Conversation Analysis – A Powerful Tool for Psychoanalytic Practice and Psychotherapy Research

Abstract

Psychoanalysis does not have an easy stand in documenting what "clinical facts" are. This paper proposes to use an established research tool such as Conversation Analysis (CA) in order to analyze how psychoanalytic conversation is performed in the consulting room. The vicinity of CA-approaches and psychoanalytic intuitions is documented by selected examples. We provide an outline of CA-research in psychoanalysis. Finally we debate whether psychoanalysis be science or hermeneutics; these positions are seen as two sides of a coin. One side is always in the dark. Metaphorically speaking, the future will have the task to bring this coin to an upright stand which can be managed only when the coin is given a thrilling turn by acknowledging that both, hermeneutics and science, in far reaching dimensions ignored the (micro-)social dimension of the psychoanalytic endeavor: conversation, talk-in-interaction. This will help to more clearly get in view what "clinical facts" are.

Psychodynamic Psychotherapy Process Research: A quick ride through what you should know about process (research)

“…Definitely, the topic of conversation, of therapeutic talk, of talk in interaction (to name just a few synonyms) is still debated intensely in clinical contributions (Forrester & Reason ; Jacobs ; Orange ). I cannot give a full overview here but those wishing to be informed more broadly are referred to Buchholz & Kächele () and Peräkylä ().…”

Rhythm and blues – Amalie's 152nd session: From psychoanalysis to conversation and metaphor analysis – and back again

“…A very short introduction to CA seems reasonable; readers with broader interests in CA are referred to the ‘Handbook of Conversation Analysis’ (Sidnell and Stivers, ). It is of great interest for psychoanalysts that in different places in the world psychoanalytic clinicians and CA‐researchers have begun to bring their expertise together (Buchholz and Kächele, ; Peräkylä et al ., ; Peräkylä and Sorjonen, ). We start with what might have inspired this promising cooperation.…”

The Building of Empathy: Conceptual “Pillars” and Conversational Practices in Psychotherapy

“…interrupt each other) and the practices of repair, how a topicshift is arranged, the organisation of laughter, how questions are posed and how they are responded (in court, police interrogation and in medical practice), how storytelling changes in dependence from the recipient (recipient design) and a lot of many other things occurring in human conversation; an overview is available [34]. Psychotherapy process research has attracted CA-authors because they are attentive to the "sweet little nothings" during conversation mostly overlooked by more generic "coding and counting" approaches [43][44][45][46][47][48]. The advantage of observing many highly relevant details of voice and prosody [42] or eye movement for coordination [49] is accompanied by the disadvantage that only small numbers of cases can become studied.…”