Presidents and Directors of Training Meeting

24th July 2007

Opening Ceremony

Dr. Eizirik welcomed the Presidents and Directors of Training to this important meeting to discuss IPA Education. He welcomed the former IPA Presidents, Dr. Otto Kernberg and Dr. Leo Rangell and informed the meeting that Prof. Daniel Widlöcher would also be joining the meeting.  He then introduced Dr. Monica Siedmann de Armesto, Secretary General of the IPA, and Dr. Shmuel Erlich, Chair of the IPA Education Committee.  He explained that IPA Board members were also present at the meeting.

He reminded those present that there had been long detailed discussions on analytic training over the years and that in 1999 at the meeting of Latin American Presidents a motion was put to the then President of the IPA, Dr. Otto Kernberg, asking the Board to consider flexibility concerning training models and to consider the realities of the development of training models throughout the world.  He explained that the IPA recognised one training model at that time. 

He reminded the meeting of the Committees that had worked towards identifying, describing, characterising and deepening the understanding of how IPA training models operate: COMPSED, Chaired by Dr. Amati Mehler, TRAMPE, chaired by Ekkehardt Gattig, the Education Committees chaired by Dr. Sara Zac de Filc , Dr. Robert Pyles, and now Dr. Erlich.  Over the years these Committees had worked in conjunction with the Executive Council and now the Board of Representatives.  He acknowledged the hard work that had been carried out by so many over the years. 

He went on to remind the meeting that in January 2007 the IPA identified and recognised the existence of three training models.  The final aspects of this recognition had been approved by the IPA’s Board the previous day by approving changes to the IPA’s Procedural Code to incorporate the 3 models.

Dr. Eizirik said that although the minutes of each Board meeting are circulated to each society in English with a covering synopsis in French, German and Spanish, these minutes do not reflect the amount of time, energy, interest and sometimes emotional discussions that take place during those meetings.

A paper concerning the possible oversight function of the IPA that the Board had considered the previous day, was made available to the participants of the meeting.  Dr. Eizirik explained that the only issue that had been agreed by the Board was that only one training model would be allowed in each institute.   The Board had also considered whether more than one training model should be allowed in each society and it was felt that each instance should be individually considered.  The other issues covered in that paper would be considered by the Board at a later date and after further consultation. 

Dr. Eizirik explained that it had been agreed that the IPA will carry out an oversight function when a Society wishes to change its model.   A Procedural Code entry had been drafted and the final text will be approved at the next meeting of the Board.  There will be many more issues to consider concerning general oversight and it is extremely important to the IPA to have the views of its members.  He intended to continue to operate a collaborative, collegial exchange with Societies and institutes. 

He then asked Dr. Shmuel Erlich, to explain the work of the Education Committee.

Dr. Erlich said that the meeting would provide an ideal opportunity for people to air concerns and ask questions.  He explained that discussions had already taken place within the Regional Organisations. 

The beginning of the process was in New Orleans in March 2004 when the Board approved the principle of recognising more than one training model.  It was agreed that the IPA needed to get away from the constant discussions about frequency of training and consider training models as a whole.  A working group with Dr. Robert Pyles as Chair, Dr. Fernando Weissmann and Dr. Erlich was charged with canvassing the IPA’s Institutes and establishing what training procedures were being practiced.  Approximately 25 detailed responses were used to define three distinct models. 

The new Education Committee consisting of: Dr. Shmuel Erlich, Chair, Sander M. Abend, Aloysio Augusto D’Abreu; Marie-France Dispaux; Daniel H Jacobs and Fernando Weissmann was then appointed and charged with studying these models and drafting definitive, comparative and in depth descriptions of each for approval by the Board. 

The first stage was to come up with a conceptual description of each model and its internal consistencies.   Each model was compared using a set of established criteria, including the intellectual rationale involved, the philosophy of psychoanalytical education, and the conceptions that underlie the practice of psychoanalytic education. 

A further dimension which was studied, possibly for the first time, was the issue of power, authority and authorisation and how each model addressed these issues. 

The broader issues are the same in all the three models, but when studying the smaller details the same variables receive different emphases and order in time and importance.   The question that still remains to be asked is to what extent does this different structuring of the variables actually influence the kind of psychoanalysis that is produced?

In January 2007 the Board considered the redrafting of the Procedural Code to incorporate the recognition of the 3 models – this new document included the comparative description of the 3 models.  The Board felt that further information about the 3 models was required and therefore instructed the Education Committee to research further into the models and come back with details of the practical implementation of each model. 

The Education Committee submitted this additional information to the Board at its meeting a few days previously.  The information was approved, with some minor changes, and both the description of the conceptual aspects of the models and the description of the implementation of the models have been included in the Procedural Code document entitled: ‘Requirements for Qualification and Admission to Membership’. 

Dr. Erlich explained that two issues came out of the Board discussions:  one was the issue of ‘hybrid models’ taking parts of the different models and incorporating them into one ‘hybrid model’.  The Board took the position that since models have their own internal consistency a model needs to be maintained in total.  Therefore ‘Hybrid models’ will not be allowed.

The other issue was how in reality the IPA is going to operate an ‘oversight’ role. The IPA has always exercised a supervisory role in the creation of Study Groups and Provisional Societies.  However Component Societies function autonomously unless the IPA is asked to look into a particular issue.  There is no regularly carried out oversight function for Component Societies. 

Dr. Erlich explained that the Board feels that some kind of an oversight function will have to be exercised by the IPA.  It is not the idea of the Board or the Education Committee that the IPA should become a watchdog, but that it should carry out a mutually collaborative oversight role. 

Dr. Erlich addressed some issues that have become confused over the years:

Training models versus actual psychoanalytic practice: these were not the same issues. 
The issue that is currently being discussed is not how psychoanalysis is practiced in each country, town or Society, but how we want our candidates to be trained.

The second regularly confused issue is the distinction between a conceptual model (the standards and rules), and our psychoanalytic theory and point of view.  An institute has one model for training which means everybody is trained in the same way as far as the process of admission, the supervision and the structure of the coursework, training analysis, etc. goes.  However within the same institute there could be different theoretical psychoanalytic points of view.

Dr. Erlich closed by saying that the IPA needs to live up to the fact that it is the world’s largest guarantor of standards of psychoanalytic training and practice in order to continue to assure the high standards for the profession. 

Dr. Siedmann de Armesto then explained that the meeting would now split into small discussion groups in which they were asked to consider three questions:

1.  What is your understanding of a “Model of Training”? Is it the same as formal rules and standards, (e.g., personally analysis, seminars and frequency of conducting analysis, or number of required cases) or something broader and deeper than that?

2.  Do you consider that the IPA should implement some kind of “oversight” over training practices of component societies? Do you feel that an oversight function could contribute to the international or local standing of psychoanalysis, or would it hinder and undermine it?

3.  If IPA “oversight” is a necessity, how should it be initiated and developed?

She asked each group to nominate one of its members to Chair the discussion and another to take notes and report back to the plenary session that would be held in the afternoon.

Dr. Otto Kernberg asked for clarification as to what had been approved at the Board meeting that week.  Dr. Siedmann de Armesto explained that the paper concerning the inclusion of the three models in the Procedural Code had been approved.  However only the first two issues in the Oversight paper had been discussed.  It had been agreed that no institute can operate more than one training model, but the other issues in the paper will be considered further at future meetings.

Dr. Erlich explained that the Board had also considered whether a Society with more than one institute can operate different models.  It was agreed that ‘the Board would consider each and every application on its merits, prior to determining its decisions, taking into account that under specific circumstances it could allow a single component society to operate more than one model within different institutes under its auspices.’  In other words it is not desirable but the Board recognises that there are sometimes special circumstances and those will be considered.

The afternoon plenary convened at 14.15: