Navridi A, Anagnostopoulos D
Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Psychiatriki. 2018 Oct-Dec;29(4):359-366. doi: 10.22365/jpsych.2018.294.359.
The connection between empirical research and clinical practice in the psychoanalytic area, as an approach where the psychoanalytic procedure and its results get objectified, continues to be controversial. Even if it is not so frequent, the significance of giving emphasis to the psychoanalytic areas in research, is evident through the literature review, as the benefits are supported to be many and substantial. To begin with, the empirical research is necessary in order for the psychoanalytic clinical theory to be strengthened in a wider scientifically accepted way and further developed, through the evaluation and the confirmation of what it entreats.3 Moreover, there is an important need of wide research, in order to evaluate the efficacy of the therapeutic techniques, as psychoanalytic therapeutic approaches are frequently adjudged incompetent and they are not form an option of the treatment of many psychiatric and emotional disorders, mainly because of the lack of findings concerning their efficacy. It is a fact though, that research in psychoanalytic areas cannot be conducted in the same way that can be conducted in different clinical interventions. It is essential to be conducted within the epistemological and theoretical environment that the psychoanalysis itself establishes, with main purpose -avoiding every objectification- the subjectification through intersubjectivity. On the other side, both the psychoanalytic thought and the psychoanalytic procedure, have proved to be significantly useful for the conduct of qualitative research and for the understating both of research findings and the way the research itself was carried out. The contribution of the psychoanalytic thought is highly important for the understanding of how the social data are being organized and constructed, as the unconscious has a crucial role in the construction of reality and in the way we perceive others and as a result in the construction of research data and the research environment. In addition, in the field of psycho-social research, the researcher is perceived to be himself part and the data and of the research procedure, as he always got influenced by the dynamics of the people or the group that he studies, operating himself as a "projective surface".
精神分析领域中实证研究与临床实践之间的联系一直存在争议，精神分析领域是一种将精神分析程序及其结果客观化的方法。即便这种情况并不常见，但通过文献综述可以明显看出，在研究中强调精神分析领域具有重要意义，因为其益处众多且显著。首先，实证研究对于精神分析临床理论以更广泛被科学接受的方式得到强化并进一步发展而言是必要的，这是通过对其主张进行评估和确认来实现的。此外，迫切需要广泛开展研究以评估治疗技术的疗效，因为精神分析治疗方法常常被判定无效，并且不是许多精神和情感障碍治疗的选择，主要原因是缺乏关于其疗效的研究结果。然而，事实上精神分析领域的研究不能以与不同临床干预相同的方式进行。必须在精神分析自身所确立的认识论和理论环境中进行，其主要目的——避免一切客观化——是通过主体间性实现主体化。另一方面，精神分析思想和精神分析程序已被证明对定性研究的开展以及对研究结果和研究本身实施方式的理解都非常有用。精神分析思想对于理解社会数据如何被组织和构建具有极其重要的作用，因为无意识在现实构建、我们感知他人的方式以及研究数据和研究环境的构建中都起着关键作用。此外，在心理社会研究领域，研究者被视为研究数据和研究程序的一部分，因为他总是受到他所研究的个人或群体动态的影响，自身就像一个“投射面”。
