Psychology without boundaries: Crossing the longest undefended border in the world*

Canadian Psychology, Aug 2003 by Suedfeld, Peter

Abstract

The abolition of boundaries dividing subfields of psychology is made difficult by, among other forces, different reward systems and overwhelming amounts of information. The current collection of papers is an interesting demonstration of the values of transporting intellectual goods across one set of such boundaries: those between I/O psychology and clinical, social/personality, and cognitive/neuropsychological research and theory. Although because of space limitations the demonstration is incomplete, it should encourage more cross-boundary thinking and the recognition that academic and applied psychologists have much to offer to, and to gain from, each other's fields of endeavour.

The metaphor of boundaries, invoked by the title of this collection of papers, is both seductive and intuitively "right" (although I admit that the "longest" part of my titular metaphor may be stretching things a bit). Many of us who have been involved in the activities of trans-spccialty psychological associations, such as the Canadian or American Psychological Association (CPA/APA), or whose own research interests span more than one subarea of psychology (or psychology and one or more other disciplines), have lamented the walls that separate different parts of our field. Those walls seem to have grown higher and firmer during the past decades, but there seems to be growing commitment to reversing that trend.

Some of the separation results from different sources of gratification and sustenance. Academics secure in tenured positions get their rewards not only from the joys of research and discovery, but also from publishing articles and books that lead to collegial recognition, increased income, and more research money, free time, travel opportunities, and respect. Colleagues in applied fields get theirs from satisfying their clients, enlarging their employment opportunities, establishing their reputation for effective interventions. The rewards, except for research funds, are quite similar, but their sources and the routes to the goal are not only different but seem alien and perhaps even repulsive to the "other" group. Those psychologists who make a living by putting together bits and pieces from both major types of employment often do so not because they prefer it, but because they have no alternative. As soon as they can obtain security from one base, they are content to abandon the other.

But our peers and employers, and what we must do to please them, are not the only reasons for the separation. Another, which divides components within as well as across the academic-applied distinction, is the information explosion. It has become onerous to keep up with the developments in one's own field of specialization, daunting to try to do so in areas close to one's own, and impossible to do it in areas of psychology that are far removed - much less the many other disciplines concerned with complex human bio-psycho-social systems. Because we cannot read it all, and increasingly feel we would not understand it if we did read it, we conclude that it is not really relevant to us. It would, after all, be cognitively dissonant to admit that there is a vast professionally important literature of which we are, and will remain, ignorant.

The "broad vision" espoused by Bandura (cited in Latham's introduction to this collection) is one that many of us share, but to many psychologists looks sort of like the formula that war could be abolished if only people could see that we are all human beings deserving of love and cooperation. Sure. But now that we have identified what we want to do - eliminate those boundaries - how do we do it?

Happily, it may be easier to re-connect psychologists to each other than to bring about peace on earth. Although a few people have taken it upon themselves to act as border guards, for the most part the boundaries are not only undefended but visitors from across the line are actively encouraged and even rewarded. A number of the recent leaders of CPA have in their own work combined several subdisciplines, and worked on both sides of the academic-applied boundary. Wearing their organizational hat, they - Gary Latham more vigorously and successfully than most - have moved toward closer cooperation among the manifold fiefs of psychology, and their various barons. In that process, the eventual goal may also have become more realistic: to use John Berry's (e.g., 1983) terms for how immigrants adapt to their new culture, we may be content with integration (as Berry advocates for immigrants in general), rather than hoping or pushing for assimilation.

To go back to our original analogy, we could open more roads across the boundaries, or turn the walls into passable fences. There is not much we can do about the glut of information and the difficulty of processing it all, but some reading, conferencing, and collaboration across subspecialties is not beyond the realms of possibility. New multispecialty subfields neuroscienee, psychoimmunology, developmental linguistics, evolutionary psychology - are carrying the battering rams. The experimental system, starting in 2001, of coordinating the annual meetings of CPA and the Canadian Society for Brain, Behaviour, and Cognitive Science (BBCS for short) is a hopeful development - which will fail unless members of each group take the risk of attending sessions of the other. To repeat: The border is undefended. No picture ID is needed, and you do not have to worry about the currency conversion. Visits may be mutually enriching.