Search

The 2015 Brookline Ethics of Operational Psychology Workshop aimed to advance public and professional deliberation regarding challenges and controversies associated with the ethical practice of operational psychology. In his initial critique, Staal (2018a) criticized our meeting on methodological and ideological grounds and condemned the resulting Brookline Principles (Soldz, Arrigo, & Olson, 2016; Soldz, Olson, & Arrigo, 2017). In an earlier response (Soldz, Arrigo, Frakt, & Olson, 2018), we argued that Staal and his colleagues have failed to adequately address legitimate concerns related to traditional civil-military relations and the social contract of the professions--both essential to broader issues of democratic process. Staal responded by largely ignoring the issues we raised. In this second response, we rebut Staal's critiques and again call on him and operational psychology colleagues to address central issues regarding the ethics of operational psychology practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We here respond to Staal's (2018) critique of the Brookline Principles on the Ethical Practice of Operational Psychology. Staal proclaimed that there are no major ethical problems in the domain of operational psychology, and, if there were, only operational psychologists would be qualified to address the problems. We respond to Staal by providing (a) background to the Brookline Workshop, (b) a case of abuse by a Behavioral Science Consultant psychologist at Guantánamo, (c) perspectives-- ours and Staal's--on the ethics of operational psychology, (d) implications of the doctrine of civil--military relations, and (e) key considerations for ethics in operational psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]