Review of The Practice of Psychology: The Battle for Professionalism.

Abstract

Readers of Psychotherapy: Theory/Research/Practice/Training who realize they are member of perhaps the only professional discipline ever to have been condemned by overwhelming vote of the U.S. House of Representatives should receive a further lesson in humility from reading this volume, edited by Rogers H. Wright and Nicholas A. Cummings. Speaking in effect to the governance of the American Psychological Association (APA), Wright and Cummings give their readers these facets of APA's history, a history that might give readers pause about what should be considered qualifying experience by the electorate of APA for its highest offices. Indeed, one might call into question what-aside from name recognition-counts for anything in the selection process.Internal political considerations, however, do not detract from the intent of this particular text. The Practice of Psychology is potentially valuable, in my view, if for no reason than to illustrate the origins of intra-APA politics. It shows just how far there is to go before a reasonable democratic participation level in APA is reached; it also recognizes the potential seriousness of the stakes for the involvement of psychologists in organized psychology and for the involvement of organized psychology in the real, political world.The Practice of Psychology is mostly about content related to its subtitle: The Battle for Professionalism. It is a story about the commitment and accomplishments of a small number of relatively similarly minded psychologists, struggling to transform the APA from what is was (a sleepy, paper-reading society insulated from real-world concerns, including these of its own members and those of the larger culture of which APA is a part) to what it has yet to become in truth: an effective vehicle for the advocacy of the discipline of psychology and what that discipline has to offer others. This so-called "Dirty Dozen" band of pioneers, shocked by the monolithic control of the APA governance apparatus by institutionally employed advocates of the status quo in the 1960s, struggled to make the internal world of APA safe for applied psychology, especially applications to the health and mental health needs of the public.For psychologists who are committed to public action-both to benefit the profession of psychology and to benefit the public that seems in such striking need of the services of psychologists-a brief reading of some of the chapters in this text is an excruciating lesson in lost opportunities and failed lessons in public education. The chapter by Jack G. Wiggins, for example, provides a case in point.Wiggins describes the lackadaisical response of the 1965 APA Board of Directors, which reluctantly granted twenty minutes of a meeting to hear a plea from some APA members who had been invited by several U.S.

Public policy formulation: A front-line perspective.

“…There can be little ques tion that the paradigm shift from the tradi tional research-oriented PhD degree to the professionally oriented PsyD degree rep resented a fundamental change in psy chology's self-image and underlying mis sion. This is a change not likely to be reversed (Wright & Cummings, 2001).…”

Presidential reflections: Past and future.

“…There can be little question that the paradigm shift from the traditional research-oriented doctor of philosophy degree to the professional-oriented doctor of psychology degree-which commenced in 1970 with the opening of the first independent professional school, the California School of Professional Psychology-represented a fundamental change in psychology's self-image and underlying mission. This change will never be reversed (Wright & Cummings, 2001). And it is a change that continues to generate a healthy tension within the APA.…”

The licensing of behavior analysts: Protecting the profession and the public.

“…When clinical psychology was endeavoring to come out from under the shadow of psychiatry as an independent licensed mental health profession, these moves were strongly opposed by the American Psychiatric Association, with this group claiming that psychologists were attempted to practice medicine without a license. In addition, while the American Psychological Association is now a strong lobbying organization for the field of clinical psychology at the time it too was staunchly opposed to the movement towards licensure (see Cummings, 2005;Wright & Cummings, 2001).…”