In normal human development, the road to separation and individuation is never linear. There are starts and pauses, forward movement and regressions; however, ultimately, autonomy and differentiation are inevitable. So too will be the course for the externalization of functions of the Board on Professional Standards as we move forward to maturity as an organization and profession. While not without the pains and angst of growth, the process has well begun for the externalization of certification. The background for this process will be reviewed below, followed by an update to the membership of the progress and challenges ahead.
In normal human development, the road to separation and individuation is never linear.
In this country, psychoanalysis has evolved from small interest groups to a large national organization affiliated with the International Psychoanalytical Association. The certifying and accrediting functions of our organization have been internally located within the Board on Professional Standards. The governance of APsaA was designed so that the certifying and accrediting functions would be independent of membership considerations.
Today, however, professions must demonstrate a more stringent separation of certification and accreditation from the membership of the profession. In order to insure that the certifying and accrediting activities are truly independent and therefore fully protect the public, they must be external to the membership organization or solidly firewalled within it. Externalizing certification would be the next step in APsaA's professional development.
During the past several years there has been remarkable and unusual agreement between the Executive Council, the Executive Committee, and the Board on Professional Standards on the importance of the externalization of certification. This is based on recognition that the existence of a certifying body within a membership organization is an artifact of the past. The Board on Professional Standards researched the professions of social work, psychology, and all medical specialties and learned that all have certification processes external to their membership organization or firewalled for autonomy, consistent with expectations of the public and the Department of Education that certification not be influenced by membership pressures. Based on this support and Executive Council directive, in June 2012 the Board on Professional Standards launched a Task Force on Externalization of Certification to proceed with outlining the road to certification external to APsaA.
During the past year this task force worked diligently to chart this path. Their first step was to open communication with other analytic organizations to explore their level of interest in joining us in this process. Subsequently the task force identified a course for bylaws, budget, incorporation, and a board for the new organization, to be called the American Board of Psychoanalysis (ABP). Ultimately, this board will not be exclusively composed of members of the American Psychoanalytic Association. Ongoing research into the reliability of the examination will be a crucial component of the ABP, building on earlier, important work of Stuart Hauser and the Certification Advisory Research and Development Committee (CARD), more recently led by Paul Holinger. The certification examination will also not be restricted to APsaA members. The goal is that the ABP will provide a credential of certification that is meaningful to the profession, public, and government, all of whom expect an independence of professional certification from political pressures of a membership organization.
At the recent June governance meetings of APsaA, an update on the work of the Task Force on Externalization was provided to the Board on Professional Standards and the Executive Council. Following the presentation to the Executive Council, some members of the Council seemed to voice withdrawal of their support for externalization, stating that while the goal remained consistent with other professions all of whose certification processes are external to the membership organization, there was not support for the externalization of a certification process that would not be the vision of what they wanted certification to be. Such a position seems to miss the very purpose of externalization; the creation of a certification process that is independent of the membership organization so that it can function with the professional credibility of autonomy from membership interests and pressures, consistent with all other professions. The position that externalization can be supported only if it exists in the form envisioned by some members of Council also misses the fact that its Board will be open to non-APsaA members. It also disregards the important research of the late Hauser and subsequently by CARD into the reliability of certification, the changes made to the certification process in recent years, the development of the pre-graduation certification pathway, the positive feedback from applicants who have taken the examination in recent years including those who have been continued, and the communication from candidates that they want rigorous standards and a certification credential that has meaning in the external world including one that involves an in depth assessment of clinical work. It has recently been said by some candidates that the antagonism of some towards certification feels to them like old ghosts from
Lee I. Ascherman, M.D., is chair of the Board on Professional Standards, and Elizabeth Brett, Ph.D., is secretary.
the past that disregard what many of today's candidates want: a board certification credential with the credibility of other professions in the modern world. Perhaps most importantly, returning to our developmentally based understanding of separation and individuation, for healthy development to occur, a parent cannot and should not dictate to a child what it must be when it separates. Similarly, for a parent organization to dictate what an externalized certification must be when it separates misses the point of externalization: autonomy of board certification for professional growth and credibility free of politics.
Our profession and organization are facing urgent problems threatening our survival. Some have wanted to believe that if only there were not certification or a Board on Professional Standards we would thrive. We believe certification and the Board on Professional Standards are straw men that serve to scapegoat and polarize when unity is essential, distracting from urgent attention to the overarching cultural and economic shifts that have so impacted on our professional practice and educational models. Many of our institutes have responded with creative, adaptive initiatives worthy of commendation. A significant number of others, despite such efforts, face real peril.
Threats to our survival cast a large shadow on all of us. We must move beyond blame, scapegoating and acrimony that provide brief comfort and balm distracting us from the elephant in the room. We must face the need for serious dialogue as to what the future of psychoanalytic practice and training will be, and what we will pass on to future generations. The form board certification will take, though important, is just one piece of this future. We must consciously consider if and how we can chart a future that preserves some serious psychoanalytic education and practice as we know it, or whether we will only offer psychoanalytic experiences and moments, with little canon or credibility for future practice beyond this generation.