Schachter J, Luborsky L
Int J Psychoanal. 1998 Oct;79 ( Pt 5):965-9.
The authors point out that psychoanalytic research papers are cited with less frequency than clinical papers, and, presumably, are read with less frequency. Results from two sets of questionnaires from psychoanalysts indicate that a majority of analysts report high levels of conviction in the rationales and techniques in their clinical work. However, analysts with higher degrees of conviction read fewer research papers than analysts with lower degrees of conviction. The authors speculate that analysts with higher degrees of conviction may have an underlying sense of uncertainty about their analytic work. Their uncertainty may generate concerns that research may raise questions and doubts about their rationales and techniques, and, consequently, they have little interest in empirical psychoanalytic research. Such an attitude would be understandable because analysts sense or explicitly believe that confidence in their work is an important, perhaps essential, element in the mutative effects of treatment, and must be maintained and protected. The authors believe that clinical and research approaches have each contributed to the development of psychoanalysis and that both need to be used.
作者指出，精神分析研究论文的被引用频率低于临床论文，并且据推测，阅读频率也较低。来自两组精神分析师问卷调查的结果表明，大多数分析师对其临床工作中的基本原理和技术深信不疑。然而，信念程度较高的分析师阅读的研究论文比信念程度较低的分析师少。作者推测，信念程度较高的分析师在其分析工作中可能有一种潜在的不确定感。他们的不确定性可能引发这样的担忧，即研究会对他们的基本原理和技术提出质疑，因此，他们对实证精神分析研究兴趣不大。这种态度是可以理解的，因为分析师感觉到或明确认为，对自己工作的信心是治疗改变效果中的一个重要因素，或许是必不可少的因素，必须加以维护和保护。作者认为，临床方法和研究方法都对精神分析的发展做出了贡献，两者都需要被运用。
