Photo by Andrey K for Unsplash.
Single-session study using the Adjudication method
Second half of 2026
About
This is a call for participation. But first, the back story. Arthur C Bohart is a now a semi-retired person-centred clinical psychologist in California. One of his research interests is what clients do to make therapy work. When I published about Stoic daily death contemplation as an activity that could be socially-prescribed I used Bohart and Tallman’s definition of a mode of therapy as a meeting-of-the-minds.Bohart created a research jury method as part of his teaching practice. The point of “research juries” was to help postgraduate trainees learn to use case history data to sense evidence of clients changing. The focus was on the client primarily, and secondarily on what the therapist did or how the therapist was with the client in the session.In 2021, I became very interested in this method of seeking consensus (and listening to divergent views) about this matter of a client’s beneficial change. While Bohart’s teaching method uses a longitudinal approach, coaching as a practice primed me to see value in studying single sessions. In short, I think an adjudication method can work whether the unit of analysis is a session or a whole client engagement.In 2022, I ran a small pilot study as part of my diploma research in my existential analytic training. My discussion section focused on study limitations, and pointed to a way forward. In 2025, I revisited my own adjudication study experience, and wrote a searching reflective piece for peer review. It’s now under consideration with a Taylor & Francis journal.The writing helped me prepare for a new study. I’m explicitly interested in testing the juror questions I’ve formulated and refined since 2022. I’m interested in testing them with coaching psychologists, existential analysts, and Stoics. Points of resonance between existential analysis and Modern Stoicism is another enduring interest of mine. And I'm excited that my close clinical colleague Sandy ElChaar is interested in joining the study as a co-researcher.In this study, participants will be asked to listen to a single 55-min client session I held in August 2022 with a client who has given informed consent for the session to be used in research. There is also a transcript for the session that the client created, which is part of how the research interest in adjudication became an actual study. No background is provided for the session. So far, no jurors have had a difficulty with the context-free presentation of dis-identified materials. We’ll see what crops up in a larger study.Larger means more jurors offering views. Not more client material.If you think you might like to hear more – in due course, this study is in queue – please register your interest here at Yes2Life.uk – I have sole access to this domain, and my company Throughline Ltd is registered with ICO. Your data will be safe and your email used only for the purpose of letting you know the study is starting in the near future.I’m also seeking an academic with an institution that has an ethics board to come on as a partner, adding to the design if they have ideas, and ensuring an ethics board submission that will succeed. Please contact me if this could be you, or someone you know well. I welcome introductions.Ethical study designParticipation commitment
This will be defined. For now, it's safe to assume the estimated overall time is 1.5-2 hours.Participant rights
Participants have the right to have all materials held anonymously and protected (see Data Protection below).Right to withdraw
Participants have the right to withdraw from participation within two weeks of the participating, without any reason needing to be given.Data protection
Participant data is protected by GDPR and held by the researcher’s company which is registered with ICO as a data controller #ZA530336. Or, if an institutionally backed researcher joins who can secure me access, the data will be held centrally by the university.
Contact