The scientific meetings of the American Psychoanalytic Association have always been an important forum for the dissemination of psychoanalytic knowledge. As the scope of psychoanalysis has broadened, the meetings have become increasingly complex. If they are to meet the needs of the membership, input from the members is essential. It is with the hope that some knowledge of the planning process will foster such input that I write this brief description of how the Program Committee works.
Perhaps the best way to convey the committee's method of operating is to describe the steps involved in planning our panels. A month or two before the committee meets, each member receives a long questionnaire, listing potential topics and participants for each of the many program formats. Under “Panels” he will find twenty or more topics, compiled from previous recommendations and including all suggestions sent in by the membership. Each member rates these topics and suggests any additional ideas which he feels warrant consideration. Those topics with the highest ratings become the subject of discussion at the committee meeting, during which one or two panels usually emerge as clear choices and several others as good possibilities. Individual committee members do the research needed to refine these “good possibilities” into panels with well defined issues, a clear focus, and suitable discussants. Many good ideas are put out to ripen in the form of discussion groups or colloquia, from which we hope a panel or dialogue will evolve. Imagine the same procedure applied to most of the other program formats, and you will have a rough idea of the process from which the final program ultimately emerges.
Scientific papers present a particular problem and require a different approach. One of our concerns over the past several years relates to the quality of some of the scientific papers presented at our meetings. Our members were expressing their views clearly; we were too often confronted with the embarrassing situation of a scientific paper section with a tiny audience. It was clear that many of our more prestigious members did not submit their papers to the American, preferring presentation at local societies and then publishing. In an attempt to improve the situation, we have decided to be more rigorous in the application of quality criteria. All papers are read by at least three committee members, and rated on the basis of such criteria as style, use of data, psychoanalytic theory, scholarship, relevance to analysis, and originality. Whenever rejecting a paper, we have tried and will continue to try to provide constructive criticism so that the work may be improved and resubmitted. Other measures have been taken, all with the aim of increasing the enthusiasm for quality paper writing. Our hope is that if we maintain standards, we will again receive the papers of our esteemed senior colleagues as well as the serious work of junior and middle career workers. We do not yet know if these measures will succeed, but, if not, we will keep trying.
One of our constant aims has been to bring new faces before the American. Our organization is blessed with an extraordinary number of gifted contributors who have earned their eminence. These people are easy to identify, and their role in our national programs is appropriate. It is not as easy to identify the people in mid-career who could make important contributions and who would benefit from national exposure. We have counted on the psychoanalytic literature, on the geographical spread of our committee,
on word of mouth, and on contact with local societies, but we feel we must do better. One of our attempts to do so will shortly be in your hands: a questionnaire regarding your areas of special psychoanalytic interest. By enlarging the pool from which participants are selected, we hope to include members on the program whom we might otherwise have inadvertently overlooked.
The above will give you some idea of the approach of the Program Committee in implementing its constant aim: to find better ways to collect, synthesize and present the depth and richness of information which is being generated in psychoanalysis. Much of what has been achieved in this direction during the past several years is the result of the work of my predecessor as Chairman of the Program Committee, Arnold Cooper. The incessant efforts of the Program Committee members have been and will continue to be of inestimable value. However, hard as the committee may work, it cannot succeed without continuing input from the entire membership of the American. If any of you have ideas for presentation or thoughts on how the scientific meetings can be improved, please include them in your response to the questionnaire or write me directly. You can be sure that all of your suggestions will receive serious consideration.
Sydney E. Pulver
Chairman, Program Committee