In 2012 the IAJS conducted a simple online survey about membership participation and needs. Below is an overview produced by Stephani Stephens.
IAJS Survey July-August 2012 RESULTS: Prepared by Stephani Stephens
N.B. Committee members: We have two conflicting pie charts for two questions:
“Is attending a conference in conjunction with the IAAP a deciding factor”…we have one chart on p. 1 and another on my equiv of p. 6 and “Do you feel IAJS should host a yearly conference”, same pages.
Also, no one responded to the peer review question about volunteering for certain topics?
Unfortunately these were technical glitches in the survey. Please find an attached PDf file of the original responses.
Survey General Summary
Below, I have given a general summary of each section which you can view yourselves by referring to Michael’s wonderfully accessible pie chart visual. I also have included in each section some recommendations based on the data.
We had 65 responses, which Michael tells us is 23% of the membership. This seems quite good especially when one considers how many people might not be on the discussion list or trafficking via the website. The geographic representation was impressive. The general breakdown is here, but refer to the doc to see more specifics about region. The only surprise was no one responded from Australia:
UK: 12 (includes Isle of Man and Glasgow)
Europe: 8 (includes Switzerland, Germany, France and Sweden)
South Africa: 2
East Coast: 9
West Coast: 9
Other: 7 (includes Chicago and Ohio)
There appears to be a healthy visitation rate to the website with the majority of respondents coming weekly, then monthly, then every 3-6 months. With few never visiting and a bit more than that who visit only for specific information. See pie chart.
*60% of respondents would use the website for Audio Visual material
*20 would use the site for Webinars
Less than 20% would use the site for the other listed options such as Transcripts, Blog, etc.
*70% of the membership would be open to listing themselves with credentials and research interest on the site with fewer than 15% desiring their contact details be excluded.
Recommendations: The committee might want to discuss how and to what extent to include audio/visual material on the site, such as taped interviews, lectures etc. Further we might want to discuss a database to include on the site with membership so that members might have access to others. Included would be a section to include publications and research interests.
75% of respondents indicated that attending a conference with the IAAP is a deciding factor when choosing conference destinations in addition to feeling that IAJS should host a yearly conference.
Conference Attendence: The issue with this question is that we have no way of knowing if there are members who attended more than one conference or if the UK members only attended the UK and Zurich conferences. And if this tells us that fewer people attended Ithaca because it was far or because it was simply a smaller conference, like Cardiff. Do these numbers necessarily tell us that UK conferences are more popular? The question is how would we use this to inform future conference planning?
55% of respondents attended the Greenwich Conference
In response to attending a one day conference in one’s region or a four day conference the opinion seemed split with
45% for a one day regional conference
45% for a four day
10% who rarely attend conferences
If we put the two responses together along with mostly divided responses between IAJS having a yearly conference and a leaning toward not needing to conference with the IAAP, then the EC might be looking at more freedom for conference formats and frequency. We should be looking at this more closely and in particular alongside the journal.
50% of respondents participated in the Dream Seminar in 2011
45% participated in the Shadow Seminar in 2012-08-16
5% are not interested in online seminars
The most popular suggestion for changes to the seminar format was more time with fewer presenters. Here is a list of most of the other responses:
It’s attitudinal changes that are required. Where have all the women gone??? Hogenson alluded to something significant in his last entry. thank you./ Removal of intransigent positions. But whose are not?/ I would participate if I felt I had something important to contribute/ a discussion about tone and animus!/ I still view the site as too dominated by some personalities which skews discussion and it is not worth my effort to attempt to change that aspect. I have saved a number of responses from the
Shadow Seminar which appeared to be quite interesting and that I hope to read later in the summer. But I also felt the more than its worth intrusiveness as described above./ A broader range of topics, particularly on the future of depth psychology/ I think a month might be too long but two weeks too short. Each presenter could have an option of 7-10 day time-line depending on their other work commitments/ I would much prefer to have these hosted on a single website with discussion threads, rather than receiving so many emails. Or a blog would probably do the trick, allowing a main post/essay and then comments/ jungian psychology is a clinical tool. seminars should be anchored to and supported by clinical foundations and examples. I have greatly enjoyed and appreciated the seminars, which have been invaluable learning experiences. I don’t see the need to make changes. The audience is just as important and necessary as the presenters
Many said the seminar format was fine but they suffered from lack of time not desire to participate. And many said that although they didn’t participate, they read everything.
On the future of Seminar topics these were some of the suggestions:
On Jung’s Dissertation/ I would like a seminar on symbols of transformation/ themes in current Feminist Theology”// individuation from many perspectives attachment theory and individuation trauma and individuation/ Memoirs, dreams, reflections,/More on emerging ideas in Jungian canon/ Typology/ experimental philosophy/ I like the way the committee has selected topics or papers specifically, which tends to break up the more dominant postings by the small group.
More actual history of analytical psychology. Not just opinions/ I read them, but would like them to be more concise and confined to really academic material/ Jungian theory applied; ecopsychology; mysticism/ I would like to see more Jungian theory on symbol formation in the personal/collective unconscious in the areas of myth, dreams and fairy tales/ Political psychology Developmental psy Affect theory as applied to the above, clinical psy and Cultural transformation/Archetypes/ Typology Jung and Alchemy Archetypes Psychosis versus mystical experience Jung and Synchronicity The self and Self Jung and science
Recommendations: The EC might want to alter the format of the seminars slightly this year to see if this incites more participation, for instance 2 presenters over a month. Topics are an interesting beast in that the process of choosing is partial to taking the temperature of the discussion list and then deciding who in the community might have time to offer a paper. These constraints often dictate the direction of the seminars. But perhaps the EC would like to weigh in on the direction and process we go with this.
65% of respondents said they read the journal regularly
35% said they didn’t
Many indicated they like the Book Reviews and generally the articles: ‘I like its up-to-dateness. It gives a good range of current Jung scholarship, and different views and approaches’ in addition to indicating the distinct differences to the JAP.’ Several indicated wanting to see papers from recent conferences, which I think we are actively doing, but the general sentiment is ‘So far, I have appreciated the variety, the excellent quality, and the Jungian-oriented topics and issues.’