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.
Recent arguments for revisions to structural theory (Brenner, 1992) and increasing interest by philosophers of science (Bellak, 1993; Grunbaum, 1993; Edelson, 1984; Mackay, 1989) in the scientific status of alternative models of psychoanalysis have led to this attempt to examine the possibility that phenomenology is not enough. While the phenomenologist argues that a person's character and actions can be explained by his perceptions, wishes and feeling states, the psychodynamist argues that these cannot explain character and actions because the motivating factors are not necessarily available to consciousness. To find explanations the psychoanalyst must go beyond what the patient knows. The use of the psychoanalytic session for a study of motivating factors in psychic functioning implies a research method that seeks meaning in wishes, feelings, beliefs that are not phenomena in the sense that they are not immediate sensual experiences. Arguments are presented for the use of in-depth studies using the single case method and will consider how analyst-researchers can validate their findings on motivating factors. The question is raised, “Is there a methodology that can reliably explain character?”