Where’s the science? Introduction to a special issue of Canadian Psychology on science in psychology.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The assertion that professional psychology is based on the science of psychology is embedded in the codes of ethics and standards for professional conduct of psychologists and in the accreditation criteria for professional training in psychology. However, this assertion has turned out to be far from straightforward, as indicated by the active debates in the field about the nature of psychological science, the scientific models and methods that should form the basis of psychology, the extent to which science should inform and has informed practice, and vice versa. In this introduction to a special issue of Canadian Psychology on science in psychology, we review some of these most recent debates and provide an overview of the contributions to the special issue that could serve as a springboard to developing options for ensuring the vitality of a science-based professional psychology.Keywords: science, evidence-based practice, clinical guidelines, research practice networks, supervisionResumeL'affirmation selon laquelle la psychologie professionnelle est basee sur la science de la psychologie est ancree dans les codes de deontologie et des normes de conduite professionnelle des psycho- logues ainsi que dans les criteres d'agrement de programmes de formation professionnelle en psychologie. Or, cette affirmation est loin d'etre simple, comme l'indiquent les debats animes dans le domaine concernant la nature de la science psychologique, les methodes et modeles scientifiques qui devraient etre a la base de la psychologie, la mesure dans laquelle la science devrait eclairer et a deja eclaire la pratique, et vice versa. Dans cette introduction a un numero special de la revue Canadian Psychology portant sur la la science de la psychologie, nous examinons certains de ces plus recents debats et offrons un apercu des contributions a ce numero special qui pourraient servir de tremplin pour elaborer des solu- tions permettant d'assurer la vitalite d'une psychologie professi- onnelle fondee sur la science.Mots-cles : science, pratique fondee sur les preuves, directives cliniques, reseaux de recherche et de pratique, supervision.Psychology was developed as a laboratory-based science, and professional psychology developed out of the science of psy- chology. The assertion that professional psychology is based on the science of psychology is embedded in our codes of ethics, standards for professional conduct, and professional training accreditation criteria (e.g., American Psychological Associa- tion, 2002, 2013; Association of State and Provincial Psychol- ogy Boards, 2005; Canadian Psychological Association, 2000, 2011; College of Psychologists of Ontario, 2009). In Canada and the United States, professional psychology was initially shaped by the nature of psychological knowledge and the psy- chological research enterprise (Dobson & Dobson, 1993; Routh, 1994). Landmark developments early in the history of professional psychology, including Alfred Binet's and David Wechsler's efforts to assess intellectual abilities, Mary Cover Jones' application of conditioning principles to treat phobic reactions, and Lightner Witmer's establishment of a clinic focused on the assessment and remediation of educational prob- lems, illustrate the manner in which science has informed the application of psychology.However, the assertion about the relation between the profession of psychology and the science of psychology has turned out to be far from straightforward. Although psychologists are likely to agree that practice should be based on science (e.g., see Ogrodniczuk, Piper, Joyce, Lau, & Sochting, 2010), there has been active debate about (a) the nature of psychological science, (b) which scientific models and methods should form the basis of the discipline (as well as the professional side of the discipline), (c) the optimal extent to which science can or should inform practice, and (d) how professional psychology should inform and influence the direction of the science of psychology. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".