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.
Psychoanalytic supervision has now reached and surpassed the century mark (Gay, 1988; Jacobs, David, & Meyer, 1995). It has blossomed into a widely accepted, instructive practice, contributing substantially to the broader enterprise of psychoanalytic education (DeWald, 1997; Lewin & Ross, 1960), facilitating the identity, skill, and conceptual development of the analyst in training (Ekstein & Wallerstein, 1958, 1972; Szecsody, 2008a; Wallerstein, 1981), and serving as monitor and quality control for those who would enter the practice arena (Hyman, 2008; Lane, 1990). In contemporary psychoanalytic training, psychoanalytic supervision looms large in the “making” of psychoanalysts—“an indispensable medium through which psychoanalytic knowledge is passed from one generation of psychoanalysts to the next” (Ogden, 2005, p. 1265).
As we survey the last generation of scholarly activity, an evergrowing store of sources and resources about psychoanalytic supervision has accumulated; interest in and commitment to the enterprise seem increasingly ascendant. The International Psychoanalytic Association devoted three pre-congress meetings to supervision in the 1990s; articles, special issues, and special sections on supervision seem ever present in analytic journals (e.g., Bergmann, 2009; Cabaniss, Glick, & Roose, 2001; Evans, 2008; Filho, Pires, Berlim, Hartke, & Lewkowicz, 2007; Fink, 2007; McKinney, 2000; Slavin, 1998; Szonyi & Stajner-Popovic, 2008); current critiques about supervision and training are readily available (e.g., Kernberg, 2000, 2007, 2010; Reeder, 2004; Szecsody, 2003); “competence” in psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic supervision has become a preeminent concern (Szecsody, 2008a; Tuckett,