Operational Psychology Under Attack?
Operational Psychology, and its practitioners, have come under attack in recent years. This assault has been launched in the name of ethics and social justice under the banners of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology and Psychologists for Social Responsibility (to name just two). However, these groups have chosen to misuse ethics as a club to strike with, and social justice as a false shield to hide behind.
Opposition to this practice community has arrived along three critical lines of effort:
1) A False Dichotomy – an attempt to split operational psychology into two categories: “collaborative” and “adversarial,” on the basis of limited informed consent, the potential for unstipulated harm, and lack of proper oversight (readers are referred to the paper series appearing in the Journal of Peace Psychology (Arrigo, Eidelson, & Bennett, 2012; Staal & Greene, 2015),
2) A False Narrative - The APA’s 2015 Independent Review (the Hoffman Report), detailing what it concluded was “collusion” between APA leadership and senior DoD psychologists (readers are referred to the Division 19 Task Force Report refuting these claims and identifying the many biases and false assumptions made by Hoffman's legal team as well as Dick Kilburg's analysis of similar content - both can be found at www.militarypsych.org), and
3) A Failure in Principles – the Brookline Principles report, a document drafted by critics of operational psychology intended to codify practice guidelines for operational practitioners (readers are referred to the paper series appearing in the Journal of Peace Psychology (Soldz, Arrigo, & Olson, 2015; Staal, 2018).
All three of these efforts, the attempt to bifurcate operational psychology, the APA’s Hoffman Report as an indictment of military psychologists and their role in interrogation support, and the Brookline Principles report as an attempt to draft ethical practice guidelines for operational psychologists, have been strong in allegation, accusation, and bias but weak on facts, reasoning, and critical thinking. In all three instances, these efforts have violated the very principles they claim to support.
Sadly, these efforts have resulted in a number of disturbing changes to APA policy. These include prohibiting psychologists from supporting national security interrogations or detention operations if occurring in facilities not supported by international treaty despite receiving full legal support by US law (e.g., Guantanamo Bay Cuba). Moreover, this prohibition calls for the removal of military psychologists from providing voluntary mental health care to detainees under US custody - a requirement by US law and international treaty for which our government is a signatory (Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions). In this case, the most vulnerable population has been made more vulnerable through the political efforts of those in opposition to operational psychology.
Opposition to this practice community has arrived along three critical lines of effort:
1) A False Dichotomy – an attempt to split operational psychology into two categories: “collaborative” and “adversarial,” on the basis of limited informed consent, the potential for unstipulated harm, and lack of proper oversight (readers are referred to the paper series appearing in the Journal of Peace Psychology (Arrigo, Eidelson, & Bennett, 2012; Staal & Greene, 2015),
2) A False Narrative - The APA’s 2015 Independent Review (the Hoffman Report), detailing what it concluded was “collusion” between APA leadership and senior DoD psychologists (readers are referred to the Division 19 Task Force Report refuting these claims and identifying the many biases and false assumptions made by Hoffman's legal team as well as Dick Kilburg's analysis of similar content - both can be found at www.militarypsych.org), and
3) A Failure in Principles – the Brookline Principles report, a document drafted by critics of operational psychology intended to codify practice guidelines for operational practitioners (readers are referred to the paper series appearing in the Journal of Peace Psychology (Soldz, Arrigo, & Olson, 2015; Staal, 2018).
All three of these efforts, the attempt to bifurcate operational psychology, the APA’s Hoffman Report as an indictment of military psychologists and their role in interrogation support, and the Brookline Principles report as an attempt to draft ethical practice guidelines for operational psychologists, have been strong in allegation, accusation, and bias but weak on facts, reasoning, and critical thinking. In all three instances, these efforts have violated the very principles they claim to support.
Sadly, these efforts have resulted in a number of disturbing changes to APA policy. These include prohibiting psychologists from supporting national security interrogations or detention operations if occurring in facilities not supported by international treaty despite receiving full legal support by US law (e.g., Guantanamo Bay Cuba). Moreover, this prohibition calls for the removal of military psychologists from providing voluntary mental health care to detainees under US custody - a requirement by US law and international treaty for which our government is a signatory (Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions). In this case, the most vulnerable population has been made more vulnerable through the political efforts of those in opposition to operational psychology.
External Resources, Links, and Advocacy Efforts
Informative Websites Relevant to Operational Psychology:
https://www.militarypsych.org/
https://www.policepsychology.org/
https://www.societyofconsultingpsychology.org/
http://oppsych.com/
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/
https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-28/march-2015/key-national-security
On-line video resources:
"EthicalPsychology" Youtube Webinar Series
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCltRQWMJQN85ffXIAqAnzfA?view_as=subscriber
American Psychology Law Society (2018) - Ethics of Operational and National Security Psychology Debate (Randy Otto, Mark Staal, and Steven Reisner - Memphis, TN)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP1ZmffnMeA&t=978s
Consultation & Ethical Practice - Dilemmas in Forensic, National Security and Consulting Psychology (Sally Harvey, Dan Neller, Dave DeMatteo, Jay Supnick, Nancy McGarrah, and Terrence Keane, APA, 2017)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkqhIpIgMos
https://www.militarypsych.org/
https://www.policepsychology.org/
https://www.societyofconsultingpsychology.org/
http://oppsych.com/
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/
https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-28/march-2015/key-national-security
On-line video resources:
"EthicalPsychology" Youtube Webinar Series
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCltRQWMJQN85ffXIAqAnzfA?view_as=subscriber
American Psychology Law Society (2018) - Ethics of Operational and National Security Psychology Debate (Randy Otto, Mark Staal, and Steven Reisner - Memphis, TN)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP1ZmffnMeA&t=978s
Consultation & Ethical Practice - Dilemmas in Forensic, National Security and Consulting Psychology (Sally Harvey, Dan Neller, Dave DeMatteo, Jay Supnick, Nancy McGarrah, and Terrence Keane, APA, 2017)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkqhIpIgMos
Site powered by Weebly. Managed by iPage