R.F.: Owen, we've been asked to let the membership know about the Program Committee. Let's start with its job description.
O.R.: The Program Committee's primary responsibility is to arrange the scientific activities that take place at the semiannual national meetings of our Association. We also perform a number of corollary functions—establishing CME credit and so on. In the past, as you know, we presented a series of workshops for clinicians around the country and published them in monograph form; but recently they were discontinued because they ran at a financial deficit.
R.F.: Tell me about the structure: Where does the Program Committee fit into the overall organization of The American? How many members are there, and are there different classifications of members? Who is eligible and how are they chosen? How is the chair chosen? How long is the term of service?
O.R.: The Program Committee is one of the standing committees of the Executive Council. Therefore, the members of the Program Committee, like the members of all committees of the Executive Council, are appointed by the president of the Association in consultation with the committee chair. There are thirty-three members of the Program Committee in all. Those who belong to The American are appointed for a term of three years. Our four non-APA members are appointed for two-year terms. The program chair usually serves two consecutive three-year terms. Certain members of the Program Committee who have ongoing responsibilities that require experience and continuing involvement (psychoanalytic courses, two-day clinical workshops, the film program, the Menninger Award) are also reappointed for more than one term.
R.F.: Given how membership in the Program Committee is so sought after, how does one undertake to get on the short list?
O.R.: Good question, Randi. There are two main issues that need to be considered in selecting the members of the Program Committee. First, the committee is an organ of the overall Association and should be representative. If you look at the composition of the committee, in rough measure the geographic origin of the members corresponds to the distribution of the population of the Association. Then, of course, the other crucial consideration is that since the Program Committee is responsible for the quality of our scientific activities, we need people who can judge quality, people who are savvy about what is happening scientifically around the country and who is involved. So the Program Committee has always tended to be chosen—and I think this makes good sense—from among people who have themselves participated in our scientific programs and who have contributed to the literature.
R.F.: Tell me about the process by which papers and panels are selected. What are the formats besides panels and papers, and how are they chosen? How are the speakers decided upon?
O.R.: Anyone in the organization—or outside the organization, for that matter—who wants to propose a panel can do so. The proposal (no more than two pages) has to be submitted in written form, and it becomes part of the packet that is distributed to all committee members prior to our semiannual meetings. Members vote in advance on the proposals they've received. The eight that get the most votes are thoroughly discussed at the meeting. Often, proposals that didn't make the cut are raised from the floor for discussion. After we've talked them all over, we vote again and the four panel proposals that receive the most votes are selected for the program. We schedule panels a year in advance. People who propose panels are encouraged to nominate participants, and their recommendations are discussed by the committee. We first decide on a chair for the panel, after which that chair and the program committee chair together go about inviting the panelists, taking into account what the committee has had to say.
Scientific papers are submitted in two categories. Those for oral presentation have to be eighteen pages maximum. There is also a format for longer papers that get precirculated and discussed in small groups by people who sign up in advance. All papers are refereed by three readers organized into subcommittees, each of which has a subcommittee chair; so there are four readers in all for every paper. A paper can always be resubmitted if it is turned down. I write to each author whose paper is turned down, and he or she has the opportunity to discuss with me personally in more detail, by phone or in writing, what the feedback of the committee was so that the author can then, if he or she wishes, revise and resubmit the paper.
R.F.: It sounds like a lot of work.
O.R.: It's an important part of my job. I really think it's vital for members of the national organization to be able to have access to the process by which the program is formulated. Also, anyone who takes the trouble to write a paper makes an enormous investment, and I think that should be respected and responded to. Let me add that anyone who wants to propose something that isn't a panel or a paper—for example, a dialogue, a nomination for plenary speaker, or a meet-the-author session—can do that, too, in writing. Those proposals, like the others, are distributed to committee members in the packet of items for discussion at the committee meeting.
R.F.: Do you have trouble finding people for the program so that it's not just a matter of rounding up the usual suspects?
O.R.: The problem is not so much finding new people as giving interested people a chance if they don't already have a track record. We try to encourage people to be discussants, reporters, to submit papers, and to do other things that can help them become better known to the committee.
Somewhat over two years ago, incoming president Judith Schachter suggested that TAP run an article about how the Program Committee chooses papers and topics. She rightly felt that the membership lacks knowledge about how The American works. This ignorance allowed fantasies and distortions to develop. Owen Renik had become cochair of the Program Committee with Chuck Rothstein, Arnie Richards had become editor of JAPA, and I replaced Arnie as editor of TAP. TAP editors felt that a collection of articles “demystifying” these three components of The American would form an interesting special section. The idea was put on the back burner but never forgotten, and this past winter, realizing there was a need for a special section for issue three, I contacted Owen and Arnie, who were enthusiastic about the project. We hope it clarifies.
—Editor
R.F.: In your experience, what programs have been most successful, and why do you think that is?
O.R.: Unsurprisingly, Randi, the programs that have been most successful are the ones that respond to the actual interests
of the membership, which usually means programs that have a clinical focus. Since I've been involved with the committee, our experience has been of an embarrassment of riches. We are frequently in the unhappy situation of having to schedule several programs at the same time, all of which are really terrific.
R.F.: You may have answered my next question, Owen, which is what are your biggest frustrations as chair?
O.R.: Yes. My biggest frustration as chair is not being able to give enough space on the program to all the good ideas that are submitted and all the capable people who are interested in participating. But that's a nice kind of frustration to have! One thing that's not a frustration is the pleasure of working with the Program Committee—they're a sensational group. Our discussions are lots of fun, and high-quality scientific activities in themselves. Frankly, it's very understandable that membership in the Program Committee is as popular as it is. So I guess another one of my frustrations is that the Program Committee doesn't meet more often—because it's a lot of fun!
R.F.: Owen, it's hard for me to imagine that anyone would seek out more committee meetings; but I get the picture. Does the Program Committee see itself developing programs for the larger community, to promote understanding of analysis and its usefulness?
O.R.: As you know, Randi, we always arrange parts of the program specifically aimed at students and spouses. Also, lots of people from the general mental health community attend our national meetings. However, the Program Committee's primary responsibility is to put on programs that address the scientific interests of the members of our Association, to put on programs that they will find instructive. As far as publicizing psychoanalysis to the world-at-large goes, that is the job of the Public Information Committee, with which we keep in contact.
R.F.: What kinds of programs are coming up?
O.R.: Well, for example, in December there will be a panel on subjectivity and objectivity, which is, of course, currently a topic of great interest. There is also going to be a very innovative panel about post-analytic contact, in which both an analyst and a patient will discuss their relationship after termination. Our spring meeting theme will be “Contemporary Shifts in Our Theory of Technique.” It seems to me that our programs are evolving in a way that reflects the membership's interests in questioning some old ways of doing things and thinking about new ways.
R.F.: Are there changes or expansions that you personally would like to see in the future, and if so, what?
O.R.: I want to be as active as possible in gathering input from a wide range of constituencies and in making sure that their input really influences the way the program is planned. I think that when you reach out to the membership for ideas, rather than trundling around in the same rut as you do when relatively few people plan the program according to their own conceptions of analysis, a natural process takes place by which the most exciting and interesting questions get raised.
R.F.: You've been particularly good at doing that, at being very inclusive in your running of the program.
O.R.: I think I was chosen with that in mind, as a continuation of what was certainly Chuck Rothstein's commitment. If you look at the people he used on the panels and the kinds of topics that were considered when he was chair, it's clear Chuck had a wide-angle view. I believe most people in our organization want to be inclusive now. We're realizing that it makes no sense for us to be territorial.
R.F.: We need all the allies we can get these days!
O.R.: There's that, but I think there's also a real scientific issue. We easily fall into complacent parochialism without being aware of it, and only talk to the people whom we know and who agree with us. That's no way to learn. You'll continue to see, as the programs for the next meetings are presented, real theoretical diversity with respect to selection of topics, selection of panelists, and the like.
R.F.: A perennial question among the members is if one has to have a meeting in New York because of membership distribution, why are the meetings held there in December, rather than in the spring when the weather is nicer? December seems to cry out for the Caribbean.
O.R.: You know, Randi, there's a task force right now under Dick Fox's leadership that is actively considering a variety of questions concerning the location and structure of our national meetings. What they're finding is that geography per se isn't really the problem. Everyone likes the idea of rotating locations around the country, to give every region a turn at ease of access; but the fact is, attendance falls off dramatically whenever the meetings aren't held in the Northeast. I think that what we most need to do is a lot more personal networking so that members feel welcome at the meetings wherever they're held; and most of all, we need to have a scientific program that is of such quality and up-to-the-minute interest that it attracts everybody who is involved in doing analytic work.