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 purpose of this brief commentary is twofold: First, to highlight the kind of articles we, as editors, would like to publish in the journal. Second, to raise the bar with respect to the methodological sophistication of these articles. Specifically, John Garrett Tanner’s article touches upon a supremely important issue: Low socio-economic Status (SES) and its role within psychotherapy practice and training. In its most extreme form, low SES amounts to poverty. From a global health perspective, poverty, particularly abject poverty, is akin to a weapon of mass destruction. Its formidable effects infiltrate into all contexts, including that of the intimate, scared, arena of the therapeutic relationship. Tanner’s article focuses on the impact of low SES on therapeutic relationships from the eyes of doctoral-level psychotherapists in training, thereby bringing societal plights (back) into the clinic. Faithful to the Journal’s scope, we are interested in articles such as this which address applied psychoanalytic practice in the public sector. That Tanner’s article utilizes qualitative data analyses is also highly consistent with the methodological pluralism we wish to advance in the Journal. At the same time, we wish to address some methodological limitations of Tanner’s article in order to set the stage for an increased methodological rigor of the articles published in this journal, whether they are qualitative, quantitative, or clinical-theoretical. Finally, we reflect on the article’s findings by situating it within the context of psychoanalytic object-relations and intersubjectivity theories