Psychoanalysis in times of plurality of sciences illustrated by the LAC depression study and the MODE study

From the outset, psychoanalysis has understood itself as a science of the unconscious and has developed specific methods for exploring unconscious fantasies and conflicts. However, even for psychoanalysis, the days of a unified science have passed: contemporary psychoanalysis can be characterized by a pluralism of research methods, theories, and treatment concepts. Concrete examples from the research practice in two large, multicenter therapy outcome studies, the LAC Depression Study and the ongoing MODE study, illustrate the wealth of different research approaches: clinical-psychoanalytic, conceptual, empirical, and interdisciplinary research methods. A graphic is used to show how these different research tools can be fruitfully combined. As will be discussed, contemporary psychoanalysis has developed a stable scientific identity in the midst of contradictions and challenges. Due to this, it no longer has to fear, as Freud did, that it would be “swallowed up by medicine.” Rather, psychoanalytic researchers can feel enriched and stimulated by interdisciplinary exchange with medicine, psychiatry, neuroscience, and many other scientific disciplines. Instead of retreating defensively into an ivory tower, scientific dialogues can be carried out with curiosity and an expectation that they not only open doors to global, intergenerational networks but also to innovative developments within psychoanalysis itself.