Contexts and the 2020 AGM

The following Motion was presented to the GASi 2020 AGM:
We propose that Contexts be made a members’ only newsletter that publishes any material submitted by GASI members regardless of content.

Rationale:
Contexts is a members’ only publication for the duration of it being the current issue. After this period, it becomes available to the general public. Contexts is a development of Foulkes’ original GROUP ANALYSIS – International Panel and Correspondence. In his first editorial, he explained its aim “to bring together, by correspondence, group psychotherapists in all parts of the world. It is essentially an expanded circular letter, an international workshop or study group. A preliminary issue was sent to a limited number of persons”. Over time, the formal Group Analysis journal emerged out of it along with Contexts, which has also become increasingly more formal and its original open intention lost. Now, as one of the two printed/digital public faces of GASI, there is considerable responsibility placed on its one editor. At present there are no agreed criteria for publication and no transparency over how decisions are made about the inclusion of submissions or contributions offered accepted. In contrast, the society’s journal ‘Group Analysis’ has an editorial group, explicit and transparent editorial policy on the sort of articles that are welcomed and peer review to reduce bias and ensure that academic standards are met. Contexts should be a place in which innovative and controversial ideas, which may not be in a form acceptable to an academic journal, can be shared and discussed. If Contexts became members only, there would be no need for the weighty apparatus needed for an academic journal. Without this apparatus though, the public face of GASI is left to the interests and persuasions of its one editor.

Proposer: Sally Skaife
Seconder: Teresa Von Sommaruga Howard

Contexts Editor’s response, against the AGM 2020 motion:

This motion (see below) appears to me to be aimed at hollowing out both the publication and the role of editor. The publication, because without the contribution of non-members, Contexts would lose an important source of its regular content. In particular we receive much vital feedback about our events from non-members, people who often are wondering about joining us – they tell us something very important about what we do. So, without this perspective from the outside, a huge gap would appear and the newsletter would lose much important content, content that makes it viable. The editor role, would become an administrator role, rather like what has happened and is still happening to the role of the forum moderator. Is this what we want?

When Foulkes set up the early publication wanting a conversation/dialogue between members and colleagues he of course had no idea that the forum would one day facilitate such a possibility for immediate transnational dialogue. While Contexts of course is a part of that exchange, it is no longer what it is centrally only about. The thing it provides for the society is an outward looking publication that reaches out and links to a wider world, including other approaches, other modalities, other colleagues whom we want and need to engage with. A members’ only Contexts closes that door. Contexts currently has very open guidelines for publication, the spirit of which is to encourage people to write and contribute and to not over-define for people what they might write.

The motion talks of an editor making decisions alone, in isolation, such that the “public face of GASi is left to the interests and persuasions of its one editor”. This strikes me as a deliberate misrepresentation and in no way reflects the reality. There are significant checks and balances. The editor takes part in three GASi committees (Editorial  Committee of the Journal, Management Committee & Online Communications Committee) and reports to one of them, the MC. The Editorial Committee plays a part in scrutinising and helping develop the publication…I think it could do more in this regard. There are collaborators and regular contributors. It is of course not a peer reviewed publication, it’s not at the elite, intimidating end of the publishing spectrum, which can tend towards homogenizing, tidying up and excluding people’s writing and creativity. Contexts is rather like the chat function in Zoom, providing a way in to the conversation that is open and less intimidating and more accepting of the original impulse to write. As a consequence, the range of contributions and contributors is wide and would be significantly narrowed by this motion. Also, the goals of developing diversity and internationalism would be significantly curtailed. Should you decide to pass this motion, Contexts would become inward looking and increasingly too much like the forum and all its attendant dynamics and would lose much of its viability and uniqueness within GASi’s life.

Peter Zelaskowski

Outcome

There was a vote and the motion was not passed.