Good point you raise.
I think it has been noble and also remarkable (almost unbelievable) that the
International Congresses of PCP have prospered without a formal organization
for supporting them.
On the other hand, there are benefits to organization. You mention the
value of organized and democratic input for choosing and organizing
meetings. I have another. Non-organizations do not give awards. For
graduate students and people early in their career national and
international recognition is significant to their credentials for career
advancement. The young people in PCP do not enjoy this opportunity to help
advance their careers. They deserve it. Also, I look around at the
congresses and see a distincti number of individuals who themselves deserve
lifetime career contribution awards. Maybe they don't think they deserve it
(or don't want to admit it), but I think they deserve it. At the very
least, it is usually good for a freebe invited address!
On the other hand, the wonderful thing about a non-organization is that it
ceases to exist when the purpose ceases to exist. There is something
wonderful about that, too. All in all, however, I lean in favor of the
organization, even if it had a term limit before becoming a non-organization
again.
Cheers.
Rue
>I also support the idea of a German PCP conference, and like the idea of
>networking in this way to test the level of support for the concept. But
>this whole process raises old and unsettled questions for me about the
>level of (dis?)organization in the PCP community. Why is it so hard for us
>to develop a system in which all voices can be heard on these matters, such
>as in calling for conference venue proposals from various regions, and
>giving a real vote on the matter to all members of the international
>community? In this way and many others, it seems to me that some umbrella
>organization that could coordinate the efforts of the several successful
>regional organizations is called for.
>
>Traditionally, the idea of "organization" of the theory group has been
>opposed on ideological grounds ("organizations foster politicking, but PCP
>is about ideas, etc.). And yet, we have developed more or less successful
>groups with their own newsletters, meetings, dues, etc. in Europe, North
>America, and the Australasian region. While this regional approach has
>some clear drawbacks (e.g., my Latin American collegues interested in PCP
>have no idea where to turn), it has largely succeeded in fostering greater
>conceptual, methodological, and applied exchanges in the regions best
>represented. Given the satisfactory experiment of organizing on this
>level, what unique factors lead us away from creating something more
>cohesive and organized internationally (i.e., that embraces all regions)?
>
>I'm not going to carry this banner into future conferences, but I thought
>that this electronic network might provide a forum for thinking through
>this issues, in the wake of Joern's query about future meeting sites. What
>problems and prospects do you envision in developing ways to link the
>initiatives of existing regional groups, and maybe facilitate the inclusion
>of those outside of the most "constructivized" regions?
>
>
>
> Robert A. Neimeyer, Ph.D.
> Department of Psychology
> University of Memphis
> Memphis, TN 38152
> (901) 678-4680
> FAX (901) 678-2579
> neimeyerra@MSUVX1.MEMPHIS.EDU
>
>
Rue L. Cromwell
cromwell@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%