ABSTRACT
One of the main contributions of the working parties (WP) to clinical research is to demonstrate that it is possible for analysts with different theoretical approaches to discuss the same clinical material sharing objectives and methods. This clinical common ground is lost sight of when one starts from the theoretical premises of each theoretical system and tries to explain the clinical material based on them. WPs, by contrast, proceed in reverse. The clinical facts are in the foreground, and it is from them that one seeks to reach more general conclusions through an inferential upward, ‘bottom-up’ process. Then, the question about the criteria of evidence that guide this inferential process come to the fore. To be valid, the hypotheses discussed in the discussion groups must show that they are based on discoveries arising from the analytical process and not exclusively from the analyst’s previous ideas. These hypotheses should show that they offer a better understanding of the clinical facts than other alternative hypotheses. Finally, for this comparison to be possible, the information on the clinical context must be sufficiently comprehensive. The different chapters in this book show how these evidence criteria naturally emerge from group inquiry. The study of the metaphor offers an example that allows the study of convergences and divergences between the different WPs.
