As psychoanalytic institutes evolve, adapting to the contemporary financial and social environment, the integration of new technologies into psychoanalytic education presents opportunities for expansion to candidates residing beyond the usual geographic boundaries. While the teaching of analytic content through distance learning programs appears to be relatively straightforward, factors including legalities, traditional mind-sets, and cross-cultural issues need to be considered as complicating the situation, as illustrated by one U.S. institute’s distance learning initiative with a group in South Korea.
AlbanA.FrankelS.A. (2007). Supervision vs. consultation: What you need to know. Clinical Lawyer40, online.
2.
BaylesM. (2012). Is physical proximity essential to the psychoanalytic process? An exploration through the lens of Skype. Psychoanalytic Dialogues22:569–585.
3.
ColemanM. (2003). Supervision in clinical social work. Clinical Social Work: Practice Update3(2):1–4.
4.
De MenteB.L. (2012). The Korean Mind: Understanding Contemporary Korean Culture. North Clarendon, VT: Tuttle Publishing.
5.
ErreichA. (2011). Our Korean connection. PANY Bulletin49(3):6–8.
6.
FishkinR.FishkinL.LeliU.KatzB.SnyderE. (2011). Psychodynamic treatment, training, and supervision using internet-based technologies. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis & Dynamic Psychiatry39:155–168.
7.
LeeD. (2015). Filial piety and the oedipus complex. Paper delivered at the KAPT Twentieth Anniversary Conference, Seoul, April5, 2015.
8.
SaccuzzoD.P. (1997). Liability for failure to supervise adequately mental health assistants, unlicensed practitioners and students. California Western Law Review34(1): Article 10.
9.
ScharffJ.S. (2013). Technology-assisted psychoanalysis. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association61:491–509.
