This response examines the balance between evidence-based practices and the subjective aspects of group analysis, indicating its significance for the field.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mia Wanvik Stenersen (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: