I have only positive things to say about National Case Review. Everyone that I have had contact with has been efficient in providing me with thoughtful guidance. The opportunity to speak with my reviewer directly was most helpful in clarifying questions that I have in the written review… I would recommend this opportunity for learning how to write psychoanalytically to anyone who is interested in getting a perspective outside of one's own institute.
The National Case Review (NCR) is a new program designed to offer candidates and recent graduates the opportunity to have their written cases blindly reviewed by experienced readers from outside their own institute. This effort is intended to offer students of analysis an independent and fresh perspective on their writing and thinking without any contamination by personal bias. What follows is a conversation between Mel Schoenfeld and Harvey Schwartz, the originators of the program, on what led them to develop NCR.
Harvey Schwartz: Mel, let's begin by discussing how and why we first thought of putting together this writing program that has come to be the National Case Review.
Melvyn Schoenfeld: For me, writing has always been an important part of my education. When I write I often learn what I didn't know I knew. (Or as former New York Times columnist James Reston put it during the 1962-63 newspaper strike, “…how do I know what I think if I can't read what I write?”) While serving on the Certification Committee I heard many others say the same kind of thing. Moreover, I was surprised to learn that many institutes didn't have writing courses or programs, and that many people really did not know how to write up their cases. The idea of trying to establish a program that would help people with their writing seemed as though it could provide a very important service to candidates and recent graduates.
…the reviewers are not members of the Certification Committee, and the participants can remain anonymous if they wish…
HS: My own thoughts started to come together after a few years of working on the Certification Committee. I certainly was aware of the heated controversies about the evaluative aspects of certification. I also was increasingly recognizing the separate educational side of our work. Writing up cases was an opportunity for analysts to have their work discussed by people who did not know them and therefore brought no preconceptions about them, their local reputations, their personal politics, or their controversies. It was simply a time to talk about analysis. Yet, of course, that it was evaluative influenced the very nature of the enterprise. So, I thought, and you and I discussed at length how terrific it would be if we could separate out the evaluative overlay of these reviews and just bring forward the educational side of these conversations.
MS: I completely agree. Now let's talk about a potential “elephant in the room.” Both of us serve on the Certification Committee and people might wonder if this project is connected to certification.
The short answer is that it isn't at all connected to certification. The project is run under the auspices of the Committee on Institutes, the reviewers are not members of the Certification Committee, and the participants can remain anonymous if they wish, since the communications are coordinated by the APsaA National Office.
HS: I've been pleased that NCR has been embraced by so many analysts once everyone understood that this is a blind and purely educational effort to help people write and think about their cases.
Can you speak to the surprises that you and I encountered as we started to put this project together.
MS: Sure. I was surprised at how quickly and easily this project got up and running. Since program changes in institutions tend to move at a glacial pace, I think it says a great deal about the value our organization places on education that this program was in place within two months of its being proposed.
HS: I, too, was pleasantly surprised at the enthusiasm with which so many greeted this
Melvyn Schoenfeld, M.D., is a training and supervising analyst at The Psychoanalytic Institute and clinical professor of psychiatry at NYU School of Medicine. He serves on APsaA's Certification Examination Committee and chaired the Admissions and Education Committees at his institute.
Harvey Schwartz, M.D., is a training and supervising analyst at the Institute of the Psychoanalytic Center of Philadelphia and chairs the Admissions Committee. He co-chairs the Certification Examination Committee and is a clinical professor of psychiatry at Jefferson Medical College.
project. Certainly this includes the many readers we contacted who do the real work of NCR. This also includes Prudy Gourguechon, Dan Jacobs, and Betsy Brett, all of whom offered their support. What also surprised me are the new things I've learned along the way. In particular I've been surprised and intrigued by the value that many feel about having analysts from outside their own institute read and comment on their work. It appears that having a fresh, external, and blind perspective available on our analytic work is liberating for candidates when it functions alongside the familiar local and personally influenced learning that is already taking place
MS: Well said. So where do we hope to go from here?
MS and HS: As is obvious, we think that this is a unique opportunity for candidates and recent graduates. They can get feedback on their case write-ups from someone outside their own institute and can even remain anonymous if they wish. It is purely educational for the participants; no one is evaluated in any way. In short, people can be helped with their case writing in a manner that is entirely risk-free. We hope that over time the NCR will be regarded as a valuable national resource and that people will be increasingly interested in participating.
Lets end with a quote from another participant:
I am very glad I submitted one case for review. My reader's response was thoughtful, helpful, and educational. I appreciated the time and effort she put into the task It will definitely help me with revisions and with further learning. I did open the blind status in order to thank her and perhaps seek further contact The initial blind status just helped me to go forward without hesitation. I think it's a wonderful opportunity and I would like to do it again with a second case.
For details about how to participate in the National Case Review check the Member Section of APsaA's Web site, or contact Nikita Turner at the National Office, 212-752-0450, ext. 18.