Template talk:Psychology sidebar: Difference between revisions

Collapsible lists

Here is a mock-up using {{Sidebar with collapsible lists}}, mentioned in the preceding section. For a side-by-side comparison with the old one, click here. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks again. If "Research", "Applied", and "Lists" are the major categories, that wouldn't help the OHP issue because only major disciplines (e.g., Clinical) and not subdisciplines (e.g., OHP) would be included. But I get the idea. Is it possible to use the current disciplines (Clinical, Educational, Forensic, Health, etc.) for the uncollapsed items, then list subdisciplines under each? Even if it's possible, we would need to get a broader consensus to make the change. Thanks so much for your help, Eldereft. You've done a lot for a field that isn't even your primary interest (I assume). Ward3001 (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem - the advantage of volunteer labour is that if I felt like doing something else then I would (but thanks are always appreciated :)). The lists can be named and arranged howsoever you like, I just modeled the current sidebar. I grabbed a couple examples from Category:Clinical psychology to make a nested collapsible list under Research. Purge your cache if it does not display. Colors, entries, and all whatnot should of course be fixed prior to implementation.

Also, I should note that the v · d · e links are generated by the template to match the name parameter and assume templatespace - they misleadingly link here. This mock-up currently resides at User:Eldereft/Psychology sidebar and should be edited by visiting that page. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I may have made a mistake in trying to undo vandalism to the site. Someone wrote "Roxie rocks my socks" at the site. I tried to undo it. I may have mistakenly done some damage. Perhaps one of you, for example Ward3001, could look at the entry.Iss246 (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I know what happened. I think I got to the template at fractionally the same time as Ward3001, and saw the vandalism disappear faster than I could enter a keystroke, and was concerned that more was disappearing than I intended. Anyway the site looks okay. I may not agree with Ward3001 one matter, but I share the antipathy toward vandalism.Iss246 (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

More sub-areas

Hey, I think that at least theoretical psychology, legal psychology, media psychology and military psychology should be added to the sidebar. They are important to a certain extent. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to legal psychology. I know it's not a perfect match, but I believe it is close enough to forensic psychology that there is too much overlap. I know a case might be made that they are not identical, but that can be done for dozens of subfields or fields that are subsumed under more than one discipline already in the sidebar. If we include all (or even a few) of those, then we no longer have a sidebar, we have a long page. And remember there is a Template:Psychology that can contain more detail, including some subdisciplines.

I also feel that media psychology and military psychology are subsumed under several other areas, including industrial, organizational, social, and others. Again, please keep in mind that we must limit the size of the sidebar, and that more can go into the general psychology template.

I see theoretical psychology as pertaining to many different areas rather than as a field in itself, but I am willing to listen to a more detailed explanation.

Please also keep in mind that we need a rationale beyond just having an APA division to justify including in the sidebar. See the lengthy discussion about occupational health psychology above. It would help if we had some hard data (number of practitioners, number of publications, etc.) as well as any logical rationale to extend the size of the sidebar rather than adding to the general template. Ward3001 (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Updated template form

I updated the template form to use a more modern, uniform, and editable format. Any problems with this, please make your arguments here. I will answer each. -Stevertigo 00:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. How is your version any more "modern, uniform, and editable"? It's a matter of personal preference, so we need a consensus here to change it. Ward3001 (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to update this template to use the standard {{Sidebar with heading backgrounds}} template for formatting. It should come out looking mostly the same, and similar to Template:Rights, with cleaner markup "under the hood", less html/wikicode in the editbox, and more consistent accessibility for various browsers and humans. Any objections/suggestions before or whilst I'm doing so? Thanks Quiddity (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you post the updated template here first so we can see what it looks like? Ward3001 (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Like that. Look good? (Colors can all be changed easily, consult {{Sidebar}} for details). I would also suggest adding a link to Outline of psychology to the "Lists" section. Quiddity (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Ward3001 (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Occupational Health Psychology, again

I think it is time to add occupational health psychology to sidebar. There are at least three international organizations that are concerned with the discipline, the Society for Occupational Health Psychology (SOHP; see http://sohp.psy.uconn.edu/), the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology (EA-OHP; see http://www.ea-ohp.org/), and the International Conference on Occupational Health with its Psychosocial Factors at Work Conferences (ICOH-WOPS see http://www.icoh-wops2008.com/home.html). The SOHP cooperates closely with the APA's Public Interest Directorate. Occupational health psychology is covered in at least 15 separate journals (e.g., Work & Stress, Social Science & Medicine, the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, etc.; see the OHP Wikipedia entry). Scientists at the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH) engage in OHP research (see pp. 16 and 17 of http://sohp.psy.uconn.edu/SOHPNewsletterV5January2009.pdf). NIOSH partners with the American Psychological Association and the SOHP to sponsor the biennial Work, Stress, and Health Conference (see http://www.apa.org/pi/work/wsh.html) which is devoted to OHP. Serious scientific psychology goes on under the banner of OHP. Moreover, there are OHP professionals who work in consulting and in HR units and other divisions within organizations. I ask Stevertigo to be on board about this matter. I also ask Ward3001 to be on board with this, particularly in view of our past disagreements. Iss246 (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I oppose for the same reasons previously (and extensively) discussed on this talk page here. Ward3001 (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully add to my above comments that OHP has about 700,000 Google hits, and work stress, which is part of the subject matter of OHP, has 38,000,000 hits. Work & Stress is also the name of an OHP journal. OHP is concerned with the impact of the economic conditions on people, including the recent downturn and the ways people cope with the stress of the downturn (see pp. 3-4 of http://sohp.psy.uconn.edu/SOHPNewsletterV5January2009.pdf). OHP includes a literature on the impact of unemployment; for example, see Kasl and Cobb's (1970) study of unemployment and blood pressure, which is cited in the occupational health psychology Wikipedia entry. I add that Kasl was honored for his lifetime contribution to OHP at the Work, Stress, and Health Conference held in Washington, DC in March 2008, a conference jointly sponsored by APA, NIOSH, and SOHP. OHP subject matter is highly relevant to people's lives. It is at least as relevant as template mainstays such as sports psychology and psychophysics; I suspect OHP is more relevant. The thoughts I've laid down on this page address the concerns Ward3001 enumerated in archived discussion, which I recently reread.

I continue to ask Ward3001 to reconsider, and permit OHP to be included on the sidebar. 05:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Also see National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (2009) [1] for additional evidence for the importance of the field. Iss246 (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone wishing to weigh in on this should probably read the extensive discussion mentioned by Ward3001 of this very issue. -DoctorW 02:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Because space on the sidebar template is limited, I think arguments to add a link should specify which existing link should be deleted and should provide comparative evidence. At this point, sufficient comparative evidence favoring the proposal to add occupational health psychology has not been presented. On PsycInfo I found that "occupational health psychology" produces 466 hits. This is far less than "evolutionary psychology" (2700 hits), "sport psychology" (4942 hits) and even "transpersonal psychology" (1041 hits). Nesbit (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nesbit made a very good point. However, I underline the point that occupational health psychology (OHP) is also found in PsycInfo searches under the terms Work and Stress. The "and" is necessary. I got just under 17,000 hits this morning. That Work & Stress is the name of an important OHP journal published by the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology reinforces the point. It is difficult to divorce the expression "work and stress" from OHP. I add that OHP is also concerned with the impact of unemployment on the health and well-being of individuals. OHP is a discipline that is relevant to world in which we live. I appeal to Nesbit reconsider, and permit OHP to join the sidebar.15:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No offense, Iss246, but that's at least partially an artifact of the search method. If the number of terms are expanded, there's usually an increase in number of hits. For example, if we combine searches for both of the terms "sports" and "recreational" to search for sports psychology hits, it goes up to a whopping 20,356. Some of those may not relate to sports psychology, but that would also be the case for "work and stress". The same would be true of almost any search.

Although anyone is welcome to comment here, I think the same editors rehashing the same arguments serves no purpose. I urge editors to look at the previous discussion on this same issue rather than restating everything again. Ward3001 (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken. The equivalence about the increase in hits is chimerical. If you conduct a search on "recreational psychology", for example, the recently published article by Gaudreau in the journal Developmental Psychology about adolescents playing hockey turns up. It is not sports psychology article. The article principally concerns the development of adolescent affective states. "Work and stress", however, is an equivalent in the research literature to OHP. It is a topic that provokes great interest. Note that the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology publishes a journal entitled Work & Stress. Because I am a research psychologist with an interest in the field, I could report on the equivalence of work and stress and OHP.Iss246 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Work and stress", however, is an equivalent in the research literature to OHP: I'm not sure if this is what you mean, but if you're saying that all (or even most) hits for "work and stress" pertain to OHP, that certainly is not the case. I looked at a few of them, and some had nothing to do with OHP, just as some for "recreational" have nothing to do with sports psychology. I wouldn't even know if "most" are relevant to OHP unless I examined all of them in detail. I really don't think playing around with search terms is very productive. As I said, if you change the terms, you get more hits.

Again, I don't wish to rehash all of the previous discussion, and we talked extensively about search hits. Unless/until other editors express opinions, I'm out of this discussion for now. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. The issue of search results is important. I repeated the search with work in one field and stress in another. The first article that turned up concerns the acoustic startle response in Norway rats; it is certainly not what I am referring to. But right away there on the first page of my search is a study of work stress in doctors and nurses. Then there is a study from Taiwan concerning the application of the effort-reward imbalance model (an important OHP model of stress) to people who care for the retarded. The latter article was published in a journal devoted to developmental disabilities; however, the content of the article is OHP. That is common because journals serving professional groups (e.g., physicians, nurses, social workers, teachers, psychologists, etc.) include articles about work stress in those professional groups. I have read OHP articles devoted to work stress in clinical psychologists (a major stressor is a suicide attempt or completion in a patient). The articles are there in a work-and-stress search. And they are there in great numbers. Tonight I've only looked at the first couple of pages, but in my professional life I have waded through the literature. It is very large. I added that the journal Work & Stress published by the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. Even when the articles extraneous to OHP are culled there are great numbers of OHP articles.Iss246 (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

One last thought before I quit my computer for the night. I did a search on job and stress, and got 9600 hits with fewer hits that were extraneous to OHP.Iss246 (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Term on the sidebar template

I am the research psychologist who has persisted in requesting consensus in placing occupational health psychology on the sidebar. This time, however, I write about a different sidebar-related matter. The divisions on the sidebar are "research psychology" and "applied psychology." The divisions are misleading. There are many individuals like myself who identify themselves with applied psychology, who conduct research in applied psychology. The division on the sidebar suggests that those who work in applied psychology do not conduct research. Some in applied psychology surely don't conduct research. But many do.

Moreover there are psychologists who are professors who teach courses on, say, abnormal psychology (which is under "research psychology"), and may be very expert, but don't conduct research, confining their efforts instead to teaching.

If one looks closely at the sidebar, one observes that for applied psychology there is an internal link to a Wikipedia entry. Not so for "research psychology." Such an entry would not work because research is conducted in most areas of psychology. I would recommend against constructing such an entry because such an entry would amount to psychology itself.

I have also done basic psychological research; however, the term "basic psychology" is somewhat clunky. Some of you with whom I have had the debate over the inclusion of occupational health psychology (Ward, Nesbit) are also psychologists, and I think we should all come up with a better term than "research psychology" for the division on the sidebar. We should get some recommendations, and arrive at a consensus. Iss246 (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You make a reasonable point, although it could be very difficult to come up with better headings. Part of the problem here is that the sidebar is extremely brief and cannot include many details that might, for example, make it clearer that many psychologists function both as scientists and as practitioners, or that some of the specific areas could easily be placed under either heading. When I was trained, we talked about conducting basic research (e.g., running rats in a maze) and applied research (e.g., effectiveness of a treatment procedure). Today we use the term "scientist-practitioner" to emphasize that a practicing psychologist is also trained in research. Right now I can't think of a better way to do it, other than eliminating the headings and have one list, but I'm not sure that would improve the sidebar. One thing to remember is that the sidebar is designed to give the reader a means of finding out more details by clicking the links. There is a link for "Applied", but not for "Research". It might be a start if someone created an article on "Research psychology" or "Methods of psychological research". Some of that is found in Experimental psychology, and we would need to be careful in having two articles with extensive overlap. I'm open to any ideas, although I would oppose anything that would enlarge the sidebar very much. The sidebar will never be fully explanatory for any topic; that's the price that is paid for brevity. Ward3001 (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I don't like the expression "basic psychology" because the word "basic" can mean a variety of things including elementary. But "basic psychology," if it could be made to reflect something like "basic science," would work. There is no confusion about the word "basic" in "basic science." Few people use the term "basic psychology"; its meaning would therefore be ambiguous. I would prefer "basic psychology" over "research psychology" although I would not be pleased with "basic psychology" for the reasons given.

I would recommend NOT using word "scientistic" because "scientism" has a pejorative connotation. Moreover, I don't think I have ever before seen the word "scientistic" in print. I expect that would be the case with many other readers. We have to keep thinking about a heading that is better than "research psychology." Although I think "basic psychology" could serve as a temporary placeholder. I anticipate that we will get to a reasonably good term for the heading in the near future.Iss246 (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually "scientistic" was my typo for "scientist", which I fixed. I'm not suggesting using "basic". I don't think that conveys any more than "Research". I'm not sure what the best approach is. Maybe others will have some ideas. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I reflected on the matter later in the day, and came up with a solution I would like to present to you. Replace the term "Research psychology" with Basic science. Then replace "Applied psychology" with this Applied science. The result will be that the two lists in the psychology sidebar will have headings "Basic science" and "Applied science". I temporarily will try out this solution. I think it provides better balance. The term "Basic science" is clearer than "Basic psychology." We established that "Research psychology" is not an appropriate term since almost all psychology involves research. Please change it back if you think it doesn't work.Iss246 (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree and don't intend to change it, although I don't know that the change clarifies anything for the naive reader, except the links which explain "basic" and "applied" in more detail. There is still the problem that many of the areas can go under either (or both) header. But we can leave as you changed it unless someone else objects or has a better idea. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I have read OHP research that bears on basic questions such as differential vulnerability to stressors, a vulnerability the lies in the personality, a matter that is more basic than applied. Of course other OHP investigators engage in applied research on evaluating means to ameliorate job conditions that are harmful to workers, and reduce productivity. The basic-applied dichotomy is NOT firm, which is also occurs in pure science and engineering. There is cross-over.

You are right. The template is not optimal. However, the division into basic and applied science is better than the division between research psychology and applied psychology, a division that does not make sense. At least the words "basic science" and "applied science" make contact with the knowledge base of the educated layperson. I look forward to a Wikipedian improving the dichotomy. We make Wikipedia better incrementally.Iss246 (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Another thought about the sidebar and beyond

It occurred to me when I reflected on the matter that it would be a good idea for someone to create a new Wikipedia entry called "Basic science (psychology)" or something like that. The new entry does not have to be long. The structure of the entry could resemble the entry called Applied psychology. Then the sidebar term "Basic science" could be linked to the new "Basic science (psychology)" entry or whatever other apt name someone could think up for such an entry. The advantage of having a "Basic science (psychology)" entry would be that it would balance the Applied psychology entry. While I am not wedded to the idea of an entry called "Basic science (psychology)", I would object to an entry called "Basic psychology" for reasons I outlined above.Iss246 (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. When can you create it? :) I wish I had time. If someone can lay the groundwork, I might be able to contribute. Ward3001 (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't have the time either. I've got a couple of chapters I am committed to writing. I thought you or Nesbit or the two of you could do it. I think the outline would be something like:

Abnormal Biological Cognitive Developmental Experimental Evolutionary Mathematical Neuropsychology Personality Positive Psychophysics Social.

A paragraph could be written about each. The paragraph could be a summary of the each full-blown disciplinary entry. Perhaps the first paragraph of each disciplinary entry would hold the key to what to write under each topic within "Basic science (psychology)" or whatever the final name is. The model would the Applied psychology entry. I think the task is easier than you think. My recommendation is to do one paragraph every other day. A worthwhile product could be completed in four weeks.Iss246 (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ward3001, I am going to create an outline. But after reading more of Wikipedia, I'm going to change the sidebar template term from "basic science" to "natural science" because the Wikipedia entry for natural science is superior to the entry for basic science. Based on my reading I think the term "natural science" is better. After I change the wording in the template to Natural science (psychology), I will create the bare bones, bare bones mind you, of an entry. I would like you fill it in. Perhaps Nesbit can help.Iss246 (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please take over Natural science (psychology). I can't do any more.Iss246 (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not happy with the current term "Natural science (psychology)," for which I am responsible. I talked to a number of my colleagues (experimental and clinical psychologists) about the umbrella terms. We all agreed that applied psychology is an apt umbrella term encompassing clinical, industrial, educational, health, etc. We also agreed that there was not a good term for the other divisions within psychology (abnormal, neuropsychology, social, etc.). The group agreed that the former umbrella term, "research psychology" did not work because many psychologists conduct applied research. There was some consensus that my first try at an umbrella term, "Basic science (psychology)" is better than "Natural science (psychology)" although the term "Basic science (psychology)" not as apt as they would like. Ward3001, could you weigh in on this?Iss246 (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I made the change back to "Basic science (psychology)|basic science". The term balances the applied part of psychology. "Natural science" did not work. The psychologists with whom I spoke could see biological psychology as a natural science but not social psychology. The expression "basic science" finesses the difference. Perhaps someone will think up a better division.Iss246 (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Perspectives rather than "basic science"?

The major (traditional) perspectives are missing from the sidebar: behavioral, developmental, social-cognitive, humanistic and psychodynamic. Perhaps the subtitles "basic science" and "applied science" squeeze out these perspectives. An alternate may be "major perspectives" and applications. The concern is that not all applications of psychology are consider "applied science" -- it implies a certain science-practitioner POV. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 11:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That might (I'm not sure) solve one problem, but it creates another problem. "Major perspectives" refers to what is traditionally considered "schools of thought" in psychology (psychodynamic, humanistic, etc.), and some of the items currently under "Basic science" don't really belong under "Major perspectives". As I have said previously, this is a sidebar. By definition it can't include much detail. Template:Psychology can include more detail. The sidebar by necessity will never be able to neatly fit everything in the way we want. I think right now it's about as good as we can get it. Ward3001 (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The sidebar is much more prominent than the template. Perhaps "Research areas" is more appropriate then. "Basic science" is a code word which is advances a position which attempts to portray psychology as if it were a physical science which can be reduced to general laws, i.e. the position that psychology can be reduced to neuroscience. While I think the enthusiasm for this pursuit is worthwhile, the view is far from universal in psychology. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 08:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the concern of Action potential. We have tried several umbrella terms already for the subdisciplines under basic science. By contrast, there is wide agreement that there are subdisciplines within psychology that come under the umbrella of applied science. These subdisciplines include educational psychology, clinical psychology, I/O psychology, etc. What is the umbrella term for the subdisciplines in which psychologists conduct research the purpose of which is not an immediate application?

We once used the umbrella term “research psychology.” However, that term is not workable because applied psychologist also conduct research. The term “basic science,” although not perfect because it has surplus meaning, works because psychologists under the basic-science umbrella conduct research regardless of whether the research we conduct has an immediate application. Of course, many of us (I speak as a research psychologist) hope that ultimately the research we conduct will lead to the betterment of people’s lives. But that is not the immediate concern. The immediate concern is better understanding of thought, behavior, emotion, etc. Although a personality psychologist does not do what a physicist does, the personality psychologist still wants to understand the development of the human personality regardless of where that research takes the psychologist. What the physicist does may or may not lead to an application. The personality psychologist wants to understand the development of the human personality even if that understanding leads to an application or it does not. In the end, the term "basic science" is a pretty good bookend for the term "applied science." I hope this response helps. If you can think of an umbrella term that is more effective than "basic science" it would be good learn about it.Iss246 (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Iss246 on this, and Action potential, sorry, but I completely disagree that "'Basic science' is a code word which advances a position which attempts to portray psychology as if it were a physical science". That may have been the case by some psychologists in the past, but those psychologist are a very small minority now (if they exist at all). "Science" and the scientific method are not limited to the physical sciences. The scientific method is used in almost all areas of psychology to one degree or another. It's not psychology pretending to be a physical science; it's using the principles of science (e.g., experimental methodology, inferential statistics, etc.) to conduct research on behavior and mental processes. Ward3001 (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I also I appreciate Action potential's concerns. But I'm afraid I have to agree with Iss246 and Ward3001, for the reasons they gave. Though not perfect, these two labels (or very similar ones) are, in fact, a more accurate description than "perspectives" for the two main areas of psychology reflecting the real state of affairs at present. Even if "basic science" has some baggage in the opinion of some, it's the best label proposed so far to contrast with "applied". "Research" doesn't work to contrast with "applied" for the reason Iss246 mentioned (applied research). If a better label than "basic science" can be found, I'm open to suggestions, but it is certainly a legitimate descriptor, as Ward3001 explained. -DoctorW 17:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that 'Perspectives' is not appropriate nor 'Orientations'. I was thinking of personality psychology when I suggested that. Most psychologists would identify themselves as eclectic and rarely identify themselves with a particular orientation (research or applied). I'll ask my professors in social psychology, physiological psychology (behavioural neuroscience) and cognitive neuropsychology this week. At this point I'd rather keep it as "Research" rather than "Basic science". If the other subtitle "applied" or even "applied psychology" does not exclude the possibility of applied research. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 12:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Action potential, you may have acted in good faith, but please don't change this information again without gaining consensus here. Consensus is the way things are always done on Wikipedia, not unilteral decisions by one editor. Feel free to seek opinions from your professors, but I believe everyone in this discussion is a psychologist, and it's the consensus here that matters, not what your professors say. If you need more info on consensus, please read WP:CON. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's discuss what evidence would be acceptable to decide one way or the other. I'd accept a quote from a notable dictionary of psychology or glossary from a modern psychology text book which clearly emcompasses all the major research areas which we need to list on that side bar. Unforunately there was no entry for "basic science" in the Oxford Dictionary of Psychology which is a good indication it is not often used in psychology. In my medical dictionary there is an entry for "basic medical sciences" which is roughly comparable with "fundamental medical science" and the meaning that you want to portray on the sidebar. I have a quote from the "The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science", basic and applied science. "There is a common distinction in modern science between two types of research. Basic science is supposed to aim for new knowledge; it is also known as fundamental or pure science, suggesting that it is uncontaminated by such worldly concerns as practicality, patents, or profits. Applied science, or mission-oriented research, instead aims to produce technologies for social use, such as for industry or the military."..."Scientists and their sponsors have often posited a directional flow from basic to applied science; basic science, the argument runs, furnishes the foundation for applications." It goes on to conclude that "Locating the blurry boundary between basic and applied research is not a purely academic exercise." Peter J. Westwick "basic and applied science" -- The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science. J. L. Heilbron, ed., Oxford University Press 2003. Oxford University Press. None of those areas are fundamental or pure sciences and exhibits the same blurry boundary problem as the research/applied distinction. So, I'm still not convinced that we can use "basic and applied science" distinction here. I can check the Penguin Dictionary of Psychology (and a few others) tomorrow. What evidence would you accept to change your vote for consensus? ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 15:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You wrote that "basic science is supposed to aim for new knowledge." That is what the psychologists in social psychology, personality psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and developmental psychology try to do. They try to discover new knowledge. Their methods are different from that of physicists and chemists yet these psychologists are engaged in an effort of discovery. The business about being "uncontaminated by such worldly concerns..." is hyperbole even if found in the Oxford Companion. Scientists experience jealousies and hopes for recognition as many nonscientists do. But we are not discussing the motivations of scientists. We are discussing the difference between basic and applied science. Although not perfect, the basic-applied distinction works for many of us. Iss246 (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Iss246, including the comment about hyperbole about "worldly concerns". We will never have perfectly neat categorical terms, but I think the ones we are using now are as good as any others that have been suggested so far. And we will never have perfect agreement about the terms to use, which is why we decide by consensus. Ward3001 (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What evidence would convince you otherwise? ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 15:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A clear consensus to change the heading terminology. Ward3001 (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The term 'basic science' (and more generally the principle of a pure vs applied division) is problematic, but it seems the best so far proposed. The supposedly applied areas of psychology do generate new knowledge. Often that knowledge speaks to fundamental aspects of human psychology. For example, educational psychologists' long arc of theory and research on achievement motivation describes motivation in educational contexts. Although achievement motivation theorists frequently do show how the theory can be applied, much of the research proceeds without regard for application and is, in that sense, basic science. Communicating these nuances may not be possible in a navigational sidebar so we settle for the least misleading approximation. Nesbit (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Its not perfect but here's a suggestion for the subheadings to replace basic/applied science: Psychological science (research, theory) and practice (evidence-based, other approaches). ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 03:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

None of the suggestions up to this point, including the current wording, is perfect, and I doubt that any ever will be. I continue to prefer basic/applied. "Psychological science" and "practice" suggests that there is no science in practice. That only reinforces the common misconception of "practice" as just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo that requires no scientific training. My opinion at this point is to leave it as it is. Ward3001 (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I checked the latest APA dictionary of psychology and the latest penguin dictionary (as well as the latest Oxford dictionary of psychology) at the university book store. There is no entry for "basic science" or "applied science" in those dictionaries. I think we should get a WP:3PO from a neutral third party. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 13:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

AP, the consensus is quite clear. But more importantly, 3PO is only for disputes between two editors; in this case, the dispute is between you and several of us. With such a clear consensus, I think dispute resolution is pointless, but it certainly is your right to seek it. Please, however, follow the standard dispute resolution process. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Subtitles for sidebar for main areas of psychology

In the sidebar to differentiate between main areas in psychology:

1. We are having difficulty coming up with a division/categories for the sidebar which includes all the major areas of psychology. Should we use (a) "Basic science" / "Applied science", or (b) "Research" / "Applied"? ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 07:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Editors are referred to Template talk:Psychology sidebar#Perspectives rather than "basic science"? above for previous discussion. Ward3001 (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It was sorted by research / applied areas for 2 years [2] by User:J. Ash Bowie in 2007. Before that there was just one list of areas and approaches diff Somewhere along the line humanistic and psychodynamic (2 of the 4 major forces in psychology) were dropped from the sidebar. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 06:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts in this template:talk section. Humanistic psychology and psychodynamic psychology are avenues within clinical psychology. See the clinical psychology Wikipedia entry. You, like many others, have a genuine admiration for those two provinces of clinical psychology; however, they are no longer "major forces" within psychology. Both are represented in the clinical psychology entry, as they should be. Both have their own entries in Wikipedia, as they should be. I recommend not reconfiguring the sidebar to include humanistic psychology and psychodynamic psychology.

I also add this note about sorting through the old history of the sidebar. Wikipedia entries evolve over time, mostly in the direction of improvement. I believe that the sidebar has mostly improved. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than it was two years ago. YES.Iss246 (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not heard any of my lecturers at my school of psychology use the distinction "basic science" or "applied science" in the way we are using it here. Furthermore, "basic science" and "applied science" is not in the latest APA dictionary of psychology. Surely that is evidence that it is not in use. I searched the literature often when "basic science" is used in social psychology, it is used in quotes. It just does not reflect the current state of affairs in psychology. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 10:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether your lecturers make that distinction depends very much on what sort of dept/school you study in, the research interests of your faculty and whether they even feel it necessary to bring the issue up in the first place. This issue is bigger than just psychology and indeed covers the whole of science. In my experience, Pure/Applied is a more common distinction than Basic/Applied or any of the other suggestions above. The Research/Applied distinction implies that Applied psychology doesn't involve research, which it undoubtedly does, or that Reseach psychology won't result in applications, which it often does. So it really does nobody any favours. As a counterpoint to 'applied', I would prefer 'pure' but I'll accept 'basic'. The term "basic science" is unlikely to crop up in a dictionary of psychology because it is defined as what it is not (rather like the term "atheist"!). What is "basic science"? It's science that does not have immediately obvious applications. And as an aside: I have worked in psychology for about a decade and never had any contact with anybody who gave two hoots about humanistic or psychodynamic perspectives. But that's just the circles I move in, I guess... Famousdog (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Famousdog, when you say Pure/Applied is more common, do you mean "Pure research" v. "Applied research" as definied in the APA dictionary of psych.? ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 04:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I've just realised that that distinction only covers research and not practice (such as the practice of therapy, ergonomics, etc), so its not really suitable either. I think the best compromise is Basic science / Applied science. Famousdog (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

AP, as I noted earlier, you are welcome to seek opinions from your professors, but the opinions that matter are the ones here. But following up on your own experiences, I have degrees from four different universities and have taught in two others, and in all of those I have heard frqequent use of "basic" and "applied" to make the distinctions we are discussing. I have heard other descriptors, but by far the most frequent have been "basic" and "applied". Ward3001 (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ward3001, I agree that it does not matter what an individual or group of professors say. What matters is what is in the authoritative sources. That's why I looked up the APA dictionary of psychology, Penguin dictionary of psychology and Oxford dictionary of psychology. None of those dictionaries had entries for basic science in psychology. There were entries for "pure research", "basic research" and "applied research". On what basis are you making your claim that "basic science" and "applied science" is "the most frequent"? Have you seen this in a major text book? If so, which one? How do you explain that "basic science" when used in social psychology literature is often used in quotes? ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 04:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I did a search for "basic science" and "basic research" on psycinfo. As I suspected, "basic science" (800 results) is less common than "basic research" (1500 results). Furthermore, basic science is associated with the basic medical sciences (see Medicine#Basic_sciences) rather than psychology. When the term "basic science" is used in psychology it is often contrasted with clinical practice (e.g. studying basic fear extinction mechanisms in rodents v. translating to human clinical therapies (e.g. exposure therapy). Compare these index term results:

• Basic research: Experimentation (400), Treatment (84), Psychology (76), Methodology (73). Scientific Communication (60)
• Basic science: Medical Education (107), Medical Students (86), Experimentation (80), Sciences (60), Drug Therapy (51)

The onus of proof is now on the editors who want to keep "basic science" on the sidebar. As I said before, show me a major text book, major psych. dictionary which clearly shows that basic science is used in psychology in the way you want to use it hear. The term is problematic because it has special meaning. I think we have to change it back research/applied. If you narrow the search a bit further and limit the search of "basic science" to "experimentation" you only find neurobiological research on animal models (rodent work, primate work). The clinical research would be the translation studies for human therapies. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 08:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the Research/Applied categorization is that all the fields and many of the psychologists that would be designated under Applied do a considerable amount of research. In some cases those fields are more research-intensive than some of the "research" fields. For example, a search of PsycInfo using the keyword transpersonal turns up only 972 articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Many of the journals were actually in applied fields (e.g., Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Journal of Mental Health, Academic Psychiatry, European Journal of Psychotherapy and Counselling, European Journal of Psychological Assessment). In contrast, a search of PsycInfo using the keyword educational psychology returns almost 45,000 articles published in peer reviewed journals. A quick glance suggests that most are empirical research, and that there are also high-ranking journals dedicated to theory and reviews (e.g., Educational Psychologist). They feature theoretical reviews that often deal with quite fundamental aspects of psychology. My conclusion is that the Research/Applied labels don't work for this template. I agree with the comment above that Non-applied/Applied would be more accurate, and would add that somewhat-less-applied/somewhat-more-applied is better and less-contextualized/more-contextualized is probably the most epistemologically correct. But none of those more accurate labels is suitable for the template, so I'm holding on to the Basic Science/Applied Science status quo. Basic/Applied would also be acceptable and possibly better. Nesbit (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with Nesbit, and would add further that the terminology that shows up depends very much on how a search is done and where it is done. Searching dictionaries, searching databases, using various search methods with various terminology -- each will yield different results with different emphases. This decision ultimately comes down to educated opinions. That can be informed by literature searches in one form or another, but it still is ultimately an opinion. Ward3001 (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Point of order regarding AP's possible attempt to reframe the process by which Wikipedia works. This decision will be made by consensus. This is a legitimate difference of opinion. There is no policy issue here other than consensus. I don't mean to assume too much about your intentions, except the assumption of good faith is legitimately brought into question when an editor makes a disputed change without consensus, and AP already has one incident of changing the template without consensus. Your assertion that the "onus of proof" is on this person or that person does not change the fact that ultimately the decision here will be made according a core principle of Wikipedia: consensus. Discuss all you want. Challenge all you want. Declare onus of proof as you see fit. Just don't go against consensus. If that is not your intention, then we are on the right track and can proceed with this discussion. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I sometimes lean toward WP:BRD when the discussion seems to go around in circles. Normally consensus would be shifted in the face of the evidence (latest APA dictionary, psycinfo search, oxford dictionary of psychology). The term "basic science" has a special meaning which is not appropriate for the sidebar. I'd accept "Basic"/"Applied" but not completely satisfied with that. Perhaps something like "Pure/Fundamental research"/"Applied Research & Practice" is better. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 02:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

We are in the "Discuss" phase of BRD. And, respectfully, but it's your opinion about what "normally" would shift consensus. Consensus is consensus, regardless of what an editor thinks is normal. Reverting against consensus is a policy violation. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change." Wikipedia:STATUSQUO The status quo was "Research/Applied" as it existed for years before "Basic science/Applied science" was added a few weeks ago (as I pointed out earlier: diff). So one might consider your revert to be against policy. I was merely returning it to status quo and waiting for the evidence to be presented to the contrary. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 03:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The consensus changed when editors up to that point agreed to make the change. I did not revert against consensus. You then attempted to seek another change in consensus (perfectly acceptable), but thus far there has been no change in the consensus that existed before you entered the discussion. Your attempts to refactor Wikipedia policies and procedures does not change them. Now, I do not wish to continue a debate over fundamental Wikipedia policy, so let's proceed with the relevant issue of this RfC. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize with you over your frustration. I have felt such frustration in my own attempts to effect change in a Wikipedia entry. There was a shift in sentiment away from research/applied to basic/applied because research is conducted in both applied fields (e.g., I/O, clinical, educational psychology) and basic fields (e.g., abnormal, social, cognitive, neuroscience). I don't claim that the basic/applied dichotomy is perfect. But the basic/applied dichotomy more cogently covers the waterfront than the research/applied dichotomy.71.249.54.167 (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Iss246 (talk) 04:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) (I realized that I hadn't logged in, came back, and entered my ID. Sorry.)

It does not make sense to have one umbrella category called "research" and another called "applied" when research is part of both.71.249.54.167 (talk) 04:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Iss246 (talk) 04:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) (I realized that I hadn't logged in, came back, and entered my ID.)

Christ. Shall we try to assertain consensus then? I vote for Basic science / Applied science Famousdog (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

With or without a vote, the consensus at this point is clear. One editor wants a change. Everyone else is satisfied the way it is now. Ward3001 (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

We really need more eyeballs. I have presented evidence to show that the term "basic science" is not commonly used in psychology. It is not in the APA dictionary of psychology and the psycinfo search of "basic science" primarily returned entries related to medicine and medical education. I'm yet to see convincing evidence to the contrary. I'm also considering proposing the "Basic science (psychology)" for deletion for the same reason. And also proposing to change List_of_basic_psychology_topics#Basic_science_.28psychology.29 back to "Research psychology" which is the commonly accepted term in the field. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 00:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

More eyeballs? That's what an RfC is for. It has been up for almost two weeks. If no more eyeballs wander into this discussion, there is no other way to get more eyeballs, unless you were planning to get more eyeballs in unacceptable ways, such as canvassing. If I counted correctly, we have five opinions on this issue (this section and the one immediately above). For a page that isn't visited very often like this one, that's usually about the number of people who determine a consensus. Consensus is not determined by how long one editor can keep saying the same thing over and over. A consensus is usually determined in a week or two, sometimes more, but not often. An RfC expires after 30 days. There is no question what the consensus is as of right now. So unless some more eyeballs show up in the usual way, this consensus is an accomplished fact. Ward3001 (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There's plenty of ways we could get more eyeballs without canvassing. If the RfC is not satisfactory, we could put a neutral description of the current dispute on NPOV noticeboard. We could seek expert opinions from psychologists from various research areas. We can present more evidence from the literature. Straw polls are not reliable indicators of consensus. We need to adhere to other policies too: WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 07:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

AP, I think you need to calm down. I'm currently involved in an arbitration case where a certain user is highly likely to get banned for persistant single-topic disruption (including raising unecessary RfCs, inappropriate application of NPOV and RS, and canvassing), which is what you seem to be suggesting. This is clearly a topic that nobody else has any problem with, or at least the other editors here don't have a problem with. I don't have a copy of the APA dictionary on me but I'm sure that there are lots of terms that I use daily that don't appear there. Try "time dilation", "Bayesian modelling", "corticothalamocortical", "recurrent network" ... They are words/terms I use all the time and I suspect that they aren't all in there. If they are, I'm impressed and might buy a copy myself! Famousdog (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to buy it, just look it up all the psychology dictionaries at the university bookshop, search oxford reference online or psycinfo! heh. Hint: You might get different results in pubmed. I'm still calm but fail to see how can you say that "nobody else has a problem with" this topic. Nesbit and several other editors have acknowledged that "Basic science/Applied science" is problematic. Various editors have suggested that we keep the status quo until we find better umbrella terms. Someone even suggested that we just have one list. With regards to the WP:NPOV and WP:RS policies, these are particularly relevant because "Basic science/Applied science" seems to advance a certain position in psychology. Show me the evidence that Basic science/Applied science is commonly used in psychology in general (and not just medical education, neurobiological experiments). I'm still think that "Research Psychology/Applied Psychology" is more general and closer to NPOV. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 10:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's really misrepresenting what's been going on here. "Nesbit and several other editors" have been drawn into this discussion by your editing of the template and constant posting about this topic. Their opinion seems to be that Basic science / Applied science isn't perfect but its the least worst solution, assuming it really is necessary to make this distinction at all. I'm beginning to think it isn't. I've given you my thoughts and attempted some compromises, but frankly I think this has been blown out of all proportion and the best way forward is to eliminate the Basic-Pure-Natural-Fundamental-Research-Science / Applied-Research-Science distinction completely. Famousdog (talk) 11:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am going to take a back seat for a while. I'd accept one list but I'm just an undergraduate student. Some of the other editors here are qualified psychologists. ----Action potential ^{discuss contribs} 12:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, AP, for your wisdom of stepping back for a while. This consensus process needs to takes its course. Also, repectfully, there are no issues of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS here. No one here, including you, is arguing for anything outrageous that goes against any Wikipedia policy. This is simply an honest difference of opinion that needs to be worked out in the usual way of consensus. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Revisit an issue

I would like to revisit the issue of placing occupational health psychology on the sidebar template under applied psychology. What prompts me to revisit the issue is that I recently attended the Work, Stress, and Health conference sponsored by the American Psychological Association, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the Society for Occupational Health Psychology. You can see from the November 2009 program how comprehensive the subject matter is: http://www.apa.org/pi/work/wsh/2009/wsh-2009-program.pdf.

The program indicates that there is a great deal of OHP research devoted to work and stress, work-family balance, safety, workplace bullying and other forms of mistreatment, biomarkers of workplace stress, sexual harassment at work, methodology, workplace interventions to reduce stress, the impact of work life on sleep, work stress in the military, the problem of stress in other specific occupations, and so on.

I also note that the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology will be conducting a major conference in Rome at the end of March (see http://eaohp.org/conference.aspx). I would like enlist Ward3001 and Nesbit to visit the external sites, and reconsider their past positions, and support the idea of including occupational health psychology in the sidebar.Iss246 (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

To make an addition to this template you need to present comparative arguments showing that Occupational Health Psychology is more important than some other field(s) listed on the template. This is because, as a sidebar template, it must be of limited size to function effectively as a navigational tool. Without restricting the size of the sidebar it would become as large as Template:Psychology and lose its distinct functional value. Noting that there is a major conference dedicated to occupational health psychology is not by itself sufficient because there are international conferences in other sub-fields of psychology that are not listed in the sidebar. Nesbit (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I showed the link to the conference proceedings held in Puerto Rico in order to demonstrate the comprehensiveness of OHP. The conference was organized by APA and NIOSH. Those two organizations would not organize the conference if OHP was not of major interest. I add that there is growing interest in OHP in Latin America. There was a contingent of Latin American contributors to the conference. I also underline the convergence of developments in the Western Hemisphere with developments in Europe by pointing out the parallel conference that is upcoming in Rome at the end of March. Also note that the ICOH-WOPS (International Commission on Occupational Health, Work Organization and Psychosocial Factors) conference ran in Quebec in September 2008. Here is a link to an overview of that conference: http://www.icoh-wops2008.com/program.html. ICOH-WOPS is a large international conference devoted to psychosocial aspects of work and health. The next ICOH-WOPS conference will be in Amsterdam in June 2010. The field of OHP is burgeoning.

I remain convinced that OHP is more important than sports psychology because topics such as work (and unemployment) and stress, workplace violence and incivility, and work-home carryover are of great importance to most of us. I am not, however, inclined to argue for removing sports psychology from the template. Sports and recreation have a role to play in our lives; so does work. I note that Wikipedia contributor Jcbutler removed transpersonal psychology from the template. Although I think that OHP is more important than transpersonal psychology, I would also not be inclined to remove it. In many ways I am as conservative as you with regard to altering the template. Iss246 (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could frame a proposal to add OHP as a replacement for Transpersonal. You might try to develop more objective evidence for the relative importance of OHP. I think OHP gets way more hits than Transpersonal on google web, google books, and google scholar. That is far more convincing to me than conference announcements. What other verifiable metrics are there? Finally, can you do something to address the objection that OHP is a branch of industrial and organizational psychology, which is already listed. For example, any published statements that the area is splitting into two fields, OHP and organizational psychology? Nesbit (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply. I propose that we include occupational health psychology in the psychology sidebar template.

I give my reasons. I begin, however, by saying that I was not in favor of removing transpersonal psychology from the template. I'm not expert in transpersonal psychology so I admit my searches may have limitations. I did perform a couple of searches, one on Psycinfo and one on Google. In the Psycinfo search, I looked for hits on (job or occupational) and stress, which is the centerpiece of a great deal of OHP research although I am leaving out topics like workplace violence and incivility, work-home carryover and balance, psychological aspects of safety, recovery from work, unemployment stress, etc. I got a little more than 17,000 hits. A Psycinfo search on transpersonal psychology yielded about 1300 hits.

I continued searching on Google. I searched on occupational stress OR job stress OR work stress and got 2,700,000 hits. A Google search on transpersonal psychology yielded about 22,000 hits.

I turn to the concern voiced by Nesbit that OHP is a branch of industrial/organizational psychology. OHP emerged out of three disciplines, industrial/organizational psychology, health psychology, and occupational health. People who identify themselves with the field obtained doctorates in I/O, health psychology, occupational medicine, occupational nursing, and other fields. The next editor of the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology obtained a doctorate in experimental psychology, and was a research scientist at NIOSH for most of his career. Other OHP researchers at NIOSH have come from experimental psychology. I add that I identify myself professionally with OHP, and I did not train in I/O. For the record, I trained in developmental psychology and then did a post-doc in epidemiology, having gotten interested in antisocial conduct in children, and then the impact of that conduct on the health and well-being of teachers; then my interest in OHP simply grew. OHP is a boundary breaker and an emergent field.

I add that APA sees an important role for OHP, and has since 1990 helped to underwrite OHP-related conferences and an OHP journal. To my knowledge APA has not underwritten conferences or journals in either transpersonal psychology or sports psychology. I think the actions of APA speak to the importance of OHP in psychology in general.

Finally, considering the centrality of work to the health and well-being of populations, I think OHP deserves a place on the template. Iss246 (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This looks like progress. But I noticed that the WP article on I/O psychology identifies OHP as a a topic within I/O psych. Although the description of OHP in that article identifies it as a new discipline, the structural placement of OHP as a topic in I/O seems to contradict that view. Would it be a good idea to move the section on OHP in that article under a separate heading called "Relationship to occupational health psychology"?

My support for your proposal is very much contingent on comparisons between OHP and other disciplines of psychology (e.g., transpersonal, sports). As I explained previously, such comparisons seem inevitable when deciding which disciplines are represented in the small space available in the sidebar template.Nesbit (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Nesbit, I wrote the paragraph on OHP within the I/O entry. I also wrote a parallel paragraph on OHP within the health psychology entry. Actually I wrote the paragraph in the health psychology entry first. I wrote both paragraphs because I thought OHP could be of interest to readers of those two entries. The only thing I didn't do was write a paragraph on OHP inside the occupational health Wikipedia entry. I didn't write such a paragraph there because I was not happy with the occupational health entry. I, however, included a link to OHP at the bottom of the occupational health page. Occupational health, I/O, and health psychology are the fields out of which OHP emerged.Iss246 (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd guessed that you wrote it. But the point is that the placement suggests OHP is a "topic" within I/O Psychology which contradicts your argument here that OHP is discipline in its own right and thus deserving a place in the sidebar. Perhaps you should align these bits by pulling the OHP section within I/O psychology out into a top-level heading in that article so that OHP and I/OP are presented more clearly as separate and equal disciplines within psychology.Nesbit (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a good suggestion. I also wrote paragraphs for the psychology and applied psychology entries; however, I will leave these. I'm a little pressed for time. Sick relative. Final exams. I will get to it. I promise.Iss246 (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Nesbit, you have been very helpful. I dashed off changes in the industrial and organizational psychology and health psychology Wikipedia entries regarding the matter of getting better separation of those fields from OHP. I tried to follow your advice above. Perhaps you could review my edits. Thanks.Iss246 (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I edited the I-O psychology section to further clarify that OHP is a separate discipline and not a subfield. I'm relying on your judgment that this is correct. It's a key point because there's not enough room in the sidebar for fields and their subfields. Nesbit (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of Recent Changes by Osubuckeyeguy (talk)

For an explanation of recent changes and a discussion with Iss246 please see (talk) and weigh in before reverting any changes.Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Psychology:Sidebar

We had the debate about the psychology sidebar. OHP is not subsumed neatly under health psychology. It is autonomous field that developed out of at least three separate fields, I/O psychology, health psychology, and occupational health. It has become an autonomous field with its own conferences, journals, organizations, and books.Iss246 (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

We had extensive discussions, and the consensus was clearly in favor of NOT adding it to the small sidebar, yet Iss246 added it anyway. -DoctorW 05:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A consensus did develop regarding OHP. In my view, DoctorW was excessive in giving the template a haircut.Iss246 (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who reads the Talk page (including the Archive) will see that the consensus is very clear regarding OHP, and that the consensus was that it should not be added to the sidebar. Such readers will see that you doggedly pursued this issue, arguing for it with the tenacity of a fanatic, insisting on getting your way well after losing the argument. They will see that you subsequently added it anyway. It will be impossible readers who understand the conversation to fail to see the contradiction between your reversion of my deletion of it today and your statement here that "a consensus did develop regarding OHP." I have been editing Wikipedia since 2005, but I have never seen a more blatant example. It's hard to know what to say. I could obviously write a much stronger rebuke that shows great indignation and characterizes your action very unfavorably, but I will leave it at that. -DoctorW 15:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Add Pastoral psychology to Applications?

Does anyone have thoughts pro/con about adding "Pastoral" to the "Applications" part of the template? This could be linked to Psychology of religion, which has a section on Psychology of religion#Pastoral_psychology that notes several relevant journals. More broadly, given the increased interest in Psychology of religion/spirituality -- for example, APA will soon be publishing an official 2-volume APA Handbook on the topic -- as well as the high importance of religion in the vast majority of US adults' lives -- it would make sense to have Psychology of religion linked somehow in the template. But I'm not sure I'd call PofR a "basic" science. So linking via the one word "Pastoral" in the applications section seems the most obvious way to proceed. Any comments? Health Researcher (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Health Researcher, if you would take the time to read the Talk page above, you would see that you are clearly violating consensus by repeatedly adding this item. Please make your case here. I can tell you already, however, that it is very unlikely to work, because Pastoral psychology (which does not even have its own article - see Psychology of religion#Pastoral_psychology) is clearly not a major area in psychology; rather it is a minor subdivision of the Psychology of religion, which does not warrant a place on the sidebar (it is not a major area either). If you can convince a lot of psychologists to start studying religion far more than they are now, you might have a better argument (for Psychology of religion).

You would have a vastly better chance of arguing that Forensic psychology should be removed (keeping in mind the discussion above which included the idea that Legal psychology is in some sense represented under the heading Forensic psychology.) -DoctorW 06:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Icon

What's the point of this icon? Decoration? Gnevin (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Gnevin, if (as per your recent change-log assertions) the "psi" symbol is not a recognized icon for psychology, then why does the homepage of the American Psychological Association display (a somewhat stylized version of) the symbol immediately to the the left of the name of the Association, in the extreme top-left corner of the page? See here: http://www.apa.org/index.aspx -- Health Researcher (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No I never said it's not recognized. I said it's pointless decoration Gnevin (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently others, including the American Psychological Association, think otherwise. Health Researcher (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There are other Psychological Associations which used different logo. One association isn't more important than the others

Cerebral lobes

--86.184.158.203 (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Encyclopaedic purpose Icons should not be added only because they look good, because aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. Icons may be purely decorative in the technical sense that they convey no additional useful information and nothing happens when you click on them; but purely decorative icons should still have a useful purpose in providing layout cues outside of article prose. Avoid adding icons that provide neither additional useful information relevant to the article subject nor navigational or layout cues that aid the reader. Icons should serve an encyclopaedic purpose other than decoration. Gnevin (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Gnevin. The purpose of the Psi symbol is not mere decoration. The symbol (which is recognized in the field of psychology as a valid symbol) serves the purpose of quickly identifying all Wikipedia psychology pages. However if people are unsatisfied with the Psi symbol I've located an image of a brain as a possible replacement image. The image of the brain (cerebral lobes) has clear relevance to psychology. I have tested this image in the sandbox and 80px seems to be the best size. File:Cerebral lobes.png|Cerebral lobes

Additions to the sidebar

If anyone were to take the time to read all the discussion above and in the archive, that person would see that there is a consensus for brevity in the sidebar, a reluctance to add items, and that constant vigilance is necessary to prevent people from adding fields or sub-fields that are not major categories in psychology, especially people's own pet items.

I'm confident that the others who've contributed the most to the effort of creating and maintaining this sidebar over the years (who also happen to be well-qualified to say something about psychology, in contrast to the typical drive-by editor) would agree that it is simply not appropriate to add an item to the list without substantive discussion here first, even if that discussion doesn't take place immediately.

Please propose items here first and be patient. -DoctorW 06:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)