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.
This long-awaited study by the European Psychoanalytic Federation's (EPF) Working Party on Comparative Clinical Methods addresses some of the fundamental problems posed by the growing theoretical pluralism of our field. David Tuckett, the principal architect of this study, aimed the group's efforts at fostering a peer-consultation environment in which theoretically diverse psychoanalysts could learn from one another in small-group, case-centered discussions. Working in an empirical, from-the-ground-up manner in which clinical material was investigated in rather minute detail, about 500 clinicians participated over a 10-year period, coming together yearly at various European cities for an intense weekend of meetings and clinical discussion in about ten working groups. The focus of this study was analyst-centered insofar as much thought was given to how to describe clinically the various types of interventions made by the practicing analyst—in contrast to cataloguing such interventions according to any particular theoretical school.
Psychoanalysts from the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Sweden, and Germany contributed separate chapters to this study, each with one general aim: to reflect the efforts made to shift the focus of discussion from a somewhat traditional model of supervision to one that attended to, in minute detail, how the analyst actually intervened in the analytic encounter, and for what reasons. How could the innumerable details