I would like to thank Thomas Ohlsson (2026) for his thoughtful article, "Eric Berne’s Discounted Legacy: Psychotherapy." His contribution raises an important question about the identity and future of Transactional Analysis (TA). Like Ohlsson, I believe that psychotherapy occupies a unique position within the TA tradition. However, I would like to add another perspective to the discussion. The challenge facing TA psychotherapy today is not only organizational but also scientific and academic.

The need for scientific validation

TA has developed into four recognized fields of application: psychotherapy, counseling, education and organizations. This expansion has undoubtedly contributed to the worldwide dissemination of TA concepts and has demonstrated the versatility of Berne’s ideas. Yet, psychotherapy differs fundamentally from the other fields in one important respect: It is the only field that requires formal scientific validation in order to gain recognition within healthcare systems, universities and public policy. Educational, counseling and organizational applications of TA can thrive without governmental recognition. Psychotherapy cannot.

To be accepted as a legitimate psychotherapeutic approach, TA must demonstrate effectiveness through research, establish rigorous training standards and engage with contemporary scientific discourse. Without this foundation, TA risks remaining on the margins of academic psychology and mental health services, regardless of its practical value and clinical effectiveness (Johnsson, 2011; Vos & Van Rijn, 2025).

Shifting away from clinical roots

Historically, Berne did not create TA as a general theory of communication that later found therapeutic applications. He created a psychotherapy. His seminal work was Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy (Berne, 1961). The educational, counseling and organizational applications emerged later as valuable extensions of the original clinical model.

Today, however, many outside the TA community perceive TA primarily as a communication model, a leadership framework or a personal development approach. The psychotherapeutic roots of the theory have become less visible. This represents a significant shift from Berne’s original vision.

A fragmented research landscape

A further consequence is that TA research has become fragmented. Valuable studies are conducted across many different domains, yet relatively little research is concentrated on the central questions that determine the standing of a psychotherapy within the wider scientific community: How effective is TA psychotherapy? What mechanisms of change does it employ? For which client populations is it most effective? How do therapeutic processes unfold within a TA framework?

Although the research landscape is still fragmented, important progress has been made in recent years. Outcome research, process research, systematic scholarly synthesis and the publication of a comprehensive evidence-based handbook have significantly strengthened the scientific foundation of TA psychotherapy (Johnsson, 2011; Vos & Van Rijn, 2025). These developments demonstrate that TA psychotherapy is increasingly engaging with contemporary scientific standards while also highlighting the importance of continuing this work.

Without a coherent and cumulative body of psychotherapy research, universities and policymakers may struggle to recognize TA as a distinct and evidence-informed psychotherapeutic tradition.

Strengthening the foundation

Paradoxically, strengthening TA psychotherapy would also strengthen the other fields. If TA were firmly established as an evidence-based psychotherapy, this scientific credibility would naturally enhance its educational, counseling and organizational applications (Vos & Van Rijn, 2025). The reverse process is less likely. Widespread use of TA in schools or organizations alone is unlikely to persuade healthcare authorities to recognize TA as a psychotherapy.

The history of psychotherapy offers many examples. The ideas of Carl Rogers, Aaron Beck and Marsha Linehan have spread far beyond clinical practice into education, coaching, leadership and organizational development. Yet, their broader influence rests upon the credibility and recognition of the psychotherapeutic approaches they created.

Perhaps TA now faces a strategic choice. We can continue to be known primarily as a broadly applicable language for understanding human relationships, or we can invest more systematically in developing the scientific foundations required of a contemporary psychotherapy. These goals are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, they may depend upon one another.

Preserving Berne’s legacy

If we wish to honor Berne’s legacy fully, we should not only preserve TA psychotherapy but also strengthen its scientific foundations. Recognition within universities, healthcare systems and evidence-based mental health practice will not be achieved through tradition alone. It will require research, publication, academic engagement and a clear commitment to psychotherapy as the core discipline from which the wider applications of TA originally emerged (Johnsson, 2011; Vos & Van Rijn, 2025).

In that sense, supporting psychotherapy research is not separate from protecting Berne’s legacy. It is one of the most important ways of securing its future.