Applied & preventive psychology : journal of the American Association of Applied and Preventive Psychology最新文献

This article examines a number of prominent trends in the conduct of psychological research and considers how they may limit progress in our field. Failure to appreciate important differences in temperament among researchers, as well as differences in the particular talents researchers bring to their work, has prevented the development in psychology of a vigorous tradition of fruitful theoretical inquiry. Misplaced emphasis on quantitative “productivity,” a problem for all disciplines, is shown to have particularly unfortunate results in psychology. Problems associated with the distorting effects of seeking grant support are shown to interact with the first two difficulties. Finally, the distorting effects of certain kinds of experimental studies are discussed, together with their implications for progress in this field.

Wachtel identified four interrelated constraints on research: biases against theory and description, emphasis on productivity, grant funding that may unwittingly foster the previous two constraints as well as limit the focus of research, and limits of experimental methods. The present comments focus on two main issues. First, heavy and almost exclusive reliance on research in the quantitative tradition is an unnecessary constraint. The tradition is infrequently questioned not only because of the contributions we enjoy from it (e.g., evidence-based everything), but also because it is so pervasive that it is the water in which we swim. There is nothing fishy about that tradition, but other traditions (e.g., single-case and qualitative research) would greatly expand and complement the yield and generate as well as test theory in new ways. Second, progress in research is an important topic by itself and warrants analysis. It would be useful to characterize areas where progress has been extraordinary or slow with the hope of learning what might be done to accelerate progress.

Paul Wachtel's classic paper on “Investigation and its discontents” sounds a contemporary tone even though it was published over 25 years ago. This commentary discusses two aspects of the original manuscript – productivity and grant funding – and their implications for psychological science in the context of funding agencies’ current strong emphasis on neuroscience and interdisciplinary research.

Commenting on Wachtel's “Investigation and its Discontents” [Wachtel, P. L. (1980). Investigation and its discontents: Some constraints on progress in psychological research. American Psychologist, 35, 399–408], I agree that lack of support for a career path of conceptual analysis and critique is a serious problem. Psychology requires a strong conceptual component because it is subject to unusual distortions and self-deceptions in theory formation and evidential evaluation due to issues of power, self-esteem, and social ideology. I agree with Wachtel that pressures for quantity of publication are detrimental to scientific quality, but dispute his suggestion that excessive focus on quantity in assessing productivity can be addressed by having tenure and promotion candidates submit only their three best papers. Such reviews must be based on the entire record, so improvements must involve journals’ acceptance standards. Regarding Wachtel's concern about the influence of grants on reviews, I argue that grants should be relevant only to the extent they bear on the candidate's scholarly goals.

We enthusiastically endorse Wachtel's prescience in sounding the alarm about his three concerns. We argue that although he detected these trends nearly 30 years ago, they were just beginning to take hold in 1980 and it is only recently that they have become the norms in our field. We describe several manifestations of these trends that could not have been anticipated.

There is no one best way to do psychological research. Rather, the “best” way depends on the fit to the problem. Research should be problem-driven rather than method-driven. Psychologists sometimes envy certain natural scientists, and over-reward those who do research with a surface structure more like that of research in the natural sciences, leading to sub-optimal progress in the field.

Wachtel's article is as relevant today as it was over a quarter century ago, especially as public support for higher education has declined, and increased pressure to obtain external research funding is needed in order to support universities. Although Wachtel's observation that research and grant funding are more likely to be reinforced then theoretical inquiry, there is a serious question regarding whether theory can be effective in advancing the field of psychology and psychotherapy. Some of problems that typically have been associated with theory in our field are discussed, and the argument is made that theoretical inquiry be directed to the formulation of less abstract and more focal principles of human behavior and the therapy change process.