No academic psychologist, though.
I can think of a few reasons why academic psychologists are not listed. For one, the BPS is not terribly important within academic psychology. It's actually fairly irrelevant, apart from accrediting the degrees we teach on, and most academic psychologists I know don't bother registering with the society. It's important for other fields, sure, but research academics gain little benefit from shelling out the annual fees. Personally, I don't publish within the flagship journal (British Journal of Psychology), or any of the others, and rarely even cite from them; my subfield publishes in different places. There are many subfields of psychological research that are only carried out by academics, and not at all by any of the "official" types of psychologist listed on the BPS site, but apparently they don't count as types of psychology.
On the other side of the coin, the BPS tends to have a policy of splendid isolation in limiting membership eligibility. Like many academics working in the science of the mind, I'm not even entitled to join the BPS because I didn't study psychology in an accredited undergraduate (or postgraduate conversion) degree. Never mind that I've worked and published in the field for several years - the only way I could join the BPS is to sit a qualifying exam and I will almost certainly never be bothered doing that. Anyone who studied psychology outside the UK also has to jump through hoops to be allowed to join.
Another reason that the BPS doesn't mention academic psychologists is that they currently have a movement to restrict use of the term "psychologist" to registered members. No appearing on telly or sticking up a sign on a high street doorway without paying your dues, it seems. Also, according to proposals for a Psychological Professions Council, no hinting that you work in anything psych-related:
It is expected that the title ‘Psychologist’ will be protected and, in order to provide for complete protection of the public, any other title or description incorporating the term ‘psychology’, ‘psychological’ or ‘psychologist’ – or any variant of these – will be made unlawful for non-registrants.
"Complete protection of the public", indeed. Sounds like the BPS and its cronies have been taking press lessons from the Department of Homeland Security.
Now, I am a non-psychologist and proud of it. I am a scientist who happens to examine how the mind works. Further details in this proposal claim that "services provided in connection with the acquisition or dissemination of knowledge for teaching and research will be explicitly excluded" from the restriction, but there's still a massive grey area.
What if I appear on tv or radio talking about my research? Or give a public engagement talk about psychology in general? What if start writing a blog that reveals my real name? Is all that still dissemination for teaching/research? I don't think so, and I also don't think that these "services" should be prohibited from using the words psychology, psychological or psychologist - or any variant of these.
Very kindly, the proposal also indicates that it will be easier for academic psychologists to join the new council body through a "non-standard" route that will involve supplication in front of a panel of registrant assessors. So, it seems, they'll let me do the above things if I beg to join the club and keep paying my annual protection money.
There's an uneasy relationship between academic psychology and the BPS that can be basically summarised as you stay out of our way and we'll stay out of yours. If the BPS can't even be bothered to list academic psychology as a valid type of psychology, and then propose to milk money out of us for the privilege of using the p-word, then I think they're breaking our (unspoken) agreement.
Anyone for psycho****?
No comments:
Post a Comment