The Committee on Institutes: A Candidate's View

LJ: How did you come to be a member of the Committee on Institutes?

DVO: It was a happy mix of circumstances. In May of 1995, in deference to the IPA meeting to be held later that year in San Francisco, The American decided to forego the scientific program and hold only administrative meetings at its annual meeting in Chicago. The American's leadership, having only recently fostered the formation of the Affiliate Council, invited me as its first president to attend, along with the president-elect.

There was a new climate for candidates; after many decades, we were suddenly elevated in status. After all, as Lawrence Chalfin, chair of the Board on Professional Standards, said, candidates are BOPS's “consumers” and constituents. Having just participated in the site visit of my institute, I was intrigued about the work of the COI and asked if I might sit in on its meeting. It was agreed that I might, but it was understood that I would leave during discussions of some sensitive matters pertaining to a particular site visit. I participated in the wisest way 1 knew — by keeping my mouth shut. As it turned out, the world did not collapse, and the next thing I knew, I was appointed to a two-year term on the committee. This was a major precedent for candidates; to my knowledge, it was the first appointment of a candidate or a non-certified member to any committee of BOPS.

The short answer to your question is that I was in the right place at the right time.

LJ: What does a candidate do as a member of the COI?

DVO: As I near the completion of my term, I am relieved to say that a candidate functions as a fully participating member of the committee. Now what does this mean? Let me tell you a bit about what the COI does.

In the past, the main charge of the committee was to ascertain compliance of the affiliated institutes of The American with the training standards set forth by BOPS, and the primary means of accomplishing this task was through regular site visits. It seems that this accrediting function has been superseded recently (at least in practice) by that of serving as consultants to the institutes about any ongoing problems they may be experiencing.

The way it works generally is that every seven years, the COI sends a team of about six of its members to spend about four days immersed in the workings of the institute. Following the visit, the team produces a report of its findings, addressing the institute's strengths and weaknesses, as the team was able to assess them. The report is received and discussed by the institute; a dialogue then takes place, until a consensus is reached. At this point, the COI will stay in touch with the institute through a liaison committee until the next site visit.

LJ: Have you gone on any site visits?

DVO: Yes. All teams preserve the privacy of the institutes they observe, so I can't tell you more than general impressions. The most indelible of these is the intensity of the site visit experience. Serving on a site visit team is a unique way to get to know someone. Usually, team members gather in the evening to discuss each day's events. For much of the day, we are scattered throughout the city, sitting in on supervisions in analysts' offices, attending classes or committee meetings, and having meals with groups of institute members who share common interests. The evening meetings are a time to sift through the riches of the day. I found myself learning a lot about the people and the varieties of analytic work, supervision, and teaching. I listened to my fellow team members' perspectives about certain events or permutations of events. What wonderfully complex, at times exhausting, but truly educational experiences these have been! Then I saw emerging from this chaos a thematic sense, which ultimately would take form as the beginnings of the written site visit report.

One of the most enduring benefits for me in this work, apart from spending time with smart people who have become friends, is the coalescing of my identity as an analyst. This has come in part from hearing many people talk about their work and seeing them engage in it in such a wide variety of ways. Paradoxically, I now see analysts as more similar than different, however divergent. This view has given me a helpful balance to offset the often rancorous debates that sometimes characterize the scientific meetings.

The site visit experience is something like having a lot of supervisors at the same time: One starts to listen to one's own style more and sees that no one has cornered the market on the right way to do analysis.

LJ: Have the COI and the visited institutes benefited as much from having a candidate on the site visit team as you clearly have?

DVO: I may not be the best person to answer that question. Let me share an anecdote. During the first site visit ever to include a candidate (me), the team ate lunch with the candidates of that institute. As we went around the table to introduce ourselves, people gave their name and year of candidacy. When it was my turn, and I added “fourth year candidate” to my name, many people laughed. It dawned on them then that this was for real. I was a candidate. Site visitors were not some alien authority figures from Planet American. There seemed to me to be a shift in the feel of the meeting in the direction of greater openness.

During our four-day visit, many people came up to me to say how much they appreciated having a candidate involved in the visit. I think that this involvement makes for a more well-rounded team, something greater than the sum of its members. In most visits, each team member has a focus area; mine has been candidate concerns. I think it matters to at least some candidates that someone still in training is attending to their special needs.