Leuzinger-Bohleber M
Psyche (Stuttg). 1995 May;49(5):434-80.
The attacks mounted by Grawe, Donati and Bernauer on the individual case study as an instrument of research in psychoanalytic studies has had major political repercussions, not least with regard to professional corporate identity. The author takes the opportunity of inquiring into the quality and the advantages of scientific inquiry into the individual case. She proceeds in this from a discussion of the familiar quandary posed by the fact that the necessarily idiosyncratic nature of the individual case will by definition resist generalization. The very definition of inquiry that qualifies for the term "scientific" is, however, precisely that it should be able to make statements with a claim to general validity. The line taken by Leuzinger-Bohleber is that the internal (narrative) coherence of psychoanalytic interpretations should be supplemented by an external form of coherence in such a way as to ensure that genuinely psychoanalytic interpretations and concepts do not stand at odds with accepted knowledge in other scientific disciplines. With special reference to Moser's arguments, she demonstrates that a trial-and-error research approach with an inbuilt suspicion of and resistance to orthodox tenets, professions of faith and ultimate truths is quite definitely in a position to proceed from individual cases to subsequent generalizations, from data to metaphors, concepts and finally theories susceptible of validation by further new data. By referring theoretical models back to new practical situations (the therapeutic situation, the experimental situation, computer simulation) the author feels that it is entirely possible to at least sustain, if not resolve, the tension between individual case study and scientific claims of general validity. This is entirely in line with the view of psychoanalysis as a "science between the sciences", an approach reconciling "understanding" and "explanation", hermeneutics and hardcore science.
格劳韦、多纳蒂和贝尔瑙尔对将单个案例研究作为精神分析研究手段发起的攻击产生了重大的政治影响，尤其是在职业团体身份方面。作者借此机会探究对单个案例进行科学探究的质量和优势。她从讨论一个常见的困境入手，即单个案例必然具有独特性，从定义上来说就抗拒概括。然而，符合“科学”这一术语的探究的定义恰恰是它应该能够做出具有普遍有效性的陈述。洛伊辛格 - 博勒伯采取的思路是，精神分析解释的内部（叙事）连贯性应以外部连贯性形式加以补充，以确保真正的精神分析解释和概念与其他科学学科中公认的知识不冲突。特别参照莫泽的论点，她表明一种带有对正统教义、信条和终极真理的怀疑与抗拒的试错式研究方法肯定能够从单个案例推进到后续的概括，从数据推进到隐喻、概念，最终推进到能够通过进一步的新数据进行验证的理论。通过将理论模型回归到新的实际情境（治疗情境、实验情境、计算机模拟），作者认为至少维持（如果不是解决）单个案例研究与普遍有效性的科学主张之间的张力是完全有可能的。这与将精神分析视为“一门介于各门科学之间的科学”的观点完全一致，这种方法调和了“理解”与“解释”、诠释学与硬核科学。
