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.
[All abstracts are reproduced with the permission of the publishers.]
After briefly reviewing the unfavourable reception accorded empirical research by parts of the psychoanalytic community, as well as some of the benefits to clinical practice of analysts being involved in research activities, the author examines whether the findings of process and outcome research in psychotherapy and psychoanalysis can help identify the most appropriate forms of intervention for producing therapeutic change, given the specific condition of the patient and the relationship that the individual establishes with the analyst. He argues that research findings can influence clinical practice on various levels and in different areas, and goes on to examine a number of related issues: the specificity of therapeutic interventions versus the relevance of common curative factors; the dyadic conception of technique and ways of understanding the therapeutic action of the treatment alliance; and the strategic or heuristic conception in psychoanalytic therapy. Finally, the author presents clinical material with the aim of illustrating how the knowledge acquired through research can be applied to psychoanalytic treatment.
The authors discuss the term ‘analytic process’, confirming the variability of the meanings ascribed to it. Although all the psychoanalysts of this and previous times
acknowledge the existence of something called analytic process, as well as its importance, it has not been possible up to now to establish a consensual definition of it. The definitions are not only numberless, they also contradict one another. The possible advantages t