A few modest proposals.
Corboy suggests that a healthy discipline
is based on principles rather than personalities. What are the results? Can the results be replicated by others and in different settings? Are the results better than average? Are the benefits greater than current modalities?
A healthy discipline outgrows its founders. A healthy discipline continues to make progress in the absence of charismatic personalities because its researchers use sound research protocol.
* Has a professional code of ethics
* Will not use material obtained by unethical means
* Will conduct its research according to ethical guidelines protecting human subjects and safeguarding confidentiality and informed consent (eg APA guidelines)
* a) Has a standard of care -- and sets itself apart from shoddy practitioners
b) Is called elitist by shoddy practitioners
* Does not automatically stifle reports of malpractice on grounds that criticism will ruin the discipline. Open societies are capable of self critique.
* Full disclosure of source material and concepts
* Has a process for training, accreditation of training programs, and a procedure for examining and
licensing practitioners
** Requires training in scientific method and research design so that practitioners know the difference
between methods that are personality driven vs methods derived from testable hypotheses and which have
results better than average and have been replicated in a variety of settings by different researchers
* Welcomes legal accountability. Cannot legally practice professionally or supervise trainees unless
license is tied to state or national disciplinary board.
* Can agree on defining terms so that discipline has a shared professional vocabulary that can be used
in publications and presentations
* Can agree and use research design methods (creating testable hypotheses, taking precautions against
confirmation bias, knowing how to use and interpret statistics
* Uses methods and theories and findings from other disciplines (psychometrics, clinical psychology,
psychiatry, biological psychology, sociology, anthropology, game theory, etc)
* Scholars and practitioners from other disciplines participate in conference and co author articles s
* Different viewpoints
* Discussions of different viewpoints take place publicly - articles, books, conferences, journals
* There are persons and teams pursuing different approaches.
* Publishes a journal that is peer reviewed. More than one such journal is even better.
Corboy suggests that a healthy discipline
is based on principles rather than personalities. What are the results? Can the results be replicated by others and in different settings? Are the results better than average? Are the benefits greater than current modalities?
A healthy discipline outgrows its founders. A healthy discipline continues to make progress in the absence of charismatic personalities because its researchers use sound research protocol.
* Has a professional code of ethics
* Will not use material obtained by unethical means
* Will conduct its research according to ethical guidelines protecting human subjects and safeguarding confidentiality and informed consent (eg APA guidelines)
* a) Has a standard of care -- and sets itself apart from shoddy practitioners
b) Is called elitist by shoddy practitioners
* Does not automatically stifle reports of malpractice on grounds that criticism will ruin the discipline. Open societies are capable of self critique.
* Full disclosure of source material and concepts
* Has a process for training, accreditation of training programs, and a procedure for examining and
licensing practitioners
** Requires training in scientific method and research design so that practitioners know the difference
between methods that are personality driven vs methods derived from testable hypotheses and which have
results better than average and have been replicated in a variety of settings by different researchers
* Welcomes legal accountability. Cannot legally practice professionally or supervise trainees unless
license is tied to state or national disciplinary board.
* Can agree on defining terms so that discipline has a shared professional vocabulary that can be used
in publications and presentations
* Can agree and use research design methods (creating testable hypotheses, taking precautions against
confirmation bias, knowing how to use and interpret statistics
* Uses methods and theories and findings from other disciplines (psychometrics, clinical psychology,
psychiatry, biological psychology, sociology, anthropology, game theory, etc)
* Scholars and practitioners from other disciplines participate in conference and co author articles s
* Different viewpoints
* Discussions of different viewpoints take place publicly - articles, books, conferences, journals
* There are persons and teams pursuing different approaches.
* Publishes a journal that is peer reviewed. More than one such journal is even better.