Psychology’s Gordian Knot: Problems of identity and relevance.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Psychology's image has been of concern since the first organisational meeting of the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1892 (Benjamin, 1986). Almost 80 years later, George Albee (1970) stated in his presidential address to APA that... psychology has entered a paradoxical phase in its development where its problems of identity and relevance threaten it with extinction at the same time that its opportunities seem boundless (p. 1071). Concerns about psychology's image continue to be noted today (e.g., Bray, 2010; Eby, Chin, Rollock, Schwartz, & Worrell, 2011).Mental illness is the leading cause of disability in Canada (Mental Health Commission of Canada [MHCH], 2014) and costs the economy an estimated $51 billion annually (Lim, Jacobs, Ohinmaa, Schopflocher, & Dewa, 2008); yet access to mental health care in general, and psychological services in particular, is severely lacking (Peachey, Hicks, & Adams, 2013).While Canadians self-reported preferred method of mental health treatment is psychotherapy and counselling (not pharmacotherapy), it is the least likely treatment to be received (Sunderland & Findlay, 2013). In a national survey, respondents (N ^ 2,832) indicated that paying out-of-pocket (54%) and lack of provincial health care (50%) and employer's (40%) coverage were very significant obstacles to psychological care, whereas long wait times and stigma were identified as very significant barriers by only 38% and 17% of respondents respectively (EKOS, 2011). These findings indicate that lack of public and private funding are prominent barriers preventing Canadians from receiving needed psychological care.Some psychology scholars have attributed the lack of accessible and affordable psychological services in Canada to health care managers, policymakers, and insurers not recognising or valuing the differences among the disciplines providing mental health services (Cohen & Peachey, 2014; Murdoch, Gregory, & Eggleton, 2015). This inability to differentiate psychologists and their contributions from other mental health providers, however, may largely be the result of psychology's failure to articulate a clear and distinct image for itself. As such, we critically review discussions and evidence for how psychology has contributed to its own identity issues, and in particular, how psychology is often perceived as a nonspecific, nonscientific discipline, and one that is nonessential to Canada's health care mandate. Thus, by and large, psychology has come to be implicitly defined by what it is not.While psychology's problems of identity have each individually been discussed in the literature, here we highlight how these issues are interrelated and mutually perpetuate a diminished image of psychology. With the aim of upholding the high standards of care established and promoted by the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA; see Dozois et al., 2014), we propose a multipronged approach to redressing psychology's image problems. Remediation entails identifying promising opportunities for the discipline to strengthen its image so that it may come to be valued for what it is. Succinctly put, advancing the discipline's image is not only about communicating what we already do more effectively, but also about reexamining our current practices in order to improve and evolve as a discipline. The more psychology's reputation in research, training, and service provision is understood and valued, the greater the likelihood of becoming a priority for research funding and health care dollars-thereby granting the public greater access to the psychological services that they desire and need (Sunderland & Findlay, 2013). While our commentary may be critical, our critiques are offered with a sense of optimism and with the intention of engaging in self-reflection in order to enhance the relevance and application of psychology within Canada.Image Problem No. 1: Psychology Seen as NonspecificIn 2013, the CPA hosted a summit on the need, demand, and supply of psychologists in Canada (Votta-Bleeker & Cohen, 2014). …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,010 | 0,058 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,017 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,011 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,016 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».