In this article I will begin by thinking about how schools of psychotherapy come to be created, and argue that this is a political process rather than a ‘scientific’, technical or rational one. I describe ways in which practice can at times be unhelpfully rigidified into techniques which are used to build borders between schools. I follow this by a description of how Eliasian gossip is used to reinforce methodological silos.
Finally I consider group analysis’ relationship to psychoanalysis, science and the medical model in order to try to shed light on the question ‘one group analysis or many?’.
RothAFonagyP (2005) What Works For Whom? A Critical Review of Psychotherapy Research. 2nd Edition.New York: The Guilford Press.
17.
SterlingT (1959) Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance—or vice versa. American Statistical Association Journal54: 30–34.
18.
SterlingTRosenbaumWWeinkamJ (1995) Publication decisions revisited—the effect of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice versa. American Statistician49: 108–112.
19.
SullowayFJ (1992) Freud Biologist of the Mind: Beyond the Psychoanalytic Legend. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
20.
WittgensteinL (1953) Philosophical Investigations trans AnscombeG.E.M.London: Macmillan.
