MINDING THE GAP BETWEEN POSITIVISM

Two quite different cultures are to be found within psychoanalysis, one more clinical in orientation, more focused on meaning and interpre-tation, and relying primarily on the traditional case study method, the other more research-oriented, focused on cause-and-effect relation-ships, and relying primarily on methods borrowed from the natural and social sciences. The history of this divide is reviewed and arguments, pro and con, about the potential contributions of specific types of empirical investigation are discussed. Increasingly, it seems, criticisms concerning the scientific status of psychoanalysis are being responded to by empirical research. This has contributed to a growing recognition within the scientific community of the credibility of aspects of psycho-analytic theories and of the effectiveness of psychodynamic treatment. However, some segments of the psychoanalytic community are con-cerned that this increase in the quantity and quality of empirical research on psychoanalytic concepts risks creating an empirical one-sidedness, while other segments are concerned that not engaging in systematic empirical research can lead to intellectual isolation, fragmentation, stagna-tion, and orthodoxy. To counter this polarizing tendency, a recommenda-tion is made for methodological pluralism. Adopting this stance could contribute to an enriched understanding of the clinical process and to the development of new research methodologies to investigate complex psychodynamic hypotheses, thus bridging the gap between the two psycho-analytic cultures, as well as the gap between research and clinical practice. Few topics elicit as much discussion and controversy in psycho-analysis as the debate on the role of empirical research (e.g.