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.
With only a few pages to discuss the papers by Otto Kernberg and by Brian Robertson et al. (Long-term Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy Research Group, or lpprg), many of the nuances called for by the complex issues raised by these respected authors had to be renounced, so the reader must forgive the rather schematic allure of my argument. Let me begin by stating my belief that, in dealing with the human soul, we are compelled to take interest in every possible knowledge related to the human condition. It ensues that, in my opinion, psychoanalysis can hardly dispense with the contributions of research—conceptual or empirical as it may be. Only, matters are not that simple. The question is, Who does what, and what role should psychoanalytic institutes play in this regard? The subject is replete with controversial issues. I will address them under three headings: (1) the nature of psychoanalytic knowledge, (2) psychoanalytic practice and research practice, and (3) the politics of research and psychoanalytic institutions.
The lpprg wishes to put its research project in the service of giving back to psychoanalysis the credibility it deserves in the mental health field. Kernberg examines the issue in terms of possible rewards, potential dangers (real or imagined), attitudes, and findings. I believe there are,