The Columbia Supervision Project: data from the dyad.
Anonymous questionnaires were sent to all candidates and supervisors at the Columbia University Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research (hereafter "Columbia"). Questions focused on the four domains most emphasized in the literature on supervision: logistical issues; the "teach or treat" question; the evaluatory function of the supervisor; and the affective experience of supervision. By coding the questionnaires, anonymity of respondents was maintained while allowing for a matched pair of analyses of supervisors and supervisees. Return rate was over 85 percent. In general, rates of satisfaction with supervision were high, and candidates and supervisors agreed on such issues as the "teach or treat" question, as well as the technical and theoretical frame of reference of the supervisor. However, there were striking disagreements between candidates and supervisors as to the role of the supervisor, what candidates find useful in supervision, the evaluatory function, and the relation between supervision and progression to graduation. Although 50 percent of candidates reported anxiety about receiving credit for cases, this was not routinely discussed in supervision, and the supervisory relationship itself was not discussed in over 50 percent of dyads. Despite high overall satisfaction ratings, 25 percent of candidates said they wished they had a different supervisor for the case, and 75 percent believed that a candidate who asked to switch supervisors would be labeled problematic. In contrast, over 75 percent of supervisors reported that switching supervisors carries no stigma. In a follow-up study conducted one year later, many candidates reported that they feared reprisals for switching, and some reported that their training analysts advised against "rocking the boat." Candidates felt that participating in the study emboldened them to think more openly about supervision and in some cases to make changes.