Styles of Supervision Related to Child-Analysis Training and the Gender of the Supervisor

This paper arose out of a previous study (Beiser, 1971) concerning the personality differences between students studying to be child analysts and students who were not, as seen by their supervisors of adult psychoanalytic cases. Although some differences were perceived, both groups performed as analysts in a most satisfactory way. Some suggestions were made at that time that this personality difference might show up in a difference of supervisory style as well. There was a delay in following up this suggestion for two reasons. First, there were few child analysts supervising adult cases at that time, and second, it is much harder to get a characterization of the supervisory process from the standpoint of the supervisee than from the standpoint of the supervisor.

Compared to some excellent studies of the supervisee's process of learning (Fleming and Benedek, 1966), there is a paucity of studies on the teaching style of the supervisor. Ekstein and Wallerstein (1958) describe the best supervisors as growth promoting and able to promote identification with their own activity and constant process of growth rather than with their techniques and opinions (p. 80). They also mention a desirable attitude of humility in the supervisor resulting in a constant need to learn, as well as the necessity of the supervisor having insight into the patient, the supervisee, the supervisory situation, and himself (p. 263). I imagine such statements arose from the authors' recollections of being supervised, as well as from experiences in supervising. I found two articles which specifically dealt with the view of the supervisor from the standpoint of the