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.
In this issue JAPA launches a new feature, a section focusing on the bidirectional connections between psychoanalytic clinical practice and varied research approaches. Research is not a newcomer to these pages. Over the years, many issues, including the most recent one ( J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn. 50/2), have been devoted specifically to research addressing psychoanalytic processes and outcomes, diagnostic variations and meanings, and collaborations with “neighboring sciences” (Holzman and Aronson 1992; Hauser 2002; ). What is different about this new section, which will appear regularly even in issues not dedicated to research studies, is its emphasis on the two-way bridges between clinical theory and observation on the one hand and diverse rigorous research methods—drawn from psychoanalysis as well as from among the social sciences, humanities and neurosciences—on the other.
The two papers in this section are excellent exemplars of what we intend to feature in subsequent issues. Judy Kantrowitz offers evocative narrative data and conceptualizations touching on many aspects of the interactions that occur over the course of a candidate's analysis of a patient. Her exploration of the complex external and internal processes involved in the interplay between candidate, training analyst, supervisor, and patient offers intriguing leads for new systematic research about therapeutic processes, candidate learning, and change in both the treating analyst and the patient.
Exploratory clinical research is clearly not limited to observations and curiosity about psychoanalytic processes and outcomes. Richard Gottlieb provides data from yet another important area: the intersection of biological intervention with psychoanalytic considerations. He offers a psychoanalytically-based hypothesis that could shed light