term “process”
3. Objections to traditional process studies
4. Conclusion

Chapter 4. Two streams in the early period of Focusing: the sources of the Experiencing Scales and Focusing instructions
1. Distinguishing between two types of research study
2. Prior research study on “how the clients talk”: Fiedler, Seeman, and Gendlin et al.
3. Research study on clients predicted to fail: Kirtner’s work and its impact
4. Confluence of the two streams of research study
5. Conclusion  

Part III. Re-examination of Rogers’ terminology from the perspective of Gendlin’s early theory of experiencing

Chapter 5. “Congruence” as a core condition of Rogers
1 Review of the collection of papers “Congruence” (Motoyama, Sakanaka, & Mikuni, 2015)
2 Publication history of “Congruence”
3 Structure and features of “Congruence”
4 From the perspective of the author of this dissertation
5 Conclusion and an issue: Did Gendlin discuss congruence on the part of the therapist?

Chapter 6. Some issues about the term “congruence” and the solutions proposed by Gendlin
1. Significance of re-examining the terminology of “congruence” and “match”
2. "Congruence" in Rogers
3. Doubts about the term “congruence”: from previous Focusing-oriented study
4. Doubts about the term “congruence”: the author’s perspective
5. Conclusion: a note on “match” in Focusing  

Part IV. Re-examination of Focusing practice from the perspective of his early theory of experiencing

Chapter 7. “Congruence” and “direct reference”
1. State in which there is no concept corresponding to the experience: direct reference
2. Direct reference as a type of symbolization
3. Conclusion: direct reference without question of congruence/incongruence

Chapter 8. Direct reference called “this feeling”: the significance of the short silence in Focusing
1. Prior studies on silence and direct Reference
2. Method of inquiry
3. Core meaning of “direct reference”: literature review
4. Verbatim records and discussions
5. Conclusion  

Part V. Synthesis

Chapter 9. Comprehensive discussion
1. Findings revealed by this dissertation
2. Challenges and prospects

Long Summary

Since the introduction of Focusing (Gendlin, 1981), a method of psychological assistance proposed by Eugene Gendlin (1926-2017), there have been various discussions among researchers in Japan, such as “Is Focusing applicable to serious cases such as the treatment of psychotic patients?” However, the different research streams and theoretical backgrounds that preceded the formation of Focusing have only been presented in fragments. As a result, there is confusion in the use of terminology in the practice and teaching of Focusing, and mutual understanding among researchers has been hindered.

To address these issues, this dissertation aims to theoretically clarify the scope of contemporary Focusing practice by re-examining the relationship between Focusing and the preceding client-centered therapy by Carl Rogers (1902-1987). To this end, texts focusing on his early major work, “Experiencing and the Creation of Meaning” (Gendlin, 1962/1997), as well as his recently disclosed pre-publication work, are examined chronologically in the light of previous research from the Rogerian school. Based on the results of this examination, this dissertation will also apply the revised definitions of terms and theories to its examination of contemporary Focusing verbatim records.

This dissertation consists of “Part I (Chapter 1),” which presents the problem and purpose, “Part II (Chapters 2, 3, and 4),” which examines Gendlin’s position within the Rogerian school, “Part III (Chapters 5 and 6),” which is primarily a re-examination of Rogers’ terminology from the perspective of Gendlin’s early theory of experiencing, “Part IV (Chapters 7 and 8),” which is also primarily a review of the Focusing practice from the perspective of his early theory of experiencing, and “Part V (Chapter 9),” which is a comprehensive discussion of these arguments.

Part I (Chapter 1) pointed out problems with the conventional explanations that introduced Focusing in Japan. Specifically, it pointed out that the Rogerian School’s schizophrenia treatment project was frequently introduced as having promoted the formation of Focusing and that this introduction had an excessive influence on later Focusing research. Examining this issue first divided the period of Gendlin’s career, focusing on the period before and after his participation in the Project. Based on the results of this classification, it identified three problems that have resulted from the lack of attention to Gendlin’s work before he participated in the Project in conventional Focusing research. (1) It is not clear what kind of research in the pre-Project Rogerian school preceded Focusing, (2) Gendlin’s arguments for finding problems in Rogers’ personality theory have not been sufficiently presented, and (3) the correspondence of terminology between Gendlin’s early theoretical work and his more recent practical work has not been clarified. The structure of this dissertation was then discussed, with problem (1) being examined in the following Part II, problem (2) in Part III, and problem (3) in Part IV.

Part II (Chapters 2, 3, and 4) examined Gendlin’s problem consciousness in participating in Rogers’ psychotherapy research and how he inherited various researches of his predecessors in the Rogerian school. It established the early Gendlin’s position by clarifying the continuous aspects between the Rogerian School and Gendlin.

Chapter 2 pointed out that some statements in Gendlin’s master’s thesis contributed to the later development of the Rogerian School and Focusing. It then clarified that Gendlin’s shift in research variables from “what the clients talk about” to “how they talk” had two predecessors, Fred Fiedler and Julius Seeman. This “how they talk” research later led to the Experiencing Scales.

Chapter 3 noted that the concepts of “content variables” versus “process variables,” which Gendlin introduced in discussing the above research, differ in what it refers to from the concept of “outcome studies” versus “process studies” in conventional psychotherapy research. It clarified, however, that introducing new terminology for these variables was not based on Gendlin’s arbitrary conception but rather was a continuation of the classification of an earlier Rogerian researcher, Desmond Cartwright. Finally, it was discussed that introducing these new variables theoretically clarified what the Rogerian School refers to in terms of “the importance of the present” and “the importance of the therapeutic relationship.”

Chapter 4 showed that the predictive research on psychotherapy failure that was considered one of the triggers for the formation of Focusing came from a different stream than the “how clients talk” research discussed in Chapter 2. Although Gendlin initially resisted the results of the predictive research because it overturned Rogers’ necessary and sufficient conditions, he clarified that this predictive research by a predecessor of the Rogerian school, William Kirtner, was involved in the formation of the Focusing instructions, not of the experiencing scales in his later years.

Part III (chapters 5 and 6), as in Part II, focused on Gendlin’s early work and clarified the discontinuous aspects with Rogers’ personality theory and psychotherapy theory. In particular, one of Rogers’ constructs, “congruence,” was re-examined based on Gendlin’s early theory of experiencing.

Chapter 5 confirmed that despite Gendlin’s detailed discussion of the therapist’s attitude, which Rogers would call “congruence,” the term “congruence” is rarely used in his work compared to “genuineness.”

Chapter 6 discussed the critical arguments throughout Gendlin’s early writings against Rogers’ construct of “congruence.” It pointed out three aspects that are easily overlooked in the changes that occur in psychotherapy due to the explanatory scheme of “incongruence/congruence” between experience and concept. It proposed a theoretical solution to the problem.

According to Gendlin’s early work, part IV (Chapters 7 and 8) provided a theoretical discussion of contemporary Focusing practice.

Chapter 7 discussed the meaning of “direct reference,” a term introduced by Gendlin to describe a state in which no corresponding concept of experience exists. It also pointed out the confusion caused by the discrepancy between conventional Focusing research in Japan and Gendlin’s classification of the three terms “conceptualization,” “direct reference,” and “symbolization,” respectively, and proposed a solution to this confusion.

Chapter 8 used the term “direct reference,” which Gendlin had rarely used except in his theoretical work, in discussing the current verbatim record of Focusing. This clarified the role of the therapist’s response in establishing the meaningful silences that occur during Focusing.

Part V (Chapter 9) summarized this dissertation in light of the findings above, followed by a discussion of its challenges and prospects.