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 a questionnaire circulated among English analysts about twenty years ago, Glover found agreement on only six of sixty-three questions concerning technical practices and working standards, and 'only one of these six points could be regarded as fundamental, viz., the necessity of analyzing the transference'. Since then there has been little real movement toward agreement on therapeutic criteria. The 'fission movement' in analytic groups everywhere has in fact aggravated the problem. The fissions are due to two main factors: increased demand for treatment with consequent search for shorter analyses, and the development of fundamental differences concerning theory and etiology. It is fallacious to assume that those holding different points of view in these respects speak the same technical language, follow the same systems of diagnosis, prognosis, and selection of cases, practice in similar technical fashion, and obtain approximately the same results. Glover deplores the lack of verifiable information on therapeutic results, and raises questions concerning the cause of satisfactory results: suggestion and environmental factors seem to play an important role. He emphasizes the necessity of establishing fixed methodological standards: '… if to the welter of clinical variables we add a number of methodological variables we cannot attach any scientific significance to general impressions or assumptions regarding any form of psychotherapy'. He suggests that we attempt to define or standardize analytic treatment by studying metapsychological, clinical, and methodological data.