Perhaps we have finally created a bridge over our own troubled waters. At the January 2010 meeting of APsaA, the Task Force for Standards Revisions (both Major and Minor groups) met for a two-day marathon retreat/summit in an effort to reconcile the two separate proposals for standards revisions. These evolved from the process set in motion by the BOPS resolution at the Chicago meetings in July 2009.
These two reports evolved through a system of complex deliberations via e-mail and conference calls from August through early December 2009. Under the leadership of Eric Nuetzel, members of the respective task forces met and were able to synthesize a single creative document that permits the maintenance of a single educational model for APsaA.
BOPS at its January 13, 2010, meeting received and discussed the preliminary report. The following conflictual areas were highlighted.
In anticipation that a bylaw change might be required, the Task Force recommended considering the reintroduction of the Educational Flexibility Bylaw amendment. However, during our discussion, it became clear that a bylaw amendment was not required. There was strong consensus that if this bylaw was not necessary it should not be put forth at this time.
In an attempt to address the issue of candidates having to switch analysts, a waiver system of the TA requirement was delineated. This would be applicable to a specific analyst-candidate dyad where the candidate was engaged in an ongoing and successful analysis with a non-TA.
An Alternate Pathway to TA appointment and certification would be created. Our current pathway would remain in place. In addition, a developmental pathway would be instituted. Each institute that chose to adopt this would be required to establish a process for evaluating a candidate's progress. Two colloquia would be viewed as Phase 1 and 2 of this evaluation. If the graduate desired to proceed for TA appointment and certification, he/she could choose the traditional certification examination OR enter into Phase 3. Phase 3 involves a combination of local and national vetting that could result in both TA appointment and certification.
The separation of TA and SA was recommended. Different vetting processes were delineated for each of these two roles.
BOPS overwhelmingly approved the following motion: “We endorse the Task Force Report in principle and the continued revision of the Principles and Standards for Education in Psychoanalysis Document, by Drs. Nuetzel, Gann, and Glick, in consultation with the other Task Force members.” The vote was 53 in favor, 0 opposed, and 3 abstentions. This completed document will be sent to all institutes in the spring for discussion, feedback, and approval. The final approval will be voted on at the BOPS meeting in June 2010 in Washington, D.C.
Many people described this coming together as an historical event. In spite of all the differences and divisions among us, these task force members, under the leadership of Eric Nuetzel, were able to rise above the conflict, produce one document, and prevent a potential major split not only within APsaA but also within the local institutes. Perhaps this will be a template for a unified future.
Cal Narcisi, M.D., and Myrna Weiss, M.D., are co-chairs of the Board on Professional Standards.