The Process of Development of the Meta-Code

The decision to develop a Meta-Code of Ethics was unusual and possibly unique. The small group that comprised the Task Force was fortunate in having representatives from associations from across Europe. The Scandinavian coun­tries had previously developed a common code. The south-em European association had a parallel initiative to produce a Carta Erica (subsequently appended to the Meta-code). The presence of a member from a postcommunist country (Hungary) ensured that there was a broad range of traditions on which to draw, and of which to take notice. Formally each association was free to send a delegate but in practice the size of the Task Force remained small, so facilitating discussion, but sufficiently broad to facilitate comprehensive perspectives from different national, cultural, and linguistic perspectives. There was also a breadth in the stages of development and use of ethical codes. By the time the Meta-code had been completed there had been a rather stable membership of 10 members representing Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Switzerland, and the UK.

This period of gestation continued to be prolonged. Despite having agreed to hold meetings twice a year the Task Force did not meet again for some time. Rather, the convener produced a "tentative draft" Meta-code for the Task Force in June 1991 following informal discussions with members of the group. This was built upon the model used to develop the Scandinavian code. He states that he "borrowed freely from that code, and also from the АРА code, and from the codes of the Canadian, British, Austrian, German, Hungarian and Spanish psychological associa­tions" (letter to Task Force, June 1, 1991).

Responses to the draft Meta-code were submitted by just three members (from Netherlands, Denmark, and UK, the latter initially having not reached its destination). Conse­quently, a subgroup comprising Geir Nielson (Norway, convener), Casper Koene (Netherlands), and Geoff Lindsay (UK) met in Amsterdam October 31 - November 1, 1992, supported by Yoke Bravenboer of the staff of the Nether­lands Institute of Psychology (NIP). Responses to the first draft of the Meta-code were reviewed. A proposal by the convener to adopt the new (1992) edition of the АРА code as a model was considered (source: Minutes of meeting). It was agreed that the АРА General Principles provided a sound model. The draft Meta-code had strengths but had an important weakness. It contained general principles but its standards had a high level of specificity, which could prove problematic in terms of necessary generalizability across different countries. It was considered important there­fore to use the АРА code only to the extent that it assisted the development of an EFPPA code.

Most of the meeting was then taken up with producing a new draft Meta-code. This meeting, therefore, was the key point at which the EFPPA Meta-Code of Ethics took shape, both conceptually and in detail. A three-dimensional model was considered comprising basic values, professional rela­tionships, and stage of relationship - a novel approach that proved impractical as an overall organizing framework since many of the resulting cells in the 3-D framework would remain empty. A model driven by general principles was agreed but there was uncertainty about the level of specific­ity of content. The next meeting of the whole Task Force (February 27-28, 1993) therefore became the opportunity for the whole group to contribute to the shaping up of the Meta-code. This process then proceeded by twice-yearly meetings held in the different countries of the Task Force members, with Casper Koene taking over as Convener.

5