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 commentary, we want to expand on some of the key concepts presented in an interesting paper that was recently published in the Journal of Child Psychotherapy. While some of the published papers by child psychotherapists are presented, and thus discussed, at conferences, we don’t often get the opportunity to thoroughly discuss and ‘digest’ much of this thought-provoking clinical and research work. We thus read Grossfeld et al.’s recent paper with interest, as it raises a number of interesting clinical and research dilemmas. We hope that this commentary opens up a space for further dialogue, with the view to enrich each other’s work, at times by offering alternative perspectives.
This interesting, well-structured research paper by Grossfeld et al. (2019) begins to address a widely recognised question in our profession: how can we meaningfully conceptualise and assess the process and outcomes of psychoanalytic treatment? Unlike other treatment modalities (e.g. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy), the processes involved in psychoanalytic psychotherapy, including child psychotherapy, are often intangible and hard to describe precisely, even with the best of intentions. As child psychotherapists, many of us work in multidisciplinary teams, in the NHS and other clinical settings. It is thus of particular importance today, in that context of multidisciplinary working, and during a time characterised by an emphasis on evidence based treatments, that we are able to adequately account for our work and its outcomes.
These clinical and research debates should concern us, as child psychotherapists, and we should dedicate time and effort in our work to engage in them and to attempt to provide some answers. In some cases, our attempt to address the question of ‘research in child psychotherapy’ could simply involve opening up new questions, which is also a valid way to enter into this much needed dialogue. Our overarching epistemology as a profession, we believe, should be one that