This paper contributes to the current debate on the training of group analysts. In particular, it is a response to the view that the relationship between group analyst and trainee group analysand is negatively affected by institutional dynamics and by the inevitable interaction between the training institute, its trainers and its trainees. The paper puts forward the view that block training is a legitimate and well-established model of training alongside the continuous model.
Hearst, L.E.
(1993) `Our Historic and Cultural Cargo and its Vicissitude in Group Analysis', 17th S.H. Foulkes Annual Lecture, Group Analysis26(4): 389-405.
2.
Hearst, L.E.
(1995) `Simultaneous Supervision and Personal Analysis', in Meg Sharpe (ed.) The Third Eye. London: Routledge.
3.
Hilpert, R.H.
(1995) `The Place of the Training Group Analyst and the Problem of Personal Group Analysis in Block Training', Group Analysis28(3): 301-311.
4.
Kernberg, O.F.
(1985) `Organizational Problems of Psychoanalytic Education'. Paper presented at Columbia University, NY, 5 February.
5.
Lorentzen, S.
, Herlofsen, P., Karterud, S. and Ruud, T. (1995) `Block Training in Group Analysis: The Norwegian Program', International Journal of Group Psychotherapy45(1): 73-89.
6.
Pines, M.
(1981) `The Frame of Reference of Group Psychotherapy', International Journal of Group Psychotherapy31(3) 275-285.
7.
Tsegos, I.
(1995) `Further Thoughts on Group-analytic Training', Group Analysis28(3): 313-326.
