Examining the Scientist – Practitioner Divide in Psychology A Transactional Analysis Typology of Scientists

Main Article Content

Patrick Whitehead

Abstract

Using transactional analysis models of ego states (Berne 1961, 1964), the author proposes a typology of scientists and diagrams twelve types based on integrated ego states, contaminated Adult, and single ego state with dual exclusion. The typology is presented as the latest in what could be called the psychology of science, whose exemplars include Thomas Kuhn (1962/2012) and Abraham Maslow (1969). Psychology of science is differentiated from philosophy and theory of science, and existing research into the personality of scientists is explored. Of major importance is the apparent divide between scientist and practitioner in clinical and counselling psychologies.


Based on Feyerabend’s (1970) infamous quip about science that “anything goes”, the author shows how using a proposed  transactional analysis of scientist types, Feyerabend’s comment can be understood three ways—Parent: “Scientists shouldn’t be so serious”; Adult: “It seems that anything goes”; and Child: “No rules!” It is only in their integration (P – A – C) that Feyerabend’s meaning can be understood. So, too, for the psychological practitioner, whose practice cannot be divorced from its scientific foundations. The author concludes by using the proposed typology to suggest how the same typology applied to practitioners may explain their responses to research.

Article Details

How to Cite
Whitehead, P. (2020). Examining the Scientist – Practitioner Divide in Psychology. International Journal of Transactional Analysis Research & Practice, 11(2), 3-13. https://doi.org/10.29044/v11i2p3
Section
Articles
Author Biography

Patrick Whitehead

Associate professor of psychology at Albany State University.

References

Berne, E. (1961) Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy. New York: Grove Press
Berne, E. (1964). Games people play: The basic handbook of transactional analysis. New York: Ballantine Books.
Berne, E. (1966). Principles of Group Treatment. New York: Oxford University Press.
Berne, E. (1976). Away from a theory of the impact of interpersonal interaction on non-verbal communication. .In C. Steiner (Ed) Beyond Games and Scripts. New York: Grove Press. 5-17.
Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of Peer Review? Science, 342(6154), 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60
Bugental, J. (1962). Humanistic psychology: A new breakthrough. American Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048666
Clance, P. R. (1985). The imposter phenomenon: When success makes you feel like a fake. Toronto, ONT: Bantam. https://doi.org/10.1037/t11274-000
D'Andrea, R. & O'Dwyer, J. P. (2017). Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers? PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186111
Feist, G. (1994). Personality and working style predictors of integrative complexity: A study of scientists’ thinking about research and teaching. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 474–484. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.474
Feyerabend, P. (1970). Experts in a free society. Centennial on Freedom and the Human Sciences. Chicago, IL: Loyola University.
Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method. Brooklyn: New Left Books.
Feyerabend, P. (2010). Against method, 4th Ed. Brooklyn: Verso.
Freud, S. (1910). The origin and development of psychoanalysis. American Journal of Psychology, 21, 181–218. https://doi.org/10.2307/1413001
Goldstein, K. (2000). The organism. New York: ZONE Books. (Original work published in German 1934)
Karpman, S. (1975). The parent percolator. Transactional Analysis Journal, 5(4), 365. https://doi.org/10.1177/036215377500500407
Karpman, S. (2006). Lost in translation: Neo-Bernean or neo-Freudian? Transactional Analysis Journal, 36(4), 284–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/036215370603600404
Kobori, H., Ellwood, E. R., Miller-Rushing, A. J., & Sakurai, R. (2018). Citizen science. In B. Fath (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Ecology (Vol. 1, pp. 529–535). Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.10571-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-015-1314-y
Kuhn, T. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, Press. (original work published 1962)
Lakatos, I., & Feyerabend, P. (1999). Lakatos-Feyerabend correspondence. In M. Motterlini (Ed.)., For and against method, including Lakatos’s lectures on scientific method and the Lakatos-Feyerabend correspondence. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Maslow, A. (1969). Psychology of science: A reconnaissance. New York: Gateway.
McGovern, C. M. (1976). “Mad Doctors”: American Psychiatrists, 1800-1860. Unpublished dissertation submitted to University of Massachusetts Amherst.
McNie, E. C., Parris, A., & Sarewitz, D. (2016). Improving the public value of science: A typology to inform discussion, design and implementation of research. Research Policy, 45(4), 884–895.
Morrow-Bradley, C. & Elliott, R. (1986) Utilization of psychotherapy research by practicing psychotherapists. American Psychologist 41(2):188-97. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.41.2.188
Perls, F. (1969). Ego, hunger, and aggression: The beginning of Gestalt Therapy. New York: Random House.
Polanyi, M. (1974). Personal knowledge. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Radnitzky, G. (1973). Contemporary schools of metascience (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Henry Regnery.
Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rogers, C. (1980). A way of being. New York: Mariner.
Rogers, C., & Coulson, W. R. (1969). Freedom to learn. New York: Merrill.
Science Council. (2020). Our definition of a scientist. Retrieved 23 November 2020 from https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-a-scientist/
Sokal, A. (1996a). Transgressing the boundaries – Toward a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Social Text, 46(47), 217–252. https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~brian/sokal_transgress_1996.pdf
Sokal, A. (1996b). A physicist experiments with cultural studies. Lingua Franca, (May/June). Retrieved 23 November 2020 from https://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html
Tijdink, J., Bouter, L. M., Veldkamp, C. L. S., Ven, P. M., Wicherts, J. M., & Smulders, Y. M. (2016). Personality traits are associated with research misbehavior in Dutch scientists: A cross-sectional study. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163251
Vonnegut, K. (1963). Cat’s Cradle. New York: Random House.
Whitehead, A. N. (1958). Modes of thought. New York, NY: MacMillan.
Whyte, W. H. (1956). The organization man. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Widdowson, M. (2012). Perceptions of psychotherapy trainees of psychotherapy research. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 12(3), 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733145.2012.697473
Wise Campaign. (2020). WISE Website. Retrieved from https://www.wisecampaign.org.uk/
Wolfe, C. (2011). What is posthumanism? Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota University Press.
Zachar, P., & Leong, F. T. L. (1992). A problem of personality: Scientist and practitioner differences in psychology. Journal of Personality, 60(3), 665–677. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00925.x
Zinsser, W. (2006). On writing well: The classic guide to writing nonfiction. New York: Harper Perennial.