 |
 |
Dear All, I have read the recent posts sent late last night (UK Time) and this morning. What seems to me clear is that, as I suspected, there is no agreed arrangement about who is responsible for taking the Section forward, which I find extraordinary if this has been worked on for 6 years, or even for one year. It is therefore not surprising that there is no agreement about what the aims of the Section should be, nor its fee structure. The posting earnestly requesting me not to approach the BPS has come in at the very last moment putting ME in a very difficult position. I feel that I am speaking for members of the BPS and probably some others newly interested in Community Psychology who voted for the Section who will be disenfranchised for the coming year. The BPS clearly regard it as normal to have an agreed fee at this stage so that the Section can be registered. Why approach the BPS for a Section, if you do not intend to follow the BPS procedures.? The Community Psychology group who have worked together informally wouldnot be disenfranchised, they would simply have to consider the wishes of others who voted for the Section. It seems to me that the discussion list is not functioning as a community, but as a collection of individuals. The idea of a "collective" is far from clear, as one correspondent has expressed well, how do you make decisions on this basis? The decision to set up a Community Psychology Section does not "belong" to the members of the present list, it belongs to the people who voted for it, and to the organisation hosting it, which is the BPS. Any other functions which the present list feel cannot be accommodated by the BPS Section can be considered by a parallel organisation, which I have said I support in principle. I will try to find some senior member of the BPS from whom I can take advice on this before acting, but as I said in an earlier mail, I feel I have been pushed into this by the lack of any attempt to meet the deadline for the decision on fees. The effect is for the current members to be thinking entirely of themselves and not the wishes of ALL those who voted for the Section. The personal note that has crept in is due principally to the personal criticisms to which my original posting of research carried out at Tybalds was subject, and to the fact that the community list IS a collection of individuals, individually trying to act, rather than organised in any way, and having no clear objectives. Erica ___________________________________ The Community Psychology List has a new website/blog at: http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/ There is a threaded discussion forum: http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/cgi-bin/discus/discus.cgi There is a twitter feed: http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK To post on the website blog, forum or twitter feed, contact Grant or David at the email addresses below. David Fryer ([log in to unmask]) or Grant Jeffrey ([log in to unmask]) To unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit the website: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK