From the archive: Building partnerships with the voluntary and community sector

The original article on the relationship between psychology and the third sector in the UK (March 2006) emerged out of one of the BPS-funded events 'Bringing Psychology to Society'. Significant shifts have occurred in the nearly 20 years since. The third sector has become increasingly vital in delivering support to vulnerable people, especially as public service cuts in the UK have led these organisations to fill gaps previously provided by the state.

One significant change has been the increased emphasis on the meaningful involvement of third-sector organisations in psychological research. While we previously advocated for a reciprocal model of knowledge exchange, rather than the deficit model of public understanding of science, it has now become a standard expectation for many research grants that scientists will involve patients and the public throughout, even from the outset, in determining what the research questions should be.

The 'pick-and-mix problem' we described in 2006 seems to remain, meaning that some third-sector organisations are selective about which research they leverage. Psychologists still have a role in advocating for systematic reviews of high-quality evidence, meta-analysis, and critical appraisal of research using standardised checklists (e.g., Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, CASP).

In my particular area of research (including personality traits, cognitive ability, and health literacy), I frequently encounter resistance to the idea that relatively stable cognitive traits influence health outcomes. This influence is partly mediated by health behaviours – driven partly by traits and therefore not always 'informed choice', rational, or planned in advance. Many in the third sector and public health circles still won't hear this and focus seemingly exclusively on structural socio-economic factors.

In my view, psychological and structural approaches to understanding health inequalities are not mutually exclusive. Decades of research show that many vulnerable people will still need additional support and enhanced services, as they may struggle to manage the cognitively complex 'job' of managing health, especially without support from others.

Research into psychological traits where scores can be ranked from 'high' to 'low' does not mean people are more deserving or have more value in society. The goal is to understand which traits are risk factors for needing additional or tailored support. Understanding that people may struggle because of their psychological traits underscores the need for compassion. Recognising that individuals may face challenges due to their psychological traits should not lead to judgment or stigmatisation. I see it as a call for more empathic, psychologically tailored service delivery.

Progress has been made in making psychological research more accessible, but there are wider challenges in defending the need for psychology in society. Applied psychologists tell me that their workloads have increased enormously, with fewer resources than ever to optimally deliver services.

A new development is the growth of social enterprises, presenting new opportunities for psychologists to work with organisations seeking to benefit the public. Additionally, there has been growth in UK philanthropy-funded research, offering new avenues for collaboration between academia and the third sector.

In conclusion, while significant progress has been made in the relationship between psychology and the third sector since our original article, challenges remain. The need for compassion, understanding of psychological traits, and continued collaboration between sectors is more important than ever in addressing social issues and supporting vulnerable populations here and in other parts of the world. 

It is still worthwhile to 'bring psychology to society', providing that the third sector is involved as partners in deploying psychological science for public good, not as passive recipients waiting for psychologists to divulge their expertise.

Dr Gareth Hagger-Johnson
Department of Geography, UCL; and Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia

References

Gottfredson LS, Deary IJ. Intelligence predicts health and longevity, but why? Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2004;13: 1–4. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01301001.x
Hagger-Johnson G, Deary IJ, Davies CA, Weiss A, Batty GD. Reaction time and mortality from the major causes of death: The NHANES-III Study. PLOS One. 2014;9: e82959. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0082959
Hagger-Johnson G, McManus J, Hutchison C, Barker M. Building partnerships with the voluntary and community sectors. The Psychologist. 2006;19: 156–158. 
Miller G. Psychology as a means of promoting human welfare. American Psychologist. 1969;24: 1063-. doi:10.1037/h0028988
Shams M, Jackson P. Bringing psychology to all societies. The Psychologist. 2005;18: 77–77. 
Vidal F. Accuracy, authenticity, fidelity: aesthetic realism, the "deficit model," and the public understanding of science. Science in Context. 2018;31: 129–153. doi:10.1017/S0269889718000078