On the Value of Double Vision

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.

Keywords:

• psychoanalytic process
• regularities
• systematic research
• case studies
• heterogeneity
• homogeneity

Notes

¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_study

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Rolf Sandell

Rolf Sandell, Ph.D., is a professor of psychology at Lund University, Sweden, and has published extensively on psychotherapy research, including long-term psychotherapy and randomized controlled trials, as well as on psychotherapists themselves, in such journals as the International Journal of Psychoanalysis, Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, and the Scandinavian Psychoanalytic Review.