National Conference on Psychology as a Science

Appendix A

DELPHI POLL

A Delphi polling procedure (Linstone & Turoff, 1989) was used to identify the areas of paramount importance for the discipline and to identify, within each area, the critical issues and questions to be addressed during the Conference. In this section, we review the polling procedure and the data gathered.

In the first phase of the procedure, 45 experts in basic and applied psychology research in Canada were identified in consultation with national organizations of psychologists and from the inspection of lists of editorial board members of Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science and Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology. In generating the list of experts, care was taken to address representation of gender, language, region and research areas (e.g., health sciences, neurosciences, cognitive sciences, social sciences). The experts received a test survey in September 1995 outlining the nature of the conference and inviting them to rate the importance of potential conference topics offered to them. The survey was structured so as to give an opportunity for experts to provide their own suggestions about the issues they thought most needed to be addressed at the conference.

Thirty-four (75.5%) of the distributed surveys were completed and returned. The data were not analyzed, as the purpose of the exercise was to test the survey and identify additional topics of potential importance for the conference. The answers to the survey and the suggestions made by the experts provided some useful information to improve the survey. The most important changes involved splitting some of the questions in two to make them easier to answer. Some others involved adding new topics. Psychology as a Science (its role and place in the world) figured as the most important suggested additional topic to be considered for the proposed conference and, consequently, it was added to the list. The new list of potential conference topics included funding, advocacy/lobbying, education/training, marketing, and Psychology as a Science (its role and place in the world).

At the end of 1995, 1000 copies of the revised survey were sent to the Chairs of Department of Psychology in Canada for distribution to Faculty and psychology researchers working in centres affiliated with their university. The survey was available in both official languages. Again, participants were invited to rate the importance they attached to the potential conference topics offered to them and they were given the opportunity to provide their own suggestions about what they believed most required attention at the conference.

A total of 297 (29.7%) surveys were completed and returned. Average ranks for each of the five general topics were computed and a rank order of topics was generated. A summary of the data is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Average ranks and standard deviations for each of the general topics, rank order of general topics, and list of most highly endorsed specific topics under each general topic. (N = 297)

General Topics	Ranka	Mean	SD	Most highly endorsed specific topics b
Psychology as a Science	1	2.23	1.37	Its place in science; Its relationship to other disciplines;
Funding	2	2.29	1.32	Maintaining federal and provincial funding for pscyhological research/training; Expanding lobbying activities for legislative change in governments; Expanding funding of research in basic psychology;
Education	3	2.74	1.15	Education/Training students in psychological research; Education/Training students for specialization in psychological research.
Advocacy	4	3.34	1.11	Demonstrating the usefuleness/importance of psychology as a science
Marketing	5	4.34	1.90	Communication with the public and the media

Note.

a The rank order begins with the most important at the top.

b Only the specific topics that obtained an average score above 5 on a scale from 1 (low importance) to 7 (high importance) are presented here.

As shown in Table 1, the topics of Psychology as a Science, funding, and education/training obviously figured as the most important for the proposed conference. None of the topics suggested by respondents in the survey was perceived anywhere as important as those already offered for consideration.

For each general focus topic, respondents also rated on a scale from "1" (low) to "7" (high) the importance of specific topics that might be included in the proposed conference. The most highly endorsed specific topics (i.e., the topics that obtained an average score higher than 5), are presented in Table 1. Respondents rated for importance a total of 31 specific topics.

 

---

Appendix B

DELEGATES

Table 1. List of National Conference Delegates

Janel G. Gauthier, Co-Chair

Anthony G. Phillips, Co-Chair

Neuro/Bio/Behavioral Sciences	Social Sciences	Health Sciences
Fergus I.M. Craik, Leader	Patricia M. Rowe, Leader	Keith S. Dobson, Leader
Lorraine G. Allan Richard Brown Vince Di Lollo Jos J. Eggermont Frank Elgar Chris Herdman Coliln M. MacLeod Tony Marley Zenon Pylyshyn Clare Porac Michèle Robert Sid Segalowitz Jane Stewart Richard Tees	John Adair Lynn Alden Ellen Bialystock Ann Cameron Richard Clément Ken Dion Robert Gardner Mathieu Jodoin Michael Matthews Daniel Pelletier Abraham Ross Clive Seligman Peter Suedfeld Robert Vallerand	Gordon Butler Joseph De Koninck David Dozois Norman Endler Lise Fillion Melvin Goodale Donald Kline Bryan Kolb Eugene Lechelt Patrick McGrath Charles M. Morin Michael Murray Isabelle Peretz Pierre Ritchie

Gary Latham, Facilitator

John C. Service, Advisor

 

Table 2. Delegates' Primary Work Settings

University Psychology Department	38
Other University Department	3
Hospital/Health Setting	1
Administration	3
Graduate Student in Psychology	3
Retired	1

 

Table 3. Delegates' Geographical Representation

Atlantic Provinces	7
Québec	9
Ontario	19
Prairie Provinces	7
British Columbia	6
Other	1

 

Table 4. Delegates' Gender Representation

Female	11
Male	38

 

---

Appendix C

CONFERENCE SCHEDULE

Thursday, May 8th

10:00 am	Co-chairs, Group Leaders, Facilitators/Advisors meet
12:00 pm	Lunch: Meeting continues
2:00 pm	Recorders join meeting
4:00 pm	Meeting adjourns
1:00 pm	Delegate Registration
5:30 pm	Reception
6:15 pm	Opening Ceremony
7:00 pm	Dinner
8:30 pm	Working Groups meet
10:00 pm	Adjournment

Friday, May 9th

8:00 am	Continental Breakfast
8:30 am	Orientation (Plenary Group)
9:00 am	Working Groups meet: Development of a new vision
10:45 am	Break
11:00 am	Plenary Session: Reports, Discussion
12:00 am	Photographs
12:45 pm	Lunch
12:45 pm	Co-Chairs, Group Leaders, Facilitator/Advisors and Recorders meet
1:30 pm	Plenary Session: Discussion/Voting
2:00 pm	Working Groups meet: Development of "smart" goals
3:30 pm	Break
4:00 pm	Plenary Session: Present Working Group consensus positions
4:30 pm	Plenary Session: Discussion/Voting
5:30 pm	Adjournment
7:00 pm	Dinner
8:30 pm	Co-Chairs, Group Leaders, Facilitator/Advisors, and Recorders meet

Saturday, May 10th

8:00 am	Continental Breakfast
8:30 am	Plenary Group meets: Review of vision and goals
9:00 am	Working Groups meet: Development of Research Agenda
10:30 am	Break
10:45 am	Working Groups reconvene
12:00 pm	Lunch
12:30 pm	Co-Chairs, Group Leaders, Facilitator/Advisors, and Recorders meet
1:30 pm	Plenary Session: Working Groups present consensus items
2:00 pm	Plenary Session: Discussion/Voting
3:00 pm	Break
3:15 pm	Working Groups meet: Relapse Prevention
4:30 pm	Plenary Session: Reports, Discussion/Voting
5:30 pm	Adjournment
7:00 pm	Banquet
9:00 pm	Co-Chairs, Group Leaders, Facilitator/Advisors, and Recorders meet

Sunday, May 11th

8:00 am	Closing Breakfast
10:30 am	Adjournment
11:00 am	Co-Chairs, Group Leaders and Recorders meet
12:00 pm	Lunch: Meeting continues
2:00 pm	Meeting adjourns

 

---

Appendix D

PROCEEDINGS

Health Sciences Working Group

As was true for all participants of the National Conference, the members of the Working Group came together several times during the conference, to address issues that were put to them in the plenary sessions, to generate new ideas that would feed into the plenary sessions, and generally to try to articulate the concerns of health scientists within the overall psychological community.

Our first meeting occurred in the evening of the first day, when we were asked by Dr. Gary Latham, the conference facilitator, to spend time getting to know each other, and to speak about both our greatest joys and frustrations. Although there was initial reluctance to engage in this task, primarily from the concern about the usefulness of the exercise in the context of the overall conference, in fact we were able to discuss at length these issues.

There was general consensus that the major "stimulants" for members of this working group were the abilities to engage in science, to contribute to a dialogue on theories and methods of research, to have research collaboration and establish research links, to train the next generation of health scientists, and to generally have "fun" doing research that benefits society.

Frustrations for members of this working group can be generally described, as was quipped by one of our members, as "anything that gets in the way of the above." Specific issues included: bureaucratic issues that impair research; division within the discipline of psychology that sometimes impedes recognition and support for our work; limited understanding and acknowledgement from the public about the work we do and its value; needing to justify the value of our research either by highlighting social relevance or more direct societal profitability and/or commercial utility; limited incentives for quality research, as opposed to quantity of research outputs; and funding limitations in the current climate of deficit reduction/elimination.

On Saturday morning, we set about trying to define a mission statement for the discipline of psychology that potentially could be adopted by the plenary session. We spent a brief time talking about some of the criteria that were suggested to us for the vision statement (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant to vision, and time frame), and then a member proposed a draft statement. Subsequently, we spent our time refining the statement and debating specific issues that were either embedded in the statement, or were absent from the statement but perhaps should have been included. In the end, the group appeared to feel good about the submission, and went to the plenary session ready to both defend their submission as well as listen to other perspectives.

In the afternoon session, we took the revised vision statement that had been adopted, and with our mandate to examine different goals or possible implementations of vision in our area, we started the process of identifying possible goals. As part of this process, we also tried to delineate what the implementation plan might look like, who would be responsible, what measures of outcome would be appropriate, and what time line might be reasonable. The ensuing discussion led to a total of 20 potential goals being identified. As this list was too long for complete discussion, the group prioritized the list and focused on four goals for more complete discussion. These goals were brought to the plenary session for further discussion and possible approval.

Keith S. Dobson, Ph.D.

Leader

Neuro/Bio/Behavioural Sciences Working Group

The members of the Neuro/Bio/Behavioral Sciences group are all committed researchers working in a variety of areas from neurochemistry, through neuropsychology, cognitive psychology and developmental issues to human factors, computational models and artificial intelligence. Despite this range of interests, the group found that it shared many interests--both in terms of approaches to science and in terms of science politics and implications for society.

In the first plenary session, we were charged with listing our joys and frustrations as psychological researchers. In our first meeting as a group there was some initial reluctance to discourse at such a general and 'touchy-feely' level, but the debate started to flow once members of the group asked questions such as 'Why has psychology not advanced as a cumulative science faster than it has?' and 'How do we communicate what we do more adequately to other scientists, funding agencies, and the public at large?' The resulting list of "joys" included the pleasures of intellectual debate and achieving results, the satisfaction derived from providing a sound education and training to students, and the challenges of mastering new techniques. The (rather longer) list of "frustrations" was topped by the inadequacy of current funding levels, and also included difficulties of communication, complaints that our discipline is too driven by current fashions, questions about the unity or otherwise of the field, the difficulties associated with very large classes, and worries that our science was very vulnerable to distortions caused by outside pressures--for example, the need to show short-term relevance to society's needs and the constraints imposed by ethics boards.

On Friday May 9th, the group debated the ingredients of an adequate vision statement for scientific psychology. This proved to be a difficult task, but we focused on various ingredients such as the need to provide a satisfactory scientific account of mind, brain, and behaviour, and the relations among them; to communicate the results of our analyses to other scientists and to society at large; to dispel popular misconceptions about psychology; and, importantly, to ensure that our insights and findings are put to use constructively to address societal problems in health, education, the workplace, and other areas. The group was eventually satisfied with a draft statement that stressed both the inherent value of scientific knowledge and also the benefits that such knowledge will confer on individuals and society at large.

In later sessions, the group split into smaller working groups of 3-4 people to address a set of focused goals relating to the overarching vision statement. The specific suggestions of these sub-groups were then debated and refined by the group as a whole before presenting the various points, in the form of "claims" (or achievements) and related goals to further these claims, to the overall Conference in the plenary sessions.

Each subgroup focused on a set of problems relating to their own research interests. The process worked to the extent that the subgroups identified various research topics, focal points of current research in these topics, and areas of application or potential application of the topics, although the resulting list of claims and goals was somewhat bland-- perhaps necessarily so, given the level of abstraction at which we were working. Thus a typical claim—goal combination came out a bit like "Major progress is being made in the understanding of X which is fundamental to the human ability Y; in turn this understanding has implications for certain aspects of health, education, and technology in Canadian society." Nonetheless, the process did highlight the interactions and connections between different areas of psychological research, the common problems faced by researchers in rather different areas, and the fact that much of our research work is relevant to important general problems. This aspect of the Conference was thus quite effective in promoting interactions among Canadian researchers who do not normally meet each other, in highlighting the common problems that we face, and in emphasizing the need for united action if we are to address these problems effectively. The topics analysed by the subgroups were as follows: Basic cognitive processes (e.g., perception, attention, memory and language); higher cognitive processes (e.g., reasoning, judgement and decision-making); brain mechanisms and brain-behaviour links; fundamental studies of neuroanatomy, neurochemistry, and their psychological correlates.

When our goals and suggestions for achieving them were fed back into the plenary session, there were some obvious discrepancies between our perspectives and those of the other groups. Whereas the Neuro/Bio/Behavioural group generally liked the idea of promoting centres and institutes for researching defined topics, the centre concept was resisted by some other delegates. Still all groups agreed that individual operating grants must remain paramount. The difference of opinion about the value of centres probably reflects different ways of working, and perhaps the extent to which different parts of our field can benefit from the skills of neighbouring specialists. In cognitive neuroscience, for example, interactions among cognitive psychologists, neuroscientists, and neuropsychologists are really necessary for progress to be made.

In the final plenary sessions, the Neuro/Bio/Behavioural group participated fully and contributed substantially to the final accord that was reached. Some goals of the Conference were clearly met; a broad range of psychologists from a variety of sub-disciplines met, interacted, and communicated with each other; we realized more completely that we face many common problems and that we must present a united front if we are to find and achieve solutions to these problems. One key concept is obviously communication. We must do a much better job of explaining to other scientists, university and granting council administrators, and the public at large what we actually do, why it is important, and the benefits that our work can provide for Canadian society.

Fergus I.M. Craik, Ph.D.

Leader

 

Social Sciences Working Group

Like the other two groups, the Social Sciences group wrestled with the tasks of developing a vision statement, specifying goals for our discipline and how we could achieve them, what factors would better enable us to accomplish our goals, and how we could prevent relapses as we work towards those goals.

One of the first issues we encountered as a group was that we had very different interests in the broad domain of social psychology, and that "social sciences" was a poor descriptor for many of us. Probably the common thread for all, or almost all, of the group was that we were currently, or had been in the past, SSHRC grant holders. As subsequent discussion demonstrated, this mutual interest was not a minor issue, but influenced the views of the whole group, and contributed to the particular goals and enabling factors proposed by the group.

A brief comment about the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) would be appropriate before going any further. SSHRC is responsible for funding what is probably a more disparate set of disciplines, ranging from classical studies to experimental, albeit social, psychology, than either of the other two national granting agencies. This diversity of disciplines requires a broader range of policies and procedures, some of which may not always appropriately fit our discipline. In addition, SSHRC must deal with more politically sensitive issues, such as culture, language, ethnicity, and gender and is, therefore, more politicized and more vulnerable to criticism and/or interference from politicians and the general public. Finally, it is badly underfunded and provides a lower level of grant support to scholars in its disciplines than is provided by the other granting agencies. As a consequence of these factors, there is a lesser identification by SSHRC-funded psychologists with their granting agency and a desire for change of some of SSHRC's policies. For example, SSHRC requires that all of its grants committee members be bilingual, which is praiseworthy in Canada and a valuable political statement. But in a discipline like psychology whose greatest growth and development is in the United States and other English-speaking countries, such a requirement excludes large numbers of our colleagues who would make valuable contributions to the grant review committee. Furthermore, because of its shortage of funds, SSHRC is unable to provide adequate support to launch the scholarly careers of new applicants nor even for researchers of international stature. Given this common background, the social science working group held somewhat different views on the goals and enabling factors than did the other two groups.

The first task for the group was to develop a vision statement for the discipline. As a first step we discussed what our purpose was as scientists. The answers revolved around our need to increase understanding of behaviour as a whole and our responsibility to communicate that knowledge, both good and bad, to our colleagues, students, and the general public. Regarding stakeholders, there was general agreement that every person is a stakeholder, but that psychologists should not be dictated to, or held accountable by, stakeholders with respect to research topics. The question of who would miss us was more difficult to answer, at least in a concrete way, but it was felt that the knowledge would be missed by all people. The vision statement developed after this discussion was as follows: "Knowledge is better than ignorance: psychological research is essential for understanding the human condition." While this statement was not adopted by the participants in the plenary session, elements of its breadth and commitment to research can be seen in the final vision statement: "The goal of psychology, the study of mind, brain, and behaviour, is to create knowledge through research that is inherently valuable and essential for the benefit of the individual and our changing society."

Most of the remaining sessions were devoted to the development of goals. In the initial working group session we tried to set goals that were closely related to the group vision statement. Goal setting was also expected to be S.M.A.R.T.; that is, specific, measurable, attainable, relevant to the vision, and with a time frame included. The group developed four goals, with some suggestions for implementation. The first goal was to promote an environment conducive to investigator-initiated research. Implementation would be through educating and lobbying the granting agencies and politicians, as well as our own faculty members and the university administration. The second goal was to report and explain our research to the scientific community, granting agencies, and the public at large, which would be implemented through scientific journals and conferences, the mass media, public lectures and presentations including the high school level. The third goal was to educate future researchers, consumers of psychological knowledge, and the general university community in the principles, methodology, and analytical framework of psychology. It would be implemented by having departments adopt the goal and advocate the role of psychological knowledge and inquiry as a contribution to a liberal education, and by incorporating the goal into our principles for graduate training. The last goal was to make more evident the usefulness of psychological research. Some of the ways in which this goal could be implemented are by being proactive in disseminating results, creating rosters of psychologists who can talk to the press, and ensuring that there is recognition of this kind of work by departments and grants committees. In general, all of the goals would be the responsibility of each of us individually, and our departments and organizations (e.g., CPA) collectively. Timelines and measures were fairly general and open-ended.

When these goals were presented to the whole group, comments were made that suggested that the group should consider more specifically what social science is, and what it can contribute to society. In the next working group session, specific goals more closely linked to the social sciences were discussed and examples of the contributions psychology had made were included. The goals were expressed by the group more as areas where psychology has much to contribute than as formal goals. These areas, and a few examples of relevant research, were as follows:

Canada's multicultural society (bilingualism, ethnic relations, prejudice, acculturation)

The environment and its management (living in the North, environmental change, urban planning)

Work, organization, and the economy (human rights in the workplace, ergonomics, impact of restructuring)

Lifestyle and health (addictive behaviours, lifestyle, leisure, and fitness)

Human development and education across the lifespan (language learning and literacy, school dropouts, parent-child relations)

Social problems (aggression and violence, unemployment, social change)

Social and political thinking (social cognition in everyday life, attitudes, gender issues, international relations)

Methodology and other scientific issues (models and theories, integration of quantitative and qualitative research)

The last session was devoted to a consideration of the obstacles that would prevent the achievement of our goals, and possible solutions to the problems these obstacles produce. The major obstacle from the perspective of the group was SSHRC and its lack of funding. A number of solutions were proposed, including better liaison between CPA and SSHRC perhaps through the establishment of a CPA committee, the preparation of a document similar to the one done by psychologists for NSERC which would demonstrate the contribution of SSHRC funded psychologists, and more general lobbying of politicians regarding the need to increase SSHRC funds. Beyond these steps, however, it would seem worthwhile to establish a stronger network of SSHRC eligible psychologists in Canada.

Patricia M. Rowe, Ph.D.

Leader

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This document is available in French.

Copies can be obtained from the CPA Head Office

(1-888-472-0657)

or

from the CPA Web Site

(http://www.cpa.ca)

This document is available in French.

Copies can be obtained from the CPA Head Office

(1-888-472-0657)

or

from the CPA Web Site

(http://www.cpa.ca)

[BBCS Homepage] [National Conference on Psychology as a Science Homepage]