Approval Procedure

Taken from the archives of The Canine Chronicle

Volume 36 Number 2 February, 2011 page 72

By Dr Gareth Morgan-Jones

On occasion, or in some cases habitually, certain individuals bring up in their writings the subject of judging approval and, oftentimes, what is expressed amounts to continued dissatisfaction with the way the American Kennel Club goes about the business of determining who is or is not qualified to be accorded this privilege. This has gone on for a while now, quite a long time in fact and has, apparently, once again, sort of gathered a life all of its own. We are repeatedly told, or reminded, that it is absolutely not a right, not something to which one is necessarily entitled. Be that as it may, there is a particular notion periodically doing the rounds, and is seemingly repeated ad nauseam to a sickening or excessive degree one might say, that, under the current system, too many people are being approved (de facto licensed, although it is not actually called this) for too many breeds far too quickly. Permission is granted by the organization and this, in essence, constitutes formal licensing, even if it is not referred to, for one reason or another, as such. The point of view that more or less open access has been allowed to run rampant and is out of control, so to speak, may not, however, be an opinion widely held within the Fancy. Who can really tell? Some will argue that the present system is working fairly well and only needs some further fine-tuning and refinement. There is the matter of moving with the times and accommodating the exponential growth of the sport. Others disagree but because one or two vociferous individuals are vehemently insistent in their condemnation, thereby compelling attention, does not mean that their position is fully justified.

The concern is, however, sufficiently real or loud enough as to be heard by those in authority and hence the decision of the Board of Directors to appoint a committee to take another look at the approval procedure and, one assumes, come up with recommendations for improvement. Whether or not this will amount to radical change or merely some additional tweaking remains to be seen.

Those who argue strongly that the currently-employed system has some fundamental flaws point to the fact that fully effective, peer-evaluation methodologies are not in place and that applicants are approved largely on the basis of fulfilling certain component requirements, a sort of bean-counting procedure; the checking off of the required boxes bit. A meritocracy, a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their true credentials and achievements cannot be instituted in the absence of accurate determination and measurement. How can this best be accomplished? Here lies the crux of the matter. So say those who are most critical of how things are done at present. The question of component quality control obviously comes up. What assurance is there that a ringside observation exercise, for example, invariably amounts to a meaningful and substantive learning experience? It all rather depends, does it not? A number of things are involved and, unfortunately, there are a whole lot of variables. Relevance, insightfulness and perspicacity of mentor input, depth of knowledge, quality of dogs being observed, and so on. Likewise in the case of seminar attendance and participation in hands-on exercises. Quite clearly there is some unevenness at play here and lack of uniformity becomes a potentially compromising factor. This is not quite as straightforward an undertaking as one might be led to believe. In the absence of some sort of efficacious testing procedure doubt will always remain, or be raised, as to whether or not what looks good on paper is accurately reflective of an individual’s abilities in practice. Unfortunately there exist a number of intangibles in this area and this surely makes designing a means of valid and fully effective evaluation quite a difficult task. It can, of course, be argued that the role which the executive field representatives currently play in part, at least, satisfactorily fulfills the determinative challenge.

Quite apart from the pure mechanics of the approval process and the administrative structure needed for its conduct, not to mention the very high costs involved, there are clearly a number of questions, some philosophical, others purely practical, which obviously need to be addressed. Here are some which readily come to mind. To find answers to them will require some thought! Is the bureaucracy sufficiently case-sensitive so as to invariably reach the correct decisions for the right reasons? How cogent, well-grounded and appropriate for the purpose are the contributions of the field staff? Variables again surely come into play. This is undoubtedly a gray, uneven area. Do the procedures practiced as a means of determining merit fully meet the need or are there some other ways and avenues to explore for conducting business in this regard? Is revisiting the hands-on testing methodology in the cards or are its inherent cumbersomeness and bureaucratic unwieldiness a strong deterrent? It was tried once, in the not-too-distant past, presumably found to be unworkable, or at least unduly problematic, and summarily withdrawn. One does not suppose that anyone relishes the prospect of repeating. In these days of fiscal constraints is it vaguely realistic to even think about such an option? That which is awkward and difficult to manage may not exactly be the way to go. In the larger scheme of things, given the above-mentioned intangibles and variables, is it even possible to improve on the present state of things? I’m not trying to be a devil’s advocate here nor am I necessarily attempting to champion a certain position purely for the sake of argument.

The central issue here is whether or not how we conduct business appeals strongly to the mind and reason. It is all very well to be rhetorically fanciful but one has to be practical. Criticism for the sake of criticism doesn’t, after all is said and done, get anyone anywhere. Some of this does indeed involve some common sense and logic; those formal principles of reasoning. Let us face it, the whole matter of peer evaluation and qualification, as it relates to the approval of judges, has always been, and remains, a somewhat enigmatic and perplexing element insofar as governance of the sport is concerned. Strange really that such a pivotal aspect should seemingly always be under scrutiny. Leads one to think that it might well not be possible to ever get this right to everyone’s satisfaction. Is this the reality with which we are confronted or is this too defeatist a position to take? That’s certainly the impression which is created when one looks at successive attempts at policy-making in this regard over the years and the seemingly permanent, persistent concerns which have existed. The more complicated the design, the more tortuous and challenging the process of putting it into effective practice. Moreover, there can readily occur a counterproductive downside which can so easily hinder the achievement of a desired goal. Here are some more pertinent questions of direct relevance! Should the application process be uniformly applied across the board with no account being taken of the background experience? Same question, put another way. Should judges with a proven, extensive track record undergo a similar degree of scrutiny and meet exactly the same component requirements as those who are just starting out? Should the number of breeds which can be applied for at any given time be arbitrarily specified and limitations artificially set or should there be some in-built flexibility to allow for varying qualifications. We are, again, talking about individual case-sensitivity here. In passing let’s note that exceptions to rules have been made so why not broaden the canvas? More thought and less bureaucracy might well be a good prescription.

To read the rest of this article click here.

Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=68

Posted by admin on Apr 25 2020. Filed under Current Articles, Dog Show History, Editorial, Featured. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.