You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
SCIENTISTS TEND TO BE hARSh critics of their endeavors. They point to limitations in method and inference and they often voice frustrations about the slow rate of knowledge acquisition and the acceptance of new discovery by others. The voices of the clinician investigators of this volume are no exception. Empirical approaches for psychoanalysis are still at an early state of development. And many criticisms are voiced, not only about the limitations of research findings, but about the limitations stemming from a psychoanalytic culture that has not heretofore encouraged scientific thinking or work. There are signs, however, that the culture of our field may be changing. Moreover, the research programs summarized in this volume represent substantial accomplishments.
This epilogue allows an opportunity to draw some general conclusions from these programs. The conclusions cut across the three domains of research: psychoanalytic process, development, and outcome studies. The conclusions also serve to connect psychoanalysis with a wider world of contemporary scientific inquiry. I shall address each general conclusion and its linkages separately, and then turn to a perspective on nondeterministic science and psychoanalysis.