By The Society for Military Psychology
The Society for Military Psychology (APA Division 19) asked the five candidates for the APA Presidency to provide Division 19 membership with their responses to five questions in order to help each of us decide our voting order as we cast our ballot. Their responses are included below. Please note that Todd Finnerty indicated that he is NOT providing any responses to our questions. I cannot begin to emphasize the importance for each of you to please take the time to thoughtfully consider each candidate's responses and cast your ballot accordingly. Never before has our profession needed leadership like it does today. I encourage you to carefully assess the responses of those who valued this opportunity and rank order them according to who will provide the most leadership to help represent our Division membership's interests and those of APA writ large. The following candidates responded to our questions:
Tom Williams
President, Division 19, Society for Military Psychology
The Society for Military Psychology (APA Division 19) asked the five candidates for the APA Presidency to provide Division 19 membership with their responses to five questions in order to help each of us decide our voting order as we cast our ballot. Their responses are included below. Please note that Todd Finnerty indicated that he is NOT providing any responses to our questions. I cannot begin to emphasize the importance for each of you to please take the time to thoughtfully consider each candidate's responses and cast your ballot accordingly. Never before has our profession needed leadership like it does today. I encourage you to carefully assess the responses of those who valued this opportunity and rank order them according to who will provide the most leadership to help represent our Division membership's interests and those of APA writ large. The following candidates responded to our questions:
- Sharon L. Bowman, PhD
- Jessica Henderson Daniel, PhD, ABPP
- Jack Kitaeff, PhD, JD
- Antonio E. Puente, PhD
Tom Williams
President, Division 19, Society for Military Psychology
Candidate Responses on Military Psychology
Candidate: Sharon L. Bowman, PhD
Question #1. What are your views on the role of psychology vis-à-vis military populations and military organizations?
I am the chair of an academic department. We have a history of supporting and encouraging students who are interested in military careers, or military-related careers. That includes having recruiters (Air Force and Navy, usually) talk to our students about military scholarships and internships, and having anywhere from a 1/3 to 1/2 of our students try for VA internships in any given year. To me this is no- brainer – of course I am going to encourage and support our students who are interested in military-focused careers. Psychology can play a significant role in behavior and culture change: by working within the organizational structure to improve working conditions for employees or to assess potential employees and identify optimal work situations; consultation to positively effect workplace dynamics; direct treatment and/or assessment of clinical concerns for patients, military members, and/or families; and in-depth understanding of programming to facilitate and/or enhance the team’s current functioning.
Question #2. If elected, what will you do to support and help advance military psychology?
I am not surprised that some military psychologists feel that their work has not been valued or supported over the past decade; I’m also sure that some (many? most?) perceive their work to be under attack since the release of the independent review. Military and VA psychologists are as much a part of psychology as our colleagues in any other branch of the field, and I would not want their work or their service to be misconstrued by those of us who do not do it. Unfortunately, I believe that has happened, and has been happening, for years. As President, I would work with D19’s leadership to increase awareness of the breadth of their service to the military community and the greater psychological community. This may be done through publications, presentations, web highlights, and leadership activity across APA. There are many opportunities for intersection; e.g., the needs of military families cross bases with the work of child and adolescent psychology, family psychology, and both the men’s and women’s divisions, at minimum. Issues related to diversity (broadly defined) may well be relevant in this context. And, certainly, issues related to health psychology, psychotherapy, and the like all have much to offer each other. I don’t want to elevate military psychology above any other division, but I don’t want the division and its members to continue to feel excluded or “less than.” That sort of divisiveness leads to separation from APA, and that is not good for any of us.
Question #3. Under what circumstances (if ever) should psychologists use their scientific and professional knowledge in support of national security in order to improve the conditions of individuals and society?
Psychologists use their knowledge to consult with institutions to effect change in conditions, operations, hiring practices, morale, you name it. Those institutions include school systems, businesses, and various nonprofits. Many of us use our talents to develop programs or psycho-educational workshops for various institutional clients, or to lobby any group will give us the time of day. I believe we can use our energies to work with national security, via the military or other governmental bodies, to improve the conditions of individuals and society. That phraseology has been translated to mean behaviors associated with torture, but I am not sure that is the whole story. Some of the institutions with which we work could use a fresh eye – i.e., sometimes the most beneficial thing a psychologist can do is present a counterpoint when faced with situations that are at best less than optimal and at worst highly damaging for others. There are ways that we can work effectively in a national security situation without compromising our ethical obligations. Doing so requires a closer examination of our current interpretation of ethics, along with gaining a better understanding of how our roles are consistent with or conflict with those same ethical mandates. I wish I could provide specific, clear examples, but I hesitate to speak in the absolute without knowing more about the current roles and expectations in the field (not what I “think” is going on, or rumors about what is going on, but real-life answers from persons who are living the fight).
Question #4. Are you a member of Division 19, Society for Military Psychology?
I am not a member of your Division. I am a Fellow in Divisions 17 and 45, and a member of 35.
Candidate: Jessica Henderson Daniel, PhD, ABPP
Question #1: What are your views on the role of psychology vis- a-vis military populations and military organizations?
My position is that psychology is every day in every way—which includes military populations and military organizations. Psychological science, practice and education/training apply to the recruitment, training, organization, and provision of psychological services in all the major military organizations (Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard and the Reserves). Further, the Society of Military Psychology is one of the APA Divisions, duly approved by the Council of Representatives. Also, the VA is one of the largest employers of psychologists in the US. Both the Division and the members are integral part of the America Psychological Association.
In addition to Division 19, the Society of Military Psychology, most APA divisions focus on issues and concerns that are relevant to military personnel and their families e.g. health; clinical and counseling services; development (child, adolescent and adult); gender; sexual and gender identity; policy; racial, ethnic and cultural diversity; and international issues.) Persons associated with the military represent a cross-section of the US population. It should be noted that US military personnel have also provided services when there are man-made and natural disasters. They serve their country in both combat and in non-combat roles.
I am aware that some psychologists are pacifists and consequently would not participate in warfare or enlist in the armed forces. I respect that position. However, the more we are able to identify shared identities and concerns, the more likely we will be able to collaborate and work together in ways that promote psychological health in both civilian and military lives.
Question #2: If elected, what will you do to support and help advance military psychology?
My campaign has emphasized: Leadership and Collaborations as Citizen Psychologists. My role would be to encourage collaborations across the divisions on a range of topics. When participants engage in problem solving across differences in perspectives and training, a rich array of ideas can emerge. As important, the potential resulting working relationships can be sustained long after the project is completed. These can lead to other collaborations. All Divisions can benefit from reaching across the aisle to generate allies who understand the different cultures as represented by the Divisions.
Question #3: Under what circumstances (if ever) should psychologists use their scientific and professional knowledge on support of national security in order to improve the conditions of individuals and society?
The question does not define national security. However, I believe that our defense in the hands of the military is our first line of protection and therefore essential to protecting our freedom and way of life.
I am opposed to psychologists participating in any torture activities. My position is based on both integrity and science. I believe both that engaging in torture is immoral and that science does not support torture as an effective interrogation technique.
Question #4: Are you a member of Division 19, Society for Military Psychology?
I am not a member of Division 19. However, I am a member of several APA Divisions and have been active in three of those. Unfortunately, my work demands have not permitted me to join other Divisions.
As a former Air Force dependent and a member of a family with several service personnel (both male and female), I am familiar with military family life—the potential rich experiences and the sacrifices.
Candidate: Jack Kitaeff, PhD, JD
Question #1. What are your views on the role of psychology vis-à-vis military populations and military organizations?
I am a former commissioned Army psychologist, and the only presidential candidate who has a military background. I am a veteran who believes strongly that psychologists have a crucial interdependency with the military.
I feel that Division 19 members represent a proud tradition of advancing the profession of psychology. Members of the Division work in private practice settings and academic, research, clinical, military, operational and international settings. Members share a common interest — to advance and further the professional and scientific knowledge related to military psychology. I further see Division 19 psychologists as being motivated in cultural competence as a critical area for military personnel to understand and perform effectively in complex cultural environments and to interact with individuals from other cultures.
As a prior U.S. Army psychologist and Major in the Army Medical Service Corps, I have a deep and abiding respect for our military and for the problems they endure in combat, in peacetime, and as veterans. As APA president I will continue to push for psychologists to be trained in treatment regimens for post-traumatic stress disorder using techniques such as prolonged- exposure therapy, cognitive-processing therapy, stress-inoculation training, cognitive restructuring and other forms of cognitive therapy. The issue of veteran mental health is of monumental importance to me and I would like to see even further involvement of psychologists in VA hospitals across the country. In this capacity, I believe very strongly that psychologists should be granted full medical staff privileges to allow them to perform their jobs effectively with fairness and dignity.
Question#2. If elected, what will you do to support and help advance military psychology?
It is essential that psychologists be recognized as diagnosing, treating and rehabilitating veterans (and public service employees) exposed to violence and catastrophes. Psychologists must be written into state and federal laws to provide psychological treatment as well as pharmacological services. Psychologists have the responsibility as a profession to become advocates of the necessary laws for diagnosing and treating mental health conditions and urge that psychological services are written into enabling laws.
I see military psychologists working in a variety of settings, including hospitals and other medical centers, research centers, military bases and schools, in Veterans Affairs facilities, military Department of Defense headquarters and operation centers, and more. They may also work overseas (particularly those who are uniformed). Military psychologists may participate in military recruitment procedures, such as conducting psychological screenings; determine specialty areas a recruit would be best for; create and administer systems to evaluate the performance of enlisted personnel and officers; conduct research (on a specific area that enhances the performance of the military and promotes wellness among all personnel) and present relevant findings; assess and diagnose individuals to determine mental and cognitive disorders or areas of concern; and provide treatment to active duty personnel, their loved ones and/or veterans. In particular, treatment must be provided for PTSD, depression, substance abuse, social withdrawal, and unemployment. This is especially true for the seriously medically injured (including amputees, burn victims, traumatic brain injured, and those with sensory loss or disfigurement.)
Question #3. Under what circumstances (if ever) should psychologists use their scientific and professional knowledge in support of national security in order to improve the conditions of individuals and society?
The American Psychological Association has recently appropriately approved a ban on an involvement by psychologists in national security interrogations conducted by the United States government. I generally approve of this ban.
As APA president, I would insure that the use of torture in military facilities be excised from our association. As the only presidential candidate with a legal, military and police psychology background, I am uniquely qualified to do this. As president, I would create a Division of Human Rights reporting directly to me. This Division would consist primarily of non- psychologists and would have as its mandate the proactive screening of APA practice activities to insure compliance with ethical standards and practices. This panel would consist of lawyers, consumers, the lay public, clergy, engineers, scientists, and other professionals.
In my experience as a former U.S. Army psychologist and Major in the Army Medical Service Corps, I never even heard the words “interrogation,” “torture,” or “black sites” mentioned. What I did hear were words like anxiety, depression, loneliness, fear, stress, and worry. The diagnostic terms I worked with included anxiety disorders, adjustment and depressive reactions, personality disorders, schizophrenia, and post-traumatic stress disorder. My job was to assess soldiers exhibiting these disorders and do my best to help them. My role as an Army psychologist was totally palliative in nature, and I believe most military psychologists presently adhere to this mission. This is the role that should be valued and supported by the American Psychological Association at all levels and in all divisions.
Question #4. Are you a member of Division 19, Society for Military Psychology?
Yes I am a loyal member of Division 19, Society for Military Psychology.
Candidate: Antonio E. Puente, PhD
Question#1. What are your views on the role of psychology vis-à-vis military populations and military organizations?
My views are best reflected by my behavior.
Ever since civilian psychologists could provide clinical services to members of military, I have. Initially through the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) Civilian Health and Medical Program of the the program and now through TRICARE I have been providing clinical services since the mid-1980s. My specific focus has been on the effects of head injuries and PTSD on active and veteran military. Of interest is that I live 45 miles south of the largest Marine base in the world and several of my students have worked and work there (as neuropsychologists, clinical psychologists and psychometricians). I am also involved with the program “Give an hour”.
Since the beginning of the Afghanistan war, we have been collecting data on these individuals. This data set exceeds 1,000 individuals and has close to a million data points. The initial data set was described in a recent issue of The Military Psychologist.
We have presented early versions of our research at the APA and National Academy of Neuropsychology meetings as well as at Camp Lejeune. Several grants have been submitted (and one has been funded for training of military researchers), some in conjunction with Camp Lejeune personnel. See www.militarytbi.org.
Hence, my involvement with the military has been long-standing, sustained and extensive both as a clinical provider and as an academic researcher. It is part of my professional and scientific life and, as a consequence, results in appreciating the importance of psychology with the military and vice-versa.
Question #2. If elected, what will you do to support and help advance military psychology?
As I have stated publicly (e.g., APA Presidential candidate Forum in Toronto), I am very concerned about the impact of the Independent Review on Division 19. At the Public Forum, Dr. Tom Williams provided the sole commentary on the potential impact of the “Hoffman” report on military psychology. Of greatest concern is the disconnect (and even more) between the Society of Military Psychology (and other divisions) and APA including but not limited to the cessation of the society from APA. The recent online discussions about marginalizing specific individuals (e.g., Pat DeLeon) who have long contributed to APA are embarrassing and sad.
As APA attempts to go forward all voices, the “dissidents” and those involved or supporting the military must be heard but civility must be preserved. The focus should be on policy and organization not on individuals and their character. I have started this dialogue by meeting with both groups by phone and in person (over breakfast) at APA.
We recently completed a national survey on the Independent Review (http://puenteforpresident.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Puente-Independent-Review-09.23.2015.pdf
The next step is to enact formal discussions with individuals with varied perspectives to determine both how to rectify past problems and how to build a stronger and representative APA. Finally, I will include one representative from each perspective in a “kitchen cabinet” that will advise me as we work towards a rebirth of our great organization.
Question #3. Under what circumstances (if ever) should psychologists use their scientific and professional knowledge in support of national security in order to improve the conditions of individuals and society?
First, whereas I am in total agreement with the concept behind the recent Council of Representatives’ decision to prevent the involvement of psychologists in torture, I am concerned about the lack of clarity and the inability to operationalize the concept into a working reality. Secondly, not using scientific and professional psychological knowledge and psychologists in national security seems unwise, foolish and unpatriotic. There is no question that psychologists should be involved in the healthcare of active military, veterans and their families. What needs to be defined further is the role of psychologists with military intelligence and operations. This may require a time-limited task force in order to make certain that national security is aided by psychology but that it does so in a fashion that is integrated with all of psychology. Finally, the APA Ethics code needs to be extensively reviewed and revised including the standards, policies and procedures.
Question #4. Are you a member of Division 19, Society for Military Psychology?
Yes. I look forward to applying for Fellow status in the division later this year.
Question #1. What are your views on the role of psychology vis-à-vis military populations and military organizations?
I am the chair of an academic department. We have a history of supporting and encouraging students who are interested in military careers, or military-related careers. That includes having recruiters (Air Force and Navy, usually) talk to our students about military scholarships and internships, and having anywhere from a 1/3 to 1/2 of our students try for VA internships in any given year. To me this is no- brainer – of course I am going to encourage and support our students who are interested in military-focused careers. Psychology can play a significant role in behavior and culture change: by working within the organizational structure to improve working conditions for employees or to assess potential employees and identify optimal work situations; consultation to positively effect workplace dynamics; direct treatment and/or assessment of clinical concerns for patients, military members, and/or families; and in-depth understanding of programming to facilitate and/or enhance the team’s current functioning.
Question #2. If elected, what will you do to support and help advance military psychology?
I am not surprised that some military psychologists feel that their work has not been valued or supported over the past decade; I’m also sure that some (many? most?) perceive their work to be under attack since the release of the independent review. Military and VA psychologists are as much a part of psychology as our colleagues in any other branch of the field, and I would not want their work or their service to be misconstrued by those of us who do not do it. Unfortunately, I believe that has happened, and has been happening, for years. As President, I would work with D19’s leadership to increase awareness of the breadth of their service to the military community and the greater psychological community. This may be done through publications, presentations, web highlights, and leadership activity across APA. There are many opportunities for intersection; e.g., the needs of military families cross bases with the work of child and adolescent psychology, family psychology, and both the men’s and women’s divisions, at minimum. Issues related to diversity (broadly defined) may well be relevant in this context. And, certainly, issues related to health psychology, psychotherapy, and the like all have much to offer each other. I don’t want to elevate military psychology above any other division, but I don’t want the division and its members to continue to feel excluded or “less than.” That sort of divisiveness leads to separation from APA, and that is not good for any of us.
Question #3. Under what circumstances (if ever) should psychologists use their scientific and professional knowledge in support of national security in order to improve the conditions of individuals and society?
Psychologists use their knowledge to consult with institutions to effect change in conditions, operations, hiring practices, morale, you name it. Those institutions include school systems, businesses, and various nonprofits. Many of us use our talents to develop programs or psycho-educational workshops for various institutional clients, or to lobby any group will give us the time of day. I believe we can use our energies to work with national security, via the military or other governmental bodies, to improve the conditions of individuals and society. That phraseology has been translated to mean behaviors associated with torture, but I am not sure that is the whole story. Some of the institutions with which we work could use a fresh eye – i.e., sometimes the most beneficial thing a psychologist can do is present a counterpoint when faced with situations that are at best less than optimal and at worst highly damaging for others. There are ways that we can work effectively in a national security situation without compromising our ethical obligations. Doing so requires a closer examination of our current interpretation of ethics, along with gaining a better understanding of how our roles are consistent with or conflict with those same ethical mandates. I wish I could provide specific, clear examples, but I hesitate to speak in the absolute without knowing more about the current roles and expectations in the field (not what I “think” is going on, or rumors about what is going on, but real-life answers from persons who are living the fight).
Question #4. Are you a member of Division 19, Society for Military Psychology?
I am not a member of your Division. I am a Fellow in Divisions 17 and 45, and a member of 35.
Candidate: Jessica Henderson Daniel, PhD, ABPP
Question #1: What are your views on the role of psychology vis- a-vis military populations and military organizations?
My position is that psychology is every day in every way—which includes military populations and military organizations. Psychological science, practice and education/training apply to the recruitment, training, organization, and provision of psychological services in all the major military organizations (Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard and the Reserves). Further, the Society of Military Psychology is one of the APA Divisions, duly approved by the Council of Representatives. Also, the VA is one of the largest employers of psychologists in the US. Both the Division and the members are integral part of the America Psychological Association.
In addition to Division 19, the Society of Military Psychology, most APA divisions focus on issues and concerns that are relevant to military personnel and their families e.g. health; clinical and counseling services; development (child, adolescent and adult); gender; sexual and gender identity; policy; racial, ethnic and cultural diversity; and international issues.) Persons associated with the military represent a cross-section of the US population. It should be noted that US military personnel have also provided services when there are man-made and natural disasters. They serve their country in both combat and in non-combat roles.
I am aware that some psychologists are pacifists and consequently would not participate in warfare or enlist in the armed forces. I respect that position. However, the more we are able to identify shared identities and concerns, the more likely we will be able to collaborate and work together in ways that promote psychological health in both civilian and military lives.
Question #2: If elected, what will you do to support and help advance military psychology?
My campaign has emphasized: Leadership and Collaborations as Citizen Psychologists. My role would be to encourage collaborations across the divisions on a range of topics. When participants engage in problem solving across differences in perspectives and training, a rich array of ideas can emerge. As important, the potential resulting working relationships can be sustained long after the project is completed. These can lead to other collaborations. All Divisions can benefit from reaching across the aisle to generate allies who understand the different cultures as represented by the Divisions.
Question #3: Under what circumstances (if ever) should psychologists use their scientific and professional knowledge on support of national security in order to improve the conditions of individuals and society?
The question does not define national security. However, I believe that our defense in the hands of the military is our first line of protection and therefore essential to protecting our freedom and way of life.
I am opposed to psychologists participating in any torture activities. My position is based on both integrity and science. I believe both that engaging in torture is immoral and that science does not support torture as an effective interrogation technique.
Question #4: Are you a member of Division 19, Society for Military Psychology?
I am not a member of Division 19. However, I am a member of several APA Divisions and have been active in three of those. Unfortunately, my work demands have not permitted me to join other Divisions.
As a former Air Force dependent and a member of a family with several service personnel (both male and female), I am familiar with military family life—the potential rich experiences and the sacrifices.
Candidate: Jack Kitaeff, PhD, JD
Question #1. What are your views on the role of psychology vis-à-vis military populations and military organizations?
I am a former commissioned Army psychologist, and the only presidential candidate who has a military background. I am a veteran who believes strongly that psychologists have a crucial interdependency with the military.
I feel that Division 19 members represent a proud tradition of advancing the profession of psychology. Members of the Division work in private practice settings and academic, research, clinical, military, operational and international settings. Members share a common interest — to advance and further the professional and scientific knowledge related to military psychology. I further see Division 19 psychologists as being motivated in cultural competence as a critical area for military personnel to understand and perform effectively in complex cultural environments and to interact with individuals from other cultures.
As a prior U.S. Army psychologist and Major in the Army Medical Service Corps, I have a deep and abiding respect for our military and for the problems they endure in combat, in peacetime, and as veterans. As APA president I will continue to push for psychologists to be trained in treatment regimens for post-traumatic stress disorder using techniques such as prolonged- exposure therapy, cognitive-processing therapy, stress-inoculation training, cognitive restructuring and other forms of cognitive therapy. The issue of veteran mental health is of monumental importance to me and I would like to see even further involvement of psychologists in VA hospitals across the country. In this capacity, I believe very strongly that psychologists should be granted full medical staff privileges to allow them to perform their jobs effectively with fairness and dignity.
Question#2. If elected, what will you do to support and help advance military psychology?
It is essential that psychologists be recognized as diagnosing, treating and rehabilitating veterans (and public service employees) exposed to violence and catastrophes. Psychologists must be written into state and federal laws to provide psychological treatment as well as pharmacological services. Psychologists have the responsibility as a profession to become advocates of the necessary laws for diagnosing and treating mental health conditions and urge that psychological services are written into enabling laws.
I see military psychologists working in a variety of settings, including hospitals and other medical centers, research centers, military bases and schools, in Veterans Affairs facilities, military Department of Defense headquarters and operation centers, and more. They may also work overseas (particularly those who are uniformed). Military psychologists may participate in military recruitment procedures, such as conducting psychological screenings; determine specialty areas a recruit would be best for; create and administer systems to evaluate the performance of enlisted personnel and officers; conduct research (on a specific area that enhances the performance of the military and promotes wellness among all personnel) and present relevant findings; assess and diagnose individuals to determine mental and cognitive disorders or areas of concern; and provide treatment to active duty personnel, their loved ones and/or veterans. In particular, treatment must be provided for PTSD, depression, substance abuse, social withdrawal, and unemployment. This is especially true for the seriously medically injured (including amputees, burn victims, traumatic brain injured, and those with sensory loss or disfigurement.)
Question #3. Under what circumstances (if ever) should psychologists use their scientific and professional knowledge in support of national security in order to improve the conditions of individuals and society?
The American Psychological Association has recently appropriately approved a ban on an involvement by psychologists in national security interrogations conducted by the United States government. I generally approve of this ban.
As APA president, I would insure that the use of torture in military facilities be excised from our association. As the only presidential candidate with a legal, military and police psychology background, I am uniquely qualified to do this. As president, I would create a Division of Human Rights reporting directly to me. This Division would consist primarily of non- psychologists and would have as its mandate the proactive screening of APA practice activities to insure compliance with ethical standards and practices. This panel would consist of lawyers, consumers, the lay public, clergy, engineers, scientists, and other professionals.
In my experience as a former U.S. Army psychologist and Major in the Army Medical Service Corps, I never even heard the words “interrogation,” “torture,” or “black sites” mentioned. What I did hear were words like anxiety, depression, loneliness, fear, stress, and worry. The diagnostic terms I worked with included anxiety disorders, adjustment and depressive reactions, personality disorders, schizophrenia, and post-traumatic stress disorder. My job was to assess soldiers exhibiting these disorders and do my best to help them. My role as an Army psychologist was totally palliative in nature, and I believe most military psychologists presently adhere to this mission. This is the role that should be valued and supported by the American Psychological Association at all levels and in all divisions.
Question #4. Are you a member of Division 19, Society for Military Psychology?
Yes I am a loyal member of Division 19, Society for Military Psychology.
Candidate: Antonio E. Puente, PhD
Question#1. What are your views on the role of psychology vis-à-vis military populations and military organizations?
My views are best reflected by my behavior.
Ever since civilian psychologists could provide clinical services to members of military, I have. Initially through the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) Civilian Health and Medical Program of the the program and now through TRICARE I have been providing clinical services since the mid-1980s. My specific focus has been on the effects of head injuries and PTSD on active and veteran military. Of interest is that I live 45 miles south of the largest Marine base in the world and several of my students have worked and work there (as neuropsychologists, clinical psychologists and psychometricians). I am also involved with the program “Give an hour”.
Since the beginning of the Afghanistan war, we have been collecting data on these individuals. This data set exceeds 1,000 individuals and has close to a million data points. The initial data set was described in a recent issue of The Military Psychologist.
We have presented early versions of our research at the APA and National Academy of Neuropsychology meetings as well as at Camp Lejeune. Several grants have been submitted (and one has been funded for training of military researchers), some in conjunction with Camp Lejeune personnel. See www.militarytbi.org.
Hence, my involvement with the military has been long-standing, sustained and extensive both as a clinical provider and as an academic researcher. It is part of my professional and scientific life and, as a consequence, results in appreciating the importance of psychology with the military and vice-versa.
Question #2. If elected, what will you do to support and help advance military psychology?
As I have stated publicly (e.g., APA Presidential candidate Forum in Toronto), I am very concerned about the impact of the Independent Review on Division 19. At the Public Forum, Dr. Tom Williams provided the sole commentary on the potential impact of the “Hoffman” report on military psychology. Of greatest concern is the disconnect (and even more) between the Society of Military Psychology (and other divisions) and APA including but not limited to the cessation of the society from APA. The recent online discussions about marginalizing specific individuals (e.g., Pat DeLeon) who have long contributed to APA are embarrassing and sad.
As APA attempts to go forward all voices, the “dissidents” and those involved or supporting the military must be heard but civility must be preserved. The focus should be on policy and organization not on individuals and their character. I have started this dialogue by meeting with both groups by phone and in person (over breakfast) at APA.
We recently completed a national survey on the Independent Review (http://puenteforpresident.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Puente-Independent-Review-09.23.2015.pdf
The next step is to enact formal discussions with individuals with varied perspectives to determine both how to rectify past problems and how to build a stronger and representative APA. Finally, I will include one representative from each perspective in a “kitchen cabinet” that will advise me as we work towards a rebirth of our great organization.
Question #3. Under what circumstances (if ever) should psychologists use their scientific and professional knowledge in support of national security in order to improve the conditions of individuals and society?
First, whereas I am in total agreement with the concept behind the recent Council of Representatives’ decision to prevent the involvement of psychologists in torture, I am concerned about the lack of clarity and the inability to operationalize the concept into a working reality. Secondly, not using scientific and professional psychological knowledge and psychologists in national security seems unwise, foolish and unpatriotic. There is no question that psychologists should be involved in the healthcare of active military, veterans and their families. What needs to be defined further is the role of psychologists with military intelligence and operations. This may require a time-limited task force in order to make certain that national security is aided by psychology but that it does so in a fashion that is integrated with all of psychology. Finally, the APA Ethics code needs to be extensively reviewed and revised including the standards, policies and procedures.
Question #4. Are you a member of Division 19, Society for Military Psychology?
Yes. I look forward to applying for Fellow status in the division later this year.