Fellowship Committee Report
December 29, 2007
George P. Hollenbeck, Fellowship Committee Chair
Subject: Progress and Problems
1. We are delighted to report that nominations were submitted online and evaluated by the Committee. These recommendations will be presented to the EC for decisions on January 25th.
2. As SIOP is changing, so is the Fellowship process. Submitting and reviewing nominations is different than the previously-used paper process; discussions are different; ratings may be different. The record number of nominations resulted in spirited discussion within the Committee concerning criteria and standards for Fellowship. Some members feel that we are getting too many fellows (despite the fact that we have fewer than in 1982); some are less than enthusiastic about broadening our criteria for Fellowship. A stellar group of Committee Members also meant that they are all extremely busy, and evaluating nominations online is more difficult and time consuming than review of papers.
The EC may want to consider an ad hoc committee to review the Fellowship Process and how it should work. We say “may want to” because sometimes discussion tends to be divisive. With the larger number of nominations, the Committee is likely to require more support from the SIOP Administrative office. The role of the Fellowship Committee Chair may need to be better defined to deal with the diverse range of views.
3. Future steps:
-prepare nomination materials for APA and APS nominees;
-prepare for presentation of new Fellows at the Annual Meeting. A Fellows Coffee preceding the Plenary Session seemed to be a good, low cost way to get Fellows together so we will plan to do that again in San Francisco.
-revision of the Committee Chair Duties & Responsibilities that Leaetta Hough had prepared in 2004
-revision of the Fellowship sections of the SIOP Administrative Manual to reflect the changes.
Subject: Addendum to Progress and Problems
We unexpectedly made progress on the revision to Section III.F. Fellowship Committee of the SIOP Administrative Manual:
a. with the new online process for nomination, many of the steps in the process are different. Section IIIF has been revised to reflect that.
b. with our efforts to be more inclusive in the Fellowship process and broaden the criteria to include a wider variety of outstanding contributions, we have revised Section IIIF to reflect this. In some cases, this is simply changes in the order of wording to emphasize that practice too can be worthy of Fellowship; in others, we have referred to APA changes and to reflect our efforts to tie contributions to the Mission and Values of SIOP.
We hope to discuss this with the EC at the January meeting.