Contemporary American psychoanalysis: A profession? Increasing the role of research in psychoanalysis.

Abstract

The simmering crisis confronting American psychoanalysis today is, in part, a function of fundamental theoretical and clinical disagreements within psychoanalysis itself. Psychoanalytic training, which conveys the special knowledge of our profession, and its application to techniques of treatment have become fragmented and frayed; boundaries have lost definition and our qualification as a profession is vitiated. Our diminished status is reflected in reduced public support and our smaller share of the patient population. Debate seems unable to resolve these disagreements. Acknowledgment of this reduced status creates the need and the opportunity for an increased role for research in psychoanalysis and the development of an analytic research enterprise capable of exploring for empirical resolutions of basic questions and disputes. Such a concerted effort to define the psychoanalytic enterprise through empirically supported basic tenets is necessary to avoid further dissipation of the markers of our psychoanalytic identity, both as individuals and as a profession.

Psychoanalysis and its critics.

“…In a recent e-mail discussion of evidence-based therapy, a number of prominent analysts took the position that although we know that psychoanalysis works, we need the research for public relations purposes. In a recent article, articulating a viewpoint similar to the one expressed here, Schachter (2005) cites as an example of this attitude, Laufer's (2004) statement that universities "can contribute to systematic research methodology to validate our findings" (p. 16, Schachter's emphasis added). Schachter goes on to comment: "she knows that our finding are correct; university research would provide a pro forma validation, rather than a test of them" (p. 484, italics in original).…”

The clinician in the university: Reflections on a South African psychoanalytically oriented doctoral programme

“…There have been a number of calls for a closer relationship between psychoanalysis and scientific research practice in recent years (e.g. Tuckett, ; Schachter, ; Wallerstein, ) as well as strong arguments in favour of resisting research pressure, such as the seminal paper by Hoffman () and several papers written in response (e.g. Eagle and Wolitzky, ; Cushman, ; Strenger, ; Fonagy, ; Stern, ; Safran, ).…”

“…By and large, the issue of how evidence of efficacy can be established for psychoanalytically informed psychotherapeutic interventions has crystallized around the status of case study based as opposed to quantitative research and the gold standard of randomized control trials (RCTs). Although there is good and mounting evidence in favour of psychoanalytic interventions this evidence base has not necessarily impacted on the status and nature of clinical work (Schachter, ). Very few commentators have explored the interface between psychoanalysis and research beyond the primary concern about the scientific merits and detractions of case study‐based methods.…”

“…The clinical‐research interface has offered the most inspirational, and also the most dilemmatic, aspect of the programme. It has been noted that clinicians often feel that research does not help them in the clinical situation (Schachter, ; Rustin, ). We have found that this is far from an inevitability in that research clearly can enrich clinical practice.…”

Further development of evidence-based coaching: Lessons from the rise and fall of the human potential movement

“…While several definitions exist (e.g., Beker, 2001;Cruess et al, 2004;Moore, 1970;Perlman, 2004;Schachter, 2005), most definitions identify professions as having the following features: (a) a requirement for members to possess formal academic qualifications; (b) adherence to an enforceable code of ethics; (c) licensing arrangements that restrict practice to qualified members; (d) submission to some form of state-sanctioned regulation;…”