Dear Dr. Burland
Thank you for your thoughtful and informative response to my proposal. You may well be right that it is not worthwhile conducting the research, as it would require the application of substantial analytic resources.
On the other hand, a rejoinder can be made to your substantive criticism: first, that the proposal is redundant and uninformed; second, that it implies that the problem regarding membership lies with the Certification Committee, a position you reject.
You see the study as redundant because three participant-observers are present at each committee meeting; you suggest that interviewing them would give a better sense of the committee's work, and of the judgment of its members, than would a fresh panel of evaluators. These participant-observers, you note, are invited from institutes around the country and represent a broad cross-section of American psychoanalysis.
I believe for several reasons that these participant-observers do not render the proposed study redundant. The study is designed to assess the effect of the process used to select committee members on the judgments made by the committee on applications. The study is not designed to examine how the committee works. The participant-observers are in no position to assess the effect of this selection process on the committee's judgments. In addition, as institute directors select participant-observers on the basis of nonspecified, idiosyncratic criteria, it is impossible to characterize the process by which these participant-observers are selected. Whether they are distinguishable from committee members in terms of criteria for selection cannot be determined. Further, the arrangement whereby institutes select participant-observers on a rotating basis does not assure that the training analysts appointed for one meeting represent a broad cross-section of American psychoanalysis, or even of the training analysts at a particular institute.
Part of the reason we are “somewhat uninformed” about how the Certification Committee works—although I talked to the Pittsburgh Institute's most recent participant-observer, as well as to Arthur Rosenbaum, who chairs the committee—is that it elects to keep no records of how it works. The group consensus mechanism of judgment cannot be studied in the absence of records. But again, it is not the purpose of this study to examine the committee's mechanism of judgment.
To study the effect of committee selection on judgment outcome, a new group of analysts would be chosen by a different mode of selection (randomly) and asked to go through a similar process of judging applications. If the judgment processes of the two groups were similar, difference in judgment outcome could be attributed to differences in mode of selection of group members. Your criticism that the proposal fails to consider the impact on judgment outcome of group process over time is a salient one that has been leveled by others. This is dealt with, in part, by a single meeting of the randomly selected analysts, though the element of group process over time is not addressed. However, your affirmation that the opinions of participant-observers (who attend but a single meeting) are taken seriously indicates that their evaluations are considered significant and worthy of consideration by the committee, despite their lack of previous experience with the committee and its processes.
You indicate that the effect of group process on the judgment outcome is a positive one; it allows the achievement of a certain level of group “wisdom.” Whether the consensus attributable to group process represents “wisdom” or the view of some psychologically powerful and dominant minority of the committee, or of some possibly unconscious need of the committee to achieve a consensus, would best be judged from some objective perspective.
I take for granted the integrity and dedication of committee members and participant-observers, and believe that assiduous self-scrutiny of the judgment process has been undertaken. However, for individuals as for groups, who better than analysts can attest to the limitations of self-scrutiny and the capacity for self-deception?
Your second criticism is that the proposal implies that the problem regarding membership lies with the Certification Committee, whereas the “real” problem is with The American. That BOPS may have failed clearly to define its charge to the committee is indeed an important problem, one that Sander Abend mentioned in his recent position statement (TAP 25/3). The research proposal is an attempt to explore whether there is an additional problem, viz., whether the process of selection of committee members by the chair of BOPS may systematically influence the judgment process and outcome. The locus of such a problem, if one exists, is not, then, with the membership of the committee, but rather with the process of selecting those members.
To my knowledge there are no explicit criteria for membership on the committee. As you note, it is a clinical appointment and therefore fallible. If a problem is identified by the research, then we might attempt to develop criteria for the selection of members, as we do for other clinical judgments, such as analyzability. Marvin Margolis, current chair of BOPS, states that he selects for Certification Committee membership analysts, regarless of theoretical persuasion, who are especially interested in psychoanalytic process, as indicated either by institute teaching or some research endeavor. He adds that appointments of women analysts to the committee are in the pipeline. Traditionally, all appointments to the committee have been made from the ranks of training analysts. Recently, however, Dr. Margolis has begun to appoint non-training analysts. The next chair may have still other ideas. Such changes provide a rich opportunity to study their effect on the committee's judgment.
One reason to study the possibility that the presently undefined selection process may be a problem is that currently no woman sits on the committee, even though women account for 14% of training analysts and 12% of certified analysts. Only two women have ever chaired BOPS, and no woman has done so in the last 28 years.
Would the participation of women analysts systematically effect the committee's judgments? We don't know. Women analysts seek additional personal analysis upon completion of the training analysis significantly more often than do men and are somewhat more likely to have post-termination contact with their patients than are their male peers (Schachter, 1990). Conceivably, women analysts might differ systematically from male analysts in their judgments of applications. If women were appointed to the committee, and if the committee maintained records of individual members' judgments, this interesting question could be studied.
It is my understanding that no current member of the Certification Committee is considered primarily a representative of the self psychology persuasion. Self psychologists certainly differ from other analysts in their views on analytic technique and in their conception of termination (Goldberg, 1988). They may also differ systematically from other analysts in their judgments of applications. Would child analysts differ systematically from analysts lacking such training in their judgments of applications? It does seem likely that child analysts would be more inclined to seek evidence of the applicant's understanding of preoedipal factors than would other analysts.
While we don't know if the current manner of selecting committee members is systematically influencing judgments of applications, your comments would seem to imply that you expect that judgments of randomly selected analysts would differ from those of the committee members, suggesting that selection factors significantly do effect judgments. However, the results of the proposed study might show that there is no significant difference and therefore fail to provide evidence that the current selection procedure systematically influences judgments. Indeed, the latter was Robert Wallerstein's speculation as to the likely outcome of the study. There may be no need to
defend either the selection process or the Certification Committee.
In summary, the current certification process (1) is unclear about what it is trying to assess as a result of an ill-defined charge from the Board; (2) lacks explicit criteria for selecting members of the committee; (3) employs a method of judgment that cannot be studied objectively and in detail because of the absence of records; and (4) provides no mechanism for appealing the committee's judgment. The fact that applications that are not approved are labeled “deferred” does not alter the reality that an applicant who has not been approved has no recourse. Such a system is prey to many subtle influences. The focus of the proposal is not to scapegoat the committee but to explore whether the current process of selection is one such influence.
Joseph Schachter, M.D., Ph.D.