Search

The open science framework has garnered increased visibility and has been partially implemented in recent years. Open science underscores the importance of transparency and reproducibility to conduct rigorous science. Recently, several journals published by the American Psychological Association have begun adopting the open science framework. At the same time, the field of psychology has been reckoning with the current sociopolitical climate regarding anti-Blackness and White supremacy. As psychology begins to adopt the open science framework into its journals, the authors underscore the importance of embracing and aligning open science with frameworks and theories that have the potential to move the field toward antiracism and away from the embedded White supremacy value systems and ideals. The present article provides an overview of the open science framework; an examination of White supremacy ideology in research and publishing; guidance on how to move away from these pernicious values; and a proposal on alternate value systems to center equity, diversity, and inclusion with the aim of establishing an antiracist open science framework. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Research productivity was examined across 5 highly nominated multicultural psychology journals. This yielded a ranking of 40 highly productive institutions and individuals between 1994 and 2007. The results are potentially useful in beginning to track trends in the publication of multicultural psychology studies in research journals. Methodological and interpretational limitations are discussed. (Contains 4 tables.)

This article, collaboratively written by the presidents of the National Latina/o Psychological Association (NLPA), presents leadership as conceptualized and practiced in NLPA. We first identify key leadership constructs in the available literature as well as relevant cultural values, describe liderazgo (leadership) through cultural lenses, and articulate the connections to counseling psychology and the social justice underpinnings that have guided NLPA’s formation and development. We then present a number of events and decisions to illustrate how we have operationalized these organizing principles in both the daily management and long-term goals of NLPA. We conclude with a discussion of the future paths and possible directions in the next decade for the organization.

This article provides a summary of the Major Contribution on the Ethnic Minority Psychological Associations (Asian American Psychological Association, The Association of Black Psychologists, National Latina/o Psychological Association, Society of Indian Psychologists, and American Psychological Association Division 45) and their connections to counseling psychology and the Society of Counseling Psychology. An overview and highlights of common themes are provided and seven recommendations for future connections are explored. This article is one of seven articles that are part of a special issue of The Counseling Psychologist focused on the relationship between the five major Ethnic Minority Psychological Associations (EMPAs) and the Society of Counseling Psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article addresses the re-founding of the National Hispanic Psychological Association into the National Latina/o Psychological Association. A brief history is provided, followed by current status and resources, connections to counseling psychology, and implications for the Society of Counseling Psychology and for the future of the National Latina/o Psychological Association. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Extending previous research (E. A. Delgado-Romero, N. Galván, P. Maschino, & M. Rowland, 2005) regarding race and ethnicity in counseling and counseling psychology, this article examined how race and ethnicity were reported and used in empirical studies published in diversity-focused journals from 1990 to 2007. The results are discussed and compared with previous findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Humanistic psychology has always viewed scientific psychology with skepticism. Good reasons for this skepticism continuously appear. One is then left with the choice, "Is a scientific approach to humans inherently wrongheaded?" or "Is scientific psychology an imperfect but improving enterprise?" This article reviews another domain where research in scientific psychology proves misleading. Suppose a psychologist was asked a question such as, "Is psychotherapy effective?" or "Is remote intercessory prayer effective?" or "Do humans possess psychic powers?" How might a psychologist reply? The most common strategy would be to conduct a meta-analysis over the relevant research literature and report the results. In all 3 cases (i.e., psychotherapy, efficacy of remote intercessory prayer, and telepathic powers) the answer would be a significant, positive effect size, suggesting that all 3 are real, efficacious phenomena. Unfortunately, in at least 2 of the 3 cases, the literature likely gives an incorrect answer to the question. How can one show that some literatures yield "incorrect" answers to research queries, whereas other literatures give "correct" answers? Finally, how should psychology's publication practices change to avoid flawed literatures? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]