The first of three international online IAPSP conferences was presented on September 25th, 2021. From Region1: The Americas (US, Canada, Mexico, South America), it was titled “Conference on the Therapeutic Dyad Enlivened by Process, Theory and Supervision: Three Different Approaches-Three Live Takes.” A recording of the event was made available to those who couldn’t attend.

We welcome your reactions to the conference. What did you like or dislike about it? What might have improved it?
Please send your reflections on the conference to eForum@IAPSP.org.

Estelle Shane, one of the conference organizers offered the following summary of the conference:

Conference attendees witnessed three completely separate, spontaneous, and unrehearsed supervisions of the same case presentation offered by Dr. Joana Cruz, films that were made shortly before the conference. In these three separate individual films Dr Cruz presented identical process material to three different senior supervisors, one supervisor using a self psychological approach (Dr. Allen Siegel); the second using a relational approach (Dr. Hazel Ipp); and the third a Bionian approach (Dr. Barnet Malin). This unique format allowed attendees to observe and compare how different approaches to supervision affect the same clinical material, altering meaning and understanding of the identical content in each of the three dyads. Observing in vivo this Influence of the supervisors‘ particular psychoanalytic approaches, as well as their distinct person-hoods, on the meaning and feeling in the dyad permitted the audience to comprehend the value of psychoanalytic pluralism to clinical understanding, as well as perceiving the absence of a singular theoretical truth in regard to psychoanalytic theory.

Then, following the presentation of the three filmed interviews, all of the participants, including the three supervisors, the presenter, and the moderator, Dr. Jill Gardner, assembled to discuss among themselves and with the audience how theory affects technique, as well as answering audience questions about how the process of presenting in this way affected each of the four participants.

Jill Gardner

The conference on September 25 had several unique characteristics, all of which I enjoyed. The ability to see people working directly, rather than hearing reports of the work, brought an experience-near immediacy to the meeting. I loved that all of it was spontaneous — both the individual supervision sessions, at the point when they were taped, and the panel discussions. Nothing was rehearsed and, except for Joana’s process notes, nothing was read. This made it lively and engaging throughout. I thought the availability of side comments and dialogue in the chat also provided, for those who chose to follow it, a unique way for people to register their reactions and see those of others in real time. I believe our conferences generally strive to see how theory and clinical data work together. The format of this meeting seemed ideally suited to make the connections between the two very clear and explicit. I liked very much that all three supervisors suggested specifically what they would do with Joana’s patient, given their particular theory.

I found the process of moderating the panels to be both challenging and fun. I felt lucky and privileged to have the opportunity to chime in when I wanted. What I particularly appreciated in the panel discussions was the mutual respect the panelists showed each other. I felt we were able to have a lively and sometimes passionate dialogue about differences without it ever feeling aggressive, hostile or overly competitive — even while uttering such things as “Really? I can’t believe (or why would) you think that!” In this sense, I think we achieved a level of real dialogue that doesn’t always happen in conferences.

So for me, these were some of the elements that made this conference a very satisfying experience. I also want to thank and congratulate the conference planners, both for their original idea and for the care with which they put so much thought into exactly how to structure the time between the various components of the meeting. It may have come off seamlessly, but a lot of thought and decisions went into creating the exact structure that facilitated the outcome we had. I hope that some of the elements of this meeting which contributed to its success can be incorporated into our conferences in the future.