Jim wrote:
>I do _not_ in the slightest find it unfortunate that students
>want to learn about themselves and work in professional arenas.
>There is little point in developing a scientific understanding of
>human behavior and experience if that knowledge does not get
>transmitted to people who are going to be dealing with human
>problems and suffering. The fundamental problem for me is that
>too many people, including an unfortunate number of
>psychologists, do not promote the science-practice connection
>strongly enought. That is, they do not recognize or advocate for
>the view that scientific findings have numerous applied
>implications and that well-founded practice must be based on
>solid scientific foundations.
We are probably on the same path here, but since few picked up on this
issue, let's talk. This is long, so maybe we should go off list, but what
the heck. I have always been supportive of the scientist-practitioner
model, but feel there is no need for someone to call themselves a
psychologist in order to value the findings of social or behavioral science
in their practice. I fail to see how medical doctors or psychiatrists or
social workers shouldn't also be able to utilize and value a scientific
approach. You don't find social workers calling themselves psychologists
however, or medical doctors biologists. My point is that the idea of a
scientist-practitioner model goes beyond psychology and a good clinical
worker needs more than study of psychological research. I don't know if
there are solid scientific foundations for psychological practice--I share
the ideal, and find many clinical colleagues (especially those trained in
psychology programs) to value scientific findings. I do not think
practicing medicine is biological science, though I would hope it does
indeed rest on scientific foundations. You seem to equate doing science
with doing practice, or presume that one cannot practice what is not
scientifically established. I don't know if this is a practical view. We
agree that scientific knowledge will be used and should be used more wisely,
but does that mean psychological inquiry must be, or automatically is
motivated by application?
>
>Too much of applied psychology, including especially what goes on
>outside psychology departments, is simply not rooted strongly
>enough in scientific foundations. It is rather as though
>chemical engineers were learning ancient alchemy or
>unsubstantiated lay beliefs about our chemical worlds and then
>going out to "practice" chemical engineering. This kind of
>separation is all too prevalent in psychology, including clinical
>psychology that purports to develop scientist-practitioners.
>
I actually agree, but would urge more specific examples of what you
mean. I am aware of the pseudoscience, apparent ignorance of basic
psychology, and other problems, but do not feel this represents all of
therapy or therapists. I wonder if part of the problem is tied to this
presumption that tackling psychological phenomena is akin to the chemist
tackling the make-up of a chemical mix. It clearly is not as easy and it
may be an entirely different kettle of fish, or else we wouldn't both agree
there is a problem here. I just don't feel clinical psych should be tied to
the scientific-academic field of psychology, but rather free to develop on
its own and utilize scientific foundations found in other fields _in
addition to_ psych. Psych alone is not adequate, in my view, to be the sole
foundation for a helping profession that clearly requires a foundation of
knowledge derived from anthropology, biology, neurology, sociology, etc.
The tether to academic psychology creates unnecessary misconceptions,
conflicts, and limitations in professional development. There are many fine
and outstanding clinical and counselling psych programs struggling to impart
research and critical decision-making skills to their students, and instill
an appreciation for scientific findings. I just feel they do not need to be
psychological scientists, because, to me psychologist means inquiry not
practice. Perhaps the problem is that some in psychology wanted psych
science to be THE foundation for clinical practice (I don't think Witmer
would have tho). I think this is misplaced hubris.
What kind of psychological knowledge are you speaking of here?
>> speak about the problems of educating our students regarding the
scientific
>> status of psychology, and hopefully, instilling in them a respect for the
>> value of a scientific approach, we should recognize (IMHO) distinctions
>> between the art, skill, and professionalism of applied professionals,
many
>> of whom consider what they do as psychology, but clearly not always as
>> science.
>
>I worry that this kind of attitude gives license to psychology
>students to ignore science. The received message, whether
>intended or not, might be that we do not need to learn about
>scientific psychology to be effective practitioners. Practice
>involves "art" and "professional skills" that are otherwise
>determined and developed. Presumably, things such as clinical
>judgment, intuition, experience, and the like would be appealed
>to. In essence, one is saying that science is just one way of
>learning valid knowledge about the human world and it may not be
>the best way to learn to become a practitioner
Of course, I think scientific psych is relevant and valuable. However,
I am not aware that exposure to scientific psych has resulted in any
increase in professional effectiveness as opposed to, say, the MSW or
psychiatrist, etc., hence, it may just be a bias on my part. Clearly,
wherever their effectiveness comes from, the MSW is the more easily employed
these days. The art and professional acumen that may be involved surely
derives from the kind of problem being addressed; diagnosis, establishing
different relationships, communication tactics, developing treatment
protocols, etc. I don't agree that science must inherently dictate
practice, but rather feel there are other than scientific issues and areas
(culture, politics, values) that must play a role. A scientific
understanding is hopefully relevant here too, but you seem to equate that
with practice.
>
> I find the History and Systems class a useful place to present
>> such issues, and engage the class in thinking about these distinctions
and
>> the challenges to psychology as science and psychology as practice. A
>> Psych 101 class also may be a place to help make such distinctions
between
>> the field as science and as practiced, and the ethical/professional
issues
>> of applying, practicing, or "giving psychology away." The opposition
some
>> of us might face in persuading our students about psychology's scientific
>> status, is that we are not apparently addressing the psychology that they
>> see, aspire to, and seem thereby, to be talking about a field they find
less
>> visible in the bookstores or in popularly relevant psych classes. I
don't
>> feel you would succeed by taking the facetious titles we have been
listing
>> for Psych 101 and saying they are NOT what your class or psychology is
>> about, but rather that they represent psychology poorly practiced,
>> presented, with weak rational foundations, or sloppy, if not simply
>> pseudo--science.
>
>I agree entirely with Gary's thinking here, but it seems somewhat
>inconsistent with the tone of the preceding parts, which seemed
>to me to endorse the legitimacy of a psychology divorced from
>science.
>
The fields of professional helpers are hopefully tied to various
scientific disciplines, so I am not arguing that they should be divorced
from science, but rather freed to develop independently of just one
scientific/academic field alone. Psychology is not just a field of inquiry
or some abstract subject matter, but encompasses fields and topics, and
interests, far out-stripping its scientific knowledge. You seem to insist
all these various parts must be equated or tied to basic psychological
science and, ipso facto, that this science must be applicable and relevant
to all forms of practice immediately (okay, so I am stretching ;-). I feel
that practicing is not the same as basic inquiry, and that much of what is
practiced, but goes by the name psychology, is not science, and that the
public and our students should recognize the distinctions. You seem to feel
it should be? We both agree what is applied should have a scientific basis.
Sorry, this is so long. Gary
Gerald (Gary) L. Peterson, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Psychology
Saginaw Valley State University
University Center, MI 48710
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1-517-790-4491
> Perhaps this is the picture that our colleagues in
>> chemistry (and other disciplines) have of psychology which, when added to
>> their faulty education in psychological science, leads to disparaging
>> attitudes/stereotypes of our field.
>
>Interesting idea. I mentioned earlier that surveys suggested a
>negative view of the social sciences among natural scientists.
>But does psychology in particular suffer and do so because of our
>public persona? If so, the growth in pseudo-psychology and
>related forms of non-scientific thinking about human beings does
>not augur well for our future image in the ideas of natural
>scientists. Might psychology get trivialized and displaced as
>scientifically-minded people begin to identify more with the
My point exactly. It is already the case and the sooner we recognize
this the better off we will be. Many working in the neuroscience areas are
leary of their identification as psychologists --perhaps because of the
popular associations. So we have cognitive scientists, and neuroscientists,
where we had sensory psychologists, or cognitive psychologists. I am
dismayed at the number of times I read accounts of sound psychological
research done by people who do not wish to be referred to as psychologist.
This contributes to the popular idea that those called psychologists are
clinical practitioners alone.
Regards, Gary
Gerald (Gary) L. Peterson, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Psychology
Saginaw Valley State University
University Center, MI 48710
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1-517-790-4491
