Article archive / April 1, 2015
Originally published: . Volume 6, No. 4. Source pages: 2.
It is a sad irony that the LSBEP wants more control over others when their own quality seems to be seriously flagging.
In March the psychology board sent a survey to psychologists asking for views on new regulations for “professionalism.” But according to our training, the survey items and design broke several cardinal rules for survey construction: multiple ideas were contained in a single item; no option for anonymity; the use of vague, unusual terms. (The last time I remember hearing “disparaging” was on Ally McBeal when John Cage complained, “I won’t be disparaged.” It was meant to be funny and it was.)
Several readers pointed out problems with the forced choice item: “What should the LSBEP do?” The only two choices were to create a new rule or to create new guidelines. One reader said it was like asking, “We’re going to cut off your leg; what do you choose? Option 1: Cut off your right leg. Option 2: Cut off your left leg.”
The survey reminded me of a crisp comment a few years back when the LPA Executive Committee put out a poorly designed survey to which Rebecca Nolan, a once board chair, said with the succinctness of a sage something to the effect: “If an undergraduate in my psychology class handed this in, I’d give them a failing grade.” That rather summed it up.
The recent LSBEP newsletter prompted similar quality concerns. While it is a fine idea to share straightforward information, persuasive writing is another thing altogether. It requires reasoning, evidence and sound opinion based on fact. A rational arrangement of the material helps the reader know that the author has thought through the problem, to try and separate thinking and feeling, and frame the issue for a complex, interpersonal world.
The authors at the board would do better to clearly label and separate fact and opinion; make sure conclusions follow from their premises (and realize when they don’t); and avoid a tone that is reminiscent of a first grade teacher, “One bad apple…”
These and other problems were salient in the article, “Myths About the Board.” The board concludes that the myths are “debunked,” by mostly presenting opinion, and even in some cases with ideas that could support the opposite view.
For example, in “Myth #1: The board is slow to process complaints,” the board writes that complaints are resolved in six to 12 months. Is that considered by the board to be fast? Or, “Myth #4 – The staff have inordinate sway over Board decisions,” is supposedly debunked because “Staff members are invaluable” and “… may help the Board, reach a final decision.” What?
The myth that concerns the Times is “Myth #3: “The Board is not transparent.” The authors say that minutes, agendas, emails and such prove transparency. In their favor, they now send out minutes when approved, going from a 65-day delay to a 35-day delay, for citizens to know what was decided about them by their government. So congrats on that.
But there are no press conferences where they answer questions, they have repeatedly refused to disclose information about the legal rationale for decisions, and their minutes are still cryptic. And, just last month during National Sunshine Week the Times asked to exercise the citizen’s right to “examine” the board’s Policy and Procedures regarding investigations, and was denied. Yes, the board has the legal right to have the attorney review the public document before it is “examined,” but what is it about Policy and Procedures for conducting investigations that has to be reviewed by an attorney?
All these areas of human behavior the board seems to be struggling with are in our house––psychology: Logical analysis, separating fact from feeling and opinion, persuasive reasoning, interpersonal communication, openness (transparency). These quality issues should concern consumers of the board’s products, specifically its judgment, analysis, and decision-making.
It is remarkable and distressing when the discipline that arguably sets the bar in providing psychological tools, methods and processes for human behavior, can so far miss the mark, and not even be aware that they are off.
The irony should astound us, if not bring us to actual tears.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.