Newsletter
Volume 29 | 2006 | Number 3
Division 25: Where Would We Be without It?
By Dr. Larry Alferink and Dr. Timothy Hackenberg
Since its inception in 1965, Division 25 has been the primary behavioral voice within the American Psychological Association (APA). There was a time prior to the existence of ABA when Division 25 represented the main professional affiliation for most behavior analysts. Division membership peaked in the late 1970s (at upwards of 1,600 members), but has fallen over the years as behavior analysts have joined ABA and other behaviorally-oriented organizations in increasing numbers. Indeed, given these trends in professional affiliations, one might ask (as some no doubt already have) whether it makes sense for behavior analysts to continue supporting Division 25. There is, after all, only so much time (and money) to go around. Is it worth the investment, or has the Division outlived its usefulness?
To answer this question, it may be helpful to imagine a future in which Division 25 did not exist. Imagine a future with no representation of behavior analysis within the world’s largest and most influential professional organization of psychologists. Imagine APA developing a model high school and undergraduate curriculum with no behavior analysts in the room. Imagine a member of Congress proposing legislation to ban the use of timeout procedures, with no behavior analysts to speak up at the Congressional hearings. Imagine APA developing educational and therapeutic programs with no input from behavior analysts. Imagine the federal government deciding what constitutes evidence of effective procedures without anyone there to argue for the value of single-subject designs.
Fortunately, we have not had to imagine such bleak scenarios, for Division 25 members have always been there, stepping up when needed to promote the causes of behavior analysis. But much more remains to be done and the future depends on the active involvement of behavior analysts working through Division 25 and other APA divisions.
Given both its size (more than 150,000 members) and location (Washington D.C.), APA is well positioned to advocate on behalf of psychology. Such advocacy efforts range from educating congressional staff and arranging for psychologists to testify on Capitol Hill to mobilizing support for or against legislation of importance to psychologists. And while many of these efforts fall outside the specific interests of behavior analysis, this need not be the case. With the departure of many academic psychologists from APA to the American Psychological Society (APS) over the past decade, APA has looked increasingly to science divisions such as Division 25 for direction on science-related policy and initiatives. And the Division’s unique blend of science and application has enabled productive collaborations with other divisions, including Division 28 (Psychopharmacology), Division 33 (Mental Retardation), and others. In fact, in addition to membership in Division 25, many behavior analysts belong to a wide variety of APA divisions, providing opportunities to network with others to work on a variety of issues.
A major challenge faced by Division 25 is in recruitment and retention of members. Despite spirited recruitment efforts in recent years, membership has remained roughly constant since 2000. Membership is the prime currency within the APA governance structure, with membership numbers translating into seats on APA Council. At present Division 25 has but one Council Representative, but is well within reach of obtaining a second council seat. Bolstering membership in Division 25 would increase the behavioral voice within APA.
Another way to increase influence is to become active within APA. In the past, we have been blessed to have behavior analysts in a variety of important positions within APA. For example, Kurt Salzinger served as Director of the Science Directorate and Barbara Wasik served as Chair of the Board of Educational Affairs, the primary governance body for the Education Directorate. Others have served in a number of other positions on APA Committees, Task Forces and Coalitions where the opportunity to make a difference in APA exists. A current opportunity to have a significant impact in APA is the presidential nomination of Alan Kazdin. One of five nominees, Alan has strong support from a number of APA Divisions, including Division 25. As President of APA, Alan would have a tremendous opportunity to have an impact in APA, including establishing Presidential initiatives and appointing members to work to further those initiatives. He will need our help both to become President and to work to further those initiatives once elected.
This is a time of important opportunities for Division 25 and we need your help as a member and as an individual willing to help make a difference. As a science division, we have always worked closely with the Science Directorate to help advance the science of behavior analysis, to promote animal research and appropriate animal care, to promote human research and address issues of IRBs that sometimes make that research more difficult, and to promote federal funding of behavior research. Given our unique blend of basic research and application, we have maintained regular contact with the Practice Directorate as well. Recently, we have also become more directly liked to the Education Directorate and this has provided opportunities for us to influence the education of future students in high schools, community colleges, and universities. We have been invited to the table as the model curriculum for high school psychology is updated to help rewrite that curriculum. Future opportunities will exist to work with the model undergraduate curriculum and a variety or other issues. We need people to help with these efforts.
After all, what will the future be like if students don’t learn about behavior analysis? If federal agencies don’t fund behavioral research? If no one advocates for single-subject designs? And if we don’t work with others to make these things happen?