Peter Howie peter at moreno.com.au
Mon Jan 5 01:15:13 UTC 2015

Dear Adam and colleagues,

As a person who has worked in organisations attempting to bring about new solutions there is always the question that needs to be crystal clear - what is the problem that any changes might be trying to solve. This is a very good starting point when working sociodramatically as well. An examination of the context and system through action can identify my things good and bad. Problem identification leads to questions like 'is it true for everyone' or 'who is it true for' or 'how much of a problem is it' and 'who has the energy/warm-up to do something about it'? If something is always going to be delegated to some other committee or executive there had better be someone who owns it on those groups, otherwise it will wither. 

One trouble with professional organisations/associations is that many people would like to contribute like they were working for it full time, when in fact it is all done for love and as a voluntary contribution to the organisation and the world at large.

Cheers for the moment


On 5 Jan 2015, at 6:50 am, Adam Blatner <blatneradam at gmail.com> wrote:

> As I reflect on all this it occurs to me that there may be two or three phases here. One is warming-up, which is what's happening now. Problems and very tentative solutions are proposed.
> The second phase involves what Rebecca suggested, getting down to business.
> It's important to notice that few people will warm-up enough to generalities. Moreno himself talked of creativity as an ongoing process: Everything pretty much could do with occasional re-evaluations, or maybe say it as this: There's often someone out there with a better idea that invites us to re-think assumptions. Sometimes what's thought of as a better idea is actually a worse idea.
>  Changing the certification?  Really, most things should be re-considered for change, but then again, most ideas about change are so laced with sub-problems that the sense of "let's not change" carries on. Occasionally, though the sub-problems are worked through, the personal clash of styles is limited, tact and persistence triumph, and a better idea or two gets implemented.
>  So for example, John Nolte proposed a number of specifics for a Revised Certification Procedure. Who then will discuss these?
> For example: John said that for the application Forms: There are only three pieces of information that a trainer, primary or secondary can provide that are relevant to the certification process. They are:
>> 1. The relationship to the trainee, how long trainer has known trainee, and the extent of training with him or her;
>> 2. Confirmation of trainee's calendar of training with this and other trainers;
>> 3. Endorsement of the trainee, indicating that the trainer is willing to stake his or her reputation as a trainer on the trainee's competence as a psychodrama director and his or her ethical behavior.
>          AB: Is this so? I haven't thought this through, but what other things are indeed needed?
>  Should this correspondence also go to the Members of the ASGPP Members at ASGPPListserv.org
> ?
> In the same sense, John Nolte said about the examination:
>> Rather than a written examination, I propose that the candidate for certification meet with a committee of three members of the Board of Examiners (or previous Board Examiners deputized for this purpose) for an oral examination. I think that such a meeting for an hour or an hour and a half can more effectively measure a candidate's grasp of knowledge of the areas now covered by the written examination. After the examination, the Examiners can decide whether the candidate has succeeded or not and inform him or her directly. The oral examination would reduce the many hours involved in preparing the examinations for grading as well as the hours spent in reading examinations by the graders. Most importantly, the candidate could receive an almost immediate result instead of waiting for months as things now stand.
>> Oral examinations could be scheduled to take place during the Annual Conference of the ASGPP. The four days offer many opportunities for examining committees to meet with prospective candidates. By deputizing others as examiners and by using small committees, the task should not be too burdensome for individual Board members. If necessary, another opportunity for undergoing the oral examination could be arranged, probably in a different area of the country at a different time of year.
>> III. Demonstration of Directing Skill (On-Site)
>> In lieu of the current practice of on-site observations, I would like to suggest that the Board organize and offer several workshops of six to nine sessions. Each session would be directed by a candidate for certification. One, preferably two Board members (or other deputized observers) would conduct a thorough processing session following each drama. Participants in the workshops (seven to twelve) could be recruited by the Board from people in training for certification who could attend at a small or no fee, and in return would accrue training hours. In addition, they would have the advantage of participating in the certification process in advance of undergoing the it themselves. Another possibility is to conduct several of these sessions during the Annual Conference of the ASGPP. In that case, I would recommend different groups and observers for each such session.
> ... so maybe these are good ideas. Who then is listening on the Board, and might they be considered. Would John be open to corresponding with those who are charged with making such changes, or even bringing up that they might be worthy of consideration? What other thoughts are relevant?
>   Might this be discussed at the next conference in open session? What might be some counter-arguments?
>     - Adam 
> Grouptalk mailing list
> List at grouptalkweb.org
> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org

More information about the List mailing list