Common goals for the science and practice of behavior analysis: A response to Critchfield

Abstract

In his scholarly and thoughtful article, “Interesting Times: Practice, Science, and Professional Associations in Behavior Analysis,” Critchfield (2011) discussed the science–practice frictions to be expected in any professional organization that attempts to combine these interests. He suggested that the Association for Behavior Analysis International (ABAI) focus on its original science-advancement mission, including practice, but leave practitioner guild issues such as licensure to the Association of Professional Behavior Analysts (APBA). I concur. However, as Critchfield stated, ABAI can continue to offer much of interest to practitioners. In this response, I suggest that keeping our science–practice union as strong as possible would benefit all behavior analysts. I also describe relations between two major ecology and environmental science associations that may offer instructive parallels. Behavior analysis as a field is based not in a content area but on functional scientific principles, primarily those of operant and respondent learning. These principles encompass great breadth in both science and practice (a challenge in itself for behavior-analytic associations). Although these principles are increasingly being taught and incorporated in all relevant fields of science and practice, full acceptance is still distant. Therein lies an important common challenge.