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.
There has historically been controversy among psychoanalysts about the use and efficacy of teleanalysis. As COVID-19 arrived, most analysts offered teleanalysis despite their opinions and any prior experiences of this format of analytic care. Twelve psychoanalysts and thirteen candidates in training analyses in the US using teleanalysis two years into the pandemic were interviewed. Giorgi’s phenomenological research method (Giorgi, A. 2009. The Descriptive Phenomenological Method for Psychology. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne Press) was used to develop a generalizable description of teleanalysis including its constituent parts. Results suggest that teleanalysis allows more access to treatments at analytic frequency, but it is not equivalent to in-person analysis as there are aspects that are felt to be missing and important. The impact of the medium, including increased distractions, difficulties with maintaining the frame, and missing aspects, are felt by both analysts and candidates in training analyses, but are even more starkly felt by candidate analysands than analysts. Providing teleanalysis presents unique challenges to the analyst due to less control of the teleanalytic frame and the need to represent and analyze in some way what is missing. Analyzing the unconscious motivations, dynamics, and meanings of the use of teleanalysis (or in-person or hybrid analysis) may deepen the treatment regardless of what format is ultimately used.