See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237774835

Qualitative Research and Its Relation to Lacanian

Psychoanalysis

Article January 2002

CITATIONS READS

12 85

1 author:

Stijn Vanheule
Ghent University
242 PUBLICATIONS 2,050 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Trauma View project

The Ghent Psychotherapy Study View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Stijn Vanheule on 15 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Qualitative Research and Its Relation
to Lacanian Psychoanalysis
Stijn Vanheule
INTRODUCTION
M any contemporary psychoanalytic authors dis-
cuss the scientific status of their discipline. The
general tenor of these discussions is that psychoanalysts
should concentrate on the scientific foundations of
psychoanalysis. This work is necessary in order to as-
sure the position of psychoanalysis within its classical
domain of application (clinical work) and within an
academic context. In both domains psychoanalysis is
often criticized on not being scientific. A remarkable
trend in these discussions is the tendency to reduce sci-
ence to statistically based research. Another remarkable
trend is that especially non-Anglo-Saxon European
psychoanalysts criticize this tendency (cf. Dreher, Per-
ron, Green, qtd. in Sandler et al.). According to them
the field of science is broader than statistically based re-
search. Several theories in the philosophy of science
support this point of view (Dreher). Specific alterna-
tive research strategies within the domain of psycho-
analysis nevertheless are to be developed.
In this paper I reflect on one alternative approach:
qualitative interview research. First of all, I consider
qualitative research, and secondly I relate it to psycho-
analysis in general and especially to Lacanian psycho-
analysis. As you will see, on the one hand I agree with
the idea that psychoanalysis should question and study
its scientific status by means of research. On the other
hand, I think that the kind of research we engage in
should be in accordance with a broader theory of the
relation between science and psychoanalysis.
I think the considerations I propose can help us in
developing a research methodology that fits psychoanalysis
in its application to psychological, social, cultural studies.
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH . . .
Outside of the evolutions within psychoanalysis,
methodologists have developed a number of research
JPCS: Journal for the Psychoanalysis of Culture & Society, Volume 7, Number 2, Fall 2002
copyright 2002 by The Ohio State University
strategies for the social and the human sciences known
as qualitative research. Within this field, different
methodological and theoretical approaches co-exist.
In qualitative interview research, one starts from
interviews with one or more participants and aims at
developing a theory about the topics discussed. The in-
terviews are typed out verbatim, and labels or codes are
given to chunks of raw interview material. These codes
are grouped into several umbrella codes (Strauss and
Corbin) or into coordinating codes in networks or ma-
trixes (Miles and Huberman). Qualitative research is a
very labor-intensive and painstaking job that is bound
to strict rules concerning validity and reliability. Fol-
lowing these rules assures that the research meets the
academic criteria for good science.
Qualitative research starting from a psychoanalytic
point of view implies co-operation with a neighboring
field, namely methodologies from the social and
human sciences. We therefore start from a methodol-
ogy that is not psychoanalytic as such. In relation to
psychoanalysis the information obtained by this kind
of research is extra-clinical data, data that does not
come from the analytic situation (Dreher). A main ad-
vantage of following this approach is that we meet con-
ventional academic criteria concerning good science. If
we want to elaborate on the scientific status of psycho-
analysis, this is of course crucial.
From a psychoanalytic point of view, qualitative re-
search has many advantages over quantitative research.
A first advantage is that just as in the clinical psychoan-
alytic research approachbased on psychoanalytic ses-
sions and case studiesthe complexity of the social re-
ality studied is maintained in the data. A second
advantage is that qualitative research explicitly aims at
the development of a theory, and it can be used to ex-
pand the reach of existing theories, such as psycho-
analysis. Miles & Huberman state that qualitative re-
Qualitative Research and Its Relation to Lacanian Psychoanalysis
search explicitly starts from theory-driven deci-
sions(29). Consequently, ideas valued from a psychoan-
alytic point of view can be taken into account. Another
advantage is that specific psychoanalytic issues can be
taken into account while collecting the data (e.g., ap-
plying even-hovering attention, psychoanalytic ques-
tioning, and attention to hesitations) and when inter-
preting the data (e.g., taking into account parapraxes).
It may sound nice to say that psychoanalysis and
qualitative research fit together so well. Two theoretical
issues nevertheless remain unanswered. First, how does
this research fit with the Lacanian view of science? And
second, what place can we give to this kind of research
in relation to the broad field of psychoanalysis?
Lets start with the first question. In order to de-
fine a possible relation between qualitative research
and Lacans view of science, we have to make an inter-
mediate stop at Lvi-Strausss work. The way in which
qualitative data-analysis progresses resembles the logic
Lvi-Strauss describes in his scientific study of myths.
While studying myths Lvi-Strauss on the one hand
found that anything could happen in a myth. It
seemed that there were no logical ordering rules in it.
On the other hand he observed that myths have a per-
manent structure, and that at the level of the story,
similar characteristics and details often recur. He called
these recurring themes gross constitutive units, or (in
line with the phonemes, morphemes, and sememes
discerned by structural linguistics), mythemes. What
are these mythemes? At the sentence level of a myth we
can observe a succession of events. The nature of these
events can be represented by means of short sentences
expressing a crucial relation between a subject and a
predicate. Mythemes1 are bundles of such relations ex-
pressing a common feature. So, while at the level of the
story line a myth has a diachronic ordering (a specific
relation between time and event), at the synchronic
level similar (my-)themes can be found (a specific rela-
tion between logic and event).
diachronic
synchronic
This method maps out the crucial but implicit
337
themes across the different existing variants of a myth.
Applying this method, one arrives at a complex of ta-
bles expressing the structure of a myth. This result very
much resembles the results one arrives at by means of
qualitative research starting from interviews.
Lvi-Strauss adds another aspect to this: namely,
the attempt to express the complex interrelations one
arrives at by means of a logical framework and a
mathematical based symbolism2 (Lvi-Strauss 242,
my translation). In this manner he ends up with a for-
mal logical formula expressing the genetic law of inter-
relations. This formal notation is the end product of a
thorough examination and classification of the original
discursive material.
. . . AND LACANIAN FORMALIZATION
Lacan appreciated this trend toward mathematical for-
mulation in the work of Lvi-Strauss. In 1953 he
writes: It is up to us to make use of these advances to
discover their effects in the domain of psychoanalysis
(Lacan, Ecrits: A Selection 73). In line with this appreci-
ation he starts quite early with his own attempt to for-
malize psychoanalysis. At the end of his fourth seminar
(1957) he announces that he is starting with a new
logic of formalization. (cf. cette sorte de logique est
nouvelle (Lacan, Seminaire IV 386); cest un com-
mencement de . . . formalisation (Lacan, Seminaire IV
411)). Lacan maintained this effort to express psycho-
analytic theory by means of formal language until the
end of his works. Nowadays, formalized Lacanian the-
ory is most known from Lacans concept of the math-
eme. The word matheme is a contraction of Levi-
Strauss mytheme and the Greek word mathema
(knowledge). Its a generic term that refers to Lacans
different algebraic formulas (Roudinesco & Plon). By
means of mathemes he wanted to give a contemporary
interpretation to the scientistic ideals Freud always ad-
hered to in his study of the human psyche (cf. Lacan,
Ecrits 857).
Lacan elaborated mathematical formulas3 for the
most crucial aspects of his theory. Like Lvi-Strauss, he
wanted to express essential insights by means of these
formulas. They were meant to clarify and reflect his
understandings of the unconscious and the dimension
of the real in psychic functioning (Lacan, Con-
frences; Charraud). By means of the formulas Lacan
338
wanted to give an explanation of the divided subject
and the object a, which are normally excluded by sci-
ence. Lacan also created formulas for the vicissitudes of
the relation between subject and Other during the
Oedipus complex (Lacan, Seminaire IV 379408;
Seminaire V 175176).
By means of formalization Lacan aimed4 at ex-
pressing his theoretical insights and conclusions drawn
from clinical practice as clearly as possible. By means of
the formulas he wanted to reflect complex interrela-
tions between elements that never could be expressed
in such a well-organized way by normal language
(Lacan, Seminaire IV 411). He aimed at displaying es-
sential connections (Lacan, Seminaire VI). In this way,
formalized knowledge gives a straight and rigorous in-
dication of the structure of a phenomenon or process
(La structure, cest le rel qui se fait jour dans le lan-
gage (Lacan, Autre Ecrits 476)). For example, Lacan
says that the formulas designate what invisibly holds
(retient) bodies (Lacan, Seminar XX 93) and that
structure can be grasped on the basis of the formulas
(la structure sattrape de l (Lacan, Autre Ecrits 408)). must be understood in its Lacanian sense (Lacan, Autre
The formal elements of the formulas were meant
to be fixed (des points de rpres fixes, sur lesquels on
puisse navoir pas revenir dans la discussion (Lacan,
Seminaire IV 411)). The advantage of this kind of nota-
tion is that the formula can be maintained while differ-
ent interpretations at the level of content take place.
Consider Lacans remark about the formula for fantasy:
it is created to allow a hundred and one different read-
ings (Ecrits: A Selection 313). A more ambitious aim
(and advantage) is that the mathemes enable us to
communicate about the essence of psychoanalytic in-
sights. They enable us to shift our discussions from the
imaginary level of content to the essential dynamics
and the structural framework. Following Lacan, math-
ematical logic re-introduces structure into knowledge,
whereby structure is to be understood as the real that
appears in language and that is reflected by means of
language (Lacan, Autre Ecrits 408, 437, 476). It undoes
knowledge from its imaginary dimension. From a La-
canian point of view, the discourse of science extin-
guishes the imaginary signification attributed to events.
Miller puts it aptly by stating that scientific theory has
demanded an adherence to the signifier in so far as this
is separated from all imaginary signification (33).
Stijn Vanheule
With his formalizations, Lacan wanted to lay the
foundation for a scientific status suitable to psycho-
analysis. Psychoanalysis will provide scientific bases
for its theory or for its technique only by formalizing
in an adequate fashion the essential dimensions of its
experience (Lacan, Ecrits: A Selection 77). Its a fact
that Lacan on the one hand never considered psycho-
analysis to be a classical science.5 Despite this, he
clearly questioned psychoanalysis scientific status (if I
am here . . . it is to ask myself whether psychoanalysis is
as science, and to examine the question with you [Four
7]) and even wanted to link psychoanalysis to the do-
main of science (Kaufmann). As such he gave his own
elaboration to Freuds scientific ideals. For example, he
considered his formulas to be an attempt to imitate sci-
ence, since science can only start from such formulas
(une tentative pour imiter la science. . . . La science
peut seulement commencer ainsi [Lacan, Con-
frences 26]). Recalcitrant and creative as he was, he
considered psychoanalysis to be a special science,
namely a science of the real, where the concept real
Ecrits 449).
In this move toward the field of science he had a
clear idea about what he didnt want. Lacan was not an
adherent of a strictly positivistic and experimental sci-
ence, and even considered these useless for psycho-
analysis. It is in the abstract objectification of our ex-
perience on fictitious, or even simulated, principles of
the experimental method, that we find the effect of
prejudices that must first be swept from our field if we
wish to cultivate it according to its authentic structure
(Lacan, Ecrits: A Selection 72). Lacan questioned their
validity (Lacan, Ecrits: A Selection 74) and stated that
empiricism cannot constitute the foundations for a sci-
ence (Lacan, Ecrits: A Selection 293).
In his continual emphasis on the importance of
logical formulas, Lacan relies upon a specific theory of
science. In line with Koyr, Lacan held that the natural
sciences only started to be scientific the moment they
attempted to grasp phenomena by means of mathe-
matical, symbolic formulas (Lacan, Seminaire IV 429).
According to him, formalization constitutes the
essence of science. Lacan says: To extract a natural law
is to extract a meaningless formula (Seminar III 184)
These formulas guide the scientists experience. It was
Qualitative Research and Its Relation to Lacanian Psychoanalysis 339

only with the formula for gravitation that specific and
correct observations about gravitation were able to be
made (Lacan, Seminaire IV 429). In other words, the
symbolic system that constitutes science is not primar-
ily given by means of empirical observation (Lacan,
Seminar III 185). It is rather by means of the construc-
tion of a symbolic system (such as a formula) that
things become visible. The value of a science lies in the
value of its symbolic frame.
This view might seem more radical than it is, since
Lacan specifically stresses the logical origins of scien-
tific thinking. These origins are in symbolic inven-
tions. Such inventions only receive a scientific status if
they prove to be useful. Lets consider Lacans graph of
desire from this point of view. The graph is a complex
of interrelations among several elements. It is more
than an impressive construction. Lacan draws it up in
order to give an account of the logic of desire at the
level of the unconscious and the relation between sub-
ject and signifier at two levels of speech. Read Lacans
fifth and sixth seminars and you will see that he devel-
ops this complex model by continually testing it
against Freuds writings and clinical practice. It is by
means of a meticulous deciphering of the raw material
at hand that he draws his conclusions about structure.
The formulas and the diagram in the graph are the re-
flections of these conclusions. At this point, Lacans
formulas are valuable because they enhance our under-
standing; they are guidelines for a (Lacanian) psycho-
analytic understanding. The Lacanian mathemes are
not just nice formulas. They are based upon experience
and clinical observation. Formulas that did not refer to
empirical facts would be worthless. (cf. Quoi mau-
torise dans mon cas me rfrer ce pur mathme? . . . search starts from a relatively limited amount of data,
Il faut dabord avoir lide laquelle se prend de mon ex-
prience, que nimporte quoi ne peut tre dit. [Lacan, In order to be able to decide on its psychoanalytic va-
Autre Ecrits 472] and Lobservation soit seulement sat-
isfaisante quand elle aboutit une formule qui ne peut
tre appele mathmatique [Lacan, Confrences 28]). skepticism should guard us against wild thinking, and
In my opinion qualitative research that starts from
Lacanian psychoanalysis and that aims at contributing
something new should aim at elaborating (and falsify-
ing) mathemes. A major problem we meet up with if
we want to use mathemes in our research is that the
formal characteristics of the parameters and operators
used in the formulae are often inadequately defined.
Lacan spoke and wrote in an associative way, and as a
consequence his formulas tend to lack operational pre-
cision. In my opinion its necessary to opt for a more
stringent use and a clear definition of (the elements of )
formal notation if we want to use them in research.
The mathemes we arrive at by means of research
should moreover be based on the research data col-
lected, should be in accordance with psychoanalytic
practice, and should be logically coherent with psycho-
analytic theory.
The requirement that the mathemes should be co-
herent with the raw material and should be conclu-
sions drawn logically from the data is a general scien-
tific claim. Mathemes that would not reflect essential
conclusions concerning the basic data studied have no
scientific validity. In the process of arriving at decisive
mathemes we can follow the logic Lvi-Strauss de-
scribed when he started from the raw material of
myths and ended up with his formulas. Its by means of
a detailed study of the raw material and the gradual
discernment of general trends that we can arrive at use-
ful formal notations.
The prerequisite that conclusions should be coher-
ent with psychoanalytic practice and psychoanalytical
theory is crucial in order for them to be psychoanalyti-
cally meaningful (cf. Lacan, Conferences 25): Nous
navons pas de moyen de savoir si linconscient existe
hors de la psychanalyse). In my opinion, psychoana-
lytic practice should be the ultimate touchstone for
checking the value of new insights, and for seeing if
new insights are valuable from a psychoanalytic point
of view (cf. Dreher). Compared to the mass of material
that is produced during psychoanalysis, qualitative re-
obtained by means of a non-psychoanalytic method.
lidity and to check its psychoanalytic value, validation
in psychoanalytic practice is necessary. This kind of
should neutralize the side effects that psychoanalysis
recognizes in science, but that science itself generally
doesnt recognize (e.g., the influence of personal deter-
minants causing the researchers interest in a topic, or
the possibly distorting effect of the researchers desire
to know). Classic science is based upon a negation of
the truth that lies at its basis (cf. Lacan, Ecrits). As a re-
340
sult the hidden agenda of the researchers desire can
find its expression in scientific results.
. . . AND APPLIED PSYCHOANALYSIS
Now we arrive at our second question: what place can
we give to qualitative research in the broad field of psy-
choanalysis?
Within the field of psychoanalysis there are three
domains of practice: clinical, theoretical, and applied
psychoanalysis. From a scientific point of view all of
these domains are worthy of study, for many crucial
questions remain (partially) unanswered: the relation
between theoretical concepts is often vague; we do not
have decision-rules for making inductions from clini-
cal practice to theoretical formulations; our concepts
are often criticized for their vague status, and so on.
Applied psychoanalysis seems to be the domain in
which to situate qualitative research. Applied psycho-
analysis can be defined as an approach that applies psy-
choanalytic insight to extra-clinical data. From a Lacan-
ian point of view we can qualify this data as a network
of signifiers obtained from a source other than the psy-
choanalytic cure. Extra-clinical data-sources are multi-
ple, and are classically defined as ego documents (e.g.
Freuds study of Schrebers book), literary texts (e.g.
Freuds study of Shakespeare), works of art (e.g. Freuds
study of Michelangelos Moses), jokes (e.g. Freuds study
of jokes), and clinical information obtained by others
(e.g., Freuds study of little Hans). The descriptive in-
formation obtained by qualitative research is another
contemporary source of extra-clinical data.
In fact, the name applied psychoanalysis is de-
ceiving. It suggests that psychoanalytic knowledge is
used to make an exegesis of an external data-source.
However, considering Freuds application of psycho-
analysis, I conclude that he mainly used it to test and
to refine his theory. His applied psychoanalysis was
never only an exegetic demonstration of psychoana-
lytic truth in an external data-source, but an opportu-
nity to question, validate, and elaborate on psychoana-
lytic theory (cf. Esman, Reed). The results were
significant. Crucial concepts like the family romance
and the Oedipus complex were only introduced into
psychoanalytic theory by means of applied psycho-
analysis. In line with this conclusion, Paul-Laurent As-
soun states that applied psychoanalysis as such only
Stijn Vanheule
started after Freud. Freud tried to enhance his under-
standing with extra-clinical data. After Freud, a
Freudian understanding was used to explain how
extra-clinical phenomena were organized. Freuds rest-
less seeking often seemed to be replaced by confidence.
On the one hand Lacan was skeptical about ap-
plied psychoanalysis. He considered it to be a confused
domain (Lacan, Ecrits 747) that permitted all kinds of
misuse and led to infamous results (Lacan, Seminaire
XVI). On the other hand Lacan himself used extra-clin-
ical data-sources to develop and clarify the concepts he
was elaborating. He thus practiced applied psycho-
analysis such as we have defined it. His study of courtly
love refines his conceptualization of sublimation (Sem-
inar VII), and his investigation of James Joyce leads to
a new view of symptoms, reflected in his concept of the
sinthome (Seminaire XXIII). In these examples Lacan
indeed appeals to extra-clinical data in order to refine
his insights.
Applied psychoanalysis has much potential for
psychoanalysis. It brings about a systematic question-
ing in order to elucidate a problem. This systematic
questioning is not obvious in clinical psychoanalysis,
since the analyst always follows the analysands free as-
sociations. Applied psychoanalysis moreover enables us
to question issues that cannot directly be addressed by
means of the cure. For example, applied psychoanalysis
enables us to address subjects that did not ask for
analysis.
Concerning the extra-clinical use of psychoanaly-
sis, Lacan emphasizes that it can only be considered
psychoanalytic if it proceeds from the deciphering of
signifiers, and if it knowingly negates any trend to
draw conclusions concerning content or implied
meaning (Lacan, Ecrits 747-748). Psychoanalysis
should not seek the ever new and never exhausted sig-
nification (Lacan, Four 7-8). Reed seems to agree with
this, and states that applied psychoanalysis should start
from a clinical skepticism toward the manifest content
of words.
From a psychoanalytic point of view there is al-
ways a danger that the researchers desire to know or to
find the truth will result in an imaginary interpretation
of the data. In such a case, the conclusions reflect the
researchers own prejudices. This impulse can be
avoided if we derive meaning by staying close to the
Qualitative Research and Its Relation to Lacanian Psychoanalysis
signifiers obtained. The only significant meaning (sci-
entific and psychoanalytic) we can give to data ob-
tained from interviews is an interpretation that arises
from the signifiers and the interconnections between
signifiers. So, when we give a psychoanalytic reading of
texts, we should beware of our own understanding.
Meaning should arise from the data.
CONCLUSION
In this paper I discussed qualitative research from a
psychoanalytic point of view. I situated this research
within the domain of applied psychoanalysis, linked it
to the Lacanian theory on science, and pleaded for a
link between research and clinical practice. Situating
psychoanalytic qualitative research within the domain
of applied psychoanalysis allows us to combine scien-
tific research tools with the typical psychoanalytic in-
terpretative approach that aims at deciphering signi-
fiers. There are two advantages to this. On the one
hand a scientifically agreed-upon method is used to
gather the data. This assures that the research fits
within the current scientific norms. On the other hand
the typical psychoanalytic method of reflecting that
brings into account the dimension of the unconscious
can be used while interpreting the data. In this way,
psychoanalytic theory is not reduced to a conscious-
ness-psychology.
From my point of view, psychoanalytic qualitative
research that starts from a Lacanian orientation and
that aims at having relevance for psychoanalytic theory
should be in conformity with Lacans view of science.
Consequently, it should concentrate on testing and
formulating mathemes that reflect essential psychoana-
lytic insights.
If, to conclude, the research findings are to be
called psychoanalytic, they should be validated in clin-
ical practice. This way, we can arrive at results that are
useful from a scientific and a psychoanalytic point of
view.
NOTES
1 Lvi-Strauss also uses the terms mytheme and gross con-
stituent units to refer to unbundled relations between subject and
predicate. The bundled relations nevertheless are the true con-
stituent units of a myth (Lvi-Strauss 211).
2 Since I think the existing English translation interprets the
original text too much, I am citing from the original French text.
341
3 Lacan used different terms to refer to these formulas. Some-
times he called them equations (e.g. Lacan, Seminar IV 379), algo-
rithms (e.g. Lacan, Ecrits 497; Ecrits selection 313), algebra (e.g.,
Lacan, Ecrits selection 313), or mathematization (e.g., Lacan,
Ecrits 284). . Most of our conclusions about Lacans formalizations
also hold for his use of topology (e.g., Lacan, Ecrits:A Selection
302303).
4 Another thing Lacan aimed at with his formulas and math-
emes was a better transfer of knowledge (cf. Lacan, Seminar XX
119; Fink 144).
5 In his article La science et la vrit he discusses their differ-
ence (Lacan, Ecrits 855877).
WORKS CITED
Assoun, Paul-Laurent. Psychanalyse. Paris: PUF, 1997.
Charraud, Nathalie. Lacan et les Mathmatiques. Paris: Economica,
1997.
Dreher, Anna U. Foundations for Conceptual Research in Psycho-
analysis. London & New York: Karnac, 2000.
Esman, Aaron H. What Is Applied in Applied Psychoanalysis?
International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 79 (1998): 741752.
Fink, Bruce. The Lacanian Subject. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP,
1995.
Kaufmann, Pierre. Lapport freudien. Paris: Larousse, 1998.
Lacan, Jacques. Ecrits. Paris: Seuil, 1966.
_____. Ecrits: A Selection. New York: Norton, 1977.
_____. Autres Ecrits. Paris: Seuil, 2001.
_____. The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book III: The Psychoses,
19551956. Trans. Russell Grigg. New York and London: Nor-
ton, 1993.
_____. Le Sminaire, Livre IV: La Relation dObjet, 19561957.
Paris: Seuil, 1994.
_____. Le Sminaire, Livre V: Les Formations de lInconscient,
19571958. Paris: Seuil, 1998.
_____. Le Sminaire, Livre VI: Le Dsire et son Interpretation,
19571958. Not Published.
_____. The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book VII: The Ethics of
Psychoanalysis, 19591960. Trans. Dennis Porter. New York and
London: Norton, 1992.
_____. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-Analysis (Seminar,
Book XI, 1964). Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Penguin, 1977.
_____. Le Sminaire, Livre XVI: Dun Autre lautre, 19681969.
Not Published.
_____. The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XX: Feminine Sexuality,
The limits of Love and Knowledge, 19721973. Trans. Bruce
Fink. New York: Norton, 1999.
_____. Le Sminaire, Livre XXIII: Le Sinthome, 19751976. Not
Published
_____. Confrences et Entretiens dans les Universits Nords-
Amricaines. Scilicet 67 (1976): 563.
Lvi-Strauss, Claude. Anthropologie structurale. Paris: Plon, 1974.
Miles, Matthew B. and Michael A. Huberman. Qualitative Data
 342
Analysis. Thousand Oaks, London, and New Delhi: Sage,
1994.
Miller, Jacques-Alain. Elements of Epistemology. Analysis 1
(1989): 2742.
Perron, Roger. La question de la recherche en psychanalyse: Le
point de vue des psychanalystes de langue franaise. Revue
Belge de Psychanalyse 38 (2001).
Reed, Gail S. Psychoanalysis, Psychoanalysis Appropriated, Psy-
choanalysis Applied. Psychoanalytic Quarterly. 54 (1985):
234269.
View publication stats
Stijn Vanheule
Roudinesco, Elisabeth and Michel Plon. Dictionnaire de la psych-
analyse. Paris: Fayard, 2000.
Sandler, Joseph et al. Clinical and Observational Psychoanalytic Re-
search: Roots of a ControversyAndre Green & Daniel Stern.
London: Karnac, 2000.
Strauss, Anselm and Corbin, Juliet. Basics of Qualitative Research.
Newbury Park, London, and New Delhi: Sage, 1990.