| Abstract: | During the past year, in discussions of the question of certification of psychologists, I have found that many are not familiar with two important problems associated with the trend of certification of the whole title. One consequence of such certification is that an academic psychologist cannot consult as a psychologist for a fee in his own specialty, however remote from contact with individual patients, without being certified or without in some way circumventing the law. This is a restriction that does not exist for nuclear physicists, physiologists, chemists, or others in any academic area. It stands, as such, as a limitation on traditional academic privileges. A second consequence is that restriction of the whole title creates a situation in which misunderstandings arise with sister disciplines that share subject matter or titles. For example, sociologists have trained persons in and claim competence in social psychology. It is concluded that aside from the issues involved and whether or not there have indeed been blunders, the implication is that the profession would not want to change, right or wrong; it would not be possible to rouse any action that would imply an alteration rather than a compromise with the current situation. What is disturbing is that considering the self-conscious concern with ethics in psychology, this seems to be a rather cynical view of the profession. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
