Applied psychology under attack: A response to the Brookline principles.

Abstract

Following the American Psychological Association (APA)’s release of the Independent Review (Hoffman Report), a small group of psychologists, analysts, and human rights activists convened in order to discuss and draft practice guidelines for operational psychology. Motived by concerns about irreconcilable ethical issues, this group produced a document entitled, “The Brookline Principles,” and published it under the banner of the Coalition for Ethical Psychology. Despite the absence of military or operational psychologists, the working group proposed ethics-related practice guidelines for operational practitioners. Their report, focused its attention on military and national security psychologists; however, more global implications are present for the practice of applied professional psychology across public safety, law enforcement, and other organizational consulting domains. The following response provides a review of their report and its recommendations.

The Hoffman report: The lesson we learned (?)

“…These principles have been considered by some operational psychologists as controversial and even threatening to applied psychology in general. As Staal (2018a) concluded, if ethical violations in a field of psychology requires to ‘test’ ethical foundations of that field, that in turn could lead to the need of checking ethical foundations of clinical psychology as the most often ethical violation is sexual misconduct with a client.…”

Military operational psychology.

“…They are, however, of particular concern in areas of emerging practice and when providing consultative services where informed consent and dual agency considerations are common. Operational psychology is no stranger to ethics-related controversy, and several notable exchanges have already taken place in addressing these concerns (Arrigo, Eidelson, & Bennett, 2012; Staal, 2018; Staal & Greene, 2015). The following provides a brief exposition of three common areas of ethical consideration facing operational psychologists.…”

Response to Staal “psychological ethics and operational psychology”—fundamental issues and methods.

“…In the context of civilian oversight of the military, this is a task for the psychology profession as a whole, as well as for the broader society, not for operational psychologists alone. Staal (2018) characterized operational psychology as "a relatively new and emerging subdiscipline " (p. 440). But what has emerged since 9/11 is a campaign to legitimize AOP in professional psychology.…”

“…

We here respond to Staal's (2018) critique of the Brookline Principles on the Ethical Practice of Operational Psychology. Staal proclaimed that there are no major ethical problems in the domain of operational psychology, and, if there were, only operational psychologists would be qualified to address the problems.

…”

“…Those who make this choice then are serving not as psychologists but as military or intelligence professionals with the corresponding ethical standards of those professions. (Ethics of Operational Psychology Workshop, 2015) In sharp opposition, operational psychologist Mark Staal's "Commentary on the Brookline Principles" (Staal, 2018) proclaimed that there are no major ethical problems in the domain of operational psychology, and, if there were, only operational psychologists would be qualified to address the problems. As the intention of the Brookline Workshop was to stimulate study and to invite dialogue, we welcome this opportunity to further the discussion with operational psychologists and other stakeholders.…”