An Unusual Path: Moving from Psychopathology
to Diversity
Michael W. Bahr
Adaption-Innovation (A-I) Theory …provides a
potentially rich alternative in understanding what at first glance might be
construed as disordered behavior.
One of the strengths of the
discipline of psychology is its emphasis on understanding and treating
psychopathology, or disordered behavior. For two centuries,
psychologists have aided literally millions of individuals afflicted with
disorders such as anxiety, personality problems, and substance abuse. As
research increased, exciting breakthroughs occurred in the treatment of
depression, hyperactivity/inattention, and dementia. Because of its deep, careful
understanding of disordered behavior, psychology
significantly contributes to the overall mental health of children and adults
throughout the world.
Concurrent with these
strengths, psychology has also been prone to pathologize—to
identify as disordered behavior—those behaviors that are not overtly understood or accepted. For example, individuals from particular
minority groups were regularly diagnosed as homosexuals and were viewed as
pathological until research concluded that being gay or lesbian represented a
normal variation on a continuum of affectual
orientation, ranging from heterosexuality to homosexuality. Consequently, the
American Psychological Association (1975) ceased to consider it as a type of
psychopathology. More recently, psychology continues to be concerned about the
disproportionate numbers of women diagnosed with mental health problems,
thereby raising concerns about gender bias (Russo, 1990). Thus, as individuals
trained to identify and treat aberrant behavior,
psychologists must be careful not to pathologize
those problems that are not adequately understood.
I am a psychologist. Although
I work predominantly from a wellness orientation and because I tend to view a behavior as pathological only under the most serious circumstances,
I believe that I am not the type of person who quickly goes down the path of
psychopathology when solving a problem. I admit, however, that when confronted
with a difficult behavior from a person or group, I
am sometimes inclined to think about it relative to how any psychologist might
view it—as disordered behavior.
What if, however, problems
were conceptualized not as the result of aberrant behavior
but of cognitive style? Adaption-Innovation (A-I) Theory (Kirton,
2003) provides a potentially rich alternative in understanding what at first
glance might be construed as disordered behavior. At its core, A-I theory posits that each individual has a
preferred cognitive style that
implicitly influences behavior. High adaption and high innovation are extremes on a continuum
with an individual having a preferred style, to a specific degree somewhere
along the continuum. Adaption is a style that generally relies on clear and
well-developed parameters, has less rather than more flexibility, and works
effectively in familiar and existing circumstances. By contrast, innovation as
a style relies far less on well-developed parameters, is characterized by its
flexibility, and may work effectively in which the very setting of the proble is changing. Behaviorally,
adaptors may be viewed by innovators as “sound, conforming, safe, predictable” (Kirton, 2003, p.
55); conversely, adaptors may view innovators as “glamorous,
exciting…impractical, risky” (p. 55).
When it comes to problem
solving, people with more adaptive preferences have a unique set of
characteristics. They tend to work via consensus and problem solve effectively
under well known boundaries within a system. They also contribute to problem
solving by typically developing a few, well-defined, efficient solutions. Their
more innovative counterparts can be equally effective in problem solving,
though their abilities tend to be very different from adaptors’. Innovators
tend to redefine problems and understand them in ways that look very different
than the original description. Innovators also are less concerned with working
in an efficient manner, choosing instead to focus on information that may
appear irrelevant to the problem. According to Kirton
(2003), adaptors can be very useful in addressing problems that require
short-term change within the parameters of an existing system; on the other
hand, innovators may work effectively on problems that require long-term change
and result in modifying a system. Finally and most importantly, both styles have
their unique strengths and limitations, and according to the theory, neither is
superior to the other.
Because of its descriptive
rather than diagnostic nature, A-I theory provides psychologists an alternate
perspective through which to understand behavior.
Whereas behaviors such as paying extraordinarily
close attention to detail and having an extremely high need for clarity could
be grounds for considering obsessive-compulsive disorder, A-I theory suggests
that an individual may be highly adaptive and possesses a unique set of
problem-solving skills. Although an
individual who appears to have difficulty concentrating for an extended period
and moves quickly from one task to another could raise a concern about the
existence of attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, A-I theory might explain
these behaviors within the context of a highly
functional innovator at work.
These brief and perhaps
simplistic examples are not meant in any way to diminish the importance of
treating individuals with real and significant psychopathology. They offer
psychologists, however, the prospect of understanding behavior
through a different set of lenses. A-I
theory informs psychologists of the important context cultural variables play
in understanding behavior. Broadly defined, cognitive
style can be conceptualized as an individual difference that is manifest in
distinct cultural ways as are other characteristics (e.g., gender, race, social
class, religiosity, etc.). I admit this
is an arguable point, but Kirton (2003) appears to
understand the importance of a descriptive, rather than diagnostic,
conceptualization of behavior when he reminds us that
“there is a marked tendency for people to attribute differences in style
(indeed, any differences between them and others) as level differences” (p.
5). In this case, level refers to
hierarchical differences in ability or competency.
As a psychologist who values
cultural identity, I believe that A-I theory provides an opportunity to move
from a pathology-based model of understanding behavior
to one much broader that promotes uniqueness, highlights stylistic strengths,
and ultimately embraces behavior as an expressed form
of diversity. This is a very different path for the field of psychology to
follow, one far less familiar and less comfortable. But then, if we’re sincere
about embracing diversity, such paths always are.
Dr Michael Bahr, Chairperson, Department of
Educational and School Psychology in the College of Education,
Indiana
State
University. 2004
References
American
Psychological Association. (1975, January). Lesbian, Gay, and
Bisexual Concerns Policy Statements.
Retrieved February 20, 2004, from http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/statements.html
Kirton, M. J. (2003). Adaption-Innovation
in the context of diversity and change.
London: Routledge.
Russo, N. F. (1990). Forging research priorities for women’s mental health. American
Psychologist, 45, 368-373.
No comments:
Post a Comment