A research on distance psychoanalysis

Remote Therapy Research


Recently IPA has distributed a survey addressing the same subject (remote therapy), and many people though and had asked us if it is related with our research, or if it is a continuation of the one we have released and processed, whose results can be found here . That new survey was signed by Janine Wanlass, principal investigator, and by the following co-investigators:  Jill Scharff, Caroline Sehon, Ellen Behrens,  and Jen Simonds.  Some coleagues, including a president of an European Association, approached us believing that the mentioned survey is a continuation of our survey and therefore a part of our research, and complaining about the discrimination expressed in that survey. We hereby  wish to clarify that Dr Wanlass' survey is in no way related to our research and survey, and that we have no relation whatsoever with Dr Wanlass and her team. Moreover, we do not want to be associated with such project or research, that we believe contains discriminatory and racist issues that contradict our deepest and deariest convictions as psychoanalysts and scholars. Please note that this assessment represents exclusively our point of view as an independent research group, and has no relation at all with the IPA, an institution whose only relation with us was to fund our research according to the terms and conditions established by the Committee for Evaluation of Research Projects.

Dr Wanlass Team's  survey asks about “Gender” giving 3 options: Male, Female, Other. We asked Dr Wanlass why were they asking about sex orientation and how was that related to trends and insights about the use of technology in remote psychoanalysis, and her answer, in written, was (sic): " The inclusion of "other" in the gender category is inclusive of a growing number of people [meaning in this case psychoanalysts as recipients of their survey] who place themselves on a gender continuum rather than self-identifying as either male or female.” We believe that asking  sexual orientation to psychoanalysts is discriminatory, and we strongly believe that a psychoanalyst do not necessarily will have a different approach towards remote analysis depending on her/his sexual orientation. We really do not want IPA’s members, as recipients of that survey, thinking that it was our team who addressed that discriminatory question, which it is a clear invasion to intimacy and has obviously no repercussion in technology usage or trends in performing distance psychoanalysis. 

Dr Wanlass' survey also asks the potential respondent if she/he identifies with one of the following “groups” -an euphemism for race in this case- a) Black or African American; b) American Indian, Native American or Aleut (meaning Eskimo); c) Asian; d) Hispanic or Latino; e) White or Caucasian; f) Pacific Islander; g) Multiracial. If the survey was about some kind of disease and addressed to patients perhaps those questions would have been pertinent, but asking psychoanalysts about their race, and related to their insight on remote psychoanalysis, it has non sense; it is racist and discriminatory. Please note specially the question about being Black or African American given the fact that in US the term ‘African American’ is widely used as it imparts some sort of respect, while it is felt that the use of ‘Black’ could hark back to the dark ages of slavery and racism. 

This Research is funded with a grant of the IPA' Fund
awarded to Dr. Analy Werbin by the
​IPA's Committee for Evaluation of Research Proposals.

Research Team
Responsible Authorities

Principal Investigator: Analy Werbin, MD, APA, Guest Member APM 

Co-Investigators: Martina Burdet, LPsy, APM; Marcela Dal Verme, LPsy, APA; Félix Giménez Noble, MD, APA; Diana Sahovaler Litvinoff, LPsy, APA; Julio Hirsch Hardy, MS, Technology Researcher; George Ambort, MS, Statistical Consultant.



Researching on distance psychoanalysis in a world being transformed by technologies converging in the internet and new interpersonal communications patterns