Psychologists’ work matters. In my six years as CEO, I have seen remarkable progress in APA’s ability to disseminate psychological science relevant to a wide variety of major societal issues, and ensure that the expertise of psychologists has meaningful impact. This work has centered around the strategic priorities adopted by our Council of Representatives in 2019. The association’s commitment to work on complex issues requires a sobering recognition, however; for our work to maximally benefit society, we occasionally must wrestle with messy, uncomfortable, and challenging debates. These particularly divisive—and sometimes even politicized—issues provide an opportunity for us to address an existential question for our field: do we sit out potentially contentious topics, or do we have an obligation to share what we know to the best of our ability? As an association, we have decisively chosen the latter. As we do this work, we are increasingly being recognized as the field that “brings the science of human behavior” to bear on a wide variety of issues.
However, this can be challenging for an organization like APA, which represents the “big tent of psychology” and all its subdisciplines, as well as a wide range of political and social perspectives. APA’s more than 145,000 members have varying perspectives on the degree to which science, truth, and social justice can or even should be pursued simultaneously. This viewpoint diversity is critical for helping our association and field to grow, for our research to generate new ideas and expand knowledge, and for the application of our science to best meet the needs of all. It can also create tensions regarding what we consider to be within, versus beyond, the bounds of our field, driving organizational fissures that can impede our ability to hear each other. Psychologists, as it turns out, are not immune to the same politicization of issues that besets our broader society.
My question is, how does a “big tent” organization embrace viewpoint diversity?
In its absence, we inadvertently constrain our thinking, creating false dichotomies between right and wrong. Is it possible that multiple perspectives might speak to the same truth? As a science-based discipline, we should welcome opportunities to elucidate our blind spots and examine the extent to which broad societal and historical biases may have influenced our field. Some see this as getting involved in social issues; others view it as imperative to maintaining rigor in our science.
During the development of APA’s strategic plan, our members repeatedly said that they wanted psychology to be more visible in the world and for APA to have greater positive impact on our field and broader society. How do we share our science effectively when the national climate is growing increasingly distrustful of science? How is it possible for our work on equity and inclusion to succeed when these principles have become attached to a political agenda, rather than basic human values? How do we surface a range of perspectives to inform how we advance organizational priorities while remaining true to a core set of values?
At APA, we are committed to the use of psychological science to improve people’s lives. This means generating, applying, translating, and teaching our science to others. This means consistently trying to improve our science to be more rigorous and generalizable and recognizing the limits of our science and other ways of knowing and understanding the world.
The work of our association can be messy, uncomfortable, and challenging, but I believe this is what we signed on to do when we became psychologists. What do you think?
