Significant Initiatives of Executives
A significant
change LRPA has experienced during the past 20 years is the increased
focus on private practice. Being a professional organization it seems
natural that LRPA's focus be on the practitioner as opposed to the
academic. Yet as was shown from the factors leading to LRPA's beginnings
and the direction it chose at the first meetings, it was designed
to represent both practising and academic psychologists. In fact,
one of its functions as an organization was to unite these two groups
in order to benefit from each other (Howe 1995). LRPA is reported
to have fulfilled this function in the early years of the organization
(Evans 1995). It appears that there was a greater involvement of academics
in LRPA's early years. Today, although many members express interest
in having more academic involvement it seems unlikely that this will
happen. One need only to look at the topics of the speakers LRPA has
hosted for the past several years to realize that a significant change
would have to occur in order to attract a greater academic involvement
in the future. The majority of topics are directed either towards
private practice matters or issues of concern to psychologists practising
in institutions. Some topics might appeal to a specific area of research,
but they do not appeal to academic psychologists in general, therefore,
they will not increase the general participation of academic psychologists.
It is difficult
to ascertain whether it was the change in LRPA's focus, as exemplified
by the discussion topics, or the withdrawal in academic involvement
that came first. Perhaps this development in LRPA can be attributed
to the clinical students from early in LRPA's history who formerly
represented academic psychology and then upon receiving their Ph.D.
began representing practical psychology. One could speculate that
if there were enough students who went through this process that they
could have influenced a shift of interest within LRPA. This is only
one possible explanation for the lack of academic participation LRPA
has experienced lately; there are others. Perhaps LRPA's change in
focus towards the practical side is as a result of which group's more
critical needs were fulfilled by the functions of the organization.
A practising psychologist had more to gain from such functions as
political lobbying, networking and even socializing, if they were
not in contact with many other psychologists in their day to day activities.
There are many possible explanations but what is clear is that LRPA
is more focused towards practical rather than academic psychology
today than it was in the beginning. Either as a result or the cause,
there are fewer academic psychologists involved in LRPA than in the
past.
Whether something
should be done to correct this change depends on how LRPA's current
membership view this change in their organization. If those currently
involved believe they are losing some of the benefits they hope to
derive from their membership then the executive should look at activities
that would attract a broader spectrum of psychologists, including
academics, to LRPA. However, if the movement away from academic involvement
is viewed as a natural progression of an association of this kind
then LRPA can remain as it is now, an association primarily for psychologist
practitioners.
This latter
decision is not unique but rather it reflects a movement taking place
in other psychological associations as well (Ferrari 1995, Helmes
1995). Associations such as CPA, OPA, and APA, have been experiencing
a splintering of their organisations with the academic psychologists
leaving to begin their own organisations representing their own needs.
This is not to suggest that academic psychologists in the London area
should form their own organization but perhaps LRPA's increased focus
on the needs of practitioners is indicative of a movement being experienced
throughout the discipline today. If this is the case and LRPA wishes
to pursue a mainly practitioner focused group in the future then they
should look only to practitioners not already involved in LRPA to
increase and maintain their membership. However, with an exclusive
focus on practitioners LRPA cannot benefit from the exchange of information
possible in a practitioner-academic relationship.
For the most
part LRPA has remained consistent with its original functions and
design. LRPA has over the years sustained and even increased their
political lobbying. One of the reasons LRPA was founded was to lobby
regional regulating bodies if the provincial government decentralized
health care. The decentralization of health care did not occur until
several years after LRPA's inception. LRPA was never forced to lobby
independently of OPA because OPA lobbied the provincial government
on behalf of all psychologists in the province because allocation
of health care funds remained a provincial government concern. This
is not to say that LRPA did not lobby the provincial government, they
did, but until recently it was in conjunction with OPA's efforts.
Recently, LRPA has begun to step up their lobbying efforts, as reflected
in the advent of the Political Breakfasts. LRPA members now lobby
the politicians in the area to represent the London psychologists
point of view, as opposed to letters to the provincial government
supporting OPA.'s stance. As the government continues to scale back
funding for health care and psychologists begin to see their departments
and positions at public institutions eroding, LRPA has been increasing
their lobbying to protect their profession.
Some have
said LRPA has in some instances taken on the role of a union for psychologists
in the area (Helmes 1995). This is not dissimilar from the approach
of other professional organisations to job security for its members.
Although clearly different from lobbying the government for legislation
to increase the recognition of psychology, pressuring the government
to recognize the need for the jobs they are eliminating is equally
important to the members. It also seems that lobbying of the latter
type demands a more regional focus which is what LRPA is well positioned
to do. In these times of continual down-sizing LRPA should continue
its efforts to protect local psychologist jobs. This could represent
an instance where private practitioners and those working in institutions
have differing needs. LRPA should monitor this development to prevent
their membership of practitioners from splintering.
Parallel
to LRPA's increased efforts in lobbying is the increase in community
involvement seen in the past 10 years. As a young organization, LRPA
concentrated on keeping its own house in order; maintaining or increasing
membership, acting as a network for psychologists were among its primary
concerns early on. After LRPA's viability was established there was
a movement toward altering both its own and the profession's external
image. For some time now LRPA has been expending some efforts towards
educating the public on the functions a psychologist performs. Endeavours
such as free colloquia at the London Public Library, strong contacts
with the local press and publishing lists of local psychologists in
private practice, all help to advance the interests of the profession
as a whole. It seems that over the years these worthy initiatives
have received varying degrees of attention. Obviously, these initiatives
result in fewer immediate returns than lobbying or membership canvassing,
but they still carry substantial rewards. Efforts directed toward
altering the public's perception carry long-term rewards that might
be seen in an increased public acceptance of the profession or new
respect from other organisations. Both of these can help the profession
of psychology and LRPA a great deal in the future. LRPA should consider
whether initiatives in relation to increasing public exposure and
acceptance are worth expending a more consistent effort on. It seems
that although educating the public has been increased lately there
still remains room for more effort and new initiatives. This function
of LRPA could prove to be very beneficial to LRPA's members and the
profession as a whole.
Another recent
initiative of LRPA's executive is the annual award for outstanding
contribution to psychology. The first award was granted in 1990 to
Dr. David Evans, who among other things was also the first President
of LRPA. Since 1990 the LRPA executive has decided upon a worthy recipient
in the London area based on nominations from the membership. The other
award recipients have been Dr. Margaret Hearn, Dr. Peter Jaffe, Dr.
Douglas Jackson and most recently Mrs. Margaret Howe. The criteria
for nomination is being or having been a psychologist in the London
area and having made significant contributions to the psychology profession
as a whole. As seen by Dr. Jackson's recognition it is not necessary
that the recipient be a member of LRPA.
