Letters to the Editor
To the Editor:
It is my belief that there are very few successful statutory efforts that take us backward in time, and I can not believe that the state/provincial legislative bodies that establish the licensing statutes for psychologists would have any desire or incentive to do so in the case of the licensing of I-O psychologists. Prior to 1969, I-O psychologists in Texas, where I practice, were not licensed and did not fall within the purview of any licensing laws. After 1969, I-O psychologists in Texas who called themselves a “psychologist” (and at some later point who “practiced” psychology) were required to be licensed. Academics, researchers, and in-house I-Os were exempt. In 2009, (and for the foreseeable future) to practice psychology in Texas as an I-O (e.g., conduct assessments with psychological instruments) and call yourself a “psychologist” you must be licensed. I say “must”; clearly there is not exacting enforcement, but noncompliance means purposely breaking the law, which if for no other reason I find to be a violation of professional and business ethics and my personal values. Regardless of what APA’s Model Licensing Act (MLA) says, I cannot imagine the Texas Legislature or very many other legislative bodies turning the clock back 40 years and declaring practicing I-Os to now be exempt.
In my judgment a better message to be sent by the more senior members of SIOP and faculty members who prepare the younger members of our profession is that if you are going to practice I-O psychology (I guess 50% of SIOP members may fall in this category) and call yourself a “psychologist” then you should prepare to become licensed. If that includes internships and supervision, then we need to find ways to make it happen. If it means being exposed to certain courses, then identify opportunities for students to take them. (I note that the MLA exempts I-O from having an APA-accredited curricula. There are, however, a variety of courses in the MLA that define required coursework [ethics, research design and methods, statistics, psychometric theory, biological bases of behavior, cognitive-affective bases of behavior, social bases of behavior, and individual differences]. If we are not now teaching most of this content in I-O psychology programs, then what are we teaching?)
In summary, it is my belief that any attempts to exempt “practicing” I-O psychologists from the state and provincial licensing acts are likely to be fruitless, and in any case do a disservice to our profession. In fact, it is my sense that there are very few, if any, professions that have practitioners who directly influence the well-being of individuals who are not licensed. There is no basis for I-O psychologists who practice like I do to be the exception.
There is no reason for SIOP to take an official stance that licensing is somehow inappropriate or not applicable to what we do when we offer psychological services to organizations and to individuals. Nor is there any reason to assert that licensure should or should not be “mandatory.” The only bodies that can speak (and have spoken) to whether or not I-O psychologists must be licensed are the state boards and legislatures. Certainly there are those who may take the traditional stance of SIOP that the work of some I-Os does not impact individuals and ought not to require licensure but that licensure should not be denied to those who do perform such work.
The matter of accreditation has been offered as a major reason to oppose licensure. But I cannot find the relationship between the fear of accreditation and the need for “unequivocal resistance to mandatory licensing” as expressed by a group of esteemed faculty members in their letter to the SIOP Executive Committee (TIP, 46(4), April, 2009). As far as I can tell there does not seem to be any desire or intention on the part of APA to impose accreditation on I-O psychology programs. Moreover, if APA did wish to require I-O programs to be accredited, I do not believe licensure would be the principle argument for doing so, since our academic colleagues are exempt from licensing.
Let’s not go back 40 years. Vicki Vandeveer and Judy Blanton served us well in developing a better place for I-Os in the MLA. Let’s not destroy it. If the accreditation battle ever needs to be fought, I would be happy to give my full support to my academic colleagues. In the mean time, I trust that the academics and others who do not need to be licensed will support those of us who must be licensed.
Dick Jeanneret
|