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 psychoanalyst resembles the scientific research worker when it comes to collecting his data: accurate observation, a sober designation of the observed, the precise formulation of interpretations and disciplined restraint in drawing conclusions from the findings. From one point of view, it may be maintained that the psychoanalyst is a research worker too. However, as pointed out by Wallerstein (1991), a distinction should be made between search and research. Every analyst is searching, but for that search to become research, a certain formalization and systematic categorisation of the data have to be undertaken. In clinical practice, this is usually not the case. Even if this distinction is made, the similarity in intellectual endeavour leads one to consider that scientific research should be in accord with the psychoanalyst, or at least appeal to him.
With this in mind, it seems a paradox that psychoanalysts often take an antagonistic stance towards formal empirical research within their own province. Why is this so? Why should members of a profession, which not only has its instruments in common with the research worker, but also shares his ideals of openness and free exploration, assume an attitude of rejection towards scientific research? This resistance is obviously not a uniform one. It is likely to vary as to degree and to content. Roughly, three groups of antagonists may be pointed out. Firstly, the sceptics, who nevertheless take the stand, that if somebody finds the energy to do research, let them do so; secondly those who are emotionally anti, even if they might appear to be pro, and finally those who are anti on principle.
Members of the first group of opponents, the sceptics, express, whatever