To Go Ahead: “Comment on Dutke et al.,2019”

I would like to thank the authors for their paper. It illustrates a clear position on one important topic: giving a contribution to the discussion in which the Board of Educational Affairs (BEA) has been involved for some years. As I have followed this work – first as a member of the committee, then as liaison for the EFPA Executive Council – I am very pleased to comment on the paper.

My comment focuses on the aims of the paper. It is affirmed that teaching psychology for non-psychologists can influence the subject’s public image and also be the basis of collaboration between psychologists and non-psychologists. So the questions are raised: Are these points important? Is the proposed proposal useful to achieve the two goals?

I agree with the authors that teaching psychology to non-psychologists could influence the general perception of the subject. This is important because this perception is still biased with stereotypes: psychology is viewed as mainly clinical, confused with psychotherapy or psychoanalysis, a work “lying on Freud’s couch”, as a shrink … and it ignores the many other facets of the profession of psychologist.

Based on my long career as a psychology teacher, I can add that also my students (university students in psychology courses) share this idea when approaching psychology courses for the first time: one of the most frequent motivations of enrolling is to know oneself and the others, and to solve the existential problems. However, what is more serious is that this image is also present in colleagues, teachers of other disciplines, who are more or less convinced that a psychologist can know what they are thinking just by looking in their eyes!

However, even if the issue is more complicated, I share the idea that teaching psychology to non-psychologists could contribute in modifying this perception more or less, making it clearer, diversified, and multifaceted – and hopefully less stereotyped. But how? In order to achieve this goal, the definition of the five criteria indicated by the authors can be considered useful; necessary but not sufficient. It is argued that curricula for non-psychologists should be (a) specific to the profession of the target group, (b) specific to the needs and (c) work processes of the target group, (d) limited to the professional field of the target group, and they should (e) maintain the depth and multiperspectivity required for understanding psychological phenomena (Dutke, Bakker, Sokolová, Stuchlikova, Salvatore, & Papageorgi, 2019).

As a past member of the EFPA BEA committee, I was involved in the survey mentioned (Dutke, Epler, & Zani, 2014), and I helped in the data collection for the Italian Universities. Commenting on the Italian data, it’s worth noticing that psychology is taught and offered in many different courses other than psychology – e.g. education, social services, medicine, arts, statistics, architecture, nurses, and health professions – in different proportions and intensity, according to what it is considered useful for the specific profession (criteria a, b, c).

The point is who decides what portions or aspects of psychological knowledge are appropriate and useful for the specific profession? This brings the issue of the other professions’ image and identity, together with a more pragmatic problem, related to the fact that often the offer of psychology to other courses is limited by the personnel available in the Psychology department (and, in particular, to the disciplinary competences of this personnel).

My impression is that these criteria are generic, a bit abstract (perhaps intentionally) if the idea has been to give space to the other professional bodies, orders, or corporations who have the task of defining the professional identity of the target groups. The criteria are useful (to achieve the declared goal) if, and only if, their definition is considered just a first step, one that deserves further implementation. This task should be followed by an effort to elaborate ideas and practical suggestions for psychology curricula for non-psychologists. I would encourage the authors to go ahead. For example, considering the first criterion, how would be possible to proceed? One line can be to start with the analysis of the single profession, based particularly on the required competencies.

As to this analysis, it’s important to keep in mind the reciprocity in the definition of the professions: it is true that what we teach about psychology to non-psychologists influence its reputation. However, it is also true that our contributions in teaching depend on the perception that we have about the specific profession whose training we want to contribute from our perspective. So we have to ask ourselves why we consider it important that this specific profession has some knowledge and/or skills in psychology. This reminds me of the old question of “giving psychology away”, present in the critical psychological literature Are we available to give our knowledge to others? To what extent?

As to the competences issue, this is exactly the work we did for the psychology profession: a study conducted for elaborating the competences at the basis of our profession had produced the competence model (Lunt, Peiro, Poortinga, & Roe, 2014). The detailed description of primary competences (unique for the psychological profession) and enabling competencies (that are shared with other professions and providers of services) can provide valuable guidance to this end.

A second aim of the paper is that teaching psychology to non-psychologists promotes the collaboration between psychologists and non-psychologists. I’m not sure that this is the case: there is a lot of literature on the work of multidisciplinary and multiprofessional teams, especially in health and social domains, and one of the most recurrent issues concerns the professional identity of the members involved. Psychologists had to struggle – at least in some countries – to defend their professional identity and be recognized as competent interlocutors between psychiatrists or medical doctors from one side and social workers from the other side. Again, this implies greater confidence and higher professional self-esteem, and needs reciprocity: psychologists have to share part of their knowledge and skills in mutual collaboration and to “defend” their professional identity. The collaboration can work satisfactorily and efficiently if all the team members know and respect each other’s competences and roles. Of course, this requires a true and intensive interdisciplinary interaction, as underlined by the authors.