The contemporary practice of effective psychoanalytic supervision.

Abstract

What are the primary features or themes that have come to increasingly define the effective practice of psychoanalytic supervision? In this article, I give attention to that question -identifying and reflecting upon a set of 10 "emerged" or "emerging" guideposts that seem to capture key facets or factors of the supervision scene now. Some of the areas that are reviewed include: (a) having fire, passion, and spirit for doing psychoanalytic supervision; (b) the learning alliance, real relationship, and supervision agreement; (c) analytic and supervisory reflectivity; (d) acute apprehension of the supervisory field (i.e., understanding and productively utilizing analytic and supervision transference, countertransference, and parallel process phenomena); (e) supervision intervention; and (f) individual and developmental diversity. Each of those areas is examined for its supervisory significance, and effort is made to develop a contemporary portrait of some of the essentials of effective psychoanalytic supervision practice. That resulting portrait is then placed within the context of the current competency movement, and the need to more clearly articulate a competency-based approach for psychoanalytic supervision is considered. Now over a century old, psychoanalytic supervision has proven to be a vibrant, vital, and vitalizing component of psychoanalytic education-a cornerstone in the "making" of psychoanalytic practitioners. In what follows, I hope to communicate and celebrate some of why that is so and reflect on how we might contribute to the further enrichment of that generative tradition.

The Alliance in Reflective Supervision: A Commentary on Tomlin, Weatherston, and Pavkov's Critical Components of Reflective Supervision

“…In their attention to supervision history, Tomlin et al () rightly noted the eminent contribution of psychoanalytic perspective to the development of the supervision enterprise and fittingly make reference to the seminal work of Joan Fleming and Therese Benedek (). In terms of supervisory systems of thought, no one view has contributed more substantially to supervision's over 100‐year evolution than has the psychoanalytic vision itself (Bernard & Goodyear, ; Eagle & Long, ; Watkins, , ), and in so doing, Fleming and Benedek have been and continue to be readily recognized as prime movers in making that evolution possible (Watkins, , ). Psychoanalytic perspective and Fleming and Benedek merit special mention here because of their seemingly reverberating and enduring impact on contemporary systems‐based reflective supervision practice.…”

Toward a research-informed, evidence-based psychoanalytic supervision

“…Although what follows, then, may accordingly have broad supervisory relevance, my particular interest here is in examining how these empirical data might be used to inform psychoanalytic supervision practice. My reasons for that particular interest are both personal and professional: Psychoanalytic supervision (a) is the primary perspective from which I supervise and that is of most concern to me; (b) has contributed more so than any other system to advancing supervision thought and practice (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014), (c) is a highly robust form of supervision practice that has endured for well over a century and will seemingly continue to so endure in the decades ahead (Watkins, 2011a), and (d) appears to be recognized more so now for its immense educational contribution than at any time in its 100-year plus history (Watkins, 2013b).…”

Constructions and their Amendments in the Supervisory Process

“…The supervisors then convey their understandings through diverse interventions such as didactic instructions and permissions (Jacobs, David & Meyer, ), ‘modeling, teaching, Socratic questioning, providing feedback, interpretation, clarification, encouragement and support, and sharing and self‐disclosure' (Watkins, , p. 310). If accepted and incorporated by the supervisees, these narratives enhance their capacity to organize their patients' mental states methodically; distinguish between their own and the patients' contributions to transference–countertransference processes; and achieve better understanding and containment of the developments in their therapeutic relationships (Shapiro, ).…”