From Clinical Encounter to Knowledge Claims: Epistemological Guidelines for Case Studies in Psychotherapy

Abstract

In the fields of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy, case study researchers rarely justify their knowledge claims on formal epistemological grounds. This poses several issues to the case study method. First, without articulating the standards by which our knowledge is being justified, we are potentially enabling the criticism that case studies are mere anecdotal reports and should not be treated as forms of evidence. Second, without the guidance of wider epistemological standards for case study research, we risk falling into arbitrary justifications of other as well as our own case studies. This paper seeks to address these issues by examining and developing epistemic practices in psychoanalytic and psychotherapy case studies. Drawing from different social science resources, the paper describes three epistemological concepts appropriate for case study research: retroductive reasoning, analytic generalization and working hypothesis. The paper demonstrates how each epistemological concept can be used in psychotherapy research and explicates specific methodological guidelines. Social science definitions and principles are applied in a psychotherapy and/or psychoanalytic research context, and further considerations about canons of evidence are provided. The impetus of this paper is to strengthen qualitative research standards, particularly case study research standards, in clinical case study writing.