Presidential Blog

Psychology is a discipline and profession that spans the whole range of human experience. Members of the Society are experts in things that really matter to people: relationships, education and learning, mental health, health, politics, sport, crime, work, how organisations function, prejudice and intercultural understanding, and more.

Psychology is not only a rigorous academic discipline but also a thriving, values-based profession, able to offer both leadership and practical solutions. That makes it a great choice for university study, especially because this real-world application is combined with scientific, numerate, and literate skills that give our students a fantastic start.   

But the breadth of our discipline – and our Society activity – poses challenges. Challenges for me, personally, and challenges for the excellent and hard-working BPS staff  (many of whom, I’ve learned, have degrees, postgraduate degrees and professional qualifications in psychology, which is wonderful, reassuring and useful).

There is a conceptual and resource-intensive Venn diagram of intersecting interests. The BPS is represented by a large (irregular) curvilinear form (not quite a circle), which encompasses the issues I mentioned above. But, for each issue, there are other professions, disciplines and statutory agencies, each with their own, perfectly legitimate, place on the Venn diagram. We overlap, and with multiple colleagues.

My particular area of practice is mental health, where the work of the Society – particularly our clinical and counselling divisions – overlaps with the interests of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. But of course, this relationship is mirrored in all the other areas of the Society’s work (education and young people, the criminal justice system, healthcare, employment), where other parties also occupy the space.

One consequence is that the President of the British Psychological Society has numerous pressures on her or his time. It also means that our colleagues have many, varied, activities to serve. It also means delegation – and that means a plea to Members.

The colleagues doing the day-to-day business of the Society cannot all be academic professors or members of the BPS Board of Trustees, they have to be women and men with their boots on the ground and their knees under the desks. People working in the NHS or in schools or in prisons.

I’ve also been reminded – this weekend at our congregation of psychologists and human rights experts, meeting under the auspices of the European Federation of Psychology Associations (EFPA), the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), and the EIUC (European Inter-University Centre for human rights and democratisation) at the Monastery of San Nicolò, the EIUC global village in Venice [] – that psychology has also equipped us with skills to help address these challenges.

Ultimately we remain citizens of the world, able to engage with, respect, and empathise with other people, including people in great distress. But we also apply our psychological science – to mental health, and to human rights… and to their intersection.

We have distinctive skills, which complement those of our colleagues in other professions, which allow us to access, understand, apply and evaluate theories and models of human behaviour, thought and interaction. In the Venn diagram of cooperation, these are valuable.

Wed, 12/10/2016 - 11:03

All stereotypes are in the mind of the observer, but I do now think I could reliably identify the satellites and acolytes of the three main political parties in the UK.

In Brighton (the Liberal Democrats) and Birmingham (the Conservatives) it was strikingly easy to navigate the journey from railway station to conference venue – just follow the people who clearly look as if they’re heading for your target (I could find my way to the Liverpool Labour venue, of course.)

For the Liberal Democrats, casual clothes were the order of the day, matching friendly and earnest discussions about commissions of inquiry and proposals for policy forums. With eight MPs, conversations on the theme of power were rare.

For Labour, the dress code was subtly different. And the conversations, with the Corbyn leadership issues in the foreground, were all about power, or more specifically the current lack of power experienced by the official opposition party, and their obvious desire to regain office.

In Brighton, with the Conservatives, the streets were full of people usually seen around the City and boardrooms of FTSE100 companies. And, of course, the theme was – overtly and implicitly – about power. The well-dressed were there because the economy (probably legitimately) is fuelled by political decisions. The streets were well policed, for obvious reasons, and the conference was well-attended by people like me. (I met several colleagues and even, surprisingly, my own niece, who is now a lobbyist.)

Of course, when we actually meet with serving Ministers, the typical response is to recommend that we meet again in Whitehall, with civil servants present… which is what we’d do anyway. But it’s important because, as I’ve said before, the decisions made by politicians are important. Really important.

Laws and related policies profoundly affect our relationships. The divorce laws, laws on same-sex marriage, pre-nuptial agreements, child-care arrangements, pension laws, benefits regulations and rules for flexible working practices all impact on relationships, and are all matters for politicians. Relationships are at the heart of psychology, and this means that we as psychologists need to be engaged in the debate.

Politicians and government departments have very significant responsibilities in shaping education and employment practice. Most education is state-funded in the UK and therefore politicians and civil servants are responsible for the range, quality and equity of education. As psychologists, we recognize these key social determinants affecting child development, and we have an obligation to be involved in these discussion.

Employment law is also very significant, and taxation rules, rules on benefits and investment decisions by government – as well as the more fundamental health of the economy – all impact on the quality of our employment and will therefore affect our wellbeing. Work that we value, and which gives our lives value, is vital to our wellbeing, and unemployment can be disastrous for our psychological health.

Through the laws it chooses to enact, the government even affects important spiritual aspects of our lives: the role of religion in our political and cultural life, the interpretation of human rights as they apply to freedom of speech and expression.

Similarly, issues related to our arts, culture and leisure are, of course, matters for government, not least through planning and investment decisions. Crime and criminal justice matters are, of course, quintessentially matters for legislators. And, finally, of course, politicians have a key role in drawing up policies and strategies in the arena of mental health.

And all that means, despite the stereotypes, despite the fact that the parties that are not in power are, um, not in power, despite the fact that the party in power exercises that power through a complex, constitutional, civil service... it’s important that we were there.

Wed, 05/10/2016 - 12:09


My friend and colleague, Tor Levin Hoffgaard, President of the Norwegian Psychological Association, once contrasted the thinking styles of politicians and scientists. The scientists tend to prefer rigorous, theory-based, statistical, context-free, evidence, while politicians tend to prefer contextual, practically relevant, readily comprehensible evidence. Scientists, he suggested, tend to work to long time scales, as long s the problem demands, while politicians are dictated by the rapid electoral and news agendas. Scientists tend to communicate in measured language, using technical terms, while politicians need clear, even catchy, messages. And while scientists are, of course, swayed by the influence of funding requirements, their reputations and career advancement, at least they pride themselves on the objectivity and validity of their findings. Politicians focus on meeting the immediate (and longer term) needs of citizens, as well as the demands of their political parties and the media.  

political science I like that analysis. But then I like both science and politics. I have now attended both the Liberal Democrat and Labour Party Conferences on behalf of the Society, and I hope I can appreciate the benefit of the marriage between psychological science and politics.

While I tend towards the academic approach, the political stance has merit. It is genuinely good to value contextual, readily comprehensible evidence, presented in clear and accessible language. I see little wrong in addressing issues of practical relevance, of direct interest to the needs of citizens. And I am as impatient for rapid change as the next person.

The obvious response is to marry these perspectives, and to value and understand them both. As I listened to the speeches of politicians, it’s fair to say that some of them were merely vacuous hot air, Trumpesque promises of sun-lit uplands, fluffy bunny rabbits and effortless progress consequent upon no particular discernable policies. But I was also impressed by men and women who were passionate about improving their communities and helping their fellow citizens, who had coherent theories about what sort of change was needed, and what was required to bring that about and who were prepared to listen as well as talk. I’ve said before that psychology, because it’s about human behaviour, is the stuff of politics, and have I found that politicians tend to want to engage with the mirror of their profession – the rigorous, theory-based, statistical, evidence, gathered objectively over an appropriate time-span and reported in measured, defensible, language. Of course… I have the Conservative Party Conference still to attend…

Tue, 27/09/2016 - 13:31

This week’s blog bisects a busy week for me, with BPS business taking me to Brighton, London, Edinburgh, back to London and Llandudno, and extending from Sunday morning to Saturday afternoon.

My first appointments were at the Liberal Democrat Conference. I believe it is important for us, and indeed our colleagues in the other medical Royal Colleges, to be present at these events, even if little material work is done.

At the conference of the party in power, work is appropriately delegated to official government departments, agencies and civil servants. At this year’s Labour Conference, I confidently expect ‘leadership’ to be the dominant topic of conversation. The Liberal Democrats have only sufficient MPs to fit into two taxis….

They are opportunities for personal conversations – with friends who lead work on, for example, mental health care, dementia care, the interface between health and social care, and the role of third-sector and commercial organisations in these areas. So our presence sends the message that the BPS is interested and engaged with these key issues.

So, on Sunday and Monday I had a number of such one-to-one conversations, and participated in roundtable discussions (skilfully organised by the BPS staff), ensuring that the BPS voice is heard in these circles.

In particular, I represented the BPS at two key roundtable discussions.

One was on the fall-out from Brexit, where the BPS has important concerns, shared with many professional and academic colleagues, on EU funding of research, EU students at our universities, the transferability of qualifications and professional competencies on the staffing of the NHS and social care, where a large proportion of our colleagues are EU nationals, and potentially subject to threats to their residency status).

The second was on mental health policy, where the BPS has very clear interests in promoting a psycho-social perspective, the value of psychologists themselves, the benefits of a focus on prevention as well as psychological interventions for identified problems, and the more general health benefits of a consideration of psychological aspects of care.

More detailed discussions will be had in other settings, including in all-party parliamentary groups, where we will, for example, be launching our new dementia report.

Members may also take the opportunity to participate in a couple of interesting ‘commissions’ launched at the Lib Dem Conference. Nick Clegg is leading on a new commission with the Social Market Foundation on equity in education (something I imagine will appeal to BPS members) and Norman Lamb announced a cross-party review of the future structure and funding of health and social care, with a particular focus on integration of services.

I’m only halfway through my week, so thus far I’ve had meetings of our Presidential taskforce on the training of applied psychologists in statutory settings.

This was a really positive meeting which has the potential to help us develop powerful tools for lobbying for appropriate respect for the services and skills offered by applied psychologists, a coherent model of professional training which will allow us to negotiate confidently with funders and commissioners, and the potential to grow the membership of the family of psychology and indeed the BPS itself.

We have also been talking with colleagues from NHS England about improving our recognition and capacity to hold meaningful discussions within NHS England and related bodies.

Right now… I’m off to Edinburgh, to open a conference tomorrow on how psychology can respond to the challenge of compassion in the NHS, especially highlighted by a number of recent enquiries into failings in health and social care.

That evening, I’ll be travelling back down to London for the free annual joint lecture with the British Academy and the BPS exploring the effects of stress on the brain.

On all these events. plus possible televised discussion on psychological wellbeing and mental health, and then the political fun and games at the Labour Party Conference, I’ll hope to offer more in next week’s blog.

Wed, 21/09/2016 - 16:43

I'll start today with the fact that this may well be one of the last presidential blogs in the current format.

Because, after investing a significant amount of money, effort, and time, the British Psychological Society will soon start to roll out a brand new website.

The new website will be much more engaging and accessible, and is particularly designed to help members of the public to access the work of the society.

It has been designed to help us better demonstrate the contributions of our members in various ways … including a new President’s blog.

We have a very good role model in the form of the Swedish Psychological Association. Their website is well known amongst the Swedish general public, who regularly use the site to find information about psychology and psychologists. They’ve shown that there is a real desire for this type of information.

We, of course, have a similarly ambitious goal to provide this service in the UK and to be the first port and call and the number one showcase for psychology. We will continually develop the Society’s internet presence across to demonstrate our commitment to this goals.

On that point, it’s worth noting the range of material already accessible - on our main site, on the Research Digest, on The Psychologist and on our rather impressive YouTube channel.

We have a great deal to offer, including sharing the sometimes unsung successes of our Boards and member networks.

And there’s more good news today in that the government has just announced has announced £816m of funding for health research over the next five years.

Of that amount £68m will be for mental health research, over £45m will go on dementia research and there will also be investment in research on cancer, obesity, health technology and many other areas of interest to psychology.

It’s a substantial investment and one that we welcome whole heartedly, but we must work to ensure that the focus on biomedical research is not at the expense of further research focused on the psychosocial aspects of mental health conditions and conditions which have a psychological impact.

Our Research Board will be leading our efforts to ensure that a substantial amount of this investment is spent on research into prevention and in finding and implementing the psychological and psychosocial interventions that really work.

And, finally, we’re looking forwards to the UK political party conference season, with a BPS presence at the three major party events.

As well as talking about opportunities from this new research investment, the subjects we shall be raising are: the psychology of political and strategic decision-making, our call for action on neurodisability in the offender population, dementia and our forthcoming report on the psychology of the condition, and psychology and the benefits system.

As we say:

"Psychology matters. The subject matter of politics - the well-being of citizens, security, economic prosperity, employment, relationships, criminal justice, education and healthcare - is fundamentally dependent on an understanding of how human beings think, feel, relate to one another, make sense of the world and make decisions about the things that matter.

"Political decisions have life and death consequences - when our economy suffers, people suffer, and when politicians lead us into conflict, the consequences are daunting. So it’s right that psychologists support and advise our politicians in the important job they do on our behalf."

Wed, 14/09/2016 - 17:15

A woman high jumper

The Paralympics begin today. And I loved an article by John Head, senior lecturer in prosthetics and biomechanics at the University of Salford, celebrating the fact that

achievements of the Paralympians, alongside societal shifts towards more inclusivity and the celebration of diversity has had a dramatic effect on the lives of people living with disability.

John argues that

changes in the perception of disability in society has led many people with limb absence to feel empowered to embrace their physical status, rather than hide it from public view – showcasing their prostheses with colourful and dynamic components.

This celebration of what it means to be human – not just a member of a patrician elite able to pass the microscopic scrutiny of the Spartan Committee for the Exposure of Inadequates – resonates with me and I believe with the work of my colleagues. John’s closing exclamation – “Here’s to the super-humans” – is lovely.

But we have a lot of work still to do. Today also saw the publication of a new report from the Equality and Human Rights Commission that children with disabilities are almost twice as likely to be victims of crime as their siblings and class-mates. The Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, David Isaac, explicitly challenged our assumptions about the legacy of the London Paralympic Games, and perhaps challenged John Head’s optimism: “These findings are a wake-up call that there is still much more that needs to change. We cannot hope to create a more inclusive society for future generations while disabled children continue to live in a climate of fear of victimisation.”

I’m proud that we, as psychologists, are playing our part in celebrating our wonderful human diversity. Staying in the field of sport, Professor Jan Burns. In 2015, Jan was awarded an MBE for her work with people with intellectual disabilities, and she joined the Board of Special Olympics earlier this year. 

Professor Celia Kitzinger’s Lifetime Achievement Award was a celebration of her work as a campaigner for social justice, informed by her research.

Across the discipline of psychology, my colleagues are working to challenge prejudice and discrimination, and to break down barriers between people.

In the words of the fantastic ‘OnlyUs’ campaign;

When we separate ourselves and imagine humanity divided … we allow stigma, prejudice and exclusion to ruin potentially good and creative lives.

As John Head points out, the Paralympics and the Special Olympics both allow us to celebrate the achievements of people overcoming obstacles that I would have found daunting.

Wed, 07/09/2016 - 14:13

I have to confess a personal interest. In a few days time, my son, like many thousands of others, will be going to university. Distressingly, this means beginning what may well be a lifetime of debt. The psychological consequences are potentially serious.

A new survey of young people aged 18 to 24 suggests a large proportion experience significant concerns about money. In the survey the average debt was nearly £3000, before commitments such as student loans or mortgages were added. The average student loan balance is £25,505.

It is unsurprising that many of the young people surveyed felt that their debts were a "heavy burden". It seems, from the available data, that student debt has not deterred young people from going to university, but it may well make them anxious during and after their studies.

It’s good to see young people making their way in life, and it’s very good to go to university. But the consequences of such debt are worrying.

Debts can affect our mental health in many ways. Practically, when we do not have enough money to pay for all the things that are essential, like food, rent, bills, travel etc., our lives can become very difficult. When we cannot make the minimum repayments on the debts themselves, things become more difficult still.

As the young people in this survey reported, debt can be a persistent source of anxiety. It can also be a source of shame and regret. If we are in financial difficulties, we may feel ashamed and not want to talk to others about it.

To my way of thinking, these are the ‘normal’ rather than ‘abnormal’ psychological consequences of living with financial uncertainty. If I were pressed, I’d suggest that the ‘abnormality’ lies in our present economic, social and political system, rather than in the minds of young people.

My son is fortunate. Not (despite his own beliefs) because he has inalienable personal gifts, but because I have had a steady job for 28 years, and I can act as a guarantor (and benefactor).

Not all of us are so lucky. Even in a rich and developed nation – perhaps particularly in a rich and developed nation – such things as personal debt and the inequity between neighbours can be tough.

That is why, in my opinion, a commitment to social justice should go hand in hand with the application of psychological science.

Wed, 31/08/2016 - 12:14

As I’m technically on holiday, I’m cheating very slightly this week, with an edited snippet from my book.

I commute to work by car and unfortunately drive for quite long distances on motorways. So my journey to work (like, I suppose, everything else in life) depends on the operation of the laws of physics.

When it rains, we often see collisions and other accidental tragedies; the roads are slippery, it is harder to see. When people have accidents, the police investigate the probable or likely cause of the incident for legal and insurance purposes. Their analysis includes human factors, but also includes complex physics.

To work out why a tragedy has occurred, the investigators will calculate things like the velocity of the vehicles involved, coefficients of friction between rubber and tarmac, reaction times calculated using equations of acceleration and deceleration, the role of centrifugal forces, tyre pressures and ‘footprint’, the role of aquaplaning, lift, etc.

They will measure elements of the physical world; the weight of the vehicles, radius of turns, the slope of ascents or descents, whether the conditions were wet or dry, the temperature, tyre pressures, the condition of brakes and the nature of the road surface.

All these aspects of physics are important; they explain why accidents happen. But road traffic investigators don’t use a special branch of physics called ‘abnormal physics’. We don’t expect scientists to apply one special branch of physics to car crashes and differentiate this from the laws of physics that apply to ‘normal life’.

There is not an ‘abnormal coefficient of friction’ that leads to car crashes and a ‘normal coefficient of friction’ that keeps us safe. Instead, and wisely, we recognise that it is important to understand the universal laws of physics – such as friction – and then use that understanding to help design safer roads and to drive more safely as individuals.

The laws of psychology are similarly universal. Psychological principles apply to health and wellbeing and to distress and problems. There simply isn’t an ‘abnormal psychology’ that applies to distress or explains ‘illnesses’ and a different ‘normal psychology’ that applies to everything else. There is just psychology.

Everybody makes sense of their world, and does so on the basis of the experiences that they have and the learning that occurs over their lifetime. We all use the same basic processes to understand the world, even if we come to very different conclusions.

The patterns and contingencies of reinforcement – rewards and punishments – shape us all: the basic psychology of behavioural learning is universal. We all learn to repeat those things that are reinforcing, and we all withdraw from things that cause us pain.

We all construct more or less useful frameworks for understanding the world, and we all use those frameworks to predict the future and guide our actions. We’re all using the same processes of learning and understanding, and those processes have similar effects on our behaviour and emotions.

However, because no one is exactly the same as anyone else, or has exactly the same experiences, we all make sense of the world in slightly different ways, with different consequences. But that’s entirely different from suggesting that there is some kind of ‘abnormal psychology’.

Instead, because applied psychologists use their understanding of psychology to solve real problems in the world, we could talk about clinical or educational or forensic psychology - if we must. Or about the psychology of psychological wellbeing, or even ‘mental health’ or offending, or parenting… just say what we mean without insulting people.

But not, in my opinion ‘abnormal psychology’. I’m afraid I just don’t think there is such a thing as ‘abnormal psychology’.

Wed, 24/08/2016 - 10:44

We have inherited a great deal from early medieval scholars, including the way we refer to the work of other scientists in our writing. The hegemony of privileged men crediting the work of other privileged men started in the academies and cloisters – “secundum quod Averroes dicit...” or “as Averroes* said…”  – but we can see the echoes today, and not only in standard APA citation systems.

Why does this matter? Well, just possibly, this is both the origins and the visible legacy of our tendency for power and influence within academic and professional circles to bounce between members of friendship circles.

White, Oxbridge-educated, heterosexual, men tend to make reference to the work of their friends – other White, Oxbridge-educated, heterosexual, males. We cite our friends (or, too often, ourselves).

One of the achievements of which I’m most proud, from my time in a leadership position at the University of Liverpool, was helping secure an Athena Swan Silver Award, recognising our commitment to equity and opportunity and specifically in supporting and advancing the careers of women in science, technology, engineering, maths, and medicine in higher education and research. Although women frequently lead team science, their contribution is often erased.

As with many areas of academic life, psychology cannot claim to be perfect here. I’m a heterosexual, White, Oxbridge-educated, UK-born male professor, President of a Society with a much more diverse membership.

The statistics – in academia and in practitioner experiences – is that it is hugely more difficult for my female colleagues (constituting the majority of the profession and discipline) to progress. Equally, we are less than perfect in promoting colleagues from Black and minority ethnic backgrounds.

I don’t think our legacy from medieval scholarship is the only reason for this unfortunate state of affairs… but it’s a useful focus for me to introduce the issues.

We don't have to carry on doing things as they’ve always been done. I love medieval history, but sometimes its good to move forward. We could cite scientific advances in other ways. My Vice Chancellor would probably be pleased if we switched to crediting the institution supporting the research, but we could also cite the funder.

More to the point, in the era of doi’s and digital metadata, we may soon see significant reform of the systems of scientific citation. I love international conferences, but maybe that’s because I enjoy consolidating my (potentially biased) network of collaborators.

We could think about organising conferences differently. The SciFoo conference I recently attended in California was organised on a completely different basis to conventional academic conferences, for example, and we probably benefited from it.

Traditionally, academics have avoided speaking to the mass media and the general public, and I, for one, would welcome more inclusive dissemination of our research.

Perhaps we could do more to reward scientific collaboration as well as individual scientific success. More widely… we need to ensure that we are fully prepared to challenge received practices and make radical changes to enable greater equity and equality of opportunity.


* This is a quote from Roger Bacon’s Opus Majus, where he cited the work of Abū l-Walīd Muḥammad Ibn ʾAḥmad Ibn Rushd and Latinised his Islamic Andalusian name to ‘Averroes’.

Wed, 17/08/2016 - 15:04


Promoting “the advancement and diffusion of a knowledge of psychology pure and applied” and “the efficiency and usefulness of members” are core to the charitable aims of the Society. Members expect the Society to represent their views and defend their profession. And that means, in part, discussing the distinctive contribution of psychology and psychologists.

This is an undeniably complex topic – we celebrate the values, knowledge and skills that we share, and yet we also celebrate and promote our distinctive contribution. This overlap between generic and distinctive competencies is not unique to psychology (medical practitioners, for example, have much in common but also defend their vital specialist competencies). There is considerable overlap between the Society’s Divisions and that overlap is asymmetrical. There is a complex, asymmetrical mosaic of shared and distinctive competencies and the individual career paths of practitioner psychologists make this even more complex.

In my view, our professional identity – and indeed greater opportunity - is best served with greater clarity of the different domains of specialism within our wonderful and diverse profession. As I suggested in my blog post last week, it has implications for the professional regulation of applied psychologists  as well as for training 

In regulatory terms, it is important to recognise the generic skills and values of all healthcare professionals, of all psychologists, but also those specific standards of proficiency that mean it would put the public at risk if any of us claimed to be competent in areas in which we have no specialist skills. I have been clear that we should not permit colleagues to claim, by implication, skills that they do not possess. 

In my opinion we could do more to recognise the shared competencies of all applied psychologists, and benefit from greater unification of the profession. But of course, the distinctions between the different branches of psychology are meaningful. I do not have all the competencies possessed by colleagues in different branches of psychology (indeed I do not have specialist competencies possessed by some other clinical psychologists, for instance skills in working with children and families), and it would be inappropriate for me to claim that. We need to be judicious in when we emphasise those distinctions, and do so when it benefits the public, but only when justified. 

As I’ve said in other blog posts if you possess the relevant qualifications and offer a service to the public, you should register with HCPC. If you don't possess such qualifications, don't imply that you have. Jobs should be planned, and then advertised and recruited to, on the basis of competencies, from which any use of adjectival title should follow. If psychologists from several Divisions could fulfill the requirements of a particular post, then it's wise to maximize your chances of successful recruitment, and recruit accordingly. baby boy eating cake

We launched a Presidential Task Force to investigate and make recommendations in this area. I encourage members to debate this issue, including with other colleagues in your relevant Division, and to communicate with me directly. We will be looking at examples of best practice - including such things as innovative curricula for the training of psychologists, novel approaches to supervised practice and clinical placements, examples of job descriptions and recruitment advertisements - as well as listening to members’ views on Society policy in the areas of training and regulation. As the Presidential Taskforce begins its work (and we are having our first meeting this week), we will explore how we can encourage greater visibility of the “efficiency and usefulness” of members and promote the competencies of our various branches of psychology. 

Sometimes common sense – rather than ideological polemic – is a good guide to working things out. We value our distinctive competencies, and the public benefit from clarity about what skills we each do or don't possess. These are all matters for the new Presidential Taskforce to address. But we can’t have our cake and eat it too. We can’t both claim distinctive competencies are important on the one hand, and dismiss their relevance on the other.  


Wed, 10/08/2016 - 12:10