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.
It is a pleasure to discuss the papers of my esteemed colleagues. While we may have disagreements, I applaud their clarity and the forcefulness of their arguments.
I will start with the work of Professor Kächele, and the extensive research he cites for his conclusions that there is a continuum between psychoanalysis and psychotherapy. As someone trained in research before my training in psychoanalysis, I have respect for and skepticism about research. I learned early about the differences between research conclusions and ‘Truth’, and to appreciate that research is designed by researchers who interpret the numbers. The numbers do not always tell the story; rather it is the researcher who tells the story of the numbers. For example, let us look at the Menninger Psychotherapy Research Project as described by Kächele as showing “no overwhelming differences in outcomes after supportive—expressive treatment, analytic psychotherapy and psychoanalysis,” while also noting the mixed use of techniques in different treatments (e.g. support). He goes on to mention that some have criticized the Menninger study as “ecologically invalid”, a term he seems to dismissively equate with not being the type of patients one sees in private practice. However, the full critique of the Menninger study's ‘ecology’ might have included what Bachrach et al. (1991) stated:
The major limitations of the study include the unrepresentative patient population largely not suited for psychoanalysis by current standards, the use of student analysts, the significant modifications required by most, if not all, of the analyses, and the relatively small sample. The study did not provide as detailed opportunities for the in-depth study of psychoanalytic process as might be available today, and generally only impressionistic data were provided in exploring the analyst's contribution to treatment.
Further, Kächele reports from the Leuzinger-Bohleber et al. (2003) study: “The German follow-up study on a subs