Group-Analytic Contexts, Issue 81, September 2018

Newsletter – Autumn 2018 65
our founding father and some of his descendants aspired to achieve,
or to adhere to. Not attaining this ideal, would therefore result in
displeasure. Hence, the realisation that numbers don’t hold all the
answers and ‘truths’ to what we’re examining, trying to measure or
prove, may even cause some group analysts psychic pain. So, avoiding
such displeasure, offers a motive to adhere to the quantitative
paradigm, or at least, strive to do so. If taken to the extreme, they’re
in danger of forming an unhealthy attachment to this tradition. It relies
on methodological monoism (unity of scientific method), an exact
science, causal scientific explanation, with an emphasis on the
mathematical ideal-type of science and general laws of explanation.
When no other alternatives are considered, the attachment to
the positivist tradition could almost become like fetish (without the
sex), a fixation and substitute object for certainty, which absorbs all
their research interests. However, it means that a part of the ‘research
id’ is repressed, out of allegiance with the ego, and detached from a
reality that offers ‘evidence’ to the contrary: knowledge of other
research traditions. Some may perceive this as a threat to the ego or to
the research image of GA.
Luckily, we can treat this research neurosis. Even though, it
bears the risk of the ‘return of the repressed’ (that other methods exist)
and would result in displeasure. But by bringing repressed knowledge
into consciousness, we can leave behind the fantasy, the fetish and
unhealthy attachment, and form a more mature bond with the positivist
paradigm. I’m not suggesting that we get rid of mathematics, number
crunching, measurements and quantitative methodologies. Quite the
opposite. We should embrace them. Because in practical terms, if we
rejected the quantitative tradition, we would deny ourselves access to
all the exiting methods and implications that arise from this paradigm.
Why should or would we want to do this?
Before answering hastily, let’s consider the purpose of
methods. If we want to gain new knowledge of, or insight into, group
psychotherapy, we need methods. Right? Methods can be valid and/or
useful, both or neither. There isn’t really a simple way to decide
whether validity or usefulness are preferable. It depends on the
question. If the question is whether we should reject quantitative
methods, we may like to ask ourselves whether this would be useful
for GA.
I suggest it’s not. By rejecting this paradigm, we would deny
ourselves access to multiplicity, wouldn’t we? This would be like
eating spinach every day, and who would like to eat these leafy greens
seven days a week? Probably not many of you. So why would we in