[Biographical Interviews with GDR Psychotherapists - First Hypotheses on their Social Positioning and Professional Action]. / Lebensgeschichtliche Interviews mit DDR-PsychotherapeutInnen.

OBJEKTIVE: First results of a socio-historical analysis of the life stories of GDR psychotherapists are presented. Interviews, carried out as part of the project Seelenarbeit im Sozialismus, are intended to enable statements about social and family backgrounds, educational paths and social position. An exemplary case is presented in order to develop hypotheses for the design of professional behavior by GDR psychotherapists. METHODS: Narrative/biographical interviews are processed as a source for historical and sociological research strategies. For a descriptive presentation of the topics described in the interviews, a cross-case category system was created inductively, which should enable statements about the frequency of certain characteristics. The individual case is analyzed by using the grounded theory method. RESULTS: A first overview of the sample relates to the demographic characteristics of the interviewed persons, their level of awareness and professional qualifications. The interviewed psychotherapists can be assigned to different decades of the historical development of GDR psychotherapy with regard to their years of birth. They are further determined with regard to their social origin (parenting professions), their professional career (distribution of qualification paths), their party membership (SED or block party) and experience disadvantages by the state. In the case study, the dependence of the professional attitude on socializing influences is illustrated. DISCUSSION: Ultimately, the study can show a heterogeneous group of psychotherapists from the GDR, whose biographies can be used to trace the historical development of psychotherapy in the GDR. A look at the actors' families shows that the profession from fathers were often located in the field of self-employed entrepreneurs or academics. In addition, only a few psychotherapists were members of the SED, but frequent disadvantages by the state are named. As a conclusion there is an advice of a high importance of personal reflexivity and a reflective professional self-image.Conclusions Further evaluations should prove the social and political positioning as well as the professional self-image of GDR psychotherapists.

[Psychotherapeutic Literature of the GDR and FRG: A Comparative Citation Analysis]. / Psychotherapeutische Fachliteratur der DDR und BRD: Eine vergleichende Zitationsanalyse.

ZIEL: Erste Hypothesen zur wissenschaftlichen Rezeption von psychotherapeutischer Literatur aus der DDR und der Sowjetunion in einem Psychotherapieliteratur-Korpus der BRD (Praxis der Psychotherapie und Psychosomatik 1979-1990) sollten geprüft werden. Außerdem sollten inhaltliche Schwerpunkte der identifizierten wissenschaftlichen Communities verglichen werden. METHODIK: Es wurde eine bibliometrische und netzwerkanalytische Untersuchung von Zitationsbeziehungen sowie eine qualitative Inhaltsanalyse der Rezeption von DDR-Literatur und der thematischen Schwerpunkte der identifizierten wissenschaftlichen Communities in Literaturkorpora aus Ost und West durchgeführt. ERGEBNISSE: Psychotherapeutische Literatur der DDR wird im untersuchten BRD-Korpus kaum zitiert. Inhaltlich wird diese Literatur nicht tiefergehend in die wissenschaftliche Argumentation des BRD-Korpus eingebunden. Die bekanntesten Vertreter*innen der DDR-Psychotherapie(-forschung) werden im BRD-Korpus gar nicht zitiert. Es lassen sich thematische Überschneidungen in beiden Korpora identifizieren, allerdings spielen DDR-spezifische Themen inhaltlich keine Rolle im BRD-Korpus. OBJECTIVE: The aim this study was to test first hypotheses on the scientific reception of literature on psychotherapy from the GDR and the Soviet Union in a corpus of psychotherapy literature from the FRG and to compare content-related foci of the identified scientific communities. METHODS: A bibliometric and network analysis of citation relations as well as a qualitative content analysis of the reception of GDR literature and the thematic foci of the identified scientific communities in both literature corpora were conducted. RESULTS: Psychotherapeutic literature of the GDR was barely cited in the examined FRG corpus. In terms of content, this literature was not integrated more deeply into the scientific argumentation of the FRG corpus. The best-known representatives of GDR psychotherapy (research) were not at all cited in the FRG corpus. Thematic overlaps could be identified in both corpora, but GDR-specific topics did not play a role in the FRG corpus. CONCLUSION: For the examined literature corpora it can be seen that publications from the GDR and Soviet Union are cited considerably less often in FRG literature than publications from the West in GDR literature. Thematically, original GDR psychotherapy content does not play a role in FRG literature either.