In the environment of university professors and researchers in Clinical Psychology in Italian universities there has emerged a twofold and at times opposing cultural-methodological orientation: on the one hand, the focus is on the interpersonal relationship with its interactions and the psychologist's relational skills as the fulcrum of clinical work, in a science viewed as empirical and person-centred; on the other, the emphasis is on psychobiological and psychophysical research, mainly in the

more »

... laboratory, and the contribution of the neurosciences as the fulcra of what is considered a more direct and precise clinical intervention carried out using the more general methodology of the biological-medical sciences. There is a difference in what is meant by "clinical" in the two approaches (Imbasciati, 2007b); the differences, not explained clearly enough, have given rise to misunderstandings and to standpoints that are damaging to the identity and image of Clinical Psychology itself, with not insignificant effects on the work of all professional psychologists. This double, divergent tendency is found in the whole university corpus of sector M PSI 08 (Clinical Psychology). It has therefore become necessary to make a scientifically conducted effort to clear up the misunderstandings underlying the said divergences, their historical origin and the suitability of the different methodological approaches to the sciences currently providing models for assistance, as well as the organization of the broader field of Health optimization.