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.
This collection of thirteen papers comes out of studies in England motivated by needs parallel to our own: the need to understand what has effect in psychoanalysis and in psychoanalytic therapy, and the need to demonstrate the efficacy of both to outside providers. While most of the essays are not directly relevant for analysts, a few are helpful in approaching our own efforts to understand the nature of evidence.
A paper describing the attributes of evidence in the field of law helps clarify our own different criteria for evaluating evidence. This leads to statements on both sides of the debate between those who insist on randomized controlled studies as evidence and those who point out that such “evidence” is only partial—misleading in its conclusions and potentially harmful to the therapeutic endeavor.
Most of this small volume is not directly applicable to psychoanalysis. The parts that are cogent, however, are presented with serious thoughtfulness. A brief essay by Tantam considers the evidence for what causes change in psychotherapy. His brief, lucid statement ends with the question of what a good therapeutic intervention is. He says:
If we can no longer maintain that causal efficacy is the criterion of our work as psychotherapists we must consider the criteria we are working to. We cannot maintain that one intervention is as good as another, or that as non-judgemental therapists it is not our place to judge what is better or worse. We cannot say either “I just do what works.” Psychotherapists must pay urgent attention to the nature of the evidence that they wish others to use in judging their work. In the absence of evidential criteria, others will conclude that there is no evidence [p. 90].
At least some of this volume clearly is relevant to our own psychoanalytic concerns.