Four Fundamental Propositions

The summit meeting held in Norman, Oklahoma at the end of January was a signal event. Not only was the conference APS’s first official convocation, but it brought together for the first time representatives from a number of independent societies and APA Divisions to discuss issues of broad and common concern with implications for the future of psychology as a discipline.

The theme of the meeting was strengthening Psychology’s Research Base, but inevitably, organizational issues, and even more particularly, the role of APS, were secondary themes. In brief welcoming remarks, I stated that APS was founded on four fundamental propositions.

Psychology as a discipline should be preserved

A decade or so ago, this assertion would have been regarded as so self-evident that it did not have to be said. However, as has been more recently observed, psychology is becoming increasingly balkanized. With the growth of knowledge has come specialization and fragmentation and weakening of our identification as psychologists as opposed to particular kinds of psychologists. Especially serious, progress in related disciplines such as cognitive science and neuroscience has pulled those working in these areas toward these disciplines and away from psychology, sometimes quite literally.

This is the dark side of the progress that psychological science — or as some would say, psychological sciences — has made. It is our view that much would be lost to science and to society if this fractionization and loss of identity were to continue.

A corollary of this proposition is that for both symbolic and functional reasons, it is important to have a national organization representing the entire spectrum of research-oriented psychology. Such an organization could not be expected to replace specialized societies. But conversely, specialized societies cannot take the place of a broad gauged, umbrella organization that appeals to all segments of the discipline.

Such an umbrella organization must be concerned with more than the dissemination of research information

Journals and conventions devoted to the exchange of research­based information are the sine qua non of all scientific organizations but only specialty organizations have the luxury of limiting themselves to these activities. Enlightened self-interest suggests that there are many other activities in which we must collectively be involved, some internal to ourselves and others in relationship to other groups and institutions: graduate and undergraduate education, ethical standards for the conduct of human and animal research, promotion of public understanding of psychological science — basic and applied, contribution of psychological knowledge to public policy, and protection of our legitimate rights to do research are all examples.

APA is increasingly unable to accomplish these goals for research-oriented psychology

The demographics of American psychology have changed dra­matically over the past 10 to 15 years. Production of doctorates in clinical psychology and other health care specialties continues to rise whereas production in all other areas has fallen. Professional doctorates now outnumber the rest by a margin of close to 3 to 1.

As the proportion of professional psychologists within APA has grown, it is inevitable that issues and activities relevant to their interests and needs have come to dominate association affairs. The perception of many research-oriented psychologists that APA no longer represents them has exacerbated the situation. Although most professional, health-care psychologists join APA, the majority of eligible nonprofessionals do not belong (60% according to APA figures).

Last summer APA’s then Executive Officer described the Association as being in the midst of a transition from a scholarly to a professional association. Particularly in the wake of the defeat of the APA reorganization plan which would have given greater autonomy to its various constituencies and was vehemently opposed by leaders of the practitioner community, this transformation seems inevitable.

Those of us who were involved in establishing APS saw as our choice standing by and letting research-oriented psychologists continue to drift away into specialty organizations or forming the kind of umbrella organization that APA was originally intended to be.

It is crucial to the health of the Society — and in our view, scientific psychology — that we attract to our membership those who have dropped out of APA and the large group of younger psychologists who have never joined. It is also important that research-oriented APA members, including “scientist-practitioners,” support APS. We ask no one to drop out of APA. In fact, during the period in which APA is being transformed into a professional society, it is important that psychological science has some presence while APS gathers strength.

We are dedicated to learning from the APA

The structure of APS is open and evolving, and designed to be temporary. In fact, our by-laws mandate that the APS structure be formally reconsidered within three years. Many models are possible and which will be chosen cannot be predicted. However, the goals of the founders are clear: to achieve balance of substantive interest groups in the Society’s policy-making bodies, to prevent the domination of one group by another by force of numbers, to permit those with common interest autonomy in conducting their own affairs, and to encourage those in different areas to work together to achieve common goals

It is highly unlikely that APS will ever grow in size of membership and even more particularly, in size of dues to the point that will allow us to have a large central office staff and to support an extensive (and expensive) superstructure of boards, committees, and task forces. (Our members wouldn’t permit it!) A far more likely role for APS is that of facilitator: encouraging and assisting colleagues with common interests to come together. The Norman Summit meeting and its outcomes can serve as a model for the future. Several groups have already formed to work on such issues as undergraduate and graduate education and others are underway. And the participants voted to hold another similar conference next year.

Speaking personally, the most heartening outcome of the Summit meeting was discovering the shared commitment of the diverse group of attendees to preserving the unity of psychology as a discipline and the will to do what is necessary to bring us together.