When analysts returning from August holiday opened their e-mail, they were greeted by a deluge of messages on the topic of certification. Arnold Richards, editor of JAPA, began the discussion on August 28 with this e-mail message: “The JAPA Panel Report, The Training Analyst System (46:2), discusses certification as well as training analysis. Is there any interest in discussing on this forum the pros and cons of the certification process?”
This opened a floodgate of vastly differing opinion. As of the end of September, there were 120 responses by fifty-four members. Many prominent members of the organization were participating in the dialogue, including several nominees running for national office. Although certification is considered an explosive and divisive issue, for the most part the dialogue remained focused on the issues, thoughtful, and courteous. The Committee on Certification has been praised for dedication and tact. However, the many questions raised should be a hot topic when BOPS convenes at the Fall Meeting.
These questions are complex. One series of questions involves the purpose of certification. Is certification primarily an examination of competency, an educational process, or a step in career identity? Is it of value to the individual, the organization, or society in general?
In addition to those issues, there is concern about the certification process. The validity of certification was called into question, including whether “analytic process” itself can be judged. Some wondered if what is evaluated is writing skill rather then analytic skill.
Currently only certified members may vote on by-law amendments, serve as elected officers, serve on the Executive Council, be eligible for child analysis certification, and become training analysts (thus being eligible to be a Fellow or officer of the Board on Professional Standards). There has been debate on de-linking certification from these various functions
Ideas for change included eliminating certification, putting it into abeyance, continuing it, and even strengthening it. Some questioned if BOPS, as a component of The American, should be the agency that certifies, and suggested that an independent national organization should be formed.
A frequently mentioned concern is that certification could damage individuals and the organization. Some opined that a two-tiered membership was demoralizing, creating a sense of alienation from The American. In addition, some feared a pernicious effect that when writing case reports some applicants would distort the facts to fit what they perceive as the committee viewpoint.
Donald Rosenblitt, chair of BOPS, is firmly committed to the value of certification [see interview beginning on page 4]. In regard to the recent e-mail dialogue, he commented that the Committee on Certification has been studying procedures and methodology during the past year. On September 12, the committee held a productive retreat that was planned even prior to the e-mail dialogue. Rosenblitt reported that the committee developed many constructive ideas. Its report benefited by the internet exchange and previous discussion with a wide range of members. Rosenblitt commented, “I am enthusiastic about these changes because I feel that they will make certification more fair and collegial.”
Michael Singer, recently appointed chair of the Committee on Certification, hopes to keep the committee out of the political aspects of the issues. The committee's mandate from the Association is to evaluate applicants for certification, which Singer plans to continue in a fair and accessible manner. He noted, “I appreciate the interest that the membership shows. It coincides with the committee's attempt to revise and improve the procedures.” In December he will present to BOPS the report of the retreat and the committee's suggestions for possible procedural improvements.