.
Q: Mr. Freud, in your work you relied entirely on the case study method of research. However, case study is a relatively weak method in the sense that gives little ground for making generalizations on other people. Also, there is always several ways in which the case studies can be interpreted, which makes the resulting theory subjected to the interpreter's bias. In a way, interpretation of a case study is always an opinion, and there is need for more verification before it can be considered as a support for a theory. Why did you not use other methods in your research? .
A: I was trained in medicine and have a great appreciation of the importance of the scientific method in the advancement of human knowledge. I was trying to give a scientific ground to the matters that were dealt before only by philosophers. I was working in an entirely new, unexplored direction. The reason why case studies were the main method of my research is because this method allows to explore the richness and complexity of human personality, and I needed to see the fullest picture of my subjects' lives, which would give me the full picture of their psyche. I investigated life histories of many people, and tried to find regularities between them, so that I could classify and organize them in such a way that it would make sense. I also tried to apply the theories first of all to myself, and I devoted time every day for self-analysis, since I could not make universal statements about human mind that didn't apply to my own mind.
Another reason why I had to rely on case studies is because the subconscious can be expressed only in ways that are indirect and unique for each individual, which make it impossible to use devices in order to measure or detect it. I was working in a totally new ground, trying to show that aberrations of the mind lie within the mind itself. At the time of my work, the medical science was looking for biological causes of psychological events.
