Structuring Case Reports to Promote Debate

Abstract

Psychoanalytic case reports play a role in the development of treatment methods and in the discussion of alternative theoretical concepts, but are especially important as part of the psychoanalytic educational process. Their practical use, however, is characterized by difficulties in communication, as participants are often unable to agree on the level of discussion—that is, on whether this should be theoretical, methodological, or based upon interpretive assumptions. The method proposed here for structuring case reports to promote debate is intended to lead to a clearer understanding of what is involved in the discussion of case reports, and to a greater consideration of the level at which this discussion is taking place. The candidate in training learns to distinguish between 3 components of psychoanalytic competence that are integrated in every case report: psychoanalytic knowledge (explanatory and procedural knowledge), psychoanalytic therapeutic competence (transformational knowledge), and psychoanalytic attitude (assumptions about meaning and rules of interpretation).

Notes

¹The question of why a “mixed language” of psychoanalysis is sensible and productive in the discipline is not further pursued here; this issue (Körner, 1995) cannot be adequately addressed in the context of this investigation.

²These alternatives are somewhat schematic and may appear to the reader to be merely theoretical variants; however, they serve to illustrate the “technical” aspect of an intentional description, and, indeed, occur with some frequency.

³To express this in a somewhat strange metaphor, the technical concepts and rules of psychoanalytic treatment are like a stock cube that must be dissolved in water to be made edible as soup.

⁴This section is kept brief, as its topic is not under discussion in this article.