In France, the training course for psychology students is mainly psychoanalytic.
2 studies have been carried out:
Psychoanalysis at University in 2020: Quantitative Analysis (Part 1):
"Conclusions:
Analysis of the composition of Section 16 and of the PR qualification requests converge to suggest that the current clinical psychology teacher-researchers are predominantly (around 60%) psychoanalytic in orientation.
The analysis of the positions open for competition in 2020 suggests a similar balance. In other words, the recruitments made this year will preserve the preponderance of psychoanalysis within the various approaches of clinical psychology.
Only one piece of data departs from this observation: requests for qualifications for the MCF degree in clinical psychology are mainly in non-psychoanalytic orientations. It is not clear at this point whether this is a lasting trend, or what the explanations are. Nevertheless, we can only note that this year there is an imbalance between the supply of MCF positions in clinical psychology (mainly psychoanalytic), and the demand from young doctors (mainly non-psychoanalytic).
Ultimately, the available evidence suggests that psychoanalysis remains dominant within clinical psychology in French universities, and does not appear to be on the way out. "
Psychoanalysis at university in 2020, part 2: the masters
"Conclusions
Psychoanalysis is strongly present in French psychology masters. This is the dominant approach (60%) in clinical psychology courses, but it is also strongly represented in health psychology (45%), developmental and educational psychology (36%) courses. , and social psychology (29%).
Within clinical psychology courses, psychoanalysis occupies 2 times more space than CBT, and 3 times more space than systemic therapies. The other approaches are only marginally represented.
Finally, psychoanalysis is the approach that is most often taught exclusively, and less often taught in conjunction with other orientations.
This rating work also confirms the lack of transparency of a good number of universities vis-à-vis the approaches that are taught in their training. The models, although supposed to present the routes, often lack essential information on their content. This lack of transparency can prevent students from orienting themselves in the path that seems most relevant to them. At the methodological level, this also restricts the scope of our results, as some masters cannot be identified as relating to one approach rather than another. This is one of the limits of this work.
Since such an analysis has never been carried out before, it is impossible to estimate the trend from the past. The next updates of this analysis will make it possible to follow the future evolutions. "
An interesting association that campaigns for things to change:
A very interesting video of the channel "the face at an angle" with the guest Joel Swendsen.
(the beginning is soundless, it starts at 1'24 but it is really worth it !!!)
The INSERM survey cited in the video:
Psychotherapy: Three Evaluated Approaches
Are psychotherapies evaluable?
Here is a very interesting article:
Comments