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 essay the author describes the status of the humanities within United States research universities, and notes that there is a place in the research university for clinical analysts with non-quantitative research interests, who are seen as humanities scholars by other humanities specialists. He discusses the current trend in psychoanalytic research in the United States, which perpetuates an historically well-known divide between quantitative and non-quantitative investigators, and causes non-quantitative clinician-researcher analysts to seek a workplace outside organized analysis, as it exists within the American Psychoanalytic Association. He goes on to describe the way a clinical analyst with a strong non-quantitative research commitment has found a supportive home for his investigations in a humanities institute in a research university. That analyst has been welcomed as a colleague by university-based humanities scholars, and has found that those collegial relationships offer creative freedom and interdisciplinary stimulation. The author notes that a cadre of analysts, enriched by such experiences, will be better equipped to bridge the divide which exists between non-quantitative and quantitative analytic researchers, for the benefit of psychoanalytic research in the future. The author also illustrates the benefits experienced by university-based humanities scholars when they collaborate with clinical analysts, and suggests this makes stronger ties between psychoanalysis and research universities more likely in the future.