Action on the issue of certification in psychoanalysis will be taken at the December meeting of the Association. Both Board and Council reached this decision by a consensus that appeared unanimous following the report of the Joint Ad Hoc Committee on Certification at the May meeting.
The recommendations of the Committee took cognizance of the fact that the Board on Professional Standards is itself an autonomous body within the Association, charged with the establishment and maintenance of standards, and that it has gradually evolved satisfactory criteria for accrediting training programs and evaluating the training and competency of graduates of Institutes. It was the opinion of all concerned that the present structure and functions of the Board should be disturbed as little as possible in setting up a national certification procedure separate from membership.
The Committee advised, therefore, that a start be made with as little change as possible, with opportunity for further study and debate about issues as they evolve in a gradual development of the certifying procedures. An attempt at this stage to work out all of the details in advance would result in complex proposals, the Committee stated, and misunderstandings and conflicts could lead to defeat of the primary objective. Moreover, action would be interminably delayed.
Since it is considered important to establish a body designated as a Certification Board at the earliest possible date, the Committee therefore recommended that the following proposals be considered for action in December: 1) The Board would dissolve the present Membership Committee and establish a certifying body within the Board on Professional Standards. 2) The Chairman of the BOPS would appoint members of the certifying group, who would begin to operate with the same standards and procedures as those of the present Membership Committee. 3) Application for membership would be a separate and uncomplicated procedure. When a graduate applied for certification, he would state whether or not he wished to become a member of the Association. If he choses to become a member, following certification his name would be transmitted to the Secretary of the Association, who would circulate his name to the entire membership, with election following six months later. 4) All present Active Members would be declared certified. 5) Associate and Affiliate Members would not be affected.
The certifying body would be charged to review its policies and procedures and to undertake the development, testing, and evaluation of new examining techniques. If it appears desirable, a different method of appointment or selection of members of the certifying body might be studied and instituted, and whatever By-Law changes appear to be indicated to strengthen the function of certification could be considered and formulated. Changes in membership categories and policies and the establishment of a Membership Committee within the Executive Council would be a possibility for future consideration.
Prior to making its report, the Certification Committee had consulted the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation, a private, nongovernmental educational association which accords recognition to over fifty national accrediting bodies, including the American Medical Association. In the opinion of COPA officials the plan of the Certification Committee is consistent with usual practice. There are, in fact, many procedures for the establishment of accrediting and certifying bodies under the umbrella of a national professional association.
—Burness E. Moore