Dynamics of psychoanalytic supervision: A heuristic model

2013

Am J Psychoanal

Psychoanalytic supervision is moving well into its 2nd century of theory, practice, and (to a limited extent) research. In this paper, I take a look at the pioneering first efforts to define psychoanalytic supervision and its importance to the psychoanalytic education process. Max Eitingon, the "almost forgotten man" of psychoanalysis, looms large in any such consideration. His writings or organizational reports were seemingly the first psychoanalytic published material to address the following supervision issues: rationale, screening, notes, responsibility, supervisee learning/personality issues, and the extent and length of supervision itself. Although Eitingon never wrote formally on supervision, his pioneering work in the area has continued to echo across the decades and can still be seen reflected in contemporary supervision practice. I also recognize the role of Karen Horney-one of the founders of the Berlin Institute and Poliklinik, friend of Eitingon, and active, vital participant in Eitingon's efforts-in contributing to and shaping the beginnings of psychoanalytic education.

Section: Control Analysismentioning

confidence: 92%

mentioning

confidence: 98%

The Beginnings of Psychoanalytic Supervision: The Crucial Role of Max Eitingon

2013

Am J Psychoanal

“…Seemingly spurred by Doehrman's (1976) landmark study, Gediman and Wolkenfeld's (1980) seminal paper on parallel processes, and the ever evolving relational tilt that began to increasingly infiltrate supervision conceptualization and conduct in the '80s and '90s (Berman, 1997), supervisor countertransference became a much more readily considered topic of important supervisory concern (Cook & Buirski, 1990;Frawley-O'Dea & Sarnat, 2001;Rock, 1997); that concern now tends to be standard fare whenever thinking about the dynamics of the supervisor -supervisee interaction (e.g., Crowell, 2007;Sarnat, 2012;Zachrisson, 2011).…”

Section: Supervisor Countertransferencementioning

confidence: 98%

“…Just as marshalling an evidence base for psychoanalytic therapy has become increasingly important from an accountability perspective (cf. Leichsenring & Klein, 2014;Leichsenring & Rabung, 2008, 2011Levy & Ablon, 2009;Shedler, 2010), the importance of basing psychoanalytic supervision efforts upon an evidence base would also seem a highly desirable educational ideal toward which to strive (Szecsody, 2012;Watkins, 2014b). In this paper, I would like to examine psychoanalytic supervision vis-à-vis that ideal.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

Toward a research-informed, evidence-based psychoanalytic supervision

Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy

2014

Although establishing an evidence base for psychoanalytic practice has become a matter of increasing practical and accountability concern, the establishment of an evidence base for psychoanalytic supervision has yet to be given any consideration. In establishing a more comprehensive evidenceinformed approach to treatment and training, the corollary need to build an evidence base for psychoanalytic treatment supervision would accordingly seem an important next step to address. What research supports the use of psychoanalytically informed constructs in supervision? With that research base considered, is there any sort of an evidence base for psychoanalytic supervision practice itself? In this paper, I would like to examine those two questions, giving particular attention to two psychoanalytically derived variables of supervision import: the supervisory alliance and parallel process. Based on research review, data thus far provide a high degree of empirical support for the supervisory alliance as perhaps being the crucial fundamental and foundational variable in making supervision work or not. While comparatively far more limited and less robust in nature, data about parallel process offer a tentative degree of support for that construct's importance in supervision as well. While still only in its most formative period, we at least appear to have an informed and informing evidence base for psychoanalytic supervision beginning to take more substantial shape.

“…We have lacked for the requisite check and balance there. Our vision of supervision has largely continued to be mired in a dualistic conceptualization that emphasizes alliance and transferencecountertransference confi guration only (e.g., Berman, 2000 ;Coburn, 1997 ;Dewald, 1987Dewald, , 1997Fink, 2007 ;Fleming and Benedek, 1966 ;Gill, 2001 ;Kernberg, 2010 ;Wallerstein, 1981 ;Werbart, 2007 ;Zachrisson, 2011 ).…”

Section: The Check and Balance Of Real Relationship In Psychoanalyticmentioning

confidence: 98%

Moments of Real Relationship in Psychoanalytic Supervision

2012

Am J Psychoanal

What role does the real relationship play in psychoanalytic supervision? While the real relationship's role has long been and continues to be considered with regard to psychoanalysis, it has received virtually no attention in the supervision literature. In this paper, using Horney's construct of the real self as conceptual anchor, I attempt to: (1) situate the real relationship squarely within the borders of the psychoanalytic supervision relationship; (2) examine the relevance of real relationship phenomena for the supervision experience; (3) provide some simple, ordinary yet meaningful examples of case dialogue that illustrate moments of real relationship in supervision; and (4) introduce the concept of real relationship rupture and consider its potential ramifications for and impact upon the supervisor-supervisee relationship. Just as ruptures can occur in the supervisory alliance, I propose that ruptures can also transpire in the supervisory real relationship, have the potential to reverberate throughout the entirety of the supervision experience, and depending upon how they are handled, can prove either constructive and relationally energizing and enlivening or enervating and eviscerating to supervision process and outcome.