Prologue

Psychoanalytic training was institutionalized in 1922 at the Berlin Congress. It was built on the tripartite model: personal analysis as the basis, to get in touch with the method, as well as with the influence of the unconscious on everyday as well as professional life; didactic training to learn the theory and supervision to integrate the experience and theory with the candidate's personality. It is essential to emphasize that as soon training becomes organized, it poses trainer and trainees with many problems, such as: what should be the content of a training program; whom to select for such training, and by whom, and according to what kinds of principles; and, last but not least, how to find the most productive teaching methods? Although it is often claimed that the tripartite system of psychoanalytic education is the best available, there are a great many articles published that discuss psychoanalytic training, many of them critical and suggesting changes of different kinds. Confrontations about training are often heated and divergent, as well as repetitive and, although many psychoanalysts are dissatisfied with the system of training, there seems to be is little enthusiasm for reform.

To maintain an atmosphere in which the exercise of free thought, critical discernment, and creativity is fostered and exercised we should continuously discover and rediscover what are the determinants of the way our institutes are organized, and what relationships they offer to candidates, as well as those who train. This issue of the Inquiry is designed to continue and deepen the discussion about psychoanalytic education—and, using findings from studies in different institutes and societies, to encourage rational changes and reforms.

In the first article, Deborah Cabaniss emphasizes that educational research suggests that learning objectives and clear assessment tools can help to demystify education, guide curriculum development, and clarify standards for the field. In the absence