...To question everything, not to believe blindly in anything,
to demand the bases and sources from all theses is the first rule of science--Vigotsky
Aims and Scope of this Journal
There are several goals that that will guide the work of this journal and will determine where we will navigate and how far we will go. JASPER's fundamental aim will be to produce quality research that supports the central belief that psychoanalytic models of motivation, dream analysis, sensation, perception, intrapsychic experiences, interpersonal interplay and interactions and psychotherapy practices are important areas for research and that they can be studied and documented in a meticulous, precise, and thorough manner. With this in mind, the interaction between practices or techniques that are based upon psychoanalytic theoretical assumptions and psychoanalytic interpretations will be examined very carefully as well, for they are the bread and butter of psychoanalysis itself. Ideas like transference, countertransference, resistance, levels of consciousness, manifestations of or hypothesized derivatives from the unconscious, dream interpretation, parapraxes, defense mechanisms, outcome studies and controlled comparative analyses with other psychotherapies will represent the bricks and mortar of investigation upon which this journal and its editors will construct our psychoanalytic building.
One of our goals will be to define phenomena more precisely, so that distinctions do not become blurred and result in conclusions that are reached prematurely. In other words, an attitude of scientific conservatism will be practiced along with intellectual modesty. The journal will focus on research papers that are qualitative and those that are quantitative. Along with this, there will be a place for carefully conducted individual case studies, in which treatment methods are clearly spelled out and there is a specific description of the beginning, middle and end. In other words, such studies should delineate each step of the process from start to finish so that the reader is clear about “what” produced “what.”
An emphasis will be placed on observable, testable, valid, reliable, and viable psychoanalytic concepts, theories, and practices. I am purposely using the plural here because there are many psychoanalytic models, such as, drive theory, phenomenological views, interpersonal approaches, social, humanistic, ego, self, existential psychology, the relational turn, and so on. Because there are so many psychoanalytic perspectives, it is premature for us to select one psychoanalytic school of thought over another at this point of our existence. Rather, it is important to pay close attention to which approach is good for which set of problems or circumstances. Consistent with the empirical research of Blatt and Shahar (2004), in order to answer questions about different psychoanalytic schools of thought, we need to continue our investigations by asking questions about what works, how it works, when it is effective, and under what conditions? The traditional journalistic questions of who, what, where, which, why and how will determine the material that will be included in, or disallowed from this journal.
Instead of merely debating these matters for the egocentric purpose of determining who has the “best,” or the “biggest,” or the most “outstanding brand of psychoanalysis,” we need to dispassionately focus our attention on the donut before us—and not the hole. By that I mean we need to examine basic definitions, such as, what do we mean by efficacy, and how to do we measure it--and all that comes under that heading--in greater depth? Fortunately, this process has already been begun by a number of researcher/clinicians (Target and Fonagy, 1994, in their study of the efficacy of child psychoanalysis; Sandell, et al, 2000, in their comparison of long-term psychoanalysis with long-term psychotherapy; and Galatzer-Levy, Bachrach, Skolnikoff, and Waldron, 2000), in their investigation of the following question, does psychoanalysis work)? No longer will the specious charges stand, the minimizations, and outright dismissals that have so often been leveled against psychoanalysis in general, and psychoanalysts in particular, that successful treatment of a severe disorder (such as, autism, psychosis, ADHD, etc…) did not occur; or that the reported diagnosis was wrong (i.e., really was less severe than what the clinicians/authors described).
This journal will not be confined by the need to show positive outcomes. We will look at where and when efficacy is not found, as well as under what conditions efficacy is demonstrated. And, when efficacy is not produced, we will be truthful. We will report failures, as well as successes, a daring but necessary departure from what other journals have been producing. More than that, we will wonder why an expected result was not obtained and will ask the tough, penetrating questions regarding what are the conditions necessary to produce an expected effect or whether our psychoanalytic method is even correct with regard to the phenomenon under investigation.
Studies that produce so-called negative outcomes can be valuable. We can learn a great deal from unpredicted or negative findings such as, what did not work, and what not to do in future studies, thus saving considerable expenditures of time, energy, and money that might have unnecessarily been used to unwittingly repeat the same failed research. We will detail such results. In so doing, we will establish a reputation for honest reportage, candid appraisals, and dependability. Among other things (to be discussed later), this alone will confirm our credibility and set us apart as unique from other informational sources, some of whom have long enjoyed fine reputations, but whose reportage has recently come under scrutiny for less than high quality editorial authentication (of writing in which there were ghost authors, or in which the author did not report that s/he had been subsidized by a third party that might have a financial interest in the study’s outcome).
Although we recognize that financing a quality journal is by no means an inexpensive allocation, my Editors, the Board and I have agreed to not accept funding from insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry, or other interested parties, without complete disclosure. As part of our mission, we will be receptive to interdisciplinary submissions, so long as they are psychoanalytically relevant and topical. Some of the best sources of psychoanalytic understanding and explications have not necessarily always come from the ranks of psychoanalysis itself, as Freud recognized, but rather from the insights and keen understanding of the human psyche produced by writers or poets, like Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Virginia Woolf, or more contemporaneously, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Marguerite Duras, J.D. Salinger, Anne Sexton, Sylvia Plath, Phillip Roth and others.
There is a great wealth of information and insight “out there” that remains untapped. Other avenues for future exploration might be to open up the format of J.A.S.P.E.R. to set aside a section of the journal to allow for selected non-analysts to bring their experiences to bear and for invited analysts to consider and discuss the so-called “naïve” contributions from assorted psychoanalytic vantage points. Thus, individuals from widely varying disciplines, backgrounds and viewpoints, but whose works contain psychoanalytic material, will be encouraged to submit their scholarly works for review.
One of our goals will be to define phenomena more precisely, so that distinctions do not become blurred and result in conclusions that are reached prematurely. In other words, an attitude of scientific conservatism will be practiced along with intellectual modesty. The journal will focus on research papers that are qualitative and those that are quantitative. Along with this, there will be a place for carefully conducted individual case studies, in which treatment methods are clearly spelled out and there is a specific description of the beginning, middle and end. In other words, such studies should delineate each step of the process from start to finish so that the reader is clear about “what” produced “what.”
An emphasis will be placed on observable, testable, valid, reliable, and viable psychoanalytic concepts, theories, and practices. I am purposely using the plural here because there are many psychoanalytic models, such as, drive theory, phenomenological views, interpersonal approaches, social, humanistic, ego, self, existential psychology, the relational turn, and so on. Because there are so many psychoanalytic perspectives, it is premature for us to select one psychoanalytic school of thought over another at this point of our existence. Rather, it is important to pay close attention to which approach is good for which set of problems or circumstances. Consistent with the empirical research of Blatt and Shahar (2004), in order to answer questions about different psychoanalytic schools of thought, we need to continue our investigations by asking questions about what works, how it works, when it is effective, and under what conditions? The traditional journalistic questions of who, what, where, which, why and how will determine the material that will be included in, or disallowed from this journal.
Instead of merely debating these matters for the egocentric purpose of determining who has the “best,” or the “biggest,” or the most “outstanding brand of psychoanalysis,” we need to dispassionately focus our attention on the donut before us—and not the hole. By that I mean we need to examine basic definitions, such as, what do we mean by efficacy, and how to do we measure it--and all that comes under that heading--in greater depth? Fortunately, this process has already been begun by a number of researcher/clinicians (Target and Fonagy, 1994, in their study of the efficacy of child psychoanalysis; Sandell, et al, 2000, in their comparison of long-term psychoanalysis with long-term psychotherapy; and Galatzer-Levy, Bachrach, Skolnikoff, and Waldron, 2000), in their investigation of the following question, does psychoanalysis work)? No longer will the specious charges stand, the minimizations, and outright dismissals that have so often been leveled against psychoanalysis in general, and psychoanalysts in particular, that successful treatment of a severe disorder (such as, autism, psychosis, ADHD, etc…) did not occur; or that the reported diagnosis was wrong (i.e., really was less severe than what the clinicians/authors described).
This journal will not be confined by the need to show positive outcomes. We will look at where and when efficacy is not found, as well as under what conditions efficacy is demonstrated. And, when efficacy is not produced, we will be truthful. We will report failures, as well as successes, a daring but necessary departure from what other journals have been producing. More than that, we will wonder why an expected result was not obtained and will ask the tough, penetrating questions regarding what are the conditions necessary to produce an expected effect or whether our psychoanalytic method is even correct with regard to the phenomenon under investigation.
Studies that produce so-called negative outcomes can be valuable. We can learn a great deal from unpredicted or negative findings such as, what did not work, and what not to do in future studies, thus saving considerable expenditures of time, energy, and money that might have unnecessarily been used to unwittingly repeat the same failed research. We will detail such results. In so doing, we will establish a reputation for honest reportage, candid appraisals, and dependability. Among other things (to be discussed later), this alone will confirm our credibility and set us apart as unique from other informational sources, some of whom have long enjoyed fine reputations, but whose reportage has recently come under scrutiny for less than high quality editorial authentication (of writing in which there were ghost authors, or in which the author did not report that s/he had been subsidized by a third party that might have a financial interest in the study’s outcome).
Although we recognize that financing a quality journal is by no means an inexpensive allocation, my Editors, the Board and I have agreed to not accept funding from insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry, or other interested parties, without complete disclosure. As part of our mission, we will be receptive to interdisciplinary submissions, so long as they are psychoanalytically relevant and topical. Some of the best sources of psychoanalytic understanding and explications have not necessarily always come from the ranks of psychoanalysis itself, as Freud recognized, but rather from the insights and keen understanding of the human psyche produced by writers or poets, like Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Virginia Woolf, or more contemporaneously, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Marguerite Duras, J.D. Salinger, Anne Sexton, Sylvia Plath, Phillip Roth and others.
There is a great wealth of information and insight “out there” that remains untapped. Other avenues for future exploration might be to open up the format of J.A.S.P.E.R. to set aside a section of the journal to allow for selected non-analysts to bring their experiences to bear and for invited analysts to consider and discuss the so-called “naïve” contributions from assorted psychoanalytic vantage points. Thus, individuals from widely varying disciplines, backgrounds and viewpoints, but whose works contain psychoanalytic material, will be encouraged to submit their scholarly works for review.
Copyright © 2016-2025 Burton Norman Seitler
Website by MCS Consulting