How this site
uses evidence.
This Hub combines several genuinely different kinds of authority — established research, clinical formulation, disability scholarship, first-person testimony, and this project’s own emerging framework. Blending them together, as most psychotherapy writing does, makes a site feel more authoritative while actually making it less trustworthy. This page names the categories directly, so a reader can tell which is which on any page across the Hub.
The categories used throughout this Hub
Findings from published studies, including this project’s own primary research and literature reviews, named with their actual scope and date rather than presented as settled, universal fact.
This project’s own developing theoretical contribution — most centrally Mine, Yours, Ours, System. Offered as a genuinely useful working tool, not as an empirically validated instrument.
A possible therapeutic formulation — what a CBT, psychodynamic, Jungian, body-oriented, or attachment-informed therapist might notice or hypothesise. Offered as one lens among several, never as a fact about any real client.
A distinction or critique drawn from disability studies and disability-led scholarship and advocacy — naming where mainstream practice or theory has assumed a non-disabled default.
First-person or composite testimony from disabled people’s own accounts. Composite vignettes are explicitly labelled as such — they illustrate a genuine, recurring pattern, not a specific real client.
A question aimed at the reader’s own assumptions, countertransference, or practice — never a claim about what’s true, only an invitation to examine something.
A concrete, actionable suggestion for what to actually do differently — distinct from the theory or research that motivated it.
A theory being presented as truth is one of psychotherapy’s oldest problems. Naming the category a claim belongs to is a small, deliberate refusal to repeat it.
What this means in practice
Not every page uses every category — a page about a specific clinical situation may lean heavily on Clinical Lens and Lived Experience, while this site’s own Research & Commentary pages lean on Research and DIP Framework. The point isn’t uniform coverage. It’s that wherever a claim appears, its actual status — established finding, disability-scholarship critique, clinical hypothesis, personal testimony, this project’s own synthesis, or a direct suggestion — stays visible rather than blurred into one undifferentiated voice of authority.
Where this site cites its own primary research or a literature review, it names the study, its actual scope, and the date of any figure used, precisely because different stages of ongoing work can use different numbers as they develop. Where it offers a clinical formulation, it says so explicitly, because a formulation is a hypothesis to test against what a real client actually says — never a fact about them in advance.