Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To see translations of this article…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

When there are translations of the current article, you will see a flag/pennant icon next to the title, like this: 2015-11-06_11h14_24 For example:

2015-11-06_11h09_55

Click on it and you will see a bibliographic list of papers that are published translations of the current article.  Note that when no published translations are available, you can also translate an article on the fly using Google translate.

 

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Habermas, T. (2016). On: Jorge Schneider and Colleagues ‘Psychoanalytic Training Experience and Postgraduate Professional Development’. Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 97(2):503.

(2016). International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 97(2):503

Letters to the Editor

On: Jorge Schneider and Colleagues ‘Psychoanalytic Training Experience and Postgraduate Professional Development’ Related Papers Language Translation

Tilmann Habermas

Dear Editors,

The authors have undertaken the laudable effort of adding information based on a survey of all living graduates of one training institute to the discussion about how we might revitalize and render more attractive psychoanalytic training. However, I wish to caution that their generally complacent summary which is that their study did not support Otto Kernberg's criticism of psychoanalytic training as authoritarian and infantilizing, forestalling creativity, independent research and writing activities, as well as isolating members from the cultural and especially academic public, is not supported by their data. Firstly, who responded to the questionnaire? There was a dropout rate of 40%. It seems plausible to assume that those who are identified with the local institute are more motivated to reply, biasing answers in a positive direction. It is not clear whether all graduates had been successfully traced or confirmed as deceased. To exclude former candidates who had not graduated biases results, as might excluding present candidates. Secondly, who asked? It is not clear what the position of the authors is in the institute, and whom respondents believed to be responding. Apparently the survey was endorsed by the faculty of the institute, so it was perceived as coming from the leaders of the institute. Again, this creates a potential bias. If the signed consent was returned with the questionnaire, there was no anonymity. Thirdly, what was asked? The questions are for the most part positively formulated and remain within the given institutional frame (e.

[This is a summary excerpt from the full text of the journal article. The full text of the document is available to journal subscribers on the publisher's website here.]

Copyright © 2018, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.