Lucy's Wonderings

Should Positive Psychology Integrate?

(an excerpt from my recent dissertation, adapted for blog)

 

Sternberg & Grigorenko (2001) call for an integrated psychology (see Linley & Joseph, 2008, p719). I am not convinced PP is ready for integration, or that integration is the best way forward[1]. The problems cited as to why the PP movement formed still exist within psychology as usual (Tennen & Affleck, 2003).

 

(Positive Psychology stemmed from a desire to counteract the limited view of ‘psychology as usual’ focusing on the negative, or only one half of the story - and to move away from Freud’s ‘rotten to the core’ view of human nature. Thus, the PP ‘movement’ was born to redress this claim).

  By not integrating, I do not intend that PP become another silo, quite the opposite. PP should look closer at how it can work with other disciplines to increase knowledge and balance (e.g. Behavioural economics; Neuroscience as a multidisciplinary science; Haidt, 2006). PP needs its strong leader base with understanding and experience of psychology as usual and scientific research methods. It also needs people from a range of professional backgrounds and viewpoints, who could bring with them fresh approaches and knowledge, and who might question the assumptions of both psychology as usual and PP itself. Researchers should be open about their background, explicit rather than implicit about their start point and their aims.   

 

Perhaps it is time now for Positive Psychology to practise those values that it preaches, and be more open, honest, flexible and inclusive as a discipline? Could PP ‘reframe’ this adversity, seeing this as an opportunity, whilst standing at the crossroads, to open its doors and invite others in? According to Richardson & Guignon (2008) (pg 619) being open to challenge from others it is the best way to learn and to develop, through dialogue. That is not to say that PP is not open to challenge today, but by becoming more reflexive, doing it more, doing it better, and getting into other ‘spaces’, PP could transform itself.

 

The world is changing fast and the academic world must change with it. One of the biggest developments of this decade is the use of the internet and with it, social media. Elements of PP can be seen in the self-organising qualities of social networking, the acts of altruism and kindness online, the connecting effects of new relationships that would not otherwise have been possible (and of course on the other side, a whole raft of negative qualities). One of the most important changes to education now is not the access to information but the ability to evaluate and criticise sources. It is no longer about the polished pristine final version of a research paper but the ongoing, collaborative, co-creating nature of research that could really give us an insight in to human behaviour[2]. Tools such as online wikis where learning is an ongoing collaboration between student body, professor and even potential employer could provide a valuable resource for PP.   

 

As long as psychology is valid, then so is Positive Psychology. Positive Psychology may be at the crossroads but that is not a bad place to be. We can go back and get our house in order, but it does not mean PP needs to integrate or separate or disappear. Positive Psychology could use its own techniques and strengths to see this as an opportunity to truly transform itself towards a flourishing future.   

 

Positive Personality Development: Approaching personal autonomy

 

(My summary of a chapter by Dimitry Leontiev; and I mean summary! fascinating area, keen to learn more)

 

-          Developmental PP is lacking as one of the 'pillars' of PP (lots of focus on state and trait factors in the person - probably because it's easier - developmental processes are harder to research – could this be the next big area of PP?)

-          Unlike positive emotions, positive personality development brings synergetic benefits (not just for the developing person, but to those around them)

-          Unlike positive traits it’s something a person must work on, cultivate

-          Unlike positive institutions – a person can take full responsibility for their own development.

-          Even with maturity some people don't 'develop' in such a way that is self-regulating towards the positive (but who decides what is positive? is self-regulation ‘positive’ when actually some research shows too much choice, or too much rumination, can be stressful and negative; and I know people who are really happy just 'doing' and not questioning... my thoughts)

-          The book then goes in to some developmental psychology (where I got a little distracted - but the essence is when we are born we come apart from our mothers so the whole process is towards developing - they said very few people reach the ultimate stage which is like the 'real truth' and gave a nice analogy of the difference between 2 sages and 2 Hitler types, and the difference would be that the 2 sages could disagree but discuss and see other potentials, and the 2 Hitlers - would kill each other!! (fixed mindset??) so basically with reaching the final stage you realise that nothing ever 'just is' - it's ever changing and it's that knowledge of where we are at any one time and seeing the positive and negative and being open and flexible to change) (this is my interpretation now coming through).

Focusing on our strengths, traits and virtues is an important part of positive psychology... but what are the underlying forces of the key concepts (such as happiness, gratitude, optimism). What I've always pondered is when looking at the research outcomes - such optimism is a key concept in human flourishing, or gratitude is, or self-efficacy... but none of these either stand alone, work alone, or really can be studied alone. What is the interplay between these 'forces'? How do they come about? Mind boggling.

Positive Psychology (PP) ‘ unreflectively’ perpetuates some key assumptions of the mainstream science they see as negative... (gleaned from a very long paper I half read today; I will accredit it, I will!)

 

Some assumptions of PP:

-          Individualism (we are self-defining)

-          Instrumentalism: due to our fascination with power and control, means-end relationships and cost-benefit analysis, perpetuated by stressful lives of today means we neglect ‘other’ values  

-          Scientism : it is impossible to be the disinterested observer; e.g. bracketing does not work

-          Seligman et al won’t consider other alternatives (by insisting on the 'scienitific', they are blocking some key perspectives, and with that tools, theories, narratives).

Social science is human action construed in ‘instrumental terms’.  

Hermeneutics believe that when ethical concepts are ‘tested’ in isolation, they then strip away the very mesh that determines their meaning... and so become meaningless.  

The instrumentalism perspective means that others are pawns in our own projects of self actualisation.

Underlying assumptions are not acknowledged so continue to influence, becoming a disguised ideology that perpetuates the cultural status quo.

PP is not positive until it questions these assumptions.

Can human action be empirical? Theory is lacking in social science and PP. It is not like natural science as we are selecting different theories from a variety of values (a right old mish mash!).  

Descriptivisms:

Social sciences have been accused of being arbitrary, and producing sometimes meaningless findings (the ‘so what?’ I often feel on reading psychology papers).

Qualitative research is a nod in the direction to being more descriptive (rather than prescriptive).

Social constructivism:  culture shapes people; there is an ongoing negotiation of meanings (a real can of worms).

There can be no objectivity in theories, narratives or values (but if we want to get PP accepted by the mainstream then we have to start within it; if we really want to make changes – this is another can of worms! Who are we to make changes? Who are we to decide what is positive? To tell others how to live? Do we do that in PP?).

Beyond descriptivism:' theories are creative interpretations of social reality'

PP needs to go beyond scientism & post modernism – hermeneutics /  modern philosophy may be the answer? (‘interpretation’ is key).

'We are self interpreting beings, shaped by shared background meanings'.

Conclusion:

PP is interpretative not scientific or instrumental. It would be more reflective and less action oriented if it was more interpretative.

The Impact of this shift would be:

A wider array of methods and approaches to access

Greater capacity and access to talent

By opening its arms to cultural history, theoretical and philosophical analysis, acknowledging political engagement, spiritual experience and disciplines.... PP could really be on to something.  

Fair trade futures: Open space: EPAs (economic partnership agreement)

The fundamental principle for EPAs is a free market. This may work for Europe as they are at the same level of development, economical infrastructure is in place. However it does not work for the ACP (Africa, Caribbean, Pacific). It is not an even playing ground; odds are heavily stacked against ACPs not least because of the negotiation process required to trade in the EU (for example intellectual property rights – some countries may not be able to negotiate this). Bilateral trade agreements have a major drawback: they take no account of development needs.

Trade negotiations may seem dull but when it comes to rich countries ripping off poorer countries the fair trade movement can understand this and empathise with this so should be a part of that process. (Mike Gidney).

How far do we see campaigning for long term sustainable change going? Buying fair trade does help of course; but for the long term we need to be campaigning in a more robust and coherent way.

The EU is trying to downgrade the political component and look at the technical negotiations. These do not make headlines though; as you need to fully understand these technical aspects in order to report as a journalist (also it is not very exciting!). EPAs campaign has done a good job of raising the profile but still the ACPs are in a weak negation situation. There is a race between the EU and the US for a market share in China.

‘Engagement v boycott’

This was later summed up in the closing session: ‘from the producers’ perspective, networks are not succeeding as much as they could as they have been sidelined somewhat in political activism; dissipated somewhat as fair trade has gone mainstream. This is a travesty for the 76 countries from the ACP; we must bring this to light. It is treated as a technical issue but it’s not – it will kill people’.   

 

Should the fair trade movement include policies to ensure that fair trade is environmentally sustainable; so that climate change becomes a part of that movement?

(This is an open space session so I will try and draw out the main themes of discussion as it flows).

Studio Allaya is a craft based organization that supports producers so that they can take charge of their own enterprises themselves. Climate change is a part of this.

Café Direct is at the end of a 3 year project: chaotic weather conditions had impacted sales however the producers did not see this as a result of climate change. There is a need for education of climate change alongside fair trade. It would make sense for fair trade organsations to partner up with organisations that specialise on climate change.

75% of the environmental issues of coffee trade is the kettle boiling over here, not where it’s made.

Sustainability is seen as an add on – it must be a part of fair trade.

Children and young people are 'where it’s at' with climate change – it sits well with this age group, they are open to learning and can carry it forward. They’re the future (and not corrupt!). Children of the 80s and 90s are ‘brand obsessed’ and move from one project to the next (we talked about children of the 60s/70s growing up worrying about the costs of electricity so cutting back on expenditure; and children of the 80s/90s not having money worries or long term concerns about energy resources and the climate – yes it was a generalisation; however children of today are the ones who will be living with what we do – or don’t do - now).

There is a short window of time to change as by 2050 we will see the impact of climate change and fair trade has to play a part of this now.

‘Our land is barren; not because we can’t grow on it but because we can’t sell from it’

Environment education is needed at both ends of the chain; producers and consumers.

‘Live simply’ : do we really need to buy flowers in winter? but if we stop now - we have already instigated the supply-demand... ‘To trade or not to trade: let it be fair trade’.

We need to address adaptation requirements of producers; what are the climate change implications for them? Should it be funded by the big organisations as they are getting so much benefit from fair trade?

The fair trade movement will need to move from an ‘enable-centric’ market to an ‘equal-centric’ market.

We need to adopt a more cautious approach to consumption: FLO (fair trade labeling) is one part and the other is the fair trade market run by WFTO-type organization.

Could social media could help change this?

 

Fair trade futures event: Two perspectives of accountability and impact of fair trade: grant makers and producers

The grant makers perspective of accountability and impact: Louise Herring talking about Comic Relief and its role as grant maker and fundraiser, a charity and a business.

How do you measure the impact of supporting fair trade producers? It’s a qualitative & quantitative process but how do we get everyone’s views?

We could build relationships with producers directly but you need to fully understand the relationships within that and how they work together.

Rather than just using the data Comic Relief collects themselves they will try and share it with chains (e.g. Sainsbury’s) so they fully understand it.

Comic Relief’s Fair Trade Focus on Africa, committed £5m over 5 years to support fair trade producers in Africa by building the capacity and accountability of the African fair trade network.

What are the key factors for ensuring that women workers and producers benefit equitably from trade?

What change has been made? (how can we prove the impact)

HOW has that change been made? (improving the impact).

How can all the key players share that data?       

Joan Karanja, COFTA on the role of producers; the importance of including them in standards development

COFTA is a network of fair trade producer organisations in Africa, working to eliminate poverty, by strengthening African membership in fair trade. COFTA is a grassroots network working with all levels of fair trade. It is a forum for collaboration and networking with over 100 members in 24 African countries touching 250,000+ beneficiaries. No data / stats – this is something they are trying to measure.

Joan explains some of the issues encountered by producer organisations in Africa. Some cannot pay the fee to be accredited fair trade when they may well be practicing fair trade (the fee is $2000 – seems high).

Common producer challenges:

Collaboration and cooperation; business planning and production efficiency; product quality and product innovation; market understanding – e.g. there are no seasons in Africa so if selling to the West it’s important to know the seasonal market; gaining direct market access; access to finance is difficult as it is seen as an informal sector (so banks don’t lend); local infrastructure – important to understand all the nuances; and communication is essential.

COFTA programs focus on:

Network development

Membership development

Advocacy and lobbying

Market access (improving south to south trade not just access to Northern markets).

 ‘The overall idea of fair trade is to change the market’ (Joan Karanja), for example scaling up production through clustering (Swaziland, SWIFT) and Common Coordination (COFTA networks).  

Fair trade is against child labour: the question is raised, ‘what is the solution when the head of a household is 17 and needs to earn a living?’

Joan suggests the solution is spending morning at school and the afternoon at work; we must remember the idea is to protect the young.

In providing direct market access for exporting in to Europe, COFTA provides linkages but currently is unable to supervise this any further.

80% trade is non food handicrafts. Issues surrounding coffee production and food are very different to craft – is it often forgotten? Do we need a fair trade mark for craft? Standardisation?

If we think producers should be involved in defining ‘fair trade standards’ - how to organise local producers (by broadcasting? Use of Technology?). A discussion for the open space session...

Fair trade futures event: Accountability & Impact (Ian Barney, TWIN Trading)

Fair trade futures event: Accountability & Impact (Ian Barney, TWIN Trading)

TWIN is a membership organisation that has been running for 25 years. Focused on Latin America and Africa, TWIN’s work started around bartering; e.g. swapping cigars from Cuba for coffee in Africa.

TWIN only works with small holder farms, building democratic systems. They believe in a better equitable distribution of risks and rewards; a different kind of relationship (networks of alternative trades). Part of their role is being an intermediary between buyer and seller, strengthening governance of farming organisations; enabling basic business management with a focus on quality. TWIN works to influence trade, with practical support on how to do this.

The development of brands such as Cafe Direct, Divine chocolate, Agrofair, Liberation, has helped change UK attitudes to food sourcing policies and to underpin the Fairtrade market in the UK.

Case studies presented by Ian:

Divine & Kuapa Kokoo: Participation in Divine has improved confidence in farmers after their trading suffered; it is now recognised as one of the best coffees.

Ian spoke about their partnership with Southern African Nuts. Integrated supply chains were developed; 2005 saw the first sales through the fair-trade market (the co-op), and supermarket partnerships in 2006; liberations established in 2007 (42% farmer owned); aflatoxin testing was brought in (2008), and mechanised processing in 2008/9.

Established fair trade supply chains have since been used to feed in to nutritional supplements (tested in Darfour, with significant improvement measured).

The fair trade premium is not hugely different to mainstream.

There have been various studies to show that fair trade in the region has captured more than just monetary value.

Ian talks about the international nut producer cooperative.

‘Liberation’ works by bringing the producers together to explore issues with the whole value chain. By understanding the complex distribution chain producers can be empowered to contribute to decision making about the strategic direction of their businesses.

By promoting democratic structures at community levels, greater governance issues can be brought down to the grassroots. As shareholders, famers have a direct link to the West; and a more democratic process has helped the farmers get involved in all aspects.

At the AGM for the international nut producer cooperative (where 5 candidates are elected to represent farmers) debates are held with farmers from Brazil, Bolivia, Malawi, Mozambique. All are engaged and addressing problems, brainstorming, everybody contributing together. Fairly. This is ‘democracy in action’. It is solidarity; people coming together from different environments as equals. 

Sales yield premiums which is important but there are other benefits, such as the importance of social empowerment. Increasing the self esteem of farmers can impact many other areas.  

Trade is not enough; Ian talks about the other aspects TWIN gets involved in. The quality of the product must be good enough; businesses must be run effectively; risks must be managed. Enhancing income, access to expertise and ability to influence all need to be considered.

To create long term sustainable impact, long term real commitment is required. This involves investment in capacity, collective action/network, transparency and trust, participation in decision making, connecting further up the chain (ownership) results in sustainability, increased confidence /accountability, enhanced capacity and influence.

The TWIN model is a bottom up approach, using farmer organisation partnerships. But are they really taking control themselves?

How can producers have more of a voice in fair trade?

We discussed the concept of ‘fairness’ in fair. Who decides what is fair? Farmers need to be involved in the strategy of determining what is fair. Imposing democracy v fair trade.  

What is the real impact of co-operatives? (needs more research).  

What about the mainstream? In terms of Twin’s work with Africa and South America, competing in a global market will have a significant impact particularly with competition from China. Ian believes the time to invest is now – though he acknowledges the risks.