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.
The question of whether psychoanalysis is a science has troubled its critics since its inception. Freud considered psychoanalysis to be a science. However some critics complain that psychoanalytic theories cannot be tested, that it doesn't conform to the scientific method or the statistical and quantitative studies popular among the social sciences, that the observer is a participant. Meadow has long been intimately involved with psychoanalytic research as it concerns the theory, practice and education of candidates-in-training.
In her early paper, “A Research Method for Investigating the Effectiveness of Psychoanalytic Techniques,” not reprinted here, Meadow followed a quantitative model. She designed an experimental approach that allowed her to measure the efficacy of interventions. The study is replete with scales and statistics, tables and numbers. A conclusion is reached. She has since moved away from such research designs. Psychoanalysis is not a hard science nor a social science. It cannot control and isolate variables; it cannot manipulate environment. Psychoanalysis lives within a unique set of assumptions from which it proceeds, for example, the presence of a dynamic unconscious that influences behavior. Its basic assumptions are not questioned. From them, the discourse of psychoanalysis emerges. And like Freud, Meadow's thinking on research has evolved and will continue to evolve as her commitment to research impels her toward the frontier.