The editors speak out why we need to become a profession: On intellectual bigotry.

Abstract

Before introducing the contents of BAT 2 (1), we'd like to introduce a topic for debate. Over the next several issues, the Behavior Analysis Today is welcoming a community debate on the certification of analysts. Certification has both pros and cons. Both sides have critical points to contribute to the debate. We want to hear your views. We will print both sides of the issue. Here's our starter conversation. Of course there are several other costs and benefits to credentialing and licensure and hope you will write us with your thoughts (e-mail BOTH jcautill@astro.temple.edu and iBRosie@aol.com). One concern is that certification may hinder development in the field. The greatest fear here is that once analysis becomes systematized into briefer trainings, limited written exams, and treatment manuals that it will no longer innovate so that our technology becomes self-justifying and stagnant. In this way, certification could lead to calcification of our practices, which may become disconnected, from its roots in basic principles and ongoing research. This is an issue that worries much of the community and is why credentialing took a while to get here. It is our belief that through continued communication in all formats, this pitfall can be avoided. How does one hear about and disseminate innovations? Through talking to colleagues in and out of our discipline, taking and presenting data on our work, always teaching basic principles along with technology, reading journals, attending conferences, and more. Indeed, it may be that by highlighting the importance of analysis through the certification process, more money will flow into its research and development and allow us to flourish. On the other side of the issue are the benefits of increased recognition of our field through certification by parents, professionals and institutions (as well as increased ability to self-regulate quality). However, this recognition can function as a double-edged sword. One event exemplifying the stimulus control that the BCBA generates occurred last year to the second author. While on doctoral internship interviews, a common theme emerged: at some point in the interview, (usually within the first 3-5 minutes of arrival), the interviewer would make a statement like, we want to know if you are open to other approaches. We are worried that you might be too behavioral. Their prompt was the proud acknowledgment of my certification at the top of my resume. The first author recalls a analytic professor relaying a similar story within the academic arena prompted by an abundance of publications in analytic journals; this professor recommended not labeling oneself as a behavior and when asked, to first probe the interviewer as to what they mean by the term, giving you the opportunity to disavow and dispel myths. WHAT TO DO? One solution would be to walk away from psychology, standing as our own discipline--certification, and perhaps our own licensing eventually, may help by allowing us to become a discipline that others feel the intellectual need to get to know. Nothing succeeds like success. The idea is that if remain separate and successful, people will come to us to learn what do. Less radical is to push within APA for the development of more behavioral psychology programs. This way our programs will compete in open market with other psychology programs. Both routes could lessen the intellectual bigotry that our students contend with everyday. One of our aims with BAT is to improve communication and foster innovation within the field. We cover a range of issues relevant to the practicing analyst in each issue from politics to new research, literature reviews to best practice guidelines, organizational updates and management topics to personal experiences as practicing analysts. …