Expanding subjectivities:Introduction to the special issue on ‘New directions in psychodynamic research’

A major theme in recent psychoanalytic thinking concerns the use of therapist subjectivity, especially “countertransference,” in understanding patients. This thinking converges with and expands developments in qualitative research regarding the use of researcher subjectivity as a tool to understanding, especially but not exclusively in observational and interview-based studies. Psychodynamic or psychoanalytic approaches to research add an emphasis on unconscious motivational processes in both researchers and research participants that impact research experience and data. Building upon Anglo-Saxon and continental traditions, this special issue provides examples of the use of researcher subjectivity, informed by psychoanalytic thinking, in expanding research understanding

The ethics of interrogation and the American Psychological Association: A critique of policy and process

The Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) task force was assembled by the American Psychological Association (APA) to guide policy on the role of psychologists in interrogations at foreign detention centers for the purpose of U.S. national security. The task force met briefly in 2005, and its report was quickly accepted by the APA Board of Directors and deemed consistent with the APA Ethics Code by the APA Ethics Committee. This rapid acceptance was unusual for a number of reasons but primarily because of the APA's long-standing tradition of taking great care in developing ethical policies that protected anyone who might be impacted by the work of psychologists. Many psychological and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), as well as reputable journalists, believed the risk of harm associated with psychologist participation in interrogations at these detention centers was not adequately addressed by the report. The present critique analyzes the assumptions of the PENS report and its interpretations of the APA Ethics Code. We demonstrate that it presents only one (and not particularly representative) side of a complex set of ethical issues. We conclude with a discussion of more appropriate psychological contributions to national security and world peace that better respect and preserve human rights

The Ethics of Interrogation and the American Psychological Association: A Critique of Policy and Process

The Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) task force was assembled by the American Psychological Association (APA) to guide policy on the role of psychologists in interrogations at foreign detention centers for the purpose of U.S. national security. The task force met briefly in 2005, and its report was quickly accepted by the APA Board of Directors and deemed consistent with the APA Ethics Code by the APA Ethics Committee. This rapid acceptance was unusual for a number of reasons but primarily because of the APA\u27s long-standing tradition of taking great care in developing ethical policies that protected anyone who might be impacted by the work of psychologists. Many psychological and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), as well as reputable journalists, believed the risk of harm associated with psychologist participation in interrogations at these detention centers was not adequately addressed by the report. The present critique analyzes the assumptions of the PENS report and its interpretations of the APA Ethics Code. We demonstrate that it presents only one (and not particularly representative) side of a complex set of ethical issues. We conclude with a discussion of more appropriate psychological contributions to national security and world peace that better respect and preserve human rights

The Ethics of Interrogation and the American Psychological Association: A Critique of Policy and Process

The Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) task force was assembled by the American Psychological Association (APA) to guide policy on the role of psychologists in interrogations at foreign detention centers for the purpose of U.S. national security. The task force met briefly in 2005, and its report was quickly accepted by the APA Board of Directors and deemed consistent with the APA Ethics Code by the APA Ethics Committee. This rapid acceptance was unusual for a number of reasons but primarily because of the APA\u27s long-standing tradition of taking great care in developing ethical policies that protected anyone who might be impacted by the work of psychologists. Many psychological and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), as well as reputable journalists, believed the risk of harm associated with psychologist participation in interrogations at these detention centers was not adequately addressed by the report. The present critique analyzes the assumptions of the PENS report and its interpretations of the APA Ethics Code. We demonstrate that it presents only one (and not particularly representative) side of a complex set of ethical issues. We conclude with a discussion of more appropriate psychological contributions to national security and world peace that better respect and preserve human rights

Operational psychology, professional ethics, and democracy: A challenge for our time

The post-9/11 US torture program brought attention to the critical roles of health professionals generally and of psychologists more particularly in the modern administration of torture. Over a decade of controversy in the American Psychological Association (APA) and an independent investigation finding APA collusion with the Bush administration’s torture and coercive interrogation programs led to 2015 policies restricting the activities of psychologists in national security interrogations and illegal detention sites like Guantanamo. This controversy expanded to evaluation of a broader set of issues regarding the ethical roles of psychologists in furthering military and intelligence operations, or what has become known as operational psychology. Controversy over the extent to which operational psychology activities are consistent with psychological ethics has expanded since 2015 with critics calling for policies restraining operational psychologists from involvement in activities that cause greater than trivial unstipulated harm, lack informed consent, or are absent plausible independent ethical monitoring (due, for instance to information classification). Operational psychologists have pushed back against any constraints on their actions other than US law and government regulations. This debate also raises a broader issue, are there limitations on the extent to which we as members of democratic societies can tolerate the use of psychological science and expertise to manipulate unwitting people

Multivariate Data Exploration with Stata: Evaluation and Wish List

Stata is a general purpose statistical package with especially strong data manipulation and regression modeling capabilities. It appears to be especially strong in statistical techniques used by econometricians and biostatisticians. As psychologists, among others, adopt it, certain relative weaknesses in the existing set of implemented procedures become apparent. In particular, multidimensional exploratory data analyses are a set of data analytic procedures -- including principal components and factor analysis, correspondence analysis, optimal scaling, and multidimensional scaling, -- commonly used to explore the structure of data sets and derive variables (e.g., principal components or factors) that summarize the data in a small number of variables. While Stata, as delivered or through user add-ons, has many of the basic capabilities in these areas, many are implemented in a fairly rudimentary fashion and others are implemented in the Stata executable, without sufficient hooks for users to be able to expand them. This talk will discuss some of these procedures and will evaluate Stata capabilities in these areas. It is hoped that it will help stimulate Stata Corp or the user community to expand Stata capabilities in these areas.