Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE AND METHOD: Two psychodynamic therapists and researchers from different generations reflected upon the past and present state of psychodynamic therapy research as well as possibilities for the future. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Several issues (e.g., decreased research funding, increased medicalization of mental health problems, and declining psychodynamic representation among research faculty) were identified as potential impediments for future high-quality research. In addition to encouraging the field to face these challenges directly, a number of specific recommendations were provided. These included not only suggestions for traditional process and outcome research, but also recommendations to modify our current assessment practices, improve our field's cohesiveness, increase our public visibility, and improve relationships with our non-psychodynamic colleagues. In is argued that, if the field confronts these many challenges in a creative and flexible manner, psychodynamic therapy research will not only continue to be relevant, but will also thrive.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Barber et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: