Abstract
ABSTRACTThis is an exploratory account of an applied clinical method, the Comparative Clinical Method, used to address a specific question: how can we best think of the difference between intensive and non‐intensive analytic work? Normally, it is session frequency that is taken as a determining difference, as a marker of a different approach or method being employed. In our investigation, which consisted of the three authors presenting examples of their clinical work to each other, we did not find the intensive and non‐intensive work of each author to demonstrate clear and easily defined differences in method or technique. Instead, we found more evidence of each author adopting a coherent and consistent approach, based on an underlying and implicit working model, across their intensive and non‐intensive work. We conclude from this that the differences between intensive and non‐intensive work are best explored by encouraging more conceptually rigorous and clinically specific descriptions of the different kinds of analytic assumptions and methods employed in ordinary analytic clinical work.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.