Q: What are the highlights from your time on the EAC?

A:  The first highlight that comes to mind is the publication of the book on EuroPsy [Lunt, I., Peiró, J. M., Poortinga, Y. H., & Roe, R. A. (2015). EuroPsy, Standards and quality in education for psychologists. Góttingen, Hogrefe]. With four academics writing together, there were bound to be differences of opinion and debates. These were stimulating rather than abrasive and Ingrid Lunt as the lead author would resolve issues in a way that was acceptable to all four authors. The book provides historical background to the development of EuroPsy and the reasons why the project was considered important when started 20 years ago. If psychology as a profession is societally meaningful, it is important that professionals rendering services are competent. In my mind there is no doubt that EuroPsy has contributed to strengthening the profession in Europe. The idea of being part of a team engaged in something relevant has made the work for the EAC worthwhile. During the past eight years the interpersonal relationships within the EAC were collegial and warm, and that has made my membership a pleasant task. 

Q: What do you think the EuroPsy has achieved in the past eight years?   

A:  In a sense, these years EAC has been reaping the harvest of all the work in setting up the project that had happened during the years before. Still, the implementation of EuroPsy was not always straightforward. Across the various countries the National Accreditation Committees (NACs) had to cope with a variety of national regulations and traditions in the education and training of psychologists. Requirements for continuous professional development (CPD) and the qualifications of training supervisors were not easily met in countries where there were few traditions of building and maintaining professional competence. With all these complexities, EuroPsy is like a big tanker that is not easily kept on course, but by and large, the EAC so far has succeeded in realizing this. Probably the most important change in policy has been to enable the awarding of the EuroPsy Basic Certificate to groups of psychologists in a country when they have a national registration or professional license that meets the EuroPsy Regulations. Last but not least, I like to refer to the introduction of Specialist Certificates that in the long run will help to strengthen the identity of the psychology profession in areas such as psychotherapy and HRM, fields of practice where there are competing, usually less qualified, service providers. 

Q: What hopes do you have for the future of EuroPsy in Europe?

A:  During the development of EuroPsy, much of the focus was on what individual psychologists would gain from the Certificate and what information they would be allowed to provide in the Register. As it has turned out, the main significance of EuroPsy has been at the national level, in the adaptation of psychology curricula to meet EuroPsy Regulations. The EuroPsy project has strengthened significantly the profession of psychology in Europe and there may be opportunities to move further. There now exists a “European Professional Card” and perhaps EuroPsy could serve as the basis for such a card for psychologists; the core question will be whether EFPA can realize that the EuroPsy Regulations will become the minimum standard. Somewhat controversial is the scope for EuroPsy to serve as a platform for strengthening new fields of practice. On the one side there is hesitation to allow the proliferation of fields; on the other side, there is the advantage that a recognition of a new field of practice for EuroPsy Certificates implies that there is a description of the field in terms of specific education and training requirements, and that certificate holders meet standards of competence. My hope is that EuroPsy will not be condemned to stagnancy and rigidity and will be able to incorporate new developments in the profession of psychology as they occur. The shadow side of hope is fear. EuroPsy, and even EFPA itself¸ may not be immune to brexit-like tendencies and in some countries signs of this are already emerging. The Brexit of the UK from the EU provides an example of both the shortsightedness of the populist argument and the costs. One may hope that psychologists in Europe will remind themselves that “united we stand, divided we fall”.   

Ype H. Poortinga,
   Tilburg University The Netherlands
   University of Leuven, Belgium

Ype H. Poortinga is emeritus professor at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, and at the University of Leuven in Belgium. His most consistent interest has been in the conditions under which data obtained in different cultural populations can be meaningfully compared. He has also written on theoretical issues in cross-cultural psychology.
His empirical research has dealt with a variety of topics in culture-comparative research, including information transmission, basic personality variables, emotions, and social psychological variables. His experience in applied fields includes program evaluation, development of psychometric tests and intercultural training. He has worked in societies as far apart as South Africa, India, Indonesia and Mexico.