You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
THE SPECIAL nature and tasks of training analysis are fundamental not only to psychoanalytic education, but, ultimately, to the entire field of psychoanalysis. The training analytic situation has many complexities and potential complications. The dilemma of the training analyst, with his multiple functions and responsibilities, is here exemplified in the controversy over reporting and possible related involvement in the candidate's progression.
Views concerning the value, necessity, and effects of these reports differ. The controversy envelops basic issues of analytic confidentiality, neutrality, and trust as well as questions of maintaining standards, protecting the profession and patients, sharing training responsibility, and the optimal facilitation and integration of therapy and education.
Reporting is a significant issue in our growing understanding of the problems of psychoanalytic training and of the possible "institutionalization" of analysis in the training situation. The controversy about reporting indicates the need for critical inquiry and open discourse. The following paper, an extended discussion of "The Nonreporting Training Analyst, the Analysis, and the Institute," suggests additional dimensions and alternative considerations.