Tip: To go directly to an article using its bibliographical details…
PEP-Web Tip of the Day
If you know the bibliographic details of a journal article, use the Journal Section to find it quickly. First, find and click on the Journal where the article was published in the Journal tab on the home page. Then, click on the year of publication. Finally, look for the author’s name or the title of the article in the table of contents and click on it to see the article.
For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.
Gilmore, K. (1992). The Significance of Infant Observational Research for Clinical Work with Children, Adolescents, and Adults. (Workshop Series of the American Psychoanalytic Association, Monograph 5.): Edited by Scott Dowling, M.D. and Arnold Rothstein, M.D. Madison, CT: International Universities Press, Inc., 1989. 257 pp.. Psychoanal Q., 61:465-469.
(1992). Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 61:465-469
The Significance of Infant Observational Research for Clinical Work with Children, Adolescents, and Adults. (Workshop Series of the American Psychoanalytic Association, Monograph 5.): Edited by Scott Dowling, M.D. and Arnold Rothstein, M.D. Madison, CT: International Universities Press, Inc., 1989. 257 pp.
Review by: Karen Gilmore
This timely monograph brings together a variety of opinions on a topic that infiltrates much of the current literature, either directly or by implication. Discussions about the meaning of psychoanalytic process, the role of developmental psychology within psychoanalytic theory, the nature of therapeutic action in psychoanalysis, the integration of self psychology and the conflict model, the interface of psychoanalysis and neurobiology, indeed, the very domain of the discipline, commonly include references to new knowledge of infancy and its impact on the way we think about human psychology. Remarkably, such discussions often appear to rest on the question of whether information about real infants holds any scientific interest for psychoanalysts, with lines drawn between the object relations/self psychology school (yes) and the conflict/compromise formation school (no).
For the burgeoning field of infant psychiatry to become allied with a particular theoretical viewpoint would be unfortunate in the extreme, despite the inevitable fact that much of the research is informed by the particular persuasion of the investigators. Many of these and related issues are addressed in this collection of papers, helping to orient the reader in what may often seem like the hostile crossfire of a heated polemic.
The Workshop Series format is well suited to the task, with the Workshop papers sandwiched between a historical review and five discussion papers. Phyllis Tyson's review confronts the "contention" in the field; she understands its origins in the two broadly defined avenues of approach to infancy within psychoanalysis, the clinical/naturalistic observational approach and the academic/laboratory research approach. She points out the potential for dialogue and mutual enrichment.
[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]