The image, science, & impact of the behavioral sciences: Can we do

better in the next 10 years?

************************Barb Wanchisen, Executive Director

The Federation of Behavioral, Psychological, & Cognitive Sciences

***********************

22 Member Societies

• American Educational Research Association • American Psychological Association • Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback • Association for Behavior Analysis • Behavioral Genetics Association • Cognitive Science Society • Human Factors and Ergonomics Society • International Behavioral Neuroscience Society • International Society for Developmental Psychobiology • Massachusetts Neuropsychological Society• National Academy of Neuropsychology • Psychonomic Society • Society for BehavioralNeuroendocrinology

• Society for Computers in Psychology • Society of Experimental Social Psychology • Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology• Society for Judgment and Decision Making • Society for Mathematical Psychology • Society of Multivariate Experimental Psychology • Society for Personality and Social Psychology • Society for Psychophysiological Research • Society for Research in Psychopathology

What are the behavioral sciences to “us” versus “them”?

•“Social/Behavioral” is one word in DC and covers many disciplines with a diversity of approach and methodology – we are all lumped together for good or for worse

•Within just Psychology, we are a many-headed hydra, maybe pre-paradigmatic, and many of us don’t like to be called “psychologist” – note the long name of the Federation for one thing!

How are the behavioral sciences perceived in DC?

• Overall: “Soft” science; a first area to cut in financially-tough times

• “Some of this science is good, but hasn’t all the important stuff been done?”

• “Can’t you determine a quantifiable goal to reach in say 10 years?”

• “You should focus on consistent methodologies.”

Will we always be perceived as the “weakest” of the sciences?

Science in DC funding circles

• Legislators, at various points in 20th century, have been interested in social issues like war and poverty and wanted us to get funding

• “Natural” science is viewed as both qualitatively different from social sciences & the exact opposite: that both are science, just with different topics of concern (more controversial in social science)

• NSF was born in 1950 without us: soon a few studies of ours was funded there

• In the 1960’s, hearings were held on establishing a possible NFSS (or NSSF)

National Foundation for Social Sciences?

“Footnote 11. The actual distribution of the fifty-three witnesses who testified at a 1967 hearing was tallied up this way in a congressional staff study:

No attitude expressed about an NFSS 12In favor of its creation 14Opposed to its creation 20Unclear, undecided, equivocal 5Unclassifiable position 2

(Senate Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on Research and Technical Programs, Staff Study: The Use of Social Research in Federal Domestic Programs, part 4, “Current Issues in the Administration of Federal Social Research,” April 1967, 6).”

- Gieryn, T. F. (1999) Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.

Working for a more unified approach, or at least a “faux” unified approach?

.Maybe Dr. Phil isn’t to blame for everything…

•Change begins at home: for me, the advocacy/association community

•Science itself: even just within “psychological science” maybe we can identify a name we all want to be called …but there are other bigger issues

•Media’s view: you can sometimes get as many opinions as there are social/behavioral scientists when asked a question

Greater unification may serve us well: we need infrastructure for it

Suggested reading

.

Gieryn, T. F. (1999) Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

THE END!

Looking forward to some good dialogue!