An argument for bad psychology: Disciplinary disruption, public engagement, and social transformation

How might core values of psychology impede efforts to promote public psychology? We identify some of the ways the discipline's aspirations for publicly engaged science are undermined by its norms, particularly when engaging with communities affected by historically entrenched, structural inequalities. We interrogate what makes for "good" psychology, including methodological and ethical norms that are used to maintain scientific integrity and police the boundaries of the discipline. We suggest that some of the discipline's classical tenets and contemporary movements may produce structural, epistemic barriers to the production of science and practice that enhance the public good. Reflecting critically on the rise of implicit bias training in institutional diversity efforts as a case study, we consider how evidence-based efforts to intervene in social problems on behalf of the so-called public interest can inadvertently reproduce or exacerbate extant inequities. We turn to various social movements' reclamation of what counts as "bad" to imagine a psychology that refuses to adjust itself to racism and structural inequality. We argue that much of what psychologists might characterize as "bad" should not be viewed as antithetical to the very best kind of psychological practice, particularly trailblazing work that reimagines the relationship between psychologists and society. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).