Search

Primary pediatric medical care is as mainstream as any major cultural practice in the USA. Thus, publishing behavior analytic papers that pertain to problems that present in pediatric settings in pediatric medical journals is one route to mainstream relevance. With sufficient numbers of such papers, it could even lead to prominence. This article describes examples of publishing in pediatric journals and some lessons I learned from the experience. For example, (1) all child behavior problems that present in pediatric settings are of social importance but most are high-frequency, low-intensity problems that are not necessarily exotic or representative of serious pathology, and they usually respond to straightforward behavioral applications; (2) it is usually best to use a "colloquialized version of learning theory" when writing for and speaking to pediatric providers (and the families for whom they provide care); (3) pediatricians often have limited knowledge about behavior analytic research designs; and (4) when submissions are rejected by pediatric journals, the rejection can be exploited as an opportunity to educate pediatric editors and reviewers.

Mainstream prominence was Skinner’s vision for behavior analysis. Unfortunately, it remains elusive, even as we approach the 110th anniversary of his birth. It can be achieved, however, and there are many routes. One that seems overlooked in many (most?) behavior analytic training programs is what I call the front of the room. The front of the room is a very powerful locus for influencing people. Mastering it can turn a commoner into a king; a middling man into a mayor; or a group of disorganized, dispirited people into an energized force marching into battle. The most powerful members of our species had their most memorable moments at the front of the room. If so much is available there, why is mastery of it in such short supply, not just in behavior analysts but in the population at large? In this paper, I address why, argue that the primary reason can be overcome, and supply 15 behaviorally based steps to take in pursuit of front of the room mastery.

Branch and Vollmer (2004) argue that use of the word behavior as a count noun is ungrammatical and, worse, mischaracterizes and ultimately degrades the concept of the operant. In this paper I argue that use of behavior as a count noun is a reflection of its grammatical status as a hybrid of count and mass noun. I show that such usage is widespread across colloquial, referential, and scientific documents including the writings of major figures in behavior analysis (most notably B. F. Skinner), books describing its applications, and its major journals. Finally, I argue against the assertion that such usage degrades the concept of the operant, at least in any meaningful way, and argue instead that employing eccentric definitions for ordinary words and using arcane terms to describe everyday human behavior risks diminishing the influence of behavior analysis on human affairs.