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.
In the June 2016 issue of the Journal, footnotes were omitted from two articles, as listed below:
Gitz-Johansen, T. . ‘Jung in education: a review of historical and contemporary contributions from analytical psychology to the field of education’. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 61, 3, 365-84. DOI: 10.1111/1468-5922.12234
Page 369: ‘Probably the most influential educational movement to be inspired by Jungian theory was the international New Education Fellowship (NEF).1’
[1] The movement was re-named the World Education Fellowship in 1966.
Page 375: ‘In general, Jungian influence on the field of mainstream education seems to have been slight and this has been especially true after the demise of Jung's own involvement with the field, which was mainly in the 1920s. Since then the influence of Jung's work on education is mainly to be found in the work of individual educational theorists. However, recent years have seen an increase in the number of educational scholars applying perspectives of analytical psychology to the topic of education.2’
[2] Due to the limits of the author's knowledge of other languages, only contributions written in English are included below and important contributions are certain to exist in other languages. For instance, contributions in French can be found in the works of the Jungian educators Carole Sédillot, Patrick Estrade, René Barbier, Jean-Daniel Rohart, and Frédéric Fappani.
Page 378: ‘Several authors discuss the possibility of using Jung's theory of personality types in the field of education.3’
[3] For a review of research using Jung's personality types in education, see Montgomery et al. .
Wright, S. . ‘Boundary and analytic attitude: reflections on a summer holiday break’. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 61, 3, 274-88.