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.
The aim our study group was to establish technical-scientific criteria which could be used as a reference point in founding the supervision work. We also attemped to fill in a gap in the training programme itself, related to the training of the supervisor.
It was clear from a preliminary review of the relevant literature - in particular the exhaustive critical work by De Bell (1963), the study by Fleming and Benedek (1966), and the monograph edited by Wallerstein (1981) - how the ideal model of the supervisor has changed over time.
At the beginning “being an enthusiastic clinician of psycho-analysis, the supervisor felt that he fulfilled his task if he conveyed to the student his understanding of the case, not only in terms of diagnosis, genetic and dynamic formulations, but also the details of the evolving transference. Looking back with a critical eye, one might say that the supervisor tended to take over the case. (…) Balint critically termed this kind of teaching ‘superego training’. (…) Glover also expressed concern about the ‘great