Feldenkrais Research? Show Me The Data.
There seem to be more and more voices within the Feldenkrais community making calls for research on the method. You may know about the IFF Research Journal that has been in existence for several years. They have some useful articles. There is the “Esther Thelen Fund” whose goal is “…to foster the specific communication and coordination needed for collaborators to generate new research projects”. One of the fund’s latest projects is a website for collaboration (using outdated technology, I might add), for which Roger Russell and Pat Buchanan make a rather confused and half-hearted statement for in Growing a Community for Research. And let’s not forget David Zemach Bersin’s recently created “Feldenkrais Research Foundation.” Described as “non-profit devoted to initiating and supporting scientific research on The Feldenkrais Method.”
Gosh! It all sounds official and exciting. Surely, there must be some research coming that will fill everyone’s practice and have people banging on the doors to schedule sessions and enroll in classess.
Horaah for research!!!
Not just yet.
The problem is that no one is making specific, rational arguments for how research will help the average practitioner trying to make a living with the work. And to be perfectly blunt, I’m not convinced that any of the groups have the slightest care whether or not research is a boon to the practitioners who are in the trenches actually doing the work.
To be clear, I’m not against research. And I am not speaking to taking advantage of, and using, the huge amounts of useful research that has already been published. Rather, I am speaking about the grandiose “me too” efforts of Feldenkrais trainers and PhD’s who seem to think they can spark a revolution by publishing in scientific journals. We are a small community on a tight budget and before more money is spent on research, we need to understand the pathways to how it might help. We need to understand the costs involved. And we need to have some idea of the return on investment. We need also to compare the return – if any – to that which could be made on other endeavors, such as advertising, outreach, viral marketing, changes in access to materials etc.
Is There Data Supporting Feldenkrais Research?
In the article Growing A Community for Research, Roger Russell and Pat Buchanan attempted to make a case for research by making an assertion:
“It is true that students, practitioners, and other stakeholders would benefit from research that advances our knowledge and understanding of the Feldenkrais Method.”
“It is true”? That does not sound very scientific. Roger and Pat take it as a given that students and practitioners would benefit. Interesting. If science is the backbone of their inquiry, then let us ask them to provide some data and the basis for their hypothesis. As I used to write on the papers of my Psych 3000 (Introduction to Research in Psychology) students “the goal of science is to disprove, not to prove.” And science does not prove, it only lends evidence for or against some propositions. So let’s do a good deed and rephrase what Pat and Roger are saying, so they can attempt to be scientific in their endeavors:
“There is evidence to support the idea that students, practitioners, and other stakeholders would benefit from research that advances our knowledge and understanding of the Feldenkrais Method.”
Ok, good. Now, Roger and Pat need to show us what the evidence is. And we need some references so we can verify what they are saying. But that is only the beginning. If they can show us specific, verifiable, benefits, we need to ask who should conduct that research and how it will be supported.
Who Will Pay For Feldenkras Research?
When I was working towards a PhD at the University of Utah, I did work in research laboratories that often had budgets in excess of $250,000 per year. Think about that – a million dollars over a 4-year period to conduct research. You might ask what comes out of such a budget. I’ll tell you. It’s usually the publication of a couple of articles during the grant and a few afterward. There will likely be some conference presentations and sometimes (though rarely) a book or a monograph.
And the end result? A statement that “more research is warranted.” Research universities get grants of millions and dollars to produce research articles, the vast majority of which have little effect in their own fields, let alone in the larger world. What can we expect the various feldenkrais research foundations to spend? $10,000? $50,000? $150,000? Whatever, the amount is, it’s not enough. It has a snowballs chance in hell of making an impact. Which isn’t to say that I am against it. But let’s be clear about what we are doing and what we are up against.
And let’s also be clear about the motivations of people who produce research. It is usually their job to design and conduct studies. You’ve heard the phrase, “publish or perish”? Researchers get paid to publish. That’s what helps them get tenure, and promotions, and new grants. Which is fine. But keep in mind – they are not getting paid to help you build a practice.
In the quote above, Roger and Pat mention that we would “benefit” by Feldenkrais-based research. As you may guess by now, I am not convinced. But again, let’s be scientific here and give them a chance to make a research-based argument. Roger and Pat, what do you mean by “benefit”? Would the benefit be helping the method reach more people ? If so, which people? And how? Or are you talking about some other benefit? And how are the actions that you are taking now going to engender the specific outcomes that you hope to achieve? Please explain.
The various “foundations” are asking for support and money and yet they have not made anything other than a vague and untestable assertion that research is a good thing. And again, I ask:
Good for Who? And at What Cost?
No one has bothered to answer these questions, let alone generate specific, testable, reasearch-based hypotheses that could help us move forward in an intelligent, efficient manner. For that reason, for now, I say “Show me the data.”
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=7c46bdec-4272-4ca3-a565-925f7c92a8e0)





One does research in order TO UNDERSTAND BETTER, not for anything else. If you do it for something else, to return an investment for instance, it is not a research, be it labeled as such or not, be it conducted in universities or not. Having this in mind eliminates many questions.
Hi Petr – Thanks for your comment. You are talking about your personal belief about what research is. That’s your perogative, but other people do have different beliefs as is their perogative. – Ryan
I agree with Petr, and as a consumer so to speak I would also feel a lot more confidence in Feldenkrais if there was more comprehensive research preferably
using current technology.
Aqua – Thanks for the comment. I have a Masters in Developmental Psychology and use to work at the U of Utah in a research capacity. I agree that research can be very useful and valuable. My push for the Feldenkrais community is to put their efforts where it can do the most good. For me, in the short term, I see that as finding ways to serve more clients and to get the work deeper into the culture and more widely available.
I think research can be a valuable part of that, but the community doesn’t have unlimited resources, so people need to prioritize. I don’t in any way disagree with your sentiments. But I want Feldenkrais practitioners to contribute their ideas and money to projects that will build their practices today, and not (theoretically) 20 years from now.
Again, thanks for joining the conversation! Multiple perspectives are crucial.
- Ryan
Ryan, thanks for organizing this blog and for automatic notifications in particular!
I believe, there are two principles of the Feldenkrais work that could be applied in this situation:
1) your intention makes a lot of difference
2) you should be rather process oriented than result oriented
1) making a research thinking of building your practice today is like rolling the pelvis in FI thinking of fixing the lower back. Actually the lower back might get better but the intention is wrong, and this intention might even make the movement counterproductive.
2) Thinking of building your practice is obviously result-oriented. Investigation for the sake of a better understanding is process-oriented.
Hi Peter – I Love it. Thanks.
I quit giving FI for about 16 months (so far) because I realized that it was getting in the way of spending more quality time with myself and exploring ATM in my own way. I’ve been doing the Alexander Yanai sessions, and Esalen and exploring when it’s useful for me to do them (morning, evening, night, etc) and how often (daily, several times per day etc.). Not only has it been wonderful but my knowledge of myself and the work has improved much more than it ever has. And more than it would have, had I been trying to give better FI or better workshops and such.
I think that speaks to your points….
Though I must say, that when I start practicing again, I will likely be goal oriented in terms of teaching a minimum number of classes and giving a certain number of FI’s and such.
Good to hear from you again – Ryan