Our vision for the Department of Psychoanalytic Education (DPE) approaches psychoanalysis as a scholarly discipline. Hence, educating psychoanalysts should be done in a creative, flexible and disciplined manner emphasizing critical thinking. Both classroom teaching and clinical supervision should help candidates be open to new ideas, evaluate competing ones, and apply them in a flexible fashion to the changing world in which they practice. This educational philosophy is an ego ideal approach in contrast to the traditional rules-and-procedures-oriented method we can call a superego approach.
BOPS is now sunsetted. Over the past five months, in anticipation of that occurrence, many institutes and individuals have expressed confusion and worry. Various misconceptions about the DPE and its place in APsaA as well as its role via APsaA approved institutes have been voiced. Some institutes worry that the facilitative approach of the DPE means standards will erode. Others worry they will be abandoned because the DPE will not issue mandates or require site visits. To clarify these concerns and misunderstandings, we presented a power point presentation at the Open Meeting on Psychoanalytic Education in Austin in June. This presentation is now available on the APsaA website: apsa.org.
We will summarize it in this article.
The main point we wish to convey is that standards will be maintained. APsaA will continue to provide internal approval of institutes and offer voluntary consultative/facilitative site visits. Institute approval will come from the Executive Council while the voluntary site visits will come from the DPE. That is, the regulatory approval process resides within our democratically elected Executive Council. Thus, the Executive Council will oversee educational standards.
The DPE is one of seven departments within APsaA that report to and are regulated by the Executive Council. Our charge is to oversee psychoanalytic education in order to maintain the excellence APsaA has always stood for. We will inspire, promote and support excellent and innovative psychoanalytic education and ensure education and training remain as important as always within APsaA. We will provide a facilitative, consultative and observational role with all APsaA approved institutes.
The externalization of certain regulatory functions previously provided by BOPS has contributed to some confusion. The only functions that the DPE will not provide are certification and accreditation. Certification is now provided by the
American Board of Psychoanalysis (ABP). External accreditation of institutes is provided by the Accreditation Council for Psychoanalytic Education (ACPEinc). Any graduate of an APsaA approved institute can apply for certification from the ABP. Any APsaA approved institute can apply for external accreditation by the ACPEinc. APsaA institute graduation or APsaA institute approval is sufficient to apply for certification or accreditation. The DPE will help any individual or institute work toward either of these attainments. In this way, APsaA approval will carry the credibility it always has.
The DPE will ensure that this credibility remains powerful. Such oversight does not mean an emphasis on rules, procedures or mandates. We will gather data from all APsaA approved institutes in order to know how they are functioning. Our interest is ensuring their health and development; not in looking over their shoulders to be sure they are following the rules. Limiting institutes is not our interest nor intent. Instead, we want data to help us reach out to offer assistance when it is needed.
All the functions and help provided by BOPS will continue to be provided by the DPE, just not in a rules-focused way. The power point mentioned above delineates where each of those functions resides within the DPE. Our approach will be one that respects local analytic cultures and their decision to add or not add to the baseline IPA standards replacing BOPS standards. This includes prominent support for those institutes that continue to require a frequency of 4-5 times weekly sessions for candidates’ training analyses and control cases. If the IPA approves a modification of the Eitington model, we will also provide support for those institutes that want to consider a frequency of 3-5 weekly sessions for all or part of candidates’ control cases or, potentially, their training analyses. We envision the DPE as a locus of a variety of approaches, and believe the cross-fertilization that will be possible through the Training and Education Forum and other DPE sections will enhance psychoanalytic education. We do not view these decisions as involving more or less rigorous standards. Rather, different analytic cultures find different standards more useful. It is far too soon in the evolution of our discipline and science to be definitive about what standards make for a more qualified psychoanalyst. Therefore, we will offer guidelines intended to help with such decisions. But we will not impose or judge.
One of our exciting and innovative contributions to psychoanalytic training will be the Psychoanalytic Training and Education Forum. This forum, chaired by the two of us, will be composed of one elected faculty representative from each APsaA approved institute. In this way, each institute will have formal representation in the DPE. The forum will meet twice a year at the APsaA national meetings.
It will serve two functions. Part of the meeting will be devoted to institutes sharing their experiences, successes and difficulties. In this way, institutes can learn from each other and gain new ideas or help with vexing problems. We also hope a sense of shared community will arise from such mutual support. The other function will be a roundtable discussion by institute representatives about current controversies in psychoanalytic education. Such a discussion can help us all learn what each of us is thinking about such controversies. And each institute can gain the benefit of considering various options. Equally important is the opportunity to implement our goal of having disciplined, thoughtful debate replace the usual psychoanalytic approach of acrimonious polarization leading to rigid rules. The planned topic for the first meeting in February is analytic frequency with regard to education.