The competent community: Toward a vital reformulation of professional ethics.

Abstract

Psychologists are ethically obligated to ensure their own competence. When problems of professional competence occur, psychologists must take appropriate steps to regain competence while protecting those they serve. Yet conceptualizations of the competence obligation are thoroughly intertwined with Western ideals of individualism and a model of the person as self-contained, self-controlled, and perpetually rational. Research in health care, education, and multicultural and social psychology raise serious doubts about psychologists' capacity for consistently accurate self-assessments of competence. To address this problem, the authors advocate that education, training, professional ethics standards, and credentialing criteria be infused with a robust communitarian ethos and a culturally pervasive ethic of care. The authors propose a shift in discourse about competence to incorporate both competent individuals and competent communities.

The competence constellation model: A communitarian approach to support professional competence.

“…We believe that such transformational relationships are more likely to occur in communitarian cultures that foster peer engagement (Johnson, 2007a;Johnson et al, 2012). We now consider the constmcts of peer mentoring, relational mentoring, and developmental career networks to set the stage for our discussion of competence constellations.…”

The influence of daily routines on engaging in diabetes self-management

“…More specifically, psychological research suggests that human thought and action is largely under the influence of habits that operate below conscious awareness in conjunction with particular contexts (37). Subsequently, humans tend to overestimate their abilities and performance while failing to identify relevant problems (38). Such evidence and the findings of this study imply that a different approach may be needed to assist people in making changes in their everyday activity patterns.…”

Propos sur la responsabilité scientifique du psychologue : essai d’épistémologie appliquée

“…Comme la scientificité de la psychologie est toujours un sujet de débat (Lilienfeld, 2010;Trendler, 2009), il n'est pas certain que ce savoir puisse être validé selon les canons de la science, et il est possible que la qualification du psychologue s'effectue selon des modalités alternatives (cf. l'appel de certains psychologues au développement de réseaux de 4 pairs, Johnson, Barnett, Elman, Forrest, & Kaslow, 2012). Mais si nous insistons sur la scientificité du savoir, il faut alors expliciter ses critères suffisants.…”