{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03139717425431711, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0163265306122449, 'mean_word_length': 5.410462776659959, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A fusion of horizons for psychotherapy research: Introduction to special section

The history of psychotherapy research is one repeatedly marked by inherent tensions and methodological innovations (see Muran & Castonguay, in press; Orlinsky & Russell, 1994; Strupp & Howard, 1992). This has been especially true since the 1970s, as we have seen a number of significant challenges to the dominant influence of logical positivism on our scientific culture. One challenge, for example, can be described as the subjectification of the field, which involves any attempt to study subjectivity, whether by quantitative or qualitative methods (e.g., Choi-Kain & Gunderson, 2008; Rottenberg & Johnson, 2007). Another can be characterized as a movement toward greater contextualization, which involves more intensive study of the person in context, again by quantitative or qualitative means (e.g., Rice & Greenberg, 1984; Toukmanian & Rennie, 1992). Both these developments reflect an increasing appreciation for methodological plurality in the field, that is, the recognition that there are multiple methods of equal merit toward understanding. The thinking behind this special section is to push the boundaries of the field further by introducing concepts and methods from other like-minded disciplines, in other words, to tear down arbitrary walls that promote group think and to build bridges that will expand our ways to understand. The thinking was very influenced by German hermeneutic philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer (1960/1989), who argued that our perception of things is always constrained by our preconceptions. We cannot understand anything without reference to them. They should not be understood as just limiting factors but rather as the ground for all understanding. Gadamer also suggested that awareness of our preconceptions can only emerge in ‘‘open dialogue’’ with another, where there is a possibility for ‘‘a fusion of horizons,’’ a moment when a preconception can be differentiated from an alternative. Thus, understanding becomes an event, not a thing, moving from a static phenomenon to an interactive one. In this special section, we have invited papers from Jacob Ham and Ed Tronick (2009), who present from a mother infant development perspective, and from Howard and Miriam Steele and Anne Murphy (2009), who present from an attachment perspective. Ham and Tronick describe how a psychophysiological study of mother infant interactions might inform research on psychotherapy process. The Steeles and Murphy focus on the Adult Attachment Interview and its potential value to assess process and change in psychotherapy. We have also asked two well-established psychotherapy researchers, Jacques Barber (2009) and Bill Stiles (2009), to provide brief commentaries on these papers and in so doing discuss possible applications to psychotherapy research. Our aim is to further fuel methodological plurality in our field and to expand our horizons. Our hope is to have other special sections that may include dialogues with scholars from such disciplines as linguistic/conversational/discourse analysis, anthropology/sociology, and neurocognitive/neurobiological science.