Article archive / March 1, 2016
Originally published: . Volume 7, No. 3. Source pages: 2.
A Real Applied Psychologist by J. Nelson
SEPA is in New Orleans at the end of the month, and SWPA in April. We have quite a showing of psychology research from around our state. Reviewing some of what people are researching reminds me of how large and complex a field psychology is and how much information there is to stay aware of––at least to know about, if not to actually know.
We are a species that likes to study itself. Psychology ranks either 4th or 5th every year in most popular undergraduate major, the APA publication manual has been on the bestseller list for years, and there is a journal for just about any topic imaginable.
In their 2015 knowledge industry report, Elsevier found that relative to the total world output, the U.S. produces a particularly high volume of research in psychology, with 3.6% of the total publications. This gives us over 19,000 articles per year. If we combine psychology and social sciences, at 8.6%, then those two give us over 65,000 articles a year.
Adding to that volume is our typical fog index which is high, and even higher now days when subspecialties use the jargon in their silo and those in other psychology silos can’t understand it. I’ve noticed––I’m sure others have––that we seem to be reinventing the wheels more than usual.
It’s no small task to stay up to date in our field, especially if you aim to be a generalist or effective in applied areas. (Being a generalist is akin to being a fox, rather than a hedgehog, in the terms used by Phillip Tetlock. Of the two cognitive types, the fox, who knows a little about a lot of things, is better at predictions than the hedgehog, who knows a lot about one thing, his or her silo.)
I try to be a good generalist and applied psychologist. I’m delighted with my five journals that come with my membership in Association for Psychological Science (APS). I’m convinced that by reading all the abstracts and then a selection of the articles, and scanning PubMed and other online sources and blogs, I can stay 10% up with psychological science.
Who can apply all of this wonderful information we generate and make a difference?
One fine example is Dr. Susan Tucker. I ran into Susan in 2010 after I’d started the Times and we have been reporting on her work since. She was working as the Assistant Warden at Forcht Wade Correctional Center in Keithville and later moved her work to the Bossier Sherriff Facility.
Dr. Tucker, despite the many challenges, is able to apply psychological science in a truly comprehensive way––her innovations have been recognized nationally and her results continue to be impressive.
This has not been luck. She designed a core, evidenced-based, intensive therapeutic program and added numerous ancillary programs tailored to the individual offender, and she recognized the true underlying problems, such as a 70 to 80 percent substance abuse problem. She drew in family and community and designed around systems, individual needs and family units. One of the most basic of human needs, to be a good father to your child, inspired the “Read to Me, Daddy Program,” a shinning example of innovative ideas in her programs.
The most recent news is that the programs are resulting in major savings. The proper psychological treatment of offenders benefits the state’s bottom line, saving millions and millions of dollars in prison costs.
The less invisible benefits, and perhaps the true savings, are in human lives and the quality of one person’s existence, some who would surely have become lost forever.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.