Research is our investment in the future of psychoanalysis. The board of the Fund for Psychoanalytic Research is the Association's investment adviser. The Executive Committee, the Committee on Scientific Activities, JAPA's editorial board, and the Committee on Research and Special Training appoint the Fund's board members.
We do not have as much to invest as we should, but we try hard to invest it wisely. We support psychoanalytic research in the broad sense. Psychoanalytic research includes many types of work that increase our understanding of psychology in depth. Many projects we support focus on systematic empirical investigations, but others involve applying psychoanalysis to the humanities and conceptual explorations.
Any psychoanalytic investigator can apply to the Fund. The proposal describes the project and its budget; it shows that the project has reasonable institutional support and meets ethical standards. The proposal includes a description, which indicates the project's significance. It provides a research plan, explaining how the. research means to answer the research questions.
Writing a good research proposal is hard. It forces the researcher to think through the project on all levels, from its conceptual framework to the mechanics of each investigative step. Even for applicants who are not funded, applying has value. It gives the investigator an extraordinary chance to sharpen focus. The Fund's board regards itself as responsible for more than distributing money; it also gives applicants detailed feedback on their projects, which serves as consultation on the research.
In reviewing applications, the board looks closely at two questions:
How important is the project?
Can the researcher do it?
Many factors shape the board's view of a project's importance. Proposals directly addressing major psychoanalytic problems are obviously important. We support projects about the effectiveness of analysis and its process. But other kinds of research also get high priority. Research in applied psychoanalysis and the history of psychoanalysis has won support. In every science, the most frequently cited papers are about research methods — how to measure important variables, or how to observe significant factors. Researchers build successful empirical sciences on carefully studied methodology. The Fund's board particularly values such studies, which are rare in psychoanalysis.
The Fund often supports “pilot studies.” Research is expensive and money scarce, so most major agencies and foundations want to see pilot studies that show that the research is feasible before they give substantial sums. This is an effective way to help our limited resources go further by generating additional money for psychoanalytic research.
A third kind of important project is a study that shapes the researcher's career and encourages psychoanalytic interests. Graduate students and young investigators for whom funding makes psychoanalytically oriented studies possible are likely to make a contribution far beyond their particular research. They will teach about psychoanalysis in the universities for years to come, carry a vision of American psychoanalysis as supporting intellectual endeavors, and widen the scope of psychoanalytic studies.
Sir Peter Medewar said that research is the “art of the doable.” Even the best idea is of little use, unless it translates into a feasible project. The devil is often in the details. How long does it actually take to complete a rating scale? Can the researcher find enough subjects for the studies? Will the archival material be available? Are the statistical tests really adequate for the research? Often, enthusiastic researchers fail to look closely enough at these hard questions. We want to invest our money wisely, and we can sometimes save colleagues months of disappointing work by pointing out difficulties early.
With the questions of importance and feasibility firmly in mind, two board members closely review each application, but each board member reads every application at least once. We discuss the applications in detail at the Fund's semiannual meeting. The Fund's board includes representatives of a spectrum of psychoanalytic outlooks, from analysts committed to systematic, quantitative research to colleagues who value deep explorations into works of art. Discussions are lively, open, and of high intellectual caliber. Commonly, we learn different points of view on research as we work over the applications together. After careful discussion, the board members usually share conclusions about how important and feasible particular research projects are. Each member of the board rates acceptable projects on a five-point scale. (“Not acceptable” is a separate rating.)
We review budgets to make sure cost estimates are reasonable. The Fund generally does not provide money for items like computers or investigators' stipends, so the Board eliminates these from the budgets. At this point we often have to make hard choices because we do not have enough money to support all of the worthwhile proposals that researchers submit. We try to distribute the money where it will do the most good. Usually we fund high-rated proposals first. Still, we also favor situations where a little money can go a long way or where the investigator is very unlikely to get any other support.
As with the work of any group, especially one that must sometimes disappoint colleagues by its decisions, some myths have grown up about the work of the Fund. Let's look at four of them.
The Fund only supports research that produces numbers. Although the Fund has supported some of the most important quantitative and systematic investigations in psychoanalysis, we have also supported many qualitative research projects. When investigators decide to use quantitative methods, we insist on high standards. For qualitative studies, we ask the investigator to show us clearly how he or she is going to move from research questions to credible answers. Vague responses to these issues, like “We will look at our analytic experience” or “We will study the question,” are unlikely to yield positive responses from the board.
The Fund only supports a small cadre of academic researchers. As with most myths, this one has a kernel of truth. Over the years we have supported most of the leading academic researchers in psychoanalysis because they have proposed important, feasible projects. However, the Fund has also supported investigators from a wide range of backgrounds and has turned down some distinguished academics. We work hard to base our decisions on the underlying criteria and to avoid favoritism.
The Fund has spent American psychoanalytic money outside the country. Shouldn't we be supporting only American psychoanalysis? On rare occasions, the Fund's board has decided to support extraordinarily meritorious research outside the United States. Looking at it as an investment in the future of psychoanalysis, we believe the money was well spent. We can apply psychoanalytic knowledge generated in one country anywhere else in the world. Often we see that by supporting an investigator overseas we
Robert M. Galatzer-Levy, M.D., is cochair of the Fund for Psychoanalytic Research.
can give American psychoanalysts important information about issues like the effectiveness of psychoanalysis or powerful ways to study psychoanalytic process.
With so little money, the Fund can hardly make a dent in the research needs of psychoanalysis. Again, there is truth in this myth. American psychoanalysis is supporting approximately 5 percent of the research that needs to be done. Currently, we are paying for our failure to invest adequately in research when psychoanalysis was at its zenith. The money we do not invest now will cost us dearly in the future. The Fund's strenuous efforts to get the most bang for the buck have paid off handsomely. The $1 million the Fund has distributed over the past 25 years has generated approximately $10 million in research support for its grantees. Many of today's leaders of psychoanalytic research began important aspects of their career using Fund monies. We desperately need to support research at a much higher level, but by making wise use of the money we have now, we can make a major investment in the future of psychoanalysis.
Applications to the Fund may be obtained from the Central Office. Stuart Hauser and I, the Fund's co-chairs, are always glad to discuss potential projects and the application process with anyone interested in pursuing support.