Public psychology: Planning a role for psychology

Abstract

The concept of public psychology has been mooted for some time as a vehicle by which psychologists may involve themselves in creating or managing social change. Nevertheless there has been disappointment expressed by several authors that the discipline has been ineffective in dealing with matters of public policy. This paper suggests that Australian psychology can benefit by studying the philosophical, ethical and professional role issues which have been evident in the development of other professions involved in public policy. Comparisons of the history and activities of the planning profession and psychology are made by highlighting some philosophical and professional issues. It is suggested that there is a case for greater involvement by psychologists in policy formulation or public psychology. Nevertheless it is concluded that the development of public psychology has been limited by the tendency of psychologists to rely too much on our positivistic methodological background. Opportunities do exist in the study of, and involvement in the dynamics of, the planning process itself. These dynamics include both the behaviour and ethical judgements of the psychologist and planner during policy formulation and an assessment of the criteria against which the community will determine issues such as equity and ethics. Some specific avenues of action and research are suggested in this context.

New directions for research and practice in psychology in rural areas

“…The setting up of the Australian Ruial Health Research Institute, important broad and professional developments such as the Federal Government's imminent regional development strategy, and the ideas suggested by Syme and Bishop (1993) highlight opportunities for the psychology profession to have a direct influence on the wider economic and social environment (Harvey & Strasser, 1995). They provide an opportunity for the profession to benefit a significant section of Australia's population.…”

“…What does it mean to live in the country and to practice psychology in a rural setting? Syme and Bishop (1993) have argued for the application of psychological principles in public psychology and policy formation. How do we apply psychological principles in rural communities?…”

Community psychology in Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand

“…Although some clinical focus has remained (e.g., Curry & Farhall, 1995), community psychology has been adopted by people from a variety of disciplines within psychology. The range of disciplinary backgrounds of those who see themselves as community psychologists is broad, some with backgrounds in clinical psychology and community mental health (e.g., Curry & Farhall, 1995;Pretty, Andrewes, & Collett, 1994), in cross-cultural and Indigenous psychology (e.g., Bishop & Sonn, 2000;Dudgeon, Garvey & Pickett, 2000;Sonn & Fisher, 1996, from gender equity backgrounds (Gridley & Turner, 2005;Oliver & Hamerton, 1992), and from applied social and environmental psychology (e.g., O'Connor, Pooley & Cohen, 1997;Syme & Bishop, 1993). This variety of backgrounds enables the integration of differing worldviews and values to provide the energy to develop new perspectives.…”

Public Policy, Participation and the Third Position: The Implication of Engaging Communities on their Own Terms

“…Community psychologists working within agencies have opportunity to create considerable change, but need to recognize they have limited power, as policy formulation is influenced by many political and social factors that may or may not be easily accessible to consciousness (Syme and Bishop 1993;Szyliowicz 2003). A necessary component of the role of community psychologists in policy formulation is that of the participant-conceptualizer (Bennet et al 1966;Reiff 1968), where the community psychologists are able to deconstruct the context and nature of policy, and to inform and affect others involved in policy setting.…”

“…The involvement of community psychologists in public policy has been advocated since the development of the discipline (e.g., Albee 1959;Bennet et al 1966;Newbrough 1980;Reiff 1968;Sarason 1974;Syme and Bishop 1993). If community psychology is to deal with social and community level change, then influencing policy and policy makers must be a key element of the discipline.…”