Psychologists are scientists (psychology means the study of the mind). Do psychologists apply science in their professional work? Sometimes. Many clinical psychologists do their best to provide empirically supported treatment for every problem clients bring to them. Also, I have seen an academic psychologist ask of university marketers: What is the evidence that all this money you are spending leads to more students studying here? The usual answer pertains to the number of people in Internet Land who click on a certain facebook or Google ad. Any evidence that they enroll after clicking? No. But the psychologist is asking the right questions for a scientist.
When it comes to education (and continuing education) though, many psychologists operate nothing like a scientist. They disregard student evaluations of courses and instructors (what do students know?), and they show no interest in which teaching methods have the best evidence of helping students learn. At the higher levels of educational control, psychologists who create rules for accreditation of psychology programs typically show no interest in whether the requirements they create out of their all-knowing minds have any evidence showing that they help ensure students are able to do something valuable when they graduate. The rule makers apply their beliefs, they weigh heavily the education they received long ago, and they ignore the matter of empirical support for the requirements they create and maintain for decade after decade. So students must take a class in Perception. And another on this specific topic and that.
Why do some individuals who are trained as scientists fail to apply scientific thinking to their work? I suspect that some of these individuals never truly understood or valued the scientific method, which is based on skepticism and a search for evidence for and against propositions. It is also possible that the non-appliers find science inconvenient and dangerous. Collecting data to test whether certain accreditation standards serve an important purpose takes research-design knowledge and effort, and the results might point away from cherished beliefs about how students ought to be educated.
Do you think psychologists ought to apply the scientific method in their professional work?
John Malouff, PhD, JD, Assoc Prof of Psychology
Wow,
How to comment on this somewhat provocative post, John? Once upon a time, in another discipline, in a galaxy not too far away, I watched “standards” being upgraded. Why? For academic reasons? Not really. It was to meet the demand of a new marketplace. There was really no desire to improve the discipline from within. It was simply a response to outside (market/government) forces, and the potential of jobs in the new system for those at the top.
The old guard applied much higher “qualifications” (not standards) for potential students, and raised the qualifications for entry to professional associations. All this to make the discipline appear more science based. Those of us with science backgrounds were perplexed, as the science was an ad hoc addition, rather than integrated into the curriculum at a fundamental level. Not only that, it squeezed out the practicum, reducing clinical training.
There is a parallel I see in some psychology undergraduate and postgrad programs, with maths and science based units being taught to students with little basic maths or science on board. The science-based academic struggles with non-science students, and has to pull back on the course. The students struggle because they haven’t already done the requisite fundamentals in science.
I am reminded of my colleague, a PhD biochemist, appalled at the science curriculum his daughters had completed for their medical degrees. He was biased, but they really didn’t understand basic cell biology. (Ask any GP the difference between meiosis and mitosis.) It was in his opinion flawed, whether the student’s pathway was practice or research.
Science is a way of thinking and approaching each situation, not a few units in an undergraduate degree. And the basis of science is of course philosophy, something seldom encountered in any science program in Australia. The challenge increases when producing a combined course for academic and clinical graduates.
On a simpler note, I believe that every clinician needs to be scientific, and determine at least how they and their client will know that the intervention has had an effect. It’s simple science in the world of resources we live in.
The most useful insights often come from “failure”. When you have an immediate success, what actually worked? I’d love to see journal articles commenting on therapeutic interventions that didn’t quite hit the mark, with comments regarding future strategies to improve success.
I’m hoping this is not sounding too cynical. The advancement of any helping profession relies upon checking that the system is working and serving the best interests of those who receive the help.
All the best with carrying the flag forward for debate and discussion on this important issue.
Hi Michael. Skepticism is a good thing. Sometimes a psychologist just has to act, in the absence of evidence supporting one action over another. That is not ideal tho. Making decisions on the basis of evidence supporting a certain course of action is the best way to operate as a psychologist.