How can Division 50 better serve its members? What things does Division 50 do well? Where can the division improve? Are there new things the division should do? These were the central issues guiding a recent online survey of Division 50 members. The survey was open to members and affiliates and was announced in TAN and on the Division 50 listserv. I want to thank all of the members who took the time to complete the survey. Your responses will be invaluable in guiding Division 50 to become an even better organization than it is now.

The survey queried topics ranging from things the division is doing well, the dues structure, desired advocacy and legislative action, and where the division might improve. The format consisted of closed-ended items followed by openended questions allowing respondents to elaborate or provide additional suggestions or comments. Given space limitations, I am highlighting below just a few of the findings in this column. All results from the survey are currently being considered by the Board and will help guide our decisions over the coming year.

A total of 201 members completed the survey. Of these, most were senior career members (45%). About 8% of respondents were students, 20% were early career, 25% were mid-career, and 3% were retired. Most respondents identified themselves primarily as a researcher (66%), about a third as a practitioner (36%), and a similar percentage as a teacher/trainer (39%). On average, respondents had been a member of Division 50 for 6–10 years. Somewhat fewer than half (42%) were women.


The reasons cited as most important for affiliating with Division 50 included the subscription to Psychology of Addictive Behaviors (PAB) (59% indicated this was The Division 50 Membership Survey very important) and more generally keeping current with the addictions field (67%). Other important reasons for membership centered on professional development and included the focus on research and practice (59%), the opportunity to network with other addiction professionals (40%), and professional identity (49%). Respondents also said that the role that Division 50 plays in representing addictions research and practice in APA (41%) and legislative advocacy for addiction issues (45%) were important. Interestingly, the opportunity to present at the APA convention (16%), the quality of presentations at the convention (21%), and non-program events (e.g., social hours, student programming) at the convention (9%) were not as important for most members. Where can Division 50 improve? Bridging research and practice. Overall, fewer members thought Division 50 represented the practice community well (50%) compared to the research community (87%). The difference was summed up in a number of responses to open-ended questions: “Would like some more focus on practice related issues” and “Heavy emphasis on research, which is fine, but it would be helpful to balance this more with practice concerns.” Some expressed concern that Division 50 was too narrow in its focus. One respondent observed, “Tends to be too focused on alcohol research; should broaden scope so that other drugs and addictions have equal time” and another “Not enough on process addictions, especially sexual addiction.” Problem gambling, hoarding, and eating disorders were mentioned as other addictive behaviors that should receive more attention. Respondents also said that the division should begin to focus more on health disparities.

A number of specific suggestions were put forward to broaden Division 50 including having regular features in TAN focused on practice issues, encouraging submissions to PAB focused on clinical or case studies, and sponsoring workshops or meetings on a broader range of addiction topics. It was also suggested that the division should take a more active role in bringing science and practice together: “Maybe having conferences, meetings, or work groups focused on bridging science and practice.” As noted by Thomas Brandon in the president’s column in this issue of TAN, the translation of science to practice spanning the addiction field is a major goal of the division. The new TAN column “Bridging the Gap” (pp. 8–9) and the discussion around a special issue of PAB focused on technology transfer are the first steps in this direction. If you have additional ideas about increasing the division’s relevance to you as a practitioner or as a researcher, please contact me or another board member.


Fewer respondents thought Division 50 advocated “well” or “somewhat well” for issues related to practice in the addictions (52%) compared to issues related to research (74%). Members expressed that education services for providers (50%) and increased funding for addiction services (57%), research (76%), and prevention (54%) were very important areas for advocacy. Mental health/ addictions parity was also seen as an important target for advocacy by division members (68%). Some suggested that instead of being reactive, the division should be proactive in its advocacy. For example a respondent proposed “More advocacy for research funding and greater presence in helping to set funding priorities.”


A number of survey respondents said that they wanted to be more actively involved in the division, but did not know how to begin or else had tried and felt excluded: “For a number of years I was frustrated in my efforts to become more involved” and more directly “Involve more members.” Better communication about how to get involved in Division 50 committees and work groups is clearly in order. This is an issue that will be addressed by the Board in the future. In the meantime, if you are interested in becoming more active in the division, you should look over the committees listed in the Fall/ Winter 2008 TAN and contact the appropriate chairs.

One recurring theme was that Division 50 should provide more mentoring opportunities for students and early career members. A typical comment was: “Early career researcher mentoring. For example building research connections, editorial mentoring… More programs geared at helping junior faculty and advanced grad students become productive scholars (e.g., grant-writing workshops).” Others mentioned the need for continued Student and Trainee Perspectives Balancing Personal and Professional Responsibilities training and educational opportunities at all levels: “We need to become much more active as an educational content provider, both at the graduate training level and at the CE level.” A number of respondents suggested that the division should more actively advocate for teaching addiction topics in graduate programs and for certification in addiction studies. Some proposed that the division should work to develop best practices guidelines or “tip sheets” for the addictions.

The vitality of Division 50 is highly dependent upon attracting new members as well as keeping existing members. To this end a number of activities are being planned. These include planning symposia of particular interest to early career addiction psychologists for the upcoming APA convention and a new initiative to match early career members with more established practitioners and researchers. Details will be forthcoming in the near future.

In closing, I again thank all the members who participated in the survey and shared their thoughts. I was particularly pleased by the number and quality of comments and suggestions we received. Be assured that your input will help make Division 50 an even better organization for addiction practitioners and researchers.