APA Woos Research Psychologists

WASHINGTON—The American Psychological Association has beefed up its commitment to its scientific members as part of an internal realignment that intended to better serve the needs of an unusually diverse membership. A steady rise since the 1950s in the number of practitioners—those who provide health care directly to the public—has slowly tipped the balance against the academics and researchers who once dominated the 95-year-old association. As a result, that group has grown increasingly restive within the 80,000-member association. A recent membership pail found them to be the most unhappy with the status quo. Last June APA Executive official Leonard Goodstein won approval for a staff restructuring that would more clearly demonstrate what the association was doing for each of its major constituencies. The Office of Legislative and Public Affairs, the focal point for Washington lobbying efforts, was parceled out among offices handling the needs of scientists, practitioners and those concerned about public interest issues. The changes come in the midst of a three-year effort to streamline the system by which APA governs itself—the more than 100 boards, committees, task forces and ad hoc panels to which members donate their time, and the 45 divisions and 54 state and provincial associations with which members are affiliated. The need for change (see accompanying chart) was felt most strongly by those identifying themselves as scientists, some 14 percent of those responding, and was also clear in the responses of the 36 percent who labeled themselves scientist-practitioners. The 45 percent who called themselves practitioners saw less need for major change. The most recent plan to restructure APA’s political apparatus was voted down in February by the association’s governing body, the Council of Representatives. But last August the council, mindful of the widespread sentiment for change, created a new group and asked it to report back in January with yet another plan. In the interim, a group of APA activists has formed an outside organization, called the Assembly of Scientific and Applied Psychologists, to pressure APA to move more quickly. Being responsive to members’ needs costs money, however. Apart from the political debates about giving each constituency a voice in decision-making, the chief problem facing APA was finding the resources to take a more active role in promoting psychology. Despite a budget next year that tops $28 million, APA typically manages an operating surplus of only 1 to 2 percent. Its overall annual budget is actually some $3 million in the red, stemming from continuing losses and large payments connected with the purchase in 1983 of the magazine Psychology Today. Doing More with More Despite that financial pinch, the board of directors last August agreed to spend an additional $500,000 annually to beef up APA’s activities on behalf of scientists. The staff realignment made it clear that “the resources going to science were somewhat less than what the other directorates were getting,’ Goodstein said. Alan Kraut, former head of the legislative affairs office and now director of the science office, said that the membership survey high- lighted the level of dissatisfactioamong researchers. The office hopes its efforts will increase the proportion of new research Ph..D.s who join APA (in certain fields the rate is as low as 25 percent, with a sharp drop in the past decade), reduce the number who leave (in certain fields researchers are resigning at almost twice the overall rate for members), and better satisfy existing members. Specifically, Kraut said, the additional resources will allow APA to lobby for more research funding and a higher profile for psychology on issues affecting the field; strengthen APA’s ties with other scientific societies, both interdisciplinary ones and those in specific fields with overlapping memberships; and respond to member inquiries on funding opportunities and other subjects. The roots of last summer’s administrative realignment can be traced to a January 1986 vote by the council to request an extra $50 from each practitioner to deal with a growing list of clinical issues that were not being addressed adequately. That annual special administrative which is now as much as $150 for members with large independent practices (added to the $145 annual dues paid by all full members) this year brought in about $1.5 million to the Office of Professional Practice on top of its normal share of the association’s budget. “We’ve acknowledged the different interests of each group,” said Bryant Welch, who directs the office. “Science and practice can get along fine once we let science determine its own agenda.” Referring to the difficulty of first setting, and then tackling, that agenda, Kraut added, “although you can’t solve the problem by throwing money at it, you need money to make things happen.” Although APA staff emphasize that the internal restructuring was simply a management tool to operate more efficiently, the division, of labor into three camps clearly suggests a future orientation for the association as a whole. If it does prove a model, it will be because members were at last able to let go of issues that did not interest them and concentrate on what they most wanted to achieve. “Scientists fear that they won’t be respected, and their needs won’t be met, if they align themselves with practitioners,” said APA President Bonnie Strickland of the University of Massachusetts. “But once they realize that they won’t be overwhelmed by practitioner issues, and that they can get what they want from APA, they’ll be more willing to let each group go its own way.” Mervis is on the Staff of THE SCIENTIST.

APA Woos Research Psychologists

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of