Professional Issues • 251My own story, the beginnings of which were described earlier, is relevant here. Erik
Erikson had indeed succeeded in discouraging me from seeking further training in 1964.
Working at PCGC in January of 1969, I was soon supervised on a regular basis not only by
Dr. Shapiro, but also by two other experienced child psychiatrists. I was learning by collabo-
rating with colleagues and from in-service training, but it wasn’t enough.
Fortunately, my primary supervisor (Shapiro) was as encouraging as Erikson had been dis -
couraging. By then I had spent several years in the individual psychotherapy recommended
by both Naumburg and Kramer, and I was being supervised by experienced clinicians, as
they had also suggested. Unlike my earlier adjunctive work in the hospital, this therapy was
outpatient, and I often became the primary therapist for nonverbal youngsters. I therefore felt
an even greater responsibility to deepen my rudimentary clinical skills and understandings.
After investigating the psychology doctoral program and finding it to be heavily experi-
mental, I decided to study psychoanalysis at the local institute because my best supervisors
and teachers had been analysts. Halfway through my training analysis, I discovered that
my feeling that I didn’t need a PhD had neurotic roots, and realized that I was denying the
realistic benefits of having a doctorate.
I was fortunate to find a doctoral program where I was able to get credit for my master’s
degree and for courses at the Pittsburgh Psychoanalytic Institute. I met the dissertation
requirement by writing a book about art therapy with children (Rubin, 1978). One of the
reasons the proposal was approved was that in 1975 it was easy to demonstrate the need for
more art therapy literature, since there were very few books by art therapists.
The doctorate required that I become competent in six areas: research, consultation,
supervision, systems theory, group dynamics, and theories of psychotherapy other than
Freud. The psychoanalytic training required that I conduct six supervised analyses (three
adults and three children), attend courses, and complete the required personal analysis.
That training took ten years, while the PhD took two.
Weekly microscopic supervision using detailed process notes was one of the most helpful
aspects. The tripartite integration of theory and practice with my analysis was a wonderful
way to learn. It also validated the requirements that were developing for art therapy train-
ing: a combination of didactic instruction and supervised clinical work.
Obtaining Relevant Credentials
The most useful fringe benefit for me of obtaining the doctorate had not even been a goal
when I went back to school. But what turned out to be most practical was being able to
qualify after two more years of practice to sit for the psychology licensing exam.
When I left the university in 1985 for private practice, it was extremely helpful to have
the license, a credential respected by most insurance companies, who would reimburse
the patient for all or part of the cost of therapy. Having a credential that is recognized by
others eventually became a need for art therapists. It is for this reason that AATA educa-
tional requirements now include counseling courses, since that field is licensed in almost
every state.
Ethics in Art Therapy
Standards of Practice and Ethical Conduct
Most professions establish standards for practitioners, including those already credentialed.
Like assessing competence and reviewing the quality of training programs, maintaining
ethical standards is the responsibility of a mature professional organization. The latest