Thoughts on the APA?

Therapulse.ai - The AI Scribe for Mental Health
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
psyman

psyman

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
286
Reaction score
64
I feel that the APA does very little for our profession and frankly, I don't want to give them any more money for an annual membership when I don't understand (or SEE) anything they do for me.

For example, the internship match crisis. This is something they should have managed in various ways (for instance, permitting us finish our degree and then do internship). I didn't match two years ago, but matched last cycle (that one still hurts). Also, nobody knows how a psychiatrist, psychologist, therapist, LMHC, LPC, life coach, etc differ. That is on the APA. Hell, everybody knows what a realtor is and why you should have one (see those commercials)!

Maybe I am ill informed, but why should I give the APA money? What do they do for us? Pros and cons anyone?
Members don't see this ad.
 
Talking to experienced clinicians, many complain that APA cares more about research psychologists than practitioners. In fact, one told me that they actually charge a higher fee for private practice folks to join. I don't know if that is true because I stopped paying when I graduated.

As a practitioner, I have benefitted more from membership in my state psychological association (which is affiliated with APA anyway). They keep track of CEU's and have a fairly active list serve which is helpful when looking to find a specialist to refer a patient to, etc.

I personally don't have strong opinions on APA, but I felt like I couldn't afford the membership fee, so I did not continue my membership. I haven't missed my membership at all.

Dr. E
 
How much of the internship match problem is a result of the FSPS?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Dr. E....the vast majority of their revenue each year is in publishing (and royalties), so they aren't as dependent on membership dues from private practitioners and/or those less likely to publish.

I re-joined the APA and tried to become active within the org by applying to be considered for an open seat on a committee...and I was politely told, "thank you, but no thank you." (paraphrased) What was most frustrating was that I had quite a few independant nominations, more than what I was told was typical, AND I had prior experience in the area of focus...albeit not specifically within APA or an APA-affiliated division. The spot was even slated for an "early career" psychologist.....it felt very much like a Catch 22 because their reasoning was that I couldn't be nominated because I hadn't previously served within the APA. 🙄

For those who aren't familiar with the nomination process for APA committee/board spots: The current committee members get to handpick from the nominated/self-nominated people who they want to be on the Fall ballot. Once on the ballot the general membership votes, and whoever gets the most votes is selected to fill the vacancy. Given the gatekeeper status of the process, it will be very interesting to see who they decide to put on the ballot instead this Fall. I have a sneaking suspicion the nominees will be a re-tread/re-shuffle of prior members who have served elsewhere within APA.
 
Last edited:
Funny, those of us on the research side feel APA is a practitioner organization (and for what its worth, membership numbers suggest it is overwhelmingly composed of practitioners), and have been leaving in droves because of it. APS formed largely as a result of researchers becoming disgruntled with APA's lack of support for science, continued allowance and even support for bogus practice techniques, etc..

The fee discrepancy is the "Practice Assessment" and it actually goes to APAPO, a separate political group meant to lobby on behalf of practitioners. They are the ones providing most of the financial backing/lobbying for RxP. There was actually an outcry and at least one class action lawsuit filed against APA because they misled people into believing they "Had" to pay it if they were clinical/counseling, when it is in fact optional. Many objected, largely because such a huge portion of their budget went into the RxP campaigns, and APA was rather unapologetic to those who didn't support it. Not sure what (if any) results have emerged from the lawsuit yet.

Personally, I think APA is a mess, though I rely on them for their cheap student malpractice insurance. Aside from the fact that they do make some positive political efforts even if I feel they could do a helluva lot more for everyone if they gave up on (or dramatically reformulated) the RxP movement, and they publish some pretty good journals, I have little respect for them. I am unlikely to maintain membership once I no longer need their insurance.
 
Ollie123 said:
The fee discrepancy is the "Practice Assessment" and it actually goes to APAPO, a separate political group meant to lobby on behalf of practitioners. They are the ones providing most of the financial backing/lobbying for RxP. There was actually an outcry and at least one class action lawsuit filed against APA because they misled people into believing they "Had" to pay it if they were clinical/counseling, when it is in fact optional. Many objected, largely because such a huge portion of their budget went into the RxP campaigns, and APA was rather unapologetic to those who didn't support it. Not sure what (if any) results have emerged from the lawsuit yet.
Click to expand...

The way in which it was presented in the application material was very misleading, though most people are annoyed because it has been that way for 8-10+ years. A few people wrote articles about it, a quick google search should turn them up rather quickly. The reason it is so problematic is that the APA can lose their non-profit status if the gov't has enough evidence that monies were allocated from the general non-profit fund and funneled to a PAC and/or used for lobbying efforts.

*edit*

DrJon (a poster on here from time to time), wrote a piece explaining the "confusion" around the mandatory practice assessment fee: http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2010/06/02/did-you-think-that-apa-mandatory-fee-was-mandatory/
 
Last edited:
It's funny, a lot of the older practitioners have told me that they like APA, but the majority of the students and younger practitioners seem to dislike APA. My view:

Good:
-Cheap student insurance
-They have made some modest progress with the imbalance, although it is still a major problem

Bad:
-The internship imbalance could be handled much better, and more could have been done sooner
-Too much alignment with Argosy, other professional schools (i.e., Argosy sponsoring the freaking APA convention, WTF)
-No real acknowledgement of the frustrations and difficulties faced by new practitioners
-A lack of advocacy to promote psychologists as unique professionals with specific skill sets. There are A LOT of areas that psychological assessment can and should be used, but the APA doesn't seem to push for us in this regard
-Too much infighting- Academics vs. Practitioners, Psy.d. vs. Ph.d., Counseling vs. Clinical, etc. etc.
-No effective advocacy towards decreased reimbursement for testing and therapy, and the specific skill set of psychologists vs. other therapy providers
 
Not a fan. They're terrible at political advocacy and they don't seem to care about protecting our profession, only money. They should not be the accrediting body, that's for sure.
 
I've lost a ton of respect for the APA how absolutely horribly they've handled the internship crisis and because they are so openly in Argosy's pocket. Their financial interests are fulfilled at the well-being of the profession, IMO. I'd totally support APS as an alternate primary accrediting body.

Some of the individual divisions (which are largely independent) are pretty awesome, realistic, and useful, though.
 
I am REALLY alarmed that Argosy is sponsoring the convention. What next? Phillip Morris sponsoring a lung cancer treatment convention?

Even best case scenario, it gives the impression of impropriety. Even if nothing shady is going on, why doesn't APA worry about how this looks? The accrediting body's convention getting funding from a "school" actively contributing to some of the major problems in the field.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

Dr. E
 
where else can one obtain liability insurance? i was under the impression that i HAD to be an apa member in order to be insured....
 
I'd like to know other liability insurance, too. I haven't researched other options, but rather just went along with the APA option.
 
I used this company during my Master's since I got a discount with my ACA membership. They provide coverage for all sorts of MH professionals. http://www.cphins.com/
 
Members don't see this ad :)
APA fails us miserably - weak advocacy for reimbursement, partnering with Argosy for conferences, accrediting sub-par/large class FSPS, I could go on... The dilemma is whether we should abandon them or get in there and change things as young professionals, though it sounds like some of you have tried.

From a public relations perspective, partnering with Argosy looks terrible - who thought through this decision? I feel alienated from APA just hearing about it.
 
Shatani said:
where else can one obtain liability insurance? i was under the impression that i HAD to be an apa member in order to be insured....
Click to expand...

Nope.

There are other 3rd party insurers. If/When you look you need to make sure to compare Apples to Apples because there are different types of riders/tails/etc that provide a range of future/prior coverage based on when you started or terminated your coverage.
 
The APA is a cumbersome, bureaucratic and inefficient organization which does a very poor job advocating for the profession. It is a deeply incestuous organization in which the same people shuffle around through the various positions in a game of musical chairs all the while patting each other on the back and giving each other awards and accolades. Early career psychologists really can't break into the organization to contribute to the essential change APA needs. Also the organization spends too much time focusing on various political activities and policy statements and not enough time advocating for the profession and the science. While I am a flaming leftist MSNBC watching liberal, I don't want the APA spending time and energy on leftist politics ... but it does. I see little benefit to membership in the overall APA but I do enjoy my division memberships. I don't believe that APA should be involved in accreditation either. Technically APA and the the APA COA (commission on accreditation) are legally and administratively separate bodies and this is in accordance with federal law. The APA president for example has no influence on the COA whatsoever because the COA is outside the regular administrative structure of the APA. I recently attended a meeting with recent APA president James Bray who told me that he had almost no dealings with the COA during his tenure as APA president because the COA is a separate entity.
 
Neuropsych2be said:
The APA is a cumbersome, bureaucratic and inefficient organization which does a very poor job advocating for the profession. It is a deeply incestuous organization in which the same people shuffle around through the various positions in a game of musical chairs all the while patting each other on the back and giving each other awards and accolades. Early career psychologists really can't break into the organization to contribute to the essential change APA needs. Also the organization spends too much time focusing on various political activities and policy statements and not enough time advocating for the profession and the science. While I am a flaming leftist MSNBC watching liberal, I don't want the APA spending time and energy on leftist politics ... but it does. I see little benefit to membership in the overall APA but I do enjoy my division memberships. I don't believe that APA should be involved in accreditation either. Technically APA and the the APA COA (commission on accreditation) are legally and administratively separate bodies and this is in accordance with federal law. The APA president for example has no influence on the COA whatsoever because the COA is outside the regular administrative structure of the APA. I recently attended a meeting with recent APA president James Bray who told me that he had almost no dealings with the COA during his tenure as APA president because the COA is a separate entity.
Click to expand...

Thank you for posting this Neuropsych. What do you see as a solution to this? It seems to me that APA needs to be held more accountable, and since they have done a poor job doing this themselves, the members need to do this (i.e., drop membership and write letters explaining why, etc.).

Also, what do you all think about the early career network:
http://www.apa.org/careers/early-career/get-connected/ecpn.aspx
 
Last edited:
Neuropsych2be said:
The APA is a cumbersome, bureaucratic and inefficient organization which does a very poor job advocating for the profession. It is a deeply incestuous organization in which the same people shuffle around through the various positions in a game of musical chairs all the while patting each other on the back and giving each other awards and accolades. Early career psychologists really can't break into the organization to contribute to the essential change APA needs. Also the organization spends too much time focusing on various political activities and policy statements and not enough time advocating for the profession and the science. While I am a flaming leftist MSNBC watching liberal, I don't want the APA spending time and energy on leftist politics ... but it does. I see little benefit to membership in the overall APA but I do enjoy my division memberships. I don't believe that APA should be involved in accreditation either. Technically APA and the the APA COA (commission on accreditation) are legally and administratively separate bodies and this is in accordance with federal law. The APA president for example has no influence on the COA whatsoever because the COA is outside the regular administrative structure of the APA. I recently attended a meeting with recent APA president James Bray who told me that he had almost no dealings with the COA during his tenure as APA president because the COA is a separate entity.
Click to expand...

👍 The APA seems to become further and further removed from the reality of the profession (both practitioners and researchers) with each passing year.
 
Rivi said:
Thank you for posting this Neuropsych. What do you see as a solution to this? It seems to me that APA needs to be held more accountable, and since they have done a poor job doing this themselves, the members need to do this (i.e., drop membership and write letters explaining why, etc.).

Also, what do you all think about the early career network:
http://www.apa.org/careers/early-career/get-connected/ecpn.aspx
Click to expand...

I love the idea of the early career network but like all APA initiatives I wonder how useful it is. In my opinion, people need to consider dropping their APA memberships. Recently the prospect of declining membership has scared some in APA. I hope the trend continues! In my opinion the administrative structure of APA needs to change. APA presidents need to serve much longer IMO. Give them a 4 year term rather than the 1 year figurehead jobs they currently have . But the powers in APA really center on people other than the APA president and change would threaten that. The general membership really has no say in any other position within the organization. I also think that the composition of boards in APA should have the equivalent of term limits to let in new blood..
 
Also the organization spends too much time focusing on various political activities and policy statements and not enough time advocating for the profession and the science. While I am a flaming leftist MSNBC watching liberal, I don't want the APA spending time and energy on leftist politics ... but it does.
Click to expand...

THIS. It is incredibly alienating to those of us more right-leaning APA members when they release statements about political issues that aren't really relevant to our field.
 
+1+1+1

All this and then some. I maintain my APA membership, as well as my state psychological association membership, for things like malpractice insurance, networking, etc... but am pretty disgusted by their responses to a lot of things. They continue to fail graduate students by inadequately addressing the imbalance (I also think that students should graduate first and complete residency/internship placements afterwards). I agree that, though I am quite liberal and left-leaning, some of the statements and policy making/lobbying efforts set forth by the APA are clearly controversial and do not have any place in the scope of their influence. This gives the general public many false impressions about psychology, how psychologists use their power and influence, and what 'all psychologists must be thinking...'

Additionally, I think that any school (due to fairness in evaluating ongoing accreditation standards), but particularly a controversial school, has no place sponsoring a convention, particularly the national convention... I see this as unethical, even though the APA and the APA CoA are technically distinct entities. How can we as members and parts of the psychological community trust the oversight and influence of an organization that doesn't practice what it preaches, while preaching very loudly about the caution we must all use in ensuring that we are practicing ethically in all that we do. It's outrageous.
 
cara susanna said:
THIS. It is incredibly alienating to those of us more right-leaning APA members when they release statements about political issues that aren't really relevant to our field.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

For this reason (amongst others), I decided to only support Div 22, Div 40, and the AACN. Those groups all seem to have a better focus on practice issues that impact me. No organization is perfect, but they are at least trying to deal with relevant issues.
 
I've really never been particularly interested in being an APA member or being involved in APA politics writ large beyond what goes on in my particular practice divisions. I don't see what making APA dues payments actually gains me as a psychologist, frankly. And I've always thought their position on torture was pretty muddy at best.

However, since I'll be fairly active for this upcoming convention I've decided to renew my membership after having it be dormant since about 2003 - I don't much relish the idea of strutting around the convention floor for five days doing presentations and participating as an officiant in a division awards ceremony with the "non member" mark of Cain pinned to my chest.
 
Yeah, they're pretty pathetic in a lot of ways.

But, there is no "the APA." There's just a bunch of psychologists who get into these positions and then musical-chair around. They retire and leave, and more active and dedicated people can and should replace them. The current masturbatory system of giving everyone awards for everything and playing at policy change rather than actually doing things should and can be killed.

Divisions do a lot. It was divisions that made the boycott of the Hyatt successful at the SD convention, in spite of APA's efforts to kill the boycott, and it was divisions that forced the APA to take a stand on torture despite APA's vested interests, for example. It's divisions and outside pressure that are finally forcing policy change on the internship crisis, and pushing toward accountability by schools that contribute unequally to the imbalance.
 
A most interesting discussion.

I am an independent practitioner who dumped APA after 19 years, primarily because of the practice assessment scandal, although that was the last straw after witnessing a number of very underhanded and objectionable events that shows APA is grossly detached from its membership. For those interested, here's what happened:

Until 2001 APA levied a special assessment on practitioners to pay for the extra costs of lobbying for practice-related issues. It was legal and appropriate to require that assessment for membership. But APA wanted to create a larger political machine and the organization's tax status - as a scientific/educational organization - would not allow them to spend more than about $1 million a year.on political activities.

Therefore, as of Jan. 1, 2001 they created a new organization, the APA Practice Organization, with a tax status like those of chambers of commerce so they could create a political machine. Now here's the however ... they continued to levy a special assessment on practitioners (it was $140 last year, raising about $5 million a year) and deceived virtually every member of APA into thinking that the practice assessment was required for membership. There are many examples of this deception. One is from the 2003 APA website in which it said practitioners "must" pay the assessment - no doubt what they meant.

In reality, the assessment is a voluntary donation to a legally distinct organization and it would be patently illegal for APA to force its members to pay money to another organization with that tax status. Therefore APA simply deceived its membership for money for almost 10 years, until this was uncovered in May of 2010.

I would respectfully suggest you think about this a minute. This means that the entire leadership of APA turned over at least once, and possibly many times while defrauding the entire membership to get money out of them for their political slush fund, which paid millions to APA in salaries and overhead, BTW. This is an incredible case of fraud conducted by an institution. Imagine that not one person came forward and publicly said "this is wrong." This is truly mind-blowing. And true to form, APA has completely and thoroughly stonewalled the entire incident. They refused to discuss it even before the lawsuit was filed.

Sorry for the long post, but the dirty details may be of interest, and it is an incredible story. To this day, APA has never admitted that they misled the membership.

This may be why the membership in APA dropped by a shocking 8 percent from 2010 to 2011.
 
cara susanna said:
THIS. It is incredibly alienating to those of us more right-leaning APA members when they release statements about political issues that aren't really relevant to our field.
Click to expand...

Such as what?
 
ClinPsychEnthus said:
+1+1+1

All this and then some. I maintain my APA membership, as well as my state psychological association membership, for things like malpractice insurance, networking, etc...
Click to expand...

You and others may wish to know that if you are insured with APAIT and you resign from APA, you can continue with your APAIT insurance.

Others asking about insurance may wish to know that the American Professional Agency insures many psychologists and other mental health professionals and has a good reputation.
 
CGOPsych said:
This may be why the membership in APA dropped by a shocking 8 percent from 2010 to 2011.
Click to expand...

Well, related to this, I just want to ask - have APA dues changed over the past, say, 10 years? I say this because I looked into getting renewed (briefly) when I last attended the APA conference in Toronto (sporting a "vendor" ID card this time, avoided the "non memer" mark of cain I mentioned earlier), and I recall the fees and back-dues totalling about 400 bucks at the time for me. My recollection may be wrong.

Now, I apparently can rejoin for somewhere in the neigborhood of less than 200 dollars, including the practice assessment. Does any of this sound right? Have they dropped their prices to try and regain membership, adjust for the economy (e.g., people have less money to spend), etc?
 
psyman said:
Such as what?
Click to expand...

Well, the most recent one I can think of is supporting gay marriage. Which actually doesn't alienate me because I do support gay marriage. But it still doesn't seem that relevant to the field of psychology to make a statement about it.

What really gets me riled up is The Monitor, though.
 
JeyRo said:
Now, I apparently can rejoin for somewhere in the neigborhood of less than 200 dollars, including the practice assessment. Does any of this sound right? Have they dropped their prices to try and regain membership, adjust for the economy (e.g., people have less money to spend), etc?
Click to expand...

they are/were offering a $100 first time full member discount (didn't include assessment fee?), which I used as the last time I was a member was only as a student affiliate. Otherwise they off full, associate, and student levels...each with their own requirements. FWIW, their membership staff are very nice, though your dues are probably better used at the division level or with another org like APS or AACN (if neuro).
 
cara susanna said:
Well, the most recent one I can think of is supporting gay marriage. Which actually doesn't alienate me because I do support gay marriage. But it still doesn't seem that relevant to the field of psychology to make a statement about it.

What really gets me riled up is The Monitor, though.
Click to expand...

Oh wow, I completely disagree that issues of sexuality (including gay marriage) are not relevant to APA. When it comes to thoughts on "gays" you don't think the general public wants to know what psychologists think? We used diagnose homosexuality as a disorder AND some people still treat it. Some people believe homosexuals are perverted, psychologically "off" or are simply morally corrupt and have no business being married legally. I think it is totally relevant and necessary for the APA to support gay marriage.

Now, I'm more curious as to the other issues which have concerned you.
 
psyman said:
Oh wow, I completely disagree that issues of sexuality (including gay marriage) are not relevant to APA. When it comes to thoughts on "gays" you don't think the general public wants to know what psychologists think? We used diagnose homosexuality as a disorder AND some people still treat it. Some people believe homosexuals are perverted, psychologically "off" or are simply morally corrupt and have no business being married legally. I think it is totally relevant and necessary for the APA to support gay marriage.

Now, I'm more curious as to the other issues which have concerned you.
Click to expand...

There was a thread about this on here last year when APA came out with their statement. Those of us who did not think this was such a good idea, such as Cara and myself, just to name a few, presented our views in full in that thread. You can use the search button to find it.
 
erg923 said:
There was a thread about this on here last year when APA came out with their statement. Those of us who did not think this was such a good idea, such as Cara and myself, just to name a few, presented our views in full in that thread. You can use the search button to find it.
Click to expand...

Using various search terms I'm not finding it.
 
psyman said:
Oh wow, I completely disagree that issues of sexuality (including gay marriage) are not relevant to APA. When it comes to thoughts on "gays" you don't think the general public wants to know what psychologists think? We used diagnose homosexuality as a disorder AND some people still treat it. Some people believe homosexuals are perverted, psychologically "off" or are simply morally corrupt and have no business being married legally. I think it is totally relevant and necessary for the APA to support gay marriage.

Now, I'm more curious as to the other issues which have concerned you.
Click to expand...

(disclaimer: I'm pretty politically liberal and support gay marriage).

I'd be much more okay with APA issuing political statements (as long as they have a strong basis in high-quality psychological research) if I didn't feel they are pretty much ignoring their duties as a professional advocacy organization. There are many active and dedicated organizations that are devoted to any number of socio-political causes, and only a very small number that are devoted to protecting and advocating psychology as profession. IMO, that (and promoting EBP/EBT) should be APA's far-and-away primary focus as an organization. Right now, the profession is in crisis and APA seems to be doing very little about it and doing very little to advocate for the profession in general, which is frustrating.
 
That's actually a point of view that I strongly disagree with. I can see both sides on whether or not something like gay marriage is something the APA should comment on. But I disagree with the argument that they shouldn't be focusing on anything other then professional advocacy. The APA has many divisions and members who could care less about professional advocacy, and it exists as far more then just an organization to further the goals of licensed psychologists. If you look at the list of divisions, there are a fairly large number that are not remotely related to the professional licensed practice of psychology, and the APA has a duty to support them as well. There is even a division solely devoted to research into gay and lesbian areas.

Now of course, perhaps that's the problem, that the APA is such a huge organization, and that it has so many different groups of people to support.

futureapppsy2 said:
(disclaimer: I'm pretty politically liberal and support gay marriage).

I'd be much more okay with APA issuing political statements (as long as they have a strong basis in high-quality psychological research) if I didn't feel they are pretty much ignoring their duties as a professional advocacy organization. There are many active and dedicated organizations that are devoted to any number of socio-political causes, and only a very small number that are devoted to protecting and advocating psychology as profession. IMO, that (and promoting EBP/EBT) should be APA's far-and-away primary focus as an organization. Right now, the profession is in crisis and APA seems to be doing very little about it and doing very little to advocate for the profession in general, which is frustrating.
Click to expand...
 
So, if the New York Times contacted the APA and 2 years ago and asked them their stance on gay marriage, you guys would like the APA to respond how? No comment? What if they asked for a stance on interracial marriage? No comment on that either?

Sometimes politics and issues related to our field collide folks.
 
psyman said:
So, if the New York Times contacted the APA and 2 years ago and asked them their stance on gay marriage, you guys would like the APA to respond how? No comment? What if they asked for a stance on interracial marriage? No comment on that either?

Sometimes politics and issues related to our field collide folks.
Click to expand...

But that not what happened, is it? And thats what that thread was about.
 
erg923 said:
But that not what happened, is it? And thats what that thread was about.
Click to expand...

I suppose if you don't have a good answer then you just dismiss the question/hypothetical altogether.

For anyone else who interested I'd like to discuss this because I'm genuinely interested.I also believe this is relevant to the topic, as some posters said they didn't like the APA's [public?] stances on some issues. To me, that is completely relevant to this thread. I'm not even the one who brought it up.
 
Last edited:
FadedC said:
That's actually a point of view that I strongly disagree with. I can see both sides on whether or not something like gay marriage is something the APA should comment on. But I disagree with the argument that they shouldn't be focusing on anything other then professional advocacy. The APA has many divisions and members who could care less about professional advocacy, and it exists as far more then just an organization to further the goals of licensed psychologists. If you look at the list of divisions, there are a fairly large number that are not remotely related to the professional licensed practice of psychology, and the APA has a duty to support them as well. There is even a division solely devoted to research into gay and lesbian areas.

Now of course, perhaps that's the problem, that the APA is such a huge organization, and that it has so many different groups of people to support.
Click to expand...


Yes, but there are still many professional issues that are relevant to research psychologists. For example:
-federal grant funding
-the adjunct crisis
-the frequent shortage of tenure track positions
-research ethics issues

The APA is trying to be jack of all trades and in doing so, is ignoring its unique trade: professional advocacy for both pure research and professional psychologists.


So, if the New York Times contacted the APA and 2 years ago and asked them their stance on gay marriage, you guys would like the APA to respond how? No comment? What if they asked for a stance on interracial marriage? No comment on that either?
Click to expand...

If the APA made a general statement to the NYT about gay marriage or interracial marriage being shown to have generally positive effects for couples, I doubt many would take issue with that (I certainly wouldn't).

However, IMO, it makes more sense for individual divisions to comment on certain issues, if its relevant to their specialty. For example, having the GLBT division or social psych division on same-sex marriage; the IDD or school psych division on IDEA or RTI,; rehab psych on Olmstead,; etc.Those divisions are likely to have very strong grasps of the research, and the topics are directly relevant to their work, and it just makes more sense. While you could argue that the size of the "general" APA is more eye-catching for policy and press purposes, the size and scope of the organization--and its attempt to be all things to all people--are hurting its effectiveness as an organization, IMO.
 
This is a fair point, however, when the APA promotes research done by their members, and uses that research to educate people, and to influence policy, then I think that many would say that this is advocating for psychological research. This is often the kind of thing that leads to increased grant funding in an area, as well as promoting the value of research in general.

futureapppsy2 said:
Yes, but there are still many professional issues that are relevant to research psychologists. For example:
-federal grant funding
-the adjunct crisis
-the frequent shortage of tenure track positions
-research ethics issues

The APA is trying to be jack of all trades and in doing so, is ignoring its unique trade: professional advocacy for both pure research and professional psychologists.
Click to expand...
 
Something about the attitude "Let's all show APA and quit!!" reminds me of Occupy Wall St's plan to effect political change by not voting. Many occupiers prefer to smugly stay above it all and wait around for the revolution they think is inevitable. Granted sometimes big events propel big change, but if something like this massive defrauding/APAPO scandal doesn't bring down APA, what is likely to? And even if you want to wait for some massive change to upend APA, is your inaction doing anything at all to advance that? I do get it when people say they vote with their feet, but curiously that also seems to be the course of 'action' that requires doing the least amount of work.
 
FadedC said:
This is a fair point, however, when the APA promotes research done by their members, and uses that research to educate people, and to influence policy, then I think that many would say that this is advocating for psychological research. This is often the kind of thing that leads to increased grant funding in an area, as well as promoting the value of research in general.
Click to expand...

Fair point, but there are other organizations (including some APA divisions) that do exactly what you're saying much better because they are more focused on that as a primary purpose.

For example, I'm a member of AUCD, which advocates for research and policy change related to individuals with disabilities (health care reform, special education laws, community inclusion, etc., etc). That's their sole purpose, and they are really, really good at There are other organizations that do the same thing for GLBT research and policy--they are hyperfocused and really good at what they do because they are 100% dedicated to that.The AMA is an effective lobbying group for physicians in part because that's what they do as an organization.

APA can't be a jack of all trades and do it all effectively, IMO.

I have zero issue with gay marriage or psychologists publicly discussing the research in favor of it. I think it's great, really. I just side-eye APA being a political activism organization/a policy organization/an accrediting body/a professional organization for practitioners/a professional organization for researchers/a book publisher/ a journal publisher/an ethics board/etc. It can't be all things to all people and do that well.
 
futureapppsy2 said:
.The AMA is an effective lobbying group for physicians in part because that's what they do as an organization.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile the frontpage of the AMA website is an endorsement of the decision upholding Obamacare...

They seem to be the same kind of jack-of-all-trades organization you say the APA is.
 
roubs said:
Meanwhile the frontpage of the AMA website is an endorsement of the decision upholding Obamacare...

They seem to be the same kind of jack-of-all-trades organization you say the APA is.
Click to expand...

It's actually a bit funny--in browsing a few of the physician-oriented subforums here, I commonly see many of the same complaints levied against the AMA that have been brought up with respect to the APA in this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R. Matey
Your thoughts on the value of APA membership
Replies
19
Views
3K
DoubtfulDoc
D
PsyDr
Thoughts on HHS' Autism registry?
Replies
18
Views
1K
PsyDr
PsyDr
Neurocaterpillar
VA Neuropsychology Post doc - with APA accreditation on contingency
Replies
12
Views
1K
Neurocaterpillar
Neurocaterpillar
O
APA Resignations
2 3
Replies
132
Views
7K
Sanman
Sanman
B
APA-endorsed midlevel practitioners
Replies
11
Views
1K
PsyDr
PsyDr
Top