Balancing Unity and Diversity: Reflections on The Five-Year History of APS

Steven C. Hayes, a Foundation Professor of Psychology and Director of Clinical Training at the University of Nevada, is one of the core group of pioneers who began APS. He proposed the formation of the progenitor of APS, the Assembly of Scientific and Applied Psychology (ASAP), chaired its organizing committee, and housed its office and the first APS office in his laboratory. He edited the ASAP Newsletter (As Soon As Possible), and the first two volumes of the APS Observer, and was the first Secretary-Treasurer of APS. He is currently Vice-President of the American Association of Applied and Preventive Psychology (AAAPP).

APS was five years old this past August, and the Society has been enormously successful, as measured by growth and impact. APS has fought for scientific values, especially in the area of the funding of psychological science, and the national psychology research agenda articulated in the Human Capital lnitiative (HCI) is a magnificent example of what we have been able to do. Almost all psychological scientists would agree that APS is a strong voice for many of the concerns of scientific psychology.

We can look back with pride over the last five years. APS set out to be an activist psychological organization that crossed all subdisciplinary boundaries, applied and basic, and was united by its commitment to scientific values and the public good. On many levels APS is on track. For example, early this year the APS membership approved changes to the bylaws recommended by a formal review committee. This first set of changes to the APS charge stemmed from the APS founders having mandated — in the APS bylaws — a recurring in-depth review of the bylaws to make certain that APS remains on task. On another level, though, I believe it is worth asking ourselves how much more we could be doing.

United

When APS was first organized, we deliberately concentrated our energies on noncontroversial problems. For example, it was at the second meeting of the APS-initiated Summit of Scientific Psychological Societies that the Human Capital Initiative (HCI) emerged. Several equally worthwhile possibilities were explored at the first such Summit, but they were also more controversial. As a young organization, developing the HCI national research agenda for behavioral science made sense.

Similarly, we adopted an efficient governmental structure and a convention program that avoided addressing potential divisions within our own ranks. It was of primary importance that we emphasize the unity that exists within the discipline of psychology. This too made sense in the context of the Society’s youth and the nation’s need for serious applications of psychology’s scientific resources.

And Divided

But some of these decisions were made for strategic or tactical reasons, and over time they can become fundamental, if we are not clear about our core values and purpose. I fear this is already happening.

I will examine these issues as examples of the challenges we face: mounting a comprehensive activist agenda in the area of applied science, bridging the applied-basic interface within scientific psychology, and finding a way to include intellectual minorities. For APS to be all that it can be, each of these problems needs to be solved.

The Interface Between Applied and Basic Science

I believe a perception is emerging that APS is primarily a basic psychology organization. This perception is not accurate, but it could become so if we are not careful.

The Applied History of APS

Applied psychology has figured strongly in APS’s history. APS was in large part a creation of scientist-practitioners. The majority of ASAP members were applied, as were most of the core group of APS founders. For example, the APS bylaws were written by three clinical psychologists, two applied social psychologists, and an I/O psychologist. In fact, when the name “American Psycbological Society” was first proposed, the proponent wrote in big letters on the board: “APS — where Applied Psychological Science happens.” And in those early days the newsletters often included passionate discussions of many clinical concerns. Basic scientists were very important, but applied scientists were at least equally important in APS into the 1990s.

There was a reason for this heavy applied involvement. The changes in the American Psychological Association (APA) that led to the APS revolution had a direct and painful impact on scientist-practitioners within APA, perhaps even more dramatic that the impact on basic scientists, many of whom had already left APA. The scientist-practitioners saw disciplinary values being subjugated to monetary values. They longed for a day when scientific values dominated in the delivery of psychological services. They feared the growing intrusion of guild interests into academic training standards and licensing requirements, realizing that the control of training and employment ultimately meant control of the discipline itself. The scientist-practitioners wanted a society that would address these concerns, as well as the broader concerns of scientific psychologists everywhere.

Applied Psychologists and the Structure of APS

APS still has a strong applied membership base, and APS struggles with issues of applied relevance such as accreditation, but it look more and more like a basic psychology organization over time. Paradoxically, this is partly because applied psychologists had a big hand in organizing APS.

The Bardon plan for APA reorganization envisioned two assemblies: scientific (which would include both basic and applied scientists) and professional practice. Defeat of this plan led within hours to the formation of ASAP. The subsequent APA reorganization plan by the Group on Restructuring APA (GOR­APA) envisioned assemblies for basic science, applied science, professional practice, and other areas (e.g., public interest).

Defeat of the GOR-APA plan led within hours to the transformation of ASAP into APS. There were two models to choose from. APS could have two assemblies (basic science and applied science) or be an undifferentiated group.

The later was chosen — indeed the applied psychologists who wrote the APS bylaws (myself included) barely considered the two-assembly model. Applied scientists think of themselves as scientists, even though they may also be practitioners. They like being in one undifferentiated group with basic scientists, because it appeals to this identity. It is not a surprise that the Bardon model was writ large in APS; APS would be the “scientific assembly” and would include both basic and applied scientists. APA could function as the practice assembly.

But the need to emphasize areas of immediate agreement early in the history of APS created an inherent asymmetry. The activist agenda of basic scientific psychology, such as increasing funding for psychological science, is easily understood and embraced by all scientific psychologists, basic and applied. The activist agenda of applied scientific psychology takes time to differentiate from guild issues. For example, at the first APS Summit some basic psychological scientists gave a strongly negative reception to a break-out group report about how scientific knowledge should lead to scientifically based standards of care. It must have sounded to these basic scientists’ ears like a political or guild issue, even if the report was about how to ensure that the most empirically based treatments are delivered to the public.

The crucial distinction involved can be worked out with time, but the one-assembly governance structure, especially without subordinate Divisions, Assemblies, or even Special Interest Groups, does not ensure that this work will be done. Nothing in the structure of APS demands that we understand, resolve or even recognize our many differences. Nothing in the structure of APS ensures that we will work to bridge the interface between applied and basic scientific psychology on the basis of shared scientific values.

AAAPP

In 1990 a group of scientist-practitioners formed the American Association of Applied and Preventive Psychology. It holds an annual meeting concurrent with the APS convention, has become an affiliate organization of APS, and is a strong ally. The existence of AAAPP has removed some of the pressure, but to me it is unfortunate that this group is outside of APS rather than within it.

Protection of Intellectual Minorities

The trend toward undifferentiation was continued throughout APS. For example, we set up a convention with a very small number of tracks, and we avoided Special Interest Groups and Divisions. At the time it felt right because it emphasized our unity and because we were all phobic about political turmoil after the APA reorganization battle, but there was a downside: weak protection of “intellectual minorities.” The protection of intellectual minorities within APS depends on who is on the Board or appointed to the convention committee, but election (or appointment) from an intellectual minority is obviously less likely overall than election from the mainstream.

Let me use an example from my own intellectual group. Many basic and applied behavior analysts joined APS. They were there early — Division 25 was the first APA Division to affiliate with ASAP/APS. But the behavior analysts are very much an intellectual minority within psychology. And while they were initially highly visible within APS and at the first convention, that is no longer true — not because of ill will but because APS has no reliable way to ensure the participation of intellectual minorities more generally.

Over time there has developed a belief that any divisions or distinctions within APS will harm APS. Some seem to feel that the terrible divisions within APA came from the very presence of Divisions, caucuses, and the like. But it was not Divisions that divided APA: it was the presence of radically distinct values and goals, and a “majority rules” mentality that allowed Divisions to be used to promote one set of values over another. The real and legitimate monetary interests of professional practice could only coexist with disciplinary values if each had their own sphere of influence. That was what APA reorganization was all about. Failure to make that compromise is what gave birth to APS.

I think we could develop a hybrid arrangement within APS that would avoid the Byzantine politics that befell APA but which would allow for a more structured recognition of intellectual diversity. I would like to outline one such alternative. Perhaps we could allow the formation of Assemblies or Special Interest Groups, and collect dues for these entities through the regular dues mailings. They could meet concurrently with the APS convention, organizing sessions of their own if they wish. Some kind of advisory group could be formed by representatives of these subgroups, which could in turn consult with the APS Board. They could periodically be given some space in the Observer, and journals they own could be offered to APS members at a discount. This “Divisions without the politics” proposal may not solve all the problems I’ve outlined, but it would give us a place to begin.

APS can be a better umbrella under which all of scientific psychology can reside. But to do so, it must allow for organized diversity in the context of unity and shared values. We need an activist agenda that thoroughly connects with the concerns of scientist-practitioners as well as basic scientists, we need to bridge the applied-basic interface, and we need to find a way to better include the intellectual minorities and their legitimate aspirations. When that day arrives, a much larger APS will be the booming and comprehensive voice of scientific values in psychology that its organizers envisioned and that the discipline and public needs.