Comparative Psychoanalysis on the Basis of a New Form of Treatment Report

“I get so sick and tired of hearing about the various different schools of psychoanalysis and their great superiority to the other one—whichever it is. The possibility of arguing about their various merits is simply endless—as long as you don't anchor any of it to facts. I don't know of any scientific work that is not based on observation.” (W. Bion, 3.7.1978, in 2005b, p. 39)

In this article, we argue that it is essential to understand how the analyst applies his knowledge in the analytic situation to investigate the analytic process and develop research models to evaluated clinical hypothesis. We accept the premise that the analyst's theory influences technique and that an examination of an analysis involves an interactive process. We ask, “How do we understand the inseparable bound between therapy and research?” We argue that the understanding that develops in psychoanalysis is not research. For research to take place, an exploration of causal connections is necessary that includes the analyst's observations and thinking through out the analysis which can be evaluated by independent observers. We describe and demonstrate a research model based on an audio transcription and annotated comments of the analyst to convey his observations and thinking that can be evaluated by independent observers.

Although making comparisons of our professional thinking, the phrase comparative psychoanalysis is new to our vocabulary. To our knowledge, only Scarfone (2002) recently used it as subtitle in the series