The Executive Council of the IPA sponsored its first Research Training Program for psychoanalysts at University College, London, from August 10 through 18, 1995. Each day except Sunday, six faculty members and seventeen trainees met in four sessions an hour and a half long. The week began with a dinner reception and ended with an evening at the Freud Museum.
The program of lectures and seminars was designed to provide intensive training in empirical approaches to psychoanalytic research in three areas: developmental research, the measurement of psychoanalytic outcome, and the study of psychoanalytic process. The curriculum was an introduction to current research methods, to be demonstrated through presentations of faculty research projects.
The program was structured around the individual research plans of those enrolled. A central part of the experience was the opportunity to discuss their interests and research projects with members of the faculty and other participants. Applicants to the program were expected to submit an outline of the goals and methods of their research projects, and the program was designed to provide constructive and critical reviews of their work. To encourage them to continue with psychoanalytic research, the course also provided an opportunity for future contacts with consultants and collaborators.
Each day began with a faculty presentation, to which other faculty members then responded. This was followed by questions and open discussion by the entire group.
Trainees presented their current research projects every day in one of the three remaining sessions. A faculty member, previously assigned to review the project, discussed the participant's research methods and design, offering suggestions for improvement where appropriate. Other faculty members then added their comments, after which there was general group discussion. This was all done in a free and easy atmosphere where any serious question or comment was always welcome.
Some of the ninety-minute sessions were devoted to spontaneous discussion of research methods or other topics that had sparked the group's interest. Faculty members were also available for a ninety-minute consultation period, scheduled each day with whomever signed up. Additional private consultations were arranged outside the formal schedule.
Four members of The American, all certified and devoting at least half of their time to analytic practice, were among those enrolled. They were Cecile Bassen, George Klumpner, Alan Stem, and Hugo Zee. Other students were from Mexico City, Montevideo, São Paulo, Milan, Oslo, Stockholm, Helsinki, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Köln, and Geneva.
A month before the meeting, participants received reading materials that included Shapiro and Emde's Research in Psychoanalysis: Process, Development, Outcome; Dahl, Kächele, and Thöma's Psychoanalytic Process Research Strategies; and nine reprints of papers by the faculty. Publication lists for each faculty member and a recent curriculum vitae also helped participants prepare for the program.
The faculty — inspiring, considerate, and devoted to making the program as rewarding as possible — had outstanding credentials. All had an encyclopedic knowledge of psychoanalytic research. Peter Fonagy, Freud Memorial Professor of Psychoanalysis at the University of London (and Director of Research at the Anna Freud Centre), arranged the week and served as host. Bob Emde, holder of Research Scientist Awards from NIMH since 1967 (and professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado) served as cochair for planning and moderating.
The other faculty members were Wilma Bucci, director of research training and a professor at the Dernier Institute, Adelphi University; Horst Kächele, head of the Section on Psychoanalytic Methodology and professor of psychotherapy at the University of Ulm; Erhard Mergenthaler, director of the Ulm Textbank and of the Section on Computer Science in Psychotherapy at the University of Ulm; and Adolf-Ernst Meyer, professor emeritus of psychosomatics and psychotherapy at the University of Hamburg.
A brief sample of student presentations will give an idea of the event's special flavor. One presenter reported an array of fascinating clinical challenges posed by his research population. The faculty encouraged him to focus on the one or two questions of greatest interest to him and then to formulate more clearly how he might generate testable hypotheses to help answer them. Thus was a worthwhile discussion salvaged from what otherwise would have been an interesting clinical presentation with little research value.
A second presentation seemed impossibly ill-conceived, an amateurish project full of design flaws. The ensuing faculty discussion emphasized the positive aspects of this project and the potential for turning it into a worthwhile study. Faculty members made helpful suggestions instead of simply criticizing. In the process they demonstrated their collective research talents and knowledge, and the value of sharing them with colleagues worldwide.