| 1. |
- Lingiardi, Vittorio, et al.
(author)
-
RELATIONAL TURN AND PSYCHOTHERAPY RESEARCH
- 2016
-
In: Contemporary psychoanalysis. - : ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD. - 0010-7530 .- 2330-9091. ; 52:2, s. 275-312
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Psychoanalytic authors have traditionally been skeptical of nomothetic studies, in which group averages obscure the uniqueness of individual cases. Several relational psychoanalytic authors have expressed more pronounced skepticism, affirming, for example, that given the uniqueness of each therapist-patient dyad, systematic empirical research is particularly problematic. In this article we highlight the potential synergy between relational thinking and todays psychotherapy research, by exploring some of the ways in which the work of relational authors has influenced relational psychotherapy research, shifting the focus of study from validation of the models of treatment to the study of the clinical variables such as: countertransference, therapist empathy, self-disclosure, rupture and resolution in therapeutic alliance, intersubjective negotiation, and the patient-therapist attachment relationship. In conclusion, the aim of this article is to facilitate the dialogue between relational psychoanalysis and the field of psychotherapy research, by exploring ways in which these two different worlds can reciprocally stimulate and enrich one another.
|
|
| 2. |
- Sandell, Rolf
(author)
-
On the Value of Double Vision
- 2014
-
In: Contemporary Psychoanalysis. - : Informa UK Limited. - 0010-7530 .- 2330-9091. ; 50:1-2, s. 43-57
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This article is, first, an analysis of arguments that have been leveled against systematic empirical research in psychoanalysis. The arguments are basically two: It cannot uncover unobservable processes, and it cannot account for the uniqueness of the psychoanalytic dyad. Therefore, systematic empirical research is said to be incompatible with basic tenets of psychoanalysis. Both arguments are refuted as being based on mistaken assumptions. The study of unobservable phenomena is not specific to psychoanalysis but is what psychological research in general is about, and over and above the striking variation among human beings, there are systematic commonalities to be revealed. Then, a method to study these regularities, while safeguarding systematic individual differences, is demonstrated and suggested to offer a kind of double vision in psychoanalytic research.
|
|
