ERIC EJ876501: A Place for Everything, and Everything in Its Place

2008·0.05 MB·English

by  ERIC

A place for everything, and everything
in its place
John Radford
T
HAT WASthe admirable advice of Mrs further even than he proposes. There is first,
Beeton in 1861. In this issue of the as he says, the unavoidable fact that psychol-
Reviewwe have 16 papers on the general ogy has to compete within the educational
theme of the ‘place’ of psychology, particu- system for resources and prestige, and I agree
larly in education and more particularly in entirely that the status of being a science is
higher education. The editor and I are most an important factor here. I myself fought
grateful for these very interesting and valu- several battles over this, in general success-
able contributions. They arose from my fully. But there is also the fact that psycholo-
paper Psychology in its place’ (PTR, 14(1)). gists are engaged in political issues in the
That was originally written with no thought of wider sense (as I do touch on in my
responses but as a one-off discussion of vari- paper). Psychological research and results
ous issues. There was an unusually long delay are vitally relevant to many political issues,
between acceptance and publication, due to ranging from general education and child
a change of editor. Some of my figures rearing, to penal policies, to the effects
became out of date, but I don’t think that of mass media, and so on. The Society is
affected any of the issues. When it was in very active in trying to bring psychological
press, the new editor, Paul Sander, and I expertise to bear on such matters. There are
came up with the idea that some people also issues about the involvement of psychol-
might care, not necessarily to reply to me, but ogists in activities such as the treatment of
rather to express views on the issues I raised, political prisoners, or the presentation of
or any related ones. Invitations were sent to a governmental propaganda. All these are
wide range of individuals and organisations complex and difficult matters.
such as the member networks of the Society. John Newland disagrees with me when
Sixteen is obviously a tiny sample of the mem- I say that a discipline does not have bound-
bership of the Society, well over 40,000 aries. Congruent with the foregoing, he
strong, let alone the very much larger argues that boundaries are essential in the
number of psychology graduates and others political arena. He says that I make a distinc-
with a serious interest. Nevertheless, several tion between a profession, which has bound-
themes do emerge from the disparate contri- aries, and a discipline which does not. But I
butions. also distinguish both of these from a subject,
Before mentioning these, I will pick up that is, the organisation of material and
two papers which directly comment on my resources (including the human ones), gen-
original one, though I feel with some misun- erally for the purposes of dissemination,
derstanding of what I was trying to say. John especially teaching. The boundaries he
Newland raises two issues which he says are describes are appropriate to psychology as a
lacking in my paper. As he says, the two are subject. They are unavoidable, not only for
closely related though not identical. One is political purposes but for everyday use. Any
the place of psychology in the political con- examinable course, for example, must have a
text. He is quite right, I did neglect this, and syllabus, which must be available to the stu-
it is most important. Indeed, I suggest it goes dents. Otherwise no valid and fair examina-
58 Psychology Teaching Review Vol 14 No 2
© The British Psychological Society 2008
A place for everything, and everything in its place
tion can be set. Researchers and teachers species). As to embracing allied disciplines, I
must have control over their laboratories don’t regard disciplines as entities to be
and other resources, or at least defined ‘embraced’ or rejected. Every scientist,
rights of access, and so on. I have banged on indeed every serious pursuer of an enquiry,
about these distinctions for some years now, must seek whatever is of use. The label is
but I still think they are both important and irrelevant. ‘Je prends mon bien oú je le trouve’, as
often neglected. I have argued, for example, Molière wrote. Tom also says that he does not
that they lie behind the disputes over the share my ‘anthropocentric vision of psychology –
role and value of the Graduate Basis of Reg- for me it is all about behaving creatures’. If
istration. A discipline, I want to stress, in my ‘anthropocenric’ implies that I think psy-
view does not and cannot have boundaries. chology should only be about human beings,
It is intrinsic to the nature of a discipline, I reject that. But while disciplines may not
regarded as an enquiry into a set of appar- have boundaries, they do have something
ently related problems, that nothing can be that justifies the use of different labels. In my
ruled out in principle. The notorious ‘mad- view that is a focus, by which I mean the
ness’ of George III is now thought to have main aim of the enquirers. A focus may be
resulted from the disease porphyria. broad or narrow. ‘Behaving creatures’ is
Whether or not this is correct, it would be obviously wider than ‘human beings’. It is
absurd for a historian to refuse to consider it factually correct, however, that the vast bulk
on the grounds that it is a matter of medi- of work we recognise as ‘psychology’ is con-
cine, not history. It is equally absurd to hold cerned with humans, as are the majority of
that some enquiries are ‘psychology’ and ‘psychologists’ even if they carry different
others not, on a territorial basis. All that mat- titles . This in no way means rejecting the
ters is whether they help to illuminate a fact that we are part of the animal kingdom.
problem. I would also maintain that human behaviour
This brings me to Tom Dickins’ paper. is in many ways unique.
He says that I espouse Tom’s argument is in the context of
‘a strange relativism about the subject, arguing that advancing a case for an evolutionary
we ought to take seriously the “psychologies” of other ‘theory of human nature that avoids essentialist
cultures and embrace allied disciplines’. claims by embedding accounts of humans within a
I don’t think this is relativism. Relativism to broader theory of nature’.
me means regarding all views (or cultures, This is partly in response to what he sees as
etc.) as of equal (or no) value. I don’t think my failure to provide criteria for selection
that the views about human behaviour of, and combination of data (given my unselec-
say, traditional Christian or Hindu thinkers tive ‘relativism’); criteria which would be
are of equal value to ours, because while they ‘based on a particular theoretical perspective of how
are the result of much experience, thought the world works’.
and insight, they lack the empirical founda- I am not sure that I have such a perspective. I
tion which is now being established. ‘Origi- do have a perspective of how we should go
nal sin’, and reincarnation, for example, are about trying to understand how the world
(on my reading of the evidence) just not works. It is that of science. By that I mean
true. But this does not mean that the views observing, measuring, investigating, experi-
are of no value, or irrelevant. They are part menting, testing and falsifying, as far as we
of what humans have thought and do think can, and all as objectively as we can manage,
about themselves, and are part of the data of recognising that we (psychologists) are our-
Psychology. If our aim is to understand selves part of the subject matter, and that our
behaviour, this must include behaviour in own individuality affects what we do. I think
different times and cultures (just as Tom Tom might agree with that. And I would
himself argues that we must include other entirely agree with him that the behaviour of
Psychology Teaching Review Vol 14 No 2 59
John Radford
ourselves and other species cannot be under- graduates will not become professional
stood without its evolutionary development. I psychologists, or even perhaps enter a
also agree with a later point, that therefore related occupation. Several suggestions are
evolutionary psychology should not be con- made about increasing and emphasising the
sidered as a subsection of the content of psy- range of general skills that graduates might
chology. I do not think, however, that evolution have to offer. There is also the matter of sell-
does or can provide an explanation for the ing a psychology degree in the employment
whole of human behaviour including mental market place. Two aspects are the views of
processes. I am not going to go into what employers, and the presentation skills of
‘explanation’ may mean. Evolution gives an graduates. It is suggested that in the first the
account of how we come to have finger nails. BPS might play a more active role. In 1970,
But it doesn’t tell me why some of us, and not when the first A-level was introduced, there
others, paint them. Evolutionary theory shows were officially 838 graduates in psychology.
us the roots of aggression and religiosity, but The numbers taking pre-degree courses
I do not think it accounts for suicide bombers. are now, as Phil Banyard points out, over
I want a psychology that does. 180,000 a year, and degree-level courses must
Psychology in the political context, and raise it to 200,000 or more. Yet the inaccu-
the nature of Psychology as a discipline, are racy of the public image of psychology
two issues raised in the papers. There are sev- remains a matter of concern, as it has been
eral more, variously discussed by different as long as I can remember, and still is even in
authors. And of course individual authors the USA (When I was a student, it was
also raise unique points. I will not try to sum- already alleged that if someone said they
marise what they have all said, nor repeat in were a psychologist, they would get the reply,
detail my own views. The most general mat- ‘What’s that?’ In America the answer would
ter, perhaps, concerns the nature of higher be ‘So am I’.)
education, and what should be its aims. This raises another issue, namely the con-
There is the question of whose interests, if tent of psychology degrees. Again there are
any, should have priority, the main stake- several aspects, for example whether they
holders being students (and parents), aca- should be more oriented towards practical
demics, employers and government. These application, and the extent to which they
interests are certainly not identical. Similarly, should include other disciplines. An increas-
should the individual or society, however ing number of institutions do offer combina-
conceived, come first, or can the two be rec- tions of psychology with other disciplines.
onciled. A related question is whether This relates to the question of the GBR,
higher education should be purely practical which largely determines the Psychology
or vocational, or have some more general part. Several authors give more or less an
‘educational’ aims. And is there something ‘all right – but’ verdict, the ‘but’ being in the
that ought to make higher education direction of a wider and/or more flexible
‘higher’, rather than merely tertiary? Some approach. I in fact suggested a range of
papers suggest these might be in terms of possibilities, from the most radical course of
social value, or of personal development. doing away with GBR altogether (admittedly
Most seem to agree that first degrees hardly a practical proposition even if desir-
should have at least some vocational rele- able) to a modest requirement to include say
vance. Another group of questions thus one related module.
concerns the actual employability of psychol- Then there is the matter of the relation-
ogy graduates, and the extent to which ship of degrees to other courses in psychol-
degree courses fit them for employment, or ogy, above all A-level. There is of course
ought to do so. This is particularly apposite some doubt over the whole future of A-levels,
given the fact that the large majority of but whatever might replace them, much the
60 Psychology Teaching Review Vol 14 No 2
A place for everything, and everything in its place
same issues would remain. They were in fact knowing how learning best occurs (though
raised from the very start, though with the what teachers have been told has, in the past,
initially very small numbers (120 in 1970) often left much to be desired). Anyone
there was not an immediate problem. The learning (and it is hard to think of anyone
problem might be seen in Piagetian terms as who does not have to do so) can, in princi-
·
a sort of vertical decalage, that is the pattern ple, do better with an understanding of prac-
repeats itself at a later stage. The questions tice, feedback, motivation and so on. Such
are whether A-levels are suitable for progres- things can be grasped, I venture to suggest,
sion to a degree in psychology (or indeed in even in primary education, at least at the
something else), and whether they are a use- upper levels. A view which goes even further
ful terminal qualification for those who do is the general applicability of psychology to
not go on to higher education at all. There everyday life – ‘giving psychology away’, as
is the long-running problem of some psy- George Miller put it years ago. This would
chology undergraduates having the A-level include such aspects as community psychol-
while others do not, and the question as ogy, personal and professional development,
to whether it should be a requirement (prob- and coaching psychology (not equated with
ably neither popular nor practical), or sports coaching of course), discussed in this
whether degree courses should make special issue. It can indeed be argued that psychol-
arrangements to accommodate two groups ogy is, in principle and often in practice,
of students. And there is the suggestion that relevant to virtually every aspect of life,
degree students with A-level might be better from day-to-day interaction with others to
off without it, since what they have learned major world problems of war, famine, disease
has to be unlearned or corrected. This too and so on.
was said at the start. The answer surely is, not The general view of contributors here is
to institute an age limit, but to improve optimistic, and I agree. But all these issues,
teaching at all levels. I do think, however, and more, must continue to be debated,
that there is a case for a better foundation even if at times we seem to be in some sort of
for all degree work, with more emphasis on Looking-Glass World:
general skills and wider knowledge. ‘Now here, you see, it takes all the running you can
And this raises one more issue, which do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get some-
might be called ‘psychology for all’. A case where else, you must run at least twice as fast as
can be made for including psychology in all that!’
education at every level. Indeed, to use the I hope this issue of the Review may stimulate
useful distinction made by Graham Richards others to do so.
between ‘psychology’ the discipline, and
‘psychology’ the subject matter of that disci- Address for correspondence
pline, all education must necessarily include Professor John Radford, School of Psychol-
the latter. Learning, for example, must be ogy, University of East London, Romford
intrinsic to education of any kind, and that is Road, London E15 4LZ. Tel: [phone].
certainly psychology. But it is also psychology. E-mail: [email protected]
It is not only teachers who can benefit from
Psychology Teaching Review Vol 14 No 2 61