{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03347578347578348, 'fraction_numerical': 0.018518518518518517, 'mean_word_length': 5.2444444444444445, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The ‘inseparable bond between cure and research’: clinical case study as a method of psychoanalytic inquiry

Abstract Since Freud's own time, there has been great deal of debate about the most appropriate research methodology for investigating psychoanalytic psychotherapy [Fonagy, Journal of Child Psychotherapy, 29 (2): 129 – 136, 2003; Rustin, Journal of Child Psychotherapy, 29 (2): 137–145, 2003]. The single case study, which has a long tradition both within child psychotherapy and the wider research field, has been widely criticised as an approach to research, even while its contribution to clinical practice, the development of new ideas and teaching have been acknowledged. After reviewing the history of case study as a research method, this paper argues that there are a broad range of approaches to the study of the single case, each of which may be appropriate depending on the particular research question. Each of these approaches, however, must respond to the three perceived weaknesses of the clinical case study as a research method: the ‘data problem’, the ‘data analysis problem’ and the ‘generalisability problem’. This paper outlines the nature of these criticisms and, using many examples of actual research projects, suggests various ways in which the criticisms can be addressed, in order for the single case study to re-gain its place at the heart of psychoanalytic research.