In this edition of Commission on Accreditation (CoA) Update, we interview Commissioner Greg Manship, D.Bioethics, MA, MDiv, CIM, CIP. Manship is an expert in the field of bioethics, is a certified Institutional Review Board professional and manager, and is one of two commissioners who represent the public interest.
What was your motivation to participate in the accreditation process for health service psychology programs?
I view participation in the accreditation process as a remarkable and awesome opportunity to be involved in positive contributions to higher education in respect to the high standards expected of programs. It is a role that fits my interests in healthcare broadly speaking, and in some respects, is also similar to my work as director of an institutional review board. It is also a new learning opportunity, a professional development opportunity, and a new personal experience for me. So that’s the motivation: interest, intrigue and the opportunity to grow professionally and personally.
You have stated that your passion is: “to promote and protect the flourishing and well-being of all people throughout their life spans and across the continuum of health care delivery.” How will this passion inform your contributions to the commission?
To me, promoting and protecting well-being and human flourishing means excellence in the delivery of healthcare. And excellence in the delivery of healthcare means empowering and equipping the professionals who will be responsible for the provision of that healthcare. It therefore seems to me that service on the CoA, insomuch as the CoA has the responsibility of monitoring and ensuring that programs meet the Standards of Accreditation (SoA), is then promoting that excellence. Service on the CoA will allow me to help ensure that APA’s SoA are met and sustained, and in so doing will continue to empower and equip healthcare professionals who will then go out to the public to pursue excellence. And in pursuing excellence in the provision of healthcare they will promote and protect human flourishing and well-being.
You currently serve as director of the Institutional Review Board & Human Protections Programming at the University of Indianapolis, and have published and presented on myriad bioethical and psychological subjects. How would you typify the intersectionality of bioethics and psychology?
First, psychology informs bioethics, such as the dynamics of provider-patient interactions. So, bioethics is very interested in the type of research that is conducted in the discipline of psychology. That being said, bioethics is also a component of psychology education professional development insomuch as those who are going into practice need to be familiar with professional and interprofessional ethical standards. At the same time, those of us who go into research need to know more about research ethics in concordance with those standards. So when you put that all together, when you ask how I would typify the intersectionality, it’s very broad, and it has everything to do with how psychology has informed healthcare broadly speaking, but also how bioethics has examined and informed the practice and research of psychology.
In your studies, how do you feel psychology’s role in the broader context of science has changed, if at all?
Psychology in regard to research is expanding and growing; there continues to be ongoing maturity. I think that psychology and psychologists are becoming much more savvy and sophisticated in both how they conduct research and how they find what topics to research. That said, I think that psychology has also become more prominent, prevalent and influential in other sciences, particularly in healthcare. I think we are paying greater attention to the contribution psychology makes, whether it’s in research or whether it’s in provision of healthcare. For example, I think that psychology has helped us understand a phenomenological approach to healthcare that examines more closely the lived experiences of its consumers and providers. Psychology has therefore been very helpful in expanding and deepening our understanding of what it means to be a provider and patient, which has informed how such interpersonal interactions can be improved.
You have published an essay regarding the complementary nature of the psychological-empirical approach to hope and the phenomenological hermeneutics of hope for terminally ill patients. What advice would you give to psychologists dealing with conflicts of hope and ethics?
Hope is often framed in terms of outcomes. For example, “I hope to be cured.” The advice that I offer to all healthcare service providers is to take care not to limit hope to a particular outcome, or a preference that may or may not be technically or empirically or logically achievable, but rather, to speak of hope in terms of possibilities. Hope is much more deep, rich and robust than a particular outcome. Hope, as openness to all possibilities, empowers us to be attentive to and receptive of all possibilities as they come, and then receive and integrate all those possibilities into our lived experiences.
Is there anything else you would like to add?
First, I would like to thank the University of Indianapolis for recognizing and supporting my opportunity to serve on the commission. I would finally like to mention how thrilled I am with my 30 years of marriage. My wife Cathy is wonderful — that pretty much captures it. She does not share my professional interests, but if not for her support, I would not be able to do what I do. She is supportive, and in turn I am very intentional about prioritizing her. The projects never come first; rather, Cathy informs how I prioritize everything else.