To the Editors: A Response to “The Phenomenology of Teleanalysis”, and Prof. Lemma’s “What We Don’t Talk About Enough When We Talk About Teleanalysis” by the Author of the Study

To the Editors,

I am delighted that the findings of my research study “The Phenomenology of Teleanalysis” are being published in the IJP to be shared with all of its readership. I am honoured to have Dr Reith introduce the study and to have Prof. Lemma comment on the study, in her response titled “What We Don’t Talk About Enough When We Talk About Teleanalysis” (Lemma, 2025). With her thoughtful consideration of whether teleanalysis can provide for an analytic process and further the ethical risks of teleanalysis, I think she gets to the heart of what I intended for us to explore by doing the research in the first place, but I also want to invite us to consider a few more issues.

Firstly, I am grateful to Prof. Lemma in her approach to her comments, because it is important on such matters that people engage research, stay close to the findings, and take account of and responsibility for the interpretations thereof, and Prof. Lemma has done just that. No doubt others will interpret the findings of this study differently than Prof. Lemma, and this is one of the many benefits of a descriptive study – it allows each of us to interpret and to consider and debate the merits of our interpretations as well as those of others.

Dr Reith notes that this study is both descriptive and truthful in his editor’s introduction, and while I appreciate his complimentary evaluation, I am not sure I can (or any phenomenologist would) claim to produce a “truthful” account of anything, instead leaving it to the reader to play with the unsaturated descriptive constituents to see how they can be used to stimulate thinking. He points to the need for more research (I would agree) and suggests that some of the qualitative descriptive research findings from this study may provide the impetus for additional research (I agree with this also).

In recent years I have heard or read many senior analysts’ opinions on the value of teleanalytic work and its pitfalls, often not derived from research findings.