| Abstract: | Comments on L. T. Hoshmand and D. E. Polkinghorne's (see record 1992-21300-001) article on redefining the science–practice relationship. Contrary to Hoshmand and Polkinghorne's position, it is suggested that the common-sense language of practice needs to be connected to the systematic language of the relevant basic science. Important activities in psychology are currently separated because the connections have not yet been established, not because they are incommensurate. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
