The COPE Study Group on Supervision continues to pursue its mandate to think through issues inherent in the supervisory relationship and process, for supervisor and supervisee alike. Over the last two years we have focused on the opportunities brought about by the introduction of the Developmental Pathway and the potential for institutes to develop individually tailored programs that will enable interested graduate analysts to become supervising analysts. We will report here on four approaches we have taken to support supervision education and the development of supervising analysts: a survey of APsaA institutes' existing efforts to develop graduate analysts' supervisory skills; collaboration with the Committee on Institutes (COI) to define institute needs; creation and maintenance of a bibliography on supervision; and development of models for live, in-person learning.
We did an initial informal study of 10 institutes from different parts of the country to learn whether they had programs for developing analytic supervisors. We followed this study with an unstructured survey of all APsaA institutes. We found that there is a wide range of approaches to the education of analytic supervisors. Some institutes have no formal program, others have programs with varying degrees of structured, ongoing exchange among graduate analysts. For example, for more than 20 years the Baltimore Washington Institute has had ongoing supervision study groups, in which its supervisors meet monthly. Their supervision groups are didactic and clinical in nature; all members present supervisory issues on a rotating basis. The Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute is another active center of supervision education, where it is approached in both group and individual settings. Other APsaA institutes are working on improved communication among analysts who share the goal of becoming supervising analysts, on methods for teaching supervisory skills, and on developing models for learning from peers. Our surveys made clear that there is a general need for design of educational programs for this central analytic training skill.
In order to ensure our efforts to meet the needs of APsaA institutes, we met with the COI at the 2013 National Meeting and established an ongoing collaboration that will permit interested institutes to inform us about their peer programs, educational curricula, and efforts to develop training in supervision. We hope to function as a resource and look forward to sharing with colleagues what others in the field are doing to advance supervision education.
Our COPE study group has changed membership over time and we have thereby had the benefit of a variety of voices from different areas of the country stimulating thought and creative planning of other possible ways to intersect with the larger analytic community. One of the discoveries we made in our unstructured survey of all institutes in the Association is the dearth of coursework offered to prospective supervising analysts and also to interested graduate analysts through continuing education. We decided to offer a first step toward establishing curricula through creating a well-vetted and continuously updated bibliography.
As we announced in May 2013, we have posted an extensive reading list on supervision on the APsaA website. It is a work-in-progress. Culled from the literature, it is a list of articles having to do with many aspects of supervision: goals of supervision, education of supervisors, impact of theoretical/clinical orientation on supervision, and supervisees' perspectives, challenges, and controversies. The bibliography is organized in sections that we hope will orient users. Each paper is referenced with its abstract and has a critical evaluation by one of our study group members, and we update the list regularly. One of our members is acting as our web liaison (Sam Robertson at ). He, as well as other members of the study group, will welcome your suggestions for other papers to be considered for inclusion.
Our most recent approach to enhancing education in supervision involves design of live peer-learning opportunities. We are proposing a panel for the 2015 scientific program that would comprise a junior candidate, a senior candidate, and two supervising analysts. We expect a complex conversation to occur, one that is moderated and accepts questions from the audience, regarding the experience of supervision from both sides of the endeavor We are also working to develop a model that will allow for interactive, live supervisions that we can “take on the road.” This model could involve modern technology or actual travel on the part of supervisor-supervisee pairs. Finally we continue to hold a Workshop on Supervision at each scientific meeting. It is very well attended and we are told it has been extremely useful to those who participate. For example, we have had supervisor-supervisee partners present, had candidates discuss their special perspectives on this critical aspect of their learning, arranged comparative discussions about supervision with colleagues from other countries, explored issues of confidentiality, and discussed the classic teach/treat dilemma.
We have more ideas that we expect to develop this coming year As always, we look forward to hearing from members with ideas, suggestions, and expressions of interest in participating in this work.
COPE Study Group on Supervision members are Richard Fritsch, Robert Nover, Ingrid Pisetsky Sam Robertson, and I am chair.
Barbara Stimmel, Ph.D., is assistant professor of psychiatry at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine; training and supervising analyst and faculty at the Contemporary Freudian Society; and IPA training analyst.