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.
It has been difficult to know what does and does not constitute competent psychoanalytic work and so equally difficult to assess when it is being practised and when it is not. This makes difficult any form of disciplined evaluation of the outcome of training, which has a series of problematic outcomes for psychoanalytic practice, psychoanalytic institutions and the relationship to allied disciplines and professions. In this paper, the author considers how far it might be possible to devise a framework for assessment of training programmes within a disciplined psychoanalytic pluralism. The aspiration is to develop a transparent framework, based on an empirically supported demonstration of analytic capacity. The framework needs to be sensitive and subtle, and to be able to withstand challenge. It needs to take cognisance of the twin facts that there is more than one way to practise psychoanalysis and that it is necessary to avoid ‘anything goes’. Drawing on an ongoing project undertaken by European IPA institutes, the author describes some of the problems colleagues have been experiencing in European institutes, because they have not had available transparent criteria for assessment. He outlines a preliminary form of a proposed method for making more transparent and supportable assessment. The author intends for this paper to inspire hope, enquiry and debate.