The scientific programs of the American Psychoanalytic Association have long been considered one of its great strengths. Nevertheless, those of us on the Program Committee have heard a number of complaints and concerns in recent years that have led us to re-evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of our program formats. When I assumed the chair of the committee in the middle of 2001, many members told me of their concerns.
Common themes emerged in discussions with members and with the committee itself. Three-hour panels involving the' reading of one lengthy paper after another are not conducive to listening or to education. Audiences prefer dialogue between the panelists and interaction between the panelists and the audience. Our audiences would like to hear discussions of cutting-edge controversies in the field. All-day panels should be strongly discouraged, as few of our members are willing to sit for six hours a day to hear one panel. Similar findings emerged from the Association's marketing survey.
Hence, when I chaired my first meeting of the Program Committee in December 2001, I launched a planning process that will continue throughout my tenure. The first hour of each meeting is devoted to rethinking all aspects of the program. Nothing is sacred. All formats will be re-assessed.
We have been brainstorming about a number of ways to modify the panels. We have considered shortening panels to ninety minutes and having more panels on each program. We have also considered a two-hour format wherein one presenter would share clinical material for about thirty minutes, followed by commentaries from two colleagues. After these formal presentations, the audience would break up into small discussion groups led by knowledgeable colleagues to discuss the panel.
Another variation on the traditional panels is to take our successful two-day workshop model and open it up to a large group. A senior analyst would present detailed case material or discuss the material of another presenter, then demonstrate how he or she applies a particular theoretical model to the clinical data.
A long-standing concern is that because panel proposals are selected by democratic process within the Program Committee, the majority has rarely voted for child and adolescent panels. As a result, the committee voted to add a fifth panel devoted to child and adolescent analysis at every meeting, as well as a third two-day workshop in which a child or adolescent case would be presented This model will be tried for three to five years, beginning with the Winter 2004 meeting, and will be re-assessed after this period to see if it is working well.
Many of the members have wanted more interdisciplinary presentations on the program. We are currently discussing how to bring in colleagues from non-medical universities to discuss the psychoanalytic discourse in academic settings with clinical psychoanalysts. We have already instituted a number of symposia, offered at noon on Friday and Saturday, on the applications of psychoanalytic thinking to non-psychoanalytic settings. These ninety-minute symposia are scheduled at lunchtime to give them maximum exposure when there is little competition from other formats on the program.
“Three-hour panels involving the reading of one lengthy paper after another are not conducive to listening or to education.”
In an effort to include more research data in our scientific program, we have instituted a regular research symposium in connection with the poster session the same day.
Anyone in the organization can nominate a plenary speaker. Nominations go to a subcommittee chaired by Owen Renik, which screens the candidates. Then the committee as a whole reviews and discusses the potential speakers. Books nominated for meet-the-author sessions follow the same procedure.
Discussion groups continue to be among the most popular aspects of the program. My philosophy as program chair is to allow for the continued proliferation of these groups, as long as there are no pre-existing groups on the same topic and we have space to accommodate the many requests.
Members of APsaA are welcome to submit proposals for all formats on the program. Panel proposals for consideration at the January meeting should be submitted no later than October 1 prior to the meeting. Panel proposals to be considered at the June Program Committee meeting should be submitted no later than March 1. Please note that panel proposals are circulated and voted upon one year in advance by the Program Committee members. For all other formats, including scientific papers, a proposal for the January meeting should be submitted by May 1 of the preceding year, while proposals for the June meeting should be submitted by December 1 preceding the meeting. Proposals of all types should be mailed (not e-mailed) to Debra Eder at the National Office.
Many changes have already been implemented, such as the new addition of child and adolescent presentations. We have also been experimenting with new approaches to panels. One particularly popular format is for the chair to pose a series of questions to the panelists. Each panelist offers a brief answer, followed by an interactive discussion among the panelists and with the audience.
Other formats will be tried over the next several years. We will be experimenting with innovative strategies to reach our members and to address our marketing and public relations problems.
We want to hear from all of you about your reactions to the program and suggestions for changes. Please feel free to contact me at or Debra Eder at with your feedback, reactions, and suggestions for change. We want the program to be responsive to the needs and interests of our members.
Glen O. Gabbard, M.D., chairs APsaA's Program Committee.