Comment on Paper Prepared by the European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations

The question that this paper seeks to address is an important one. To what extent should a practitioner in a non-psychological activity use information from psychology to enhance their work? If the answer is anything other than “not at all” then the question of what psychological information should be taught or available to the practitioner is both relevant and important.

There is much to praise in the article and the authors are attempting an ambitious task. The analysis aims to produce a framework and minimum standard for those teaching psychology to non-psychologists. In so doing the outcome could be a much more considered approach to this area.

The paper suggests five areas to be considered and there is no doubt that they would assist those embarking on preparing a curriculum; however, there are a number of omissions and issues that need further consideration before educators could be certain that they are conveying a comprehensive syllabus.

It is this author’s view that underpinning psychology in all its guises are questions of research methods, epistemology and ontology. Although the latter two might be considered beyond the scope of a curriculum for, say, social workers or medical professionals, the differing research methods and assumptions should be at the core of any mature understanding of the contribution of psychology to improving the everyday lives of members of the public. Such inclusion could, for example, discuss both positivist and experimental approaches alongside constructivist and experiential methods. Psychology has a richness of research tools, and the ability to both understand and critique information supplied by psychologists is essential to enable a non-psychologist to evaluate the claims made in the name of “psychology” by some authors. Omitting information about the different research methods with their associated assumptions could leave an individual believing claims from some corners of psychology and unable to see the dangers inherent in their statements. One only has to look at the now largely discredited work on IQ and race to see such an example. There is an English expression “a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.” This is very clear here.

Alongside this there needs to be some recognition that different communities in the European area have different orientations and priorities. These naturally lead to differing approaches by professionals practising in what appear to be similar fields, but in different nations. In one country an educational priority is to maximise student attainment as measured by external exams, whilst in another the social well-being and inclusiveness of students in a school are higher priorities. If the framework were to be used to adopt a European Union (EU)-wide curriculum approach for non-psychologists, it could result in a “one size fits all” model. The danger here is that it would likely be a “one size doesn’t fit anything” and lose the support of the practitioners and damage the reputation of psychology in that state. The authors do show awareness of this, but the temptation might be to try to produce an EU-wide curriculum based on the framework.

The fifth criterion relates to internal consistency of the information conveyed to those studying non-psychological subjects. Whilst this may be appealing at first glance, there is a danger that the subject matter could be massaged to provide simple accounts of what are actually complex interacting social and mental phenomena. There are contradictions, debates and dialogues in psychology which are valuable for all to see. Psychology rarely provides a simple account of the human condition or how to improve it. Consider the different conclusions that a psychologist working from a psychodynamic perspective might make from one working using a behavioural approach when considering the problem of violence. It would be doing a disservice to both the student and psychology as a whole to imply that there are simple solutions to complex issues. The responsible path is to present these differences rather than suppress them.

I suspect that the differences in working practices in different countries might need further consideration by those preparing curricula for non-psychologists and that the details of the information included might be very different in different situations.

However, the authors are to be congratulated on offering a framework based on considerable thought and I can see that it provides a useful foundation for further thinking in this area.