APA Presidential Elections
Michael J. Burke
As Bill Macey and Ann Marie Ryan did the last 2 years, I wrote to each of the five APA presidential candidates asking them to respond to three questions. Similar questions have been posed the last few years and deal with issues related to licensure, professional training, and the relationship of I-O psychology within the broader field of psychology. I hope the responses are helpful to those of you who are APA members and plan to vote in the upcoming APA presidential election.
The unedited responses of the three candidates who responded to the questions are presented below.
Question 1
A survey of SIOP members indicates that most are opposed to the licensure of I-O psychologists. At the same time, many of our members live in states where they are required to be licensed and are finding it increasingly difficult to meet requirements. For example, California requires course work in child abuse, which is not a part of I-O training or practice. Additionally, a number of states do not permit I-O psychologists to be licensed. What is your position on licensure and licensure requirements for I-O psychologists?
Larry E. Beutler:
Fundamentally, licensure laws were established to protect both clinical/ counseling psychologists and those who were patients of clinical and counseling psychologists. The laws are written in ways that require a type of preparation and continuing education that is often/usually irrelevant to the practices of I-O psychologists. This threatens to reduce the ability of I-O psychologists appropriately to market their services.
Rather than dispensing with licensing altogether, however, I favor finding alternative ways to continue to ensure the public that the psychologists with whom they work are legitimate. I favor offering I-O psychologists in each state a choice among three options: (a) being exempt from licensure in those cases where there are other bodies (e.g., academic institutions and ABPP) that verify their credentials through inspection and examination; (b) developing a professional certification or registry program to replace licensure, based on examination of I-O specific knowledge; or (c) modifying the extant licensing laws to make them more compatible with I-O psychological knowledge and practice.
I support developing model state legislation that would provide for a separate I-O track for licensure. This legislation would address the roles and training of I-O psychologists, much in the same way that school psychologists have done in most states. I believe that APA could and should help establish guidelines for assessing training and expertise in this field as it has in clinical, counseling, and school psychology.
Ron Levant:
I think that SIOPs policy on licensure (posted on the SIOP Web site), which indicates that SIOP members who wish to be licensed should be able to do so, is very wise. As was noted in the question, a number of state and provincial regulations make it difficult for I-O psychologists to get licensed. I understand that the specific example cited is out-of-date. In California, I-O psychologists can request and obtain exemption from child abuse training. I strongly support amending current laws and regulations so that they are more appropriate for I-O psychologists and so that they can be licensed if they desire. I have observed that some states require that candidates for licensure graduate from an APA-accredited program or have an APA-accredited internship. Because APA does not accredit I-O programs, this effectively excludes I-O psychologists from licensure. In many of these states, exclusion from licensure means that I-O psychologists cannot identify themselves as psychologists and are forced to use another title. I oppose such exclusion, and, in such states, would support amending state laws and regulations to exempt I-O psychologists from licensure, if this would allow them to use the title of psychologist and practice within their sphere of expertise. I would be willing to facilitate SIOPs discussion of this issue with ASPPB and the Practice Directorate.
SIOPs policy on licensure also notes that many, if not most, I-O psychologists practice in more than one state from time to time and are thus affected by the lack of licensure mobility that characterizes all of professional psychology. I am coguest-editing a forthcoming special section for
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice that deals with the issue of licensure mobility and have included a chapter by a SIOP member that addresses the difficulties that I-O psychologists have in working across jurisdictions. Raising these issues in such a professional forum may be helpful in influencing policy.
Steve Ragusea:
I agree with the majority. Based upon my experience as president of the Pennsylvania Psychological Association and also as a member of the Pennsylvania Board of Psychology, I-O psychologists should look toward a separate certification process, specifically based on their professional training, standards, and competencies. In Pennsylvania, one appropriate model to consider would be that of the certification of school psychologists, which is clearly differentiated from licensure but meets a variety of important needs in the school psychology community.
Question 2
We have witnessed a spate of articles advising clinical psychologists to enter the workplace as a new practice domain. Many of our members are concerned about individuals who are approaching new practice areas without appropriate training/retooling (e.g., personnel assessment, team interventions). What, if any, types of additional training should psychologists trained in traditional psychology programs receive before practicing in workplace settings in nonclinical areas?
Larry Beutler:
I appreciate the need to ensure that psychologists of every ilk, when they offer services to the public, do so from a strong background of training, academic knowledge, and research, all of which should come together to produce skills that are typical and peculiar to a discipline.
Psychologists are diverse, but there are some important differences among clinical and I-O psychologists and these should be respected, for the sake of those who receive our services.
Psychology has failed to develop clear descriptions of the various disciplines and subspecialties in ways that identify the special knowledge and training that should characterize each. A taxonomy of psychology is needed in order to help define the nature of requisite skills and background for each discipline. There are efforts underway to accomplish this task.
But, until a taxonomy is available, each discipline should be responsible for defining the particular areas of knowledge and practice that comprise its expertise. While there is a place for the skills of a clinical psychologist in industry and organizations, as well as for I-O psychologists in mental health programs, sharing space and self-defining expertise will invariably result in conflict. I favor the development of a Board of Specialties, to mediate differences in professional roles and training. This board would be empowered to determine areas in which special training is required for practice. Through a combination of ethics boards and legislation, efforts could then be initiated to ensure that those who provide service to the public are trained to do so, regardless of the setting in which they work.
Ron Levant:
The APA Ethics Code requires that psychologists practice within their areas of competence. As in any retraining area, I would expect that clinically trained psychologists obtain appropriate training and supervision to prepare them to practice in the workplace. We need to educate those psychologists who wish to move into new areas about the complexities of practice in that arena. Although there are clinical skills that are transferable to the workplace, there are clear content areas concerning the workplace where clinicians need substantive training. I would encourage clinicians who are interested in practicing within the workplace to understand the limits of their competence. I would further encourage them to take continuing education programs (as offered at SIOP and APA or other venues), obtain postdoctoral training and/or obtain supervision from senior I-O psychologists when they contemplate moving into these areas. I would welcome input from SIOP about skill areas that would be important in such a retooling process.
Steve Ragusea:
Well, thats a trick question isnt it? The only correct answer is, It depends. New jobs demand new competencies based upon the nature of the tasks.
Id rather answer the question by saying that I believe the basic concept is a bad idea. Psychologists should stay psychologists. In only 100 years, psychology has become the premier mental health profession in the world. Why would anybody want to lose or dilute the precious value of that professional identity? Does anybody really think that Johnson & Johnson would ultimately be more successful selling BAND-AIDs as Healing-Coach Adhesive Strips? I think not.
Question 3
Our member survey indicates concern, particularly among our academic members, regarding the status of I-O psychology in the field of psychology and in psychology departments. For example, introductory textbooks provide little more than passing reference to our field, major departments treat applied fields as second-class, and so forth. If elected, what will you do to assist SIOP in promoting I-O psychology to other psychologists?
Larry Beutler:
I am concerned that I-O psychology has become more closely aligned with business schools than with departments of psychology. Part of this alignment is a function of the common field in which business and I-O psychologists have functioned. But, I believe that it is advantageous to be identified with a psychology and to retain a home for I-O psychology within a department of psychology. I am interested in working with I-O psychology groups to identify ways in which this might be done and to encourage the identification of a common set of principles that bind all of us together. The secret to re-enfranchising I-O psychology is assuring that collaboration and communication include participants from all disciplines and points of view within disciplines. When we can bring a community of scholars and practitioners together at the same table, in open dialogue, we can usually come up with ideas and plans to correct the fragmentations that have characterized our field. I favor establishing a work group devoted to exploring ways to re-invent psychology so it includes I-O perspectives within the mainstream of our field.
Ron Levant:
If elected president, I plan to represent all of psychology, science as well as practice. I know that psychologys strength derives from its rich scientific and professional traditions. I have a vision for psychologys future in which the growing integration of the science and practice of psychology will expand opportunities for knowledge generation and service delivery aimed at addressing societys most pressing problems, and thus make psychology a household word. Hence I will do everything I could to enhance the prestige of all of psychology.
I understand that SIOP has developed an excellent brochure describing I-O psychology. As part of my initiative to make psychology a household word, I will do everything I can to enhance the distribution of this brochure and to publicize the work of I-O psychologists in my work with the media and the public. I would welcome input from SIOP about promoting I-O psychology to other psychologists.
Steve Ragusea:
In all my years serving in the Pennsylvania Psychological Association, the organization consistently but furtively worked to involve I-O psychologists in our organization. I-O psychologists generally rejected our efforts at inclusion because they typically saw the I-O agenda as too different from that of the overall discipline of psychology. That was an unfortunate error then and it remains so. We are much stronger together than we are divided.
I-O psychologists need to join with their professional colleagues and reintegrate themselves into the fabric of psychology by actively participating in APA as well as their state or provincial psychological association. Any major department of psychology that treats applied fields as second class should be avoided. Stay out of the way as they plummet into the pit of academic oblivion. Research scientists and applied psychologists must work together to advance our field.
As chair of Pennsylvanias Practice Research Network (PRN) for 6 years, I have worked to encourage a rebirth of the scientist-practitioner model in which clinicians and research scientists work together to conduct meaningful psychological research which is both rigorous and relevant. (See
Clinical Psychology Science and Practice Vol. 8 [2]). As president of APA, I will work to bring research scientists and clinicians
and I-O psychologists together, focusing on the development of a national PRN. Such a model will provide unparalleled research opportunities four our scientific community while simultaneously validating the work of our applied community. We are, after all, one discipline, psychology.
October 2003 Table
of Contents | TIP Home
| SIOP Home