Pieter J. D. Drenth

The following is a slightly revised version of a lecture presented at the RIA/IUA/HRB workshop ‘Research Integrity: Promoting and Building Trust’ at the Royal Irish Academy of Sciences, Dublin, on 24 September 2009. Various thoughts and arguments presented in this paper are also discussed in the advisory report of Working Group 2 (Code of Conduct) to the ESF Member Forum on Research Integrity.

The question “Is psychology applied enough?” can be regarded in two ways. In the first place, it could refer to the distinction “pure versus applied science”, and the reproach that modern scientific experimental psychology has little to offer to the practitioner. It is argued that this distinction has lost much of its topicality in modern science, and certainly with respect to psychology. In this sense “applied psychology” is an outmoded notion. Secondly, it could refer to the question whether psychology is utilised enough in dealing with the great many pressing problems in modern society. And it is shown that this question cannot be answered in the affirmative. Too often psychological aspects of problems escape notice and too often potential psychological contributions are neglected in governmental and organisational decision‐making, also in cases where such a contribution would prove valuable indeed. A number of reasons for such a neglect are discussed and some ways of improvement are suggested. La question de savoir si la psychologie est suffisamment appliquée peut être abordée de deux façons. Elle peut d’abord renvoyer à la distinction entre science fondamentale et science appliquée et à la critique selon laquelle la psychologie expérimentale moderne a peu à offrir au praticien. Nous pensons que cette distinction a perdu beaucoup de son actualité, surtout en psychologie. Dans ces conditions, la « psychologie appliquée » est une notion désuète. Ensuite, cette question peut faire référence au fait de savoir si la psychologie est suffisamment exploitée dans le traitement des nombreux problèmes sociaux qu’il est urgent de résoudre. Il apparaît qu’il n’est pas possible de répondre par l’affirmative. Trop souvent, les dimensions psychologiques des problèmes passent inaperçues et les contributions potentielles de la psychologie sont négligées dans les décisions gouvernementales et organisationnelles, même quand cet apport serait manifestement précieux. On analyse les raisons de cette négligence et l’on suggère quelques pistes en vue d’une amélioration.

The theme of the 2006 IAP Conference, held at Alexandria, from 1–3 December 2006, was ‘The Unity of Science’. Let me explain how I interpret this interesting motto. For me, this does not mean that there is one regina scientiarum that rules over the other fields of science and learning; a role that was allotted to theology in olden times, and that nowadays – in a more secular vein – is claimed by physics. In my view, the notion ‘unity of science’ rather refers to ‘communality within diversity’. Disciplines vary in content, issues and methods. But there are also quite some common objectives, interests and concerns, the most important of which may be the common goal of searching for testable truth with objective and independent evidence. The communalities render it possible, or even imperative, to communicate and to cooperate. The diversity implies complementariness and calls for interdisciplinarity in the study of today’s numerous and complex phenomena in science and society.