AbstractThe paper examines the issue of disunity within the discipline of psychology, within the profession of psychology, and between the two. References are made to tensions that have existed in or between academic/scientific and applied/professional psychology throughout the history of psychology in Canada and the United States. The emphasis, however, is on more recent events and discussions of the issue; and consideration is given to their implications for the profession of psychology in the immediate future. The paper attempts to identify factors within the discipline, the profession, and in society that could operate to strengthen the links between professional and academic psychology, and that, given sufficient interest and determination on the part of organized psychology, could offset the forces which have threatened the sense of community among psychologists.In deciding to devote this paper to a discussion of the unity, or disunity, of the discipline of psychology I have chosen a topic that has been debated mainly by psychologists whose work is in the universities. And although the paper is intended for an audience that I expected would consist mainly of professional psychologists, I thought it could be useful to examine the implications that the views of disunity within the discipline may have for professional psychology, and to consider what professional psychologists might be able to do to salvage a sense of community among scientist and professional psychologists, to our mutual benefit.A number of attempts have been made to identify the sources of disunity in psychology. Many of these papers, reports and symposia have pointed, usually with regret, to the increasing diversity and specialization in both the discipline and the profession. Some have considered the role of differences in theoretical orientation among psychologists, or differences in their view of the proper direction that research should take. Others have identified an increasing divergence between the aims and interests of the psychologist as scientist/academic and those of the psychologist as practitioner. Still other discussions have been concerned with actual or potential splits in psychological organizations.Unity in the Early YearsTensions in and between the discipline and the profession. Early accounts suggest that not only have psychologists been engaging in practice for a long time, but tension, dissension and schisms, within the discipline or between the discipline and the profession, have been part of the style of North American psychology for at least one hundred years.As long ago as 1896 an American psychologist, Lightner Witmer, founded the first psychological clinic in the United States at the University of Pennsylvania (Fagan, 1992, p. 237). In these years both Witmer and G. Stanley Hall, a founder not only of the APA but of the child study movement as well, were considered by many of their psychologist colleagues to be engaged in work that less than scientific (p. 239). In the 1930s and 40s Kurt Lewin's field theory and his research, described by Danziger (1990) and Ash (1992), was either ignored or met with complete incomprehension (Ash, p. 205) by mainstream psychology in the United States. Another well - known example may be found in Henry A. Murray's radical differences with other members of the Department of Psychology at Harvard, notably with Boring and Lashley, on theoretical issues, the appropriate questions for research, and the content of the curriculum. In Murray's words, academic psychologists were critically at the wrong things (Triplet, 1992, p. 304). The history of psychology is replete with examples of psychologists viewing each other as looking critically at the wrong things, often with unfortunate consequences, not only for individual psychologists but for the field as a whole.The professional activities of academic psychologists and their attitudes toward the profession. …
Read full abstract
Aug 3, 2012
Weiping Liu + 1
Open Access