In this response to Sigmund Karterud’s article ‘Some reflections on research and group analysis’ (2025), I try to explore the important role of empirical research in the evolution of group analysis while raising questions about what might be lost when depth-oriented clinical traditions are reshaped in the image of modern evidence-based standards. While Karterud makes a compelling case for increased measurement, structure, and accountability in the field, I argue for a parallel commitment to preserving the relational, symbolic, and subjective dimensions of group work, those which may resist full operationalization but are central to the therapeutic process. I hope that this paper will invite a dialogue across generational, methodological, and epistemological fractions within the group analytic community.
Mia Wanvik Stenersen (Mon,) studied this question.