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.
During 2006 and 2007 the Education Section of the International Journal of Psychoanalysis published two works on the meaning and importance of infant observation in the training of analysts. As usual we asked for contributions from colleagues from the three IPA regions. In 2006 we published Infant observation in Britain: The Tavistock approach by M. Waddell, and in 2007 a work by M.A. de Litvan entitled Infant observation: A range of questions and challenges for contemporary psychoanalysis. In order to complete the series, we lacked a work that examined the theme from the point of view of a North American analyst.
We are therefore now publishing an interesting work by an authoritative American colleague, Karen Gilmore, who writes in her opening passage that she is at a “disadvantage in relation to the two previous contributors to this series” inasmuch as, in her view, there is no tradition of infant observation in the institutes of the American Psychoanalytic Association.
Her paper on The status of developmental curriculum in North American psychoanalysis is an interesting and scholarly reflection on the importance of developmental theory, education and research in the training, theory and practice of psychoanalysis. It is for this reason that, although it is not specifically about infant observation, we consider that this work fully deserves to be included to end the series.