Psychoanalytic Education: A Model for the 1990S

Psychoanalysis, sometimes defined as a subspecialty of psychiatry (Reiser, 1988), shares with other medical disciplines the characteristic of being defined by a distinct body of knowledge, a literature and research base, and special skills and techniques. Psychoanalytic institutes were formed to impart this knowledge and skill through a formal educational process. Although these institutes have for the most part been separate from centers for medical training, psychoanalytic education follows closely the preceptorship tradition in medicine. Despite a shared tradition, however, psychoanalytic institutes have not followed recent educational trends evident in medical schools, especially in regard to curriculum design. The contemporary curriculum (Holcomb and Garner, 1973; Moulopoulos et al., 1980; Silber et al., 1978), specifies learning objectives, a method by which these objectives will be met, and a system for evaluating both the students and the educational program. This process has become commonplace in medical schools, while institute curricula retain the practice of providing only general descriptions of the courses offered and the requirements for graduation.

A number of psychoanalysts have commented recently on the need for changes in psychoanalytic education (Arlow and Brenner, 1988; Kernberg, 1986) and the future of psychoanalysis in academic psychiatry (Reiser, 1989). Arlow and Brenner (1988) have also discussed the importance of economic and political factors as change agents. In response to these and other concerns the Committee on Psychoanalytic Education of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis developed guidelines for psychoanalytic training. This report summarizes the work of the committee in preparing a document that was subsequently incorporated into the Manual of Standards of the Academy as a model for psychoanalytic education in the 1990s.