This paper considers the issue of systematic empirical research versus clinical case studies raised by Hoffman (2009). A rebuttal of Hoffman’s arguments is offered, followed by an argument that each method addresses itself to different questions and that posing them in opposition is not fruitful. Finally, criteria and requirements of the case study method are proposed that, if met, would enhance its evidential value.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakerT.B.McFallR.M.ShohamV. (2008). Current status and future prospects of clinical psychology: Toward a scientifically principled approach to mental and behavioral health care. Psychological Science in the Public Interest9:67–103.
2.
BeutlerL.E. (2009). Making science matter in clinical practice: Redefining psychotherapy. Clinical Psychology: Science & Practice16:301–317.
3.
BucciW. (1997). Psychoanalysis and Cognitive Science: A Multiple Code Theory. New York: Guilford Press.
4.
BucciW.MaskitB. (2005). Building a weighted dictionary for referetial activity. In Computing Attitudes and Affects in Texts, ed. QuY.ShanahanJ.G.WiebeJ.Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 49–60.
5.
ClementP.W. (2007). Story of “Hope”: Successful treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy, http://pcsp.libraries.rutgers.edu, Vol. 3, Module 4, Article 1, pp. 1–36.
6.
CooperA.M. (2008). American psychoanalysis today: A plurality of orthodoxies. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis & Dynamic Psychiatry36:235–253.
7.
EagleM.N.WolitzkyD.L. (1989). The idea of progress in psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis & Contemporary Thought12:27–72.
8.
EdelsonM. (1984). Hypothesis and Evidence in Psychoanalysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9.
FonagyP. (2002). Evidence-based medicine and its justifications. In ed. Leuzinger-BohleberM.TargetM.Outcomes of Psychoanalytic Treatment: Perspectives for Therapists and Researchers, Philadelphia: Whurr Publishers, pp. 53–59.
10.
FreudA. (1971). Foreword. In The Wolf Man, by The Wolf-Man. New York: Basic Books, pp. ix-xii.
11.
FreudS. (1919). Lines of advance in psychoanalytic therapy. Standard Edition17:157–168.
12.
FriedmanR.C. (1988). Male Homosexuality: A Contemporary Psychoanalytic Perspective. New Haven: Yale University Press.
13.
FriedmanR.C.DowneyJ. (2008). Sexual differentiation of behavior: The foundation of a developmental model of psychosexuality. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association56:147–175.
14.
GillM.M. (1994). Psychoanalysis in Transition: A Personal View. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
15.
GilmanS.L. (2009). Psychoanalysis in the university: The clinical dimension. International Journal of Psychoanalysis90:1103–1105.
16.
GreenA.SternD.N. (2000). Clinical and Observational Psychoanalytic Research: Roots of a Controversy. London: Karnac Books.
17.
GreenbergJ.MitchellS. (1983). Object Relations in Psychoanalytic Theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
18.
GrünbaumA. (1974). Epistemological liabilities of the clinical appraisal of psychoanalytic theory. Psychoanalysis & Contemporary Thought2:451–526.
19.
GrünbaumA. (1982a). Can psychoanalytic theory be cogently tested “on the couch”? Part I. Psychoanalysis & Contemporary Thought5:155–255.
20.
GrünbaumA. (1982b). Can psychoanalytic theory be cogently tested “on the couch”? Part II. Psychoanalysis & Contemporary Thought5:311–436.
21.
GrünbaumA. (1984). The Foundations of Psychoanalysis: A Philosophical Critique. Berkeley: University of California Press.
22.
HoffmanI.Z. (1991). Discussion: Toward a social-constructivist view of the psychoanalytic situation. Psychoanalytic Dialogues1:74–105.
23.
HoffmanI.Z. (1998). Ritual and Spontaneity in the Psychoanalytic Process: A Dialectical-Constructivist View. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
24.
HoffmanI.Z. (2009). Doublethinking our way to “scientific legitimacy”: The desiccation of human experience. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association57:1043–1069.
25.
Hø´glendP.JohanssonP.MarbleA.Bø´gwaldK.-P.AmloS. (2007). Moderators of the effects of transference interpretations in brief dynamic psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Research17:160–171.
26.
HookerE. (1957). The adjustment of the male overt homosexual. Journal of Projective Techniques21:18–31.
27.
HookerE. (1958). Male homosexuality in the Rorschach. Journal of Projective Techniques22:33–54.
28.
HookerE. (1993). Reflections of a 40-year exploration. American Psychologist48:450–453.
29.
HymanM. (1999). Why psychoanalysis is not a health care profession. In Psychoanalytic Therapy as Health Care, ed. KaleyH.EagleM.N.WolitzkyD.L.Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press, pp. 53–63.
30.
IsaacsS. (1939). Criteria for interpretation. International Journal of Psychoanalysis20:148–160.
31.
KazdinA.E. (2001). Bridging the enormous gaps of theory with therapy research and practice. Journal of Clinical & Child Psychology30:59–66.
32.
KazdinA.E. (2006). Arbitrary metrics: Implications for identifying evidence-based treatments. American Psychologist61:42–49.
33.
KlumpnerG.H.FrankA. (1991). On methods of reporting clinical material. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association39:537–551.
34.
KlumpnerG.H.Galatzer-LevyR.M. (1991). Presentation of clinical experienceJournal of the American Psychoanalytic Association39:727–740.
35.
KnightR.P. (1953). The present status of organized psychoanalysis in the United States. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association1:197–201.
36.
LuborskyL. (1988). Recurrent momentary forgetting: Its content and context. In Psychodynamics and Cognition, ed HorowitzM.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 223–251.
37.
LuborskyL.AuerbachA.H. (1969). The symptom-context method: Quantitative studies of symptom formation in psychotherapy. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association17:68–99.
38.
LuborskyL.Crits-ChrisophP. (1998). Understanding Transference: The Core Conflictual Relationship Theme Method. 2nd ed.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
39.
LuborskyL.DiguerL.SeligmanD.A.RosenthalR.KrauseE.D.JohnsonS.HalperinG.BishopM.BermanJ.S.SchweitzerE. (1999). The researcher’s own therapy allegiances: A “wild card” in comparisons of treatment efficacy. Clinical Psychology: Science & Practice6:95–106.
40.
LuborskyL.RosenthalR.DiguerL.AndrusynaT.P.BermanJ.S.LevittJ.T.SeligmanD.A.KrauseE.D. (2002). The dodo bird verdict is alive and well— mostly. Clinical Psychology & Practice9:2–12.
41.
MeehlP.E. (1973). Why I do not attend case conferences. In Psychodiagnosis: Selected Papers. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 225–302.
MichelsR. (2000). The case history. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association48:355–375.
44.
MischelW. (2008). Connecting clinical practice to scientific progress. Psychological Science in the Public Interest9(2):i–ii.
45.
MitchellS.A. (1998). The analyst’s knowledge and authority. Psychoanalytic Quarterly67:1–31.
46.
PDM Task Force (2006). Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (PDM). Silver Spring, MD: Alliance of Psychoanalytic Organizations.
47.
SafranJ.MuranJ.C. (2000). Negotiating the Therapeutic Alliance: A Relational Treatment Guide. New York: Guilford Press.
48.
ShedlerJ. (2010). The efficacy of psychodynamic psychotherapy. American Psychologist65:98–109.
49.
SpenceD.P. (1990). The rhetorical voice of psychoanalysis. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association38:579–603.
50.
SteinM.H. (1988). Writing about psychoanalysis: I. Analysts who write and those who do not. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association36:105–124.
51.
StruppH.H. (2001). Implications of the empirically supported treatment movement for psychoanalysis. Psychoanalytic Dialogues11:605–619.
52.
ThomäH. (2010). Remarks on the first century of the International Psychoanalytic Association (IPA) and a utopian vision of its future. Unpublished manuscript.
53.
WakefieldJ.C. (2007a). Little Hans and attachment theory: Bowlby’s hypothesis reconsidered in light of new evidence from the Freud Archives. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child62:61–91.
54.
WakefieldJ.C. (2007b). Max Graf’s “Reminiscences of Professor Sigmund Freud” revisited: New evidence from the Freud Archives. Psychoanalytic Quarterly76:149–192.
