Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Colleagues from different parts of the world, working in different contexts, with different teaching experience and academic backgrounds, took the time to consider the proposals we outlined in our target article “Psychology curricula for non-psychologists? A framework recommended by the EFPA Board of Educational Affairs.” We appreciate the effort and time the commentators invested to provide the journal’s readers and us with a sophisticated discussion of our framework. We are glad that this topic attracted so much attention and that all commentators agreed on its relevance.

In the following, we revisit our proposal along three lines of argumentation that emerged from the commentaries.¹ First, some commentators felt that our framework was not extensive enough, that it does not go far enough. They would like to see, for example, more concrete recommendations, methods, or details of possible implementations. Second, though appreciating our criteria of domain specificity and need orientation, some commentators feared that we have gone too far in our attempt to align the selection of psychological content for curricula with the needs and requirements of the target group. They would like methodological topics as part of the curricula for non-psychology students, as well as an introduction into how psychologists think, research, or reconstruct and solve problems. Third, some commentators substantially elaborated the idea of interdisciplinary collaboration as a core process in developing psychology curricula for non-psychologists.

Going not Far Enough?

In our target article, we explicitly refrained from proposing concrete curricula for specific fields of study or professions. Although it was tempting to scan the rich reservoir of psychological findings and allocate them to curricula for prospective teachers, lawyers, or medical doctors, we decided against this option for the reasons we discussed in Dutke et al. (2019, p. 113). Against this background, we agree with Narciss (2019) who felt that our framework consisted of “rather generic criteria” (p. 146). It was our intention not to define curriculum contents or methods but describe a framework which can guide the development of such curricula. Nevertheless, we understand Zani’s encouragement “to go ahead” (Zani, 2019, p. 138) meaning that, after this first step, practical suggestions for contents, methods, and didactical design are requested. Likewise, Narciss wished that our framework might stimulate “the discussion on more concrete recommendations” (Narciss, 2019, p. 146).

Some commentators themselves proposed such concretions. Bernstein (2019), for example, thinks that collaborative learning activities, writing assignments, and generally a student-centered approach would give the students the opportunity to focus on their domain-specific topics. Thereby, psychology teachers would learn about the needs of different target groups and their domain-specific problems even in discipline-diverse university courses. Steinebach (2019) emphasized that psychology teachers should not only focus on the profession-related interests of students but also consider their needs “in the here and now” of the teaching situation. The following is one of his examples: cooperation in project groups is seldom part of curricula for students of engineering. If psychology teachers, however, focus such topics in concrete class situations, they would have the chance to “build a bridge between the reference to the ‘here and now’ and future professional practice” (Steinebach, 2019, p. 132).

We are welcoming these proposals and are convinced that they represent important suggestions for all those who develop curricula for non-psychologists. However, it was not our intention (Dutke et al., 2019, p. 113) to propose detailed curricula with defined contents and methods for two reasons. First, this project would exceed our expertise, and we are still convinced that thoroughly understanding the necessities, constraints, and opportunities in the respective non-psychology field is a necessary prerequisite for successful curriculum development. Second, “expertise is needed to transform psychological knowledge before it can be used in a specific professional field” (Dutke et al., 2019, p. 113) which requires taking the local psychological and interdisciplinary expertise into account. Both arguments suggest that the concrete curriculum development should take place locally, in collaboration with experts of the non-psychology field and considering the locally available teaching capacity and expertise. With regard to this position, we received strong support by Arnold (2019) who warned of an EU-wide unitary curriculum and advocated considering the nationally and locally different orientations and priorities in education. Whereas Arnold feared “the temptation might be to try to produce an EU-wide curriculum based of the framework” (Arnold, 2019, p. 125), our objective is that many curricula will develop with the help of the framework we are discussing here.

Going too Far?

Some commentators expressed concerns that curriculum development could be oriented exclusively at the needs and the requests of the target group and felt that it could be harmful if the curriculum content was a function of demand rather than of supply. In this sense, some commentators felt that our framework went too far in its orientation toward the target group.

These colleagues were concerned that psychology’s methodological background would not be part of the curriculum as non-psychological target groups would be particularly interested in learning about psychological contents helping them to solve the tasks and problems of their professional domain whereas they would be less interested in learning about how and under which conditions psychological content knowledge is generated. Consequently, these students would lack basic competences needed to evaluate psychological content knowledge. In this context, both Arnold (2019, p. 125) and Hulme (2019, p. 135) referred to the same English expression “a little knowledge may be a dangerous thing.” Knowledge about psychological research methods and their underlying assumptions “should be at the core of any mature understanding of the contribution of psychology to the everyday lives of members of the public” (Arnold, 2019, p. 124). Richter emphasized methodological knowledge “can help to fight back pseudoscience, correct misconceptions of psychology in the public, and contribute to the scientific literacy of students in broad range of disciplines” (Richter, 2019, p. 129).

We completely agree with these positions and are grateful that colleagues emphasized this topic in impressive words. We had hoped to cover this topic in our framework under Criterion 5:

the curriculum needs to be research-based … The research process should be made transparent in that students learn to relate theoretical propositions, research methods, empirical results, and potential applications. Knowledge about how psychology generates its contents is an important ingredient for successfully applying this knowledge. (Dutke et al., 2019, p. 117)

This passage was intended to include not only the discussion of methodological issues but also the theory-practice relationship – see Richter’s (2019) remark on the balance of bottom-up (practice-driven) and top-down (theory-driven) approaches in psychology – as well as the problem of multiple (and multiple-cause) explanations – see Arnold’s (2019) remark on the danger of providing over-simplified accounts of actually complex phenomena.

In summary, we agree that the development of curricula for non-psychologists should not be completely allocated to the demands of the target group. Psychologists need to decide which methodological and epistemological prerequisites are to be included to prevent an “reductionist approach focusing on isolated and piece-meal information” (Dutke et al., 2019, p. 117). On the other hand, we still advocate the primacy of psychological content as non-psychology target groups would primarily expect to learn how psychology can contribute to the solution of their profession-related tasks and problems. After some time of active engagement in psychology, these students might also benefit from learning about the methods psychologists utilize to generate the knowledge needed to investigate and solve problems. However, we do not feel that this is their initial motive of approaching psychology.

Psychology Curricula for Non-psychologists Require an Interdisciplinary Orientation

In our target article, we emphasized that balancing the interests – what psychology can offer to a non-psychological professional field and what non-psychology experts need from psychology – is a matter of interaction and collaboration (Dutke et al., 2019, p. 118). Protagonists on both sides need interdisciplinary competencies (Pusateri et al., 2019) and the willingness to approach the other’s field impartially before a balance between what psychology can offer and what is needed from psychology can be understood and achieved. The commentators Bernstein (2019) and Hulme (2019) explicitly agree and emphasize the importance of an interdisciplinary orientation:

The more knowledgeable psychology teachers are about how the traditions and values of various non-psychology fields, how students in those fields are normally taught, and what they want and need from psychology courses, the easier it will be to intelligently re-design or at least adjust psychology courses in the right directions. (Bernstein, 2019, p. 122)

This meets exactly Steinebach’s (2019) point when he asked why non-psychology students are not always happy and grateful when they receive psychological knowledge. “For non-psychologists, the psychological perspective increases the complexity of their subject and questions their own professional identity” (Steinebach, 2019, p. 131). Both statements remind us not only that interdisciplinary collaboration requires factual knowledge about the other side’s academic discipline but also that interdisciplinarity has a social-emotional dimension, even more so when it comes to questions of what an academic discipline might contribute to the education of a different discipline’s students.

The collaboration problem is elaborated by three other commentators. First, we appreciate Narciss’ (2019) practical hint that referring to existing resources such as the European Qualification Framework or other domain-specific competence standards (including the EuroPsy framework; Lunt, Poortinga, & Roe, 2015) might support negotiations about curriculum contents. Such standards inform about central competencies required in specific professional fields and thus help to clarify mutual expectations. Second, Zani (2019) and Steinebach (2019) emphasized that the required interdisciplinary dialogue is a field of various goal conflicts and interdependencies. On the one hand, psychology wants to do justice to the needs of non-psychology students and on the other hand “we also want to do justice to our own claim to psychology as an empirical science and evidence-based practice” (Steinebach, 2019, p. 132). Psychologists consider “giving psychology away” to non-psychological experts, but, at the same time, psychologists need to define their professional and academic identity (Zani, 2019). These goals are not always (easily) reconcilable. In addition, Zani (2019) pointed out that we are often unaware of the reciprocity in this process. What psychology offers to students of other disciplines influences psychology’s public image. However, what other disciplines expect (and accept) from psychology has already been formed by psychology’s existing public image.

In summary, we feel encouraged in our view that interdisciplinary collaboration is a core process in designing psychology curricula for non-psychology students. However, the commentators’ elaborations of this point remind us that interdisciplinary collaboration is a complex, multifaceted field – both in the context of research and in the context of teaching. Having said this, would it not be a fruitful approach to initially develop psychology curricula for non-psychology students in those domains in which psychology has already established successful and viable interdisciplinary research relations?

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note

Author biographies

Stephan Dutke is a professor of general and educational psychology at the University of Münster, Germany (Institute for Psychology in Education). His research interests include learning, memory, metacognition and text comprehension. Currently, he is a member of the Board of Educational Affairs at the EFPA and the speaker of the German National Awarding Committee for the European Certificate in Psychology (EuroPsy).

Helen Bakker is an associate professor at the Department of Developmental Psychology of Utrecht University (the Netherlands). She is also cofounder and chair of the Dutch PostMaster programme in School Psychology. She is a member of the EFPA Board of Educational Affairs and of the Board of the European Society for Psychology Learning and Teaching. She is former president of the International School Psychology Association (ISPA). Her areas of expertise and interest are professional development and ethics, assessment for intervention and children's rights.

Lenka Sokolová is a lecturer of educational psychology and the didactics of psychology at the Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovakia (Faculty of Education). Her research interests include psychology learning and teaching, classroom management and individual psychology. Currently, she is a vice president of the European Federation of Psychology Teachers' Associations (EFPTA), a chair of the Slovak Association for the Teaching of Psychology and a member of the Board of Educational Affairs at the EFPA.

Iva Stuchlikova is a professor of educational psychology at the Faculty of Education, University of South Bohemia, Ceske Budejovice. Her main research interests are emotions and motivation and professional development of teachers. She served as a Member of the Accreditation Commission for Higher Education of the Czech Republic, where she was responsible for psychology and pedagogy study programmes from 2008 to 2016. She is a member of the Board of Educational Affairs of the European Federation of Psychologists' Association and member of the Czech National Awarding Committee of EuroPsy.

Sergio Salvatore is a full professor of Dynamic Psychology at the University of Salento. His scientific interests regard the psychodynamic and semiotic theorization of mental phenomena and the methodology of analysis of psychological processes as field dependent dynamics. He also takes an interest in theory and the analysis of psychological intervention in clinical, scholastic, organizational and social fields. Currently, he is vice president of the Italian Association of Psychology (AIP) and a member of the Board of Educational Affairs at the EFPA.

Ioulia Papageorgi is an associate professor in the Department of Social Sciences at the University of Nicosia. She is the convenor of the EFPA Board of Educational Affairs. She is a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (FHEA), a Chartered Psychologist (CPsychol) and an Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society (AFBPsS). She previously held the position of lecturer and coordinating research officer at UCL Institute of Education, University of London (2006--2011), and associate lecturer at the Open University (UK) (2009--2011). Her research interests focus on test anxiety, psychometric testing, the psychology of performance, the development of expertise and the association between music training and cognitive development in children.

References

Arnold

(2019) Comment on paper prepared by the European Federation of Psychologists' Associations “Psychology curricula for non-psychologists? A framework recommended by the European Federation of Psychologists' Associations' Board of Educational Affairs” Dutke et al., 2019. Psychology Learning and Teaching 18(2): 124–126.

Bernstein

(2019) Comment on “Psychology curricula for non-psychologists? A framework recommended by the European Federation of Psychologists' Associations' Board of Educational Affairs” Dutke et al., 2019. Psychology Learning and Teaching 18(2): 121–123.

Dutke, S., Bakker, H., Sokolová, L., Stuchlikova, I., Salvatore, S., & Papageorgi, I. (2019). Psychology curricula for non-psychologists? A framework recommended by the European Federation of Psychologists' Associations' Board of Educational Affairs. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 18(2), 111–120.

Hulme

J. A.

(2019) “Giving psychology away” to non-psychologists: Comment on Dutke et al., 2019. Psychology Learning and Teaching 18(2): 134–136.

Lunt

Poortinga

Roe

(2015) EuroPsy. standards and quality in education for psychologists, Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.

Narciss

(2019) Curriculum design for (non-)psychology programs – a reflection on general and specific issues, and approaches on how to address them: Comment on Dutke et al., 2019. Psychology Learning and Teaching 18(2): 144–147.

Pusateri

T. P.

Landrum

R. E.

Gurung

R. A. R.

Halonen

J. S.

(2019) Pragmatic suggestions for improving psychology's perceived relevance for non-majors: Comment on Dutke et al., 2019. Psychology Learning and Teaching 18(2): 140–143.

Richter

(2019) Imparting psychological knowledge, promoting scientific literacy, and adjusting the public image of psychological science: The manifold functions of teaching psychology to non-psychologists. Comment on Dutke et al., 2019. Psychology Learning and Teaching 18(2): 127–130.

Steinebach

(2019) Teaching non-psychologists: The third step. Comment on Dutke et al., 2019. Psychology Learning and Teaching 18(2): 131–133.

10.

Zani

(2019) To go ahead: “Comment on Dutke et al., 2019”. Psychology Learning and Teaching 18(2): 137–139.