Views on the Supervisory Situation

The supervisory process, one of the last aspects of psychoanalytic training to be studied, originally resembled a tutorial or apprentice system. Reports on this essentially private relationship between student and supervisor were occasionally submitted to a training committee, but evaluation of the student tended to be disconnected and impersonal in nature.

Ten years ago the William Alanson White Institute initiated regular meetings of supervisors to discuss student problems in training, i.e., to follow the growth of each student as a total person. Gradually this process became more focused, and each student is now evaluated annually. All supervisors who work or have worked with him participate in the preparation of a written report commenting on his progress and suggesting aspects of his analytic training that merit special attention. The evaluation, designed to be stimulating and provocative as well as to facilitate the setting of the next year's goals, is non-judgmental; no grade is given. Thoughtful focus on the individual student has proved to be especially useful at the White Institute, where the analyst of the student plays no role in evaluating his growth. Readiness for graduation depends entirely on the student's work in case seminars and supervision.

More recently, the policy of meeting to discuss general problems in supervision has been introduced at the Institute. In the fall of 1966, a group of interested supervisors meeting for that purpose reviewed the literature and highlighted the major issues. In November 1967, students as well as faculty participated in a panel on "Supervision as a Multidimensional Experience." The students, having been so much more aware of restrictions that they felt inhibited their learning, were surprised to hear about the problems facing the supervisors. Both students and faculty became increasingly curious about the atmosphere conducive to learning and about the need for openness, honesty, and undefensiveness rather