RESEARCH PROBLEMS IN APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY C.B. FRISBY

Applied psychology is an awkward term; its origins are traceable to the time when psychologists, who until then had devoted themselves to reflection and research in their laboratories, began to interest themselves in the pro- blems of the world outside. The growth of this new interest was most marked during the 1914 war and the years immediately following it. Applied science had an established meaning and it was the natural term; some of the alterna- tives, such as psychotechnology or technopsychology, are not very attractive.

Once systematic study of behaviour was extended by psychologists from the laboratory to life outside, it was inevitable that new branches of psycho- logy should develop-branches concerned with behaviour in certain circums- tances or environments: behaviour at certain ages; behaviour of certain kinds. We have child psychology, clinical psychology, commercial psychology, edu- cational psychology, forensic psychology, military psychology, occupational psychology (including engineering psychology)-to list the main specialities.

The various branches of psychology which constitute the applied field should not be merely technologies in which practising psychologists apply psychological knowledge in the solution of practical problems. They should be branches of psychological science, each striving by research to improve its technical procedures and to increase knowledge of the determinants of human behaviour.

Training for ReseaTclt It follows that a large part of the effort in any of the applied fields should

be devoted to research. This raises the issue of the training in research methods of those who are to carry out the research. The question is referred to by Professor Robert C. TRYON in a paper published in The American Psycholo- gist (I), and reproduced in the last issue of the Bulletin of the Association (2).

Professor TRYON, who discusses in this paper what he calls academic- professional bipolarity, remarks that the majority of Ph.Ds. in psychology in the United States work not in universities, but outside, in many fields of human enterprise. On the other hand, the professors who produce Ph.Ds. are theoretically, not practically, oriented. The Ph.D. is, of course, the research degree, and is supposed to be evidence of a training in research methodology. But the methods of the laboratory are not always applicable in the field. I suspect that many directors of units engaged in research in the applied fields find that they have to allow for many months of indoctrination and training of new recruits to their units, even if they come with a Ph.D.

One solution to this problem might be found if links could be formed between Universities which award postgraduate degrees and Institutes and Research Units which work in a branch of applied psychology. If postgra- duate students intending to make their careers in the applied field rather

1. 1963, 18, 3, pp. 134-143. 2. 1W34, 13, 1, pp. 41-67.

- DO -

than i n ;i~:idcmic. twc-hinp or resrnrcli c.oulc1 carry out their researrh studies i n such bodies, they would be introrlurrrl to the problems and niethnrls of field research from the beginning.

Experience in Great Britain has shown that such an arrangement is possi- ble in certain circumstances, where a research unit is lodged in a University or very close to it, and where the supervisor of the research student in the research unit is a recognised teacher of the university. It is t o be hoped that ways can be found to make possible a considerable extension of training in research by cooperation between univcrsities and appropriate research bodies.

Technological and Fundamental Resenrclr The

first, which might be called technological, is concerned with the development and evaluation of procedures used by psychologists in dealing with practical problems. Procedures for assessing talents and temperaments in vocational guidance and selection; procedures for education and training in academic and occupational fields; procedures for measuring attitudes; procedures of diagnosis and treatment of the retarded and disturbed-and many others. The aim of this research could be described as finding out HOW something can best be done.

Secondly, there is the more fundamental research which can spring from validation studies, and which seeks the reasons WHY n particular procedure should be successful. Its aim is to throw light on the basic nature of human aptitudes, skills, tenipertiment, attitudes, motivation, and of human response to environments and situations of all kinds. I am prejudiced enough t o think that research in the field is likely to advance knowledge of the fundamental laws of human behaviour just as much as, if not more than, the necessarily artificial investigations in the laboratory or the studies of rodents which so many seem to find so fascinating nowadays.

In the technological applications of psychology validation and develop- ment research is essential, and there is a great need for more work. I fear that sometimes we accept too uncritically a test or a procedure which has face value, or which we feel convinced is useful. An example is the misuse of personality inventories and clinical instruments, such as the so-called projec- tive tests, devised for the use of the clinician in work with people disturbed to a greater or less degree. These devices may well be of real value in the hands of the well-trained clinical psychologist, and help him to a diagnosis of the condition of his patient. But their value in a guidance or selection situation should be rigorously investigated before they are incorporated in practical procedures other than on an experimental basis. Nevertheless, reports in the literature of validation studies of this kind are relatively uncommon, and they tend to be made by the sceptics rather than by the advocates of this type of material.

In a practical situation, if we have demonstrated that a certain proce- dure is effective, we can confidently use it, even if we have to admit that we do not know precisely why this is. Kor need we feel that this is a situation peculiar to the psychologist. The fundamental nature of the operation of many drugs whose efficacy in medical treatment has been proved beyond doubt is still unknown. The engineer, too, can find himself in this position. 1,'alidation Slitdies

Validation studies can and should lead on t o more basic research; vali- dation studies need replication, since the situations in them are not identi- cal, no matter how closely we try to control them. Differences in the results

Research in Applied Psychology, as I have said, is of two kinds.

- 1;1 -

of a series of validation studies may well suggest lines of investigation which nisy i!luminc the reasons fnr the cliffcrcnces in results and in that way lead to greater understanding of huinan behaviour.

There has always been a tendency for validation studies t o be under- taken in order to provide a justification for the psychologist’s procedure. To clemonstrate, in fact, that he has something to offer which is more than just common sensc. I t is probably for this reason that many validation stu- dies have compared the result achieved by the we of a certain method, which included a number of elements, with that of another method, usually one on which the psychologist had attempted to improve.

Large-scale early studies in vocational guidance were of this kind, and most attempts at the evaluation of training methods are still on these lines. For real progress, what is nceded is knowledge about the part played in the final result by each of the elements which comprise the method, a much more difficult problem.

May I take a5 an example a scheme of training devised for a semi-skilled opcration in a factory-sewing-machine work, for example. The psycholo- gist studies the operation in detail. he prepares a systematic programme of tdks, demonstrations and pratice; h: introduces training aids; he sees to it that the lcarner is given knowledge of her results; he works out schemes of financial and other incentives; hc obtains a properly equipped and pleasant room as a training school; he collects a museum of faults: he selects and trains a synipathetic instructor. Finally, he supervises closely the training of the first few groups of novices to go through the new procedure, and he seeks to compare their progress with tha t of learners under the old arrangements. As i t criterion he probably takes the time to reach a certain level of skill as nssessed by output and quality.

Almost invariably the result is favourable to the psychologist’s methods, unless he ‘has madc a serious error of judgment in his initial studies of the ope- ration. But who can say how much has been contributed by each novelty he liirs introduced.! Do all assist the learning process or are some in fact hintlraiices? Is the result primarily due to the systematisation of a formerly haphazard process? How far has his presence and thc flattering attention given to learners while the experiments are in progress stimulated them to learn, possibly from a desire to please?

If we are to make real progress in the technology of training people for industrial skills, and if we are to gain insight into the fundamental aspects of learning in the industrial situation, we must carry out not only validation studies of a general procedure, but experiments designed to provide informa- tion about the influence of the different elements in the situation. Until this is done, and on a scale sufficient to outline some general laws, there will always be the danger of the rise of spurious orthodoxies, and these are to be found in most fields already.

The psy- chologist, invited to assist in the improvement of a firm’s method of selecting new employees, or allocating them to different kinds of work, introduces a comprehensive and systematic procedure. He revises the application form: he coaches selectors in interviewing; he introduces certain tests; he may include group discussions. He ensures that applicants are thoroughly informed about the nature of the job.

If he attempts to validate his new procedures, it is probably by comparing output, quality and supervisors’ ratings with the assessment made before enga- gement. He may contrast labour wastage before and after the adoption of

Validation of selection procedurcs presents similar problems.

the new methods. He is probably aware that his criteria are not likely to be highly reliable, but they are the best he can obtain.

What is often omitted from this kind of study is a comparison of assess- ments of suitability based on each component part of the procedure, with the criteria of success at the job. There is another way of investigating the contributions of the various parts to the final decision. This is for the selec- tor to make a series of cumulative judgments as he goes along. These judg- ments consist of grades of suitability and, where a group oP candidates is being dealt with, rank order of suitability. If this is done first on the application form, then after a first interview, then after tests, again after a group session, and perhaps a written exercise, one can see how the judgments are modified by the contribution made by each element.

Real validation of selection procedures can rarely be carried out, since only those engaged are available for follow-up. But if the detailed assessments I have outlined are made, a study of the case3 of those who fail, or are relati- vely unsuccessful, may provide useful evidence about the value of different assessment devices. This should really be our aim; the practising psycholo- gist may want to demonstrate that his methods work, but we should try to go farther than this and discover why they work.

I have used examples from industrial training and personnel selection, and there is no need to pile example on example from other branches of psy- chological practice. We must have more research, both in validation and of more fundamental nature. There is a particular need for intensified study of criteria by which to assess behaviour, for the slow development of valida- tion methodology is largely due to the difficulties in establishing reliable and valid criteria in real life situations.

Research Methodology - the EI?ypothetico-Dcducrire System

Research of the right kind demands the right sort of people to carry it out. I have referred already t o the problem of training people for research in the applied field. It also calls for the right methods, and here an unne- cessary diniculty has been, in my view, created for us.

The notion seems to be growing that the only truly respectable kind of research is that carried out in the framework of the hypothetico-deductive system. The method of research to which the term refers is old, although the term has gained currency relatively recently. So far as I can discover, although not invented by K.R. POPPER, it was he who used it and discussed its implications in a book published in 1985--rrLogik der Forschung.” Unfor- tunately, POPPER and other meta-scientists or philosophers have written about the subject, not only at length but in a way likely to divert the attention of psychologists from certain facts about their own subject.

Thus, in <*Foundations of Inference in Natural Science,” published in 19.52, John 0. WISDOM, paraphrasing POPPER, writes:-

<<In scientific practice, then, hypotheses precede observations.. . The role of observations, selected in the light of our hypotheses, is changed; instead of leading to a hypothesis, their function is to test it, and the only way of continuing scientific activity is by means of the hypothetico- deductive system.” The truth of this somewhat sweeping assertion depends on the moaning

you give to the word riobservation”. If it stands for 66planned and systerna- tically directed attention,” we can accept the statement, with reservations about the necessary uniqueness of the method in psychology. Wisdom quotes Charles D.\RWIN in its support. ‘*HOW odd it is”, he wrote, $%hat anyone should

I shall return to this point later.

- c3 -

riot see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of :my service! (3)’.

I suggest that at this stage of psychological knowledge, the Iiypothesis from which most research in the Applied field should start is that anything which we can observe in the situation we are investigating may be of impor- tance, and that deliberately to ignore certain elements is likely to be very unwise. We do not yet know enough to be justifiably confident in the selec- tion of our observations.

But the statement may obscure a fact of great importance in the advance of scientific knowledge, that is, the recognition of the significance of a sensory experience arising by chance-chance from the observer’s point of view. In this sense of the word, observation precedes the hypothesis, and generates it.

Consider the recognition of penicillin by Fleming-the observation that bacteria failed to grow on culture plates contaminated by mould. This situa- tion arose by chance-it was not planned. Or take the case of diabetes mel- litus; this disease had been known for two thousand years, and for several hundred years it had been recognised that the urine of sufferers had a high content of sugar. What led to the control of diabetes by insulin? The beginning is said to have been the observation of a humble attendant in the laboratories of M I N K o w s w and Von MEIIRING, who were studying the relation of the pancreas to diges- tion. In their research they hod removed the pancreas from a number of dogs. The laboratory attendant noticed that the urine of these dogs was very attractive to flies; he drew the attention of the doctors to the phenonie- non. Analysis of the urine showed sugar and led to the realisation that the dogs were cases of experimentally induced diabetes rnellitus. It was the beginning of the long series of studies which led finally to the production of insulin on a scale making treatment practicable.

If I seem to have dwelt on the question of observation a t some length i t is because a too literal acceptance of the meta-scientists’ dogma about the hypothetico-deductive system can lead the young psychologist to underrate the importance of the perceptive and receptive eye-and other sense organs- in leading to the setting up of useful hypotheses.

Nowadays i t has become fashionable to smile tolerantly at, or dismiss from consideration, those psychologists of earlier generations who advanced theories of human behaviour arrived at by reflection and introspection but who did not seek to evaluate their theories by experiment.

We should not overlook that a great deal of thought was given to the production of their theories, and some of them have had profound effects on psychological thinking. I am not sure that very much real advance in scien- tific psycholo,qy is indicated by the many reports of painstaking research testing hypotheses which seem to have been based on scant observation or consideration, and which in practical terms can be of only very minor impor- tance. Such researches are mere academic exercises, and in so far as they are the product of postgraduate training in research they emphasise Profes- sor TRYON’S point about the training of Ph.Ds.

The hypothetico-deductive system has a major disadvantage for the psychologist in the early stages of study of any problem. By limiting investi- gation to the testing of certain hypotheses, i t is liable to develop a kind of tun- nel vision in the researcher. Observation of facts not obviously related to the hypothesis can appear to be a distracting influence-to be overcome by

But the cause of the disease remained unknown.

3. ‘‘ More Letters of Charles Donvin ”, edited by Francis Darwin, Vol. I, London lgO3, p. 195.

rigid attention to the job in hand, and the adoption of mental blinkers which cut off the view of unwanted facts. In our subject, in our present state of knowledge, these unwanted facts may well be of greater importance in rela- tion to the behaviour we nre attempting to study, than those we are using to test our hypotheses.

It seems to me essential to emphasise to our students of psychology that there is still a major role to be played by an empirical approach to research.

The Need f o r Observation and Classification

Psychology is, in my view, to be regarded as primarily a branch of biolo- gical science, and the history of biology has perhaps some lessons for us.

One from which we have not drawn the appropriate conclusion in psycho- logy is the part played by the field naturalist in laying firm foundations for biological knowledge. The field naturalist was an acute observer who painsta- kingly recorded what he saw, and who described it in detail. His records were the basis for systems of classification, the essential first stage in the develop- ment of a science.

The advance in medical knowledge which may come from systematically kept clinical records is another point on which we might reflect. Much more use could be made of the day-to-day experience of professional occupational psychologists, for example, if all kept good case records describing in detail the individuals they were advising or assessing, and the organisation to which they were acting as consultants.

Psychology, dealing with the most comples subject of all, human beha- viour, has apparently tried to jump the stages of systematic observation and recording, and to go straight into rigorously controlled experiments. Is this due to an-xiety about the status of the psychologist as a scientist? Has it been felt that, to be justified, it is necessary for the psychologist to copy the methods of the physical scientist? Whatever the reason, the results are that in most fields of applied psychology we do not know enough about the behaviour we are supposed to be studying in the form in which it presents itself in different circumstances. I would go farther; too often we cannot feel confident that we know how to observe this behaviour and that we have developed adequate methods for systematic description of what we may observe. We have accordingly no adequate basis for the essential, detailed classification of behaviour, nor of circumstances and environments as they bear on behaviour.

This, I think, is the real reason why our experimental and validation studies are hampered by the inadequacy of the criteria which we use in our research. In occupational psychology, the criteria we seek to establish are performance a t work and satisfaction in the job. For performance we usually try to obtain measures of quantity and quality of work done, but what kind of relationship is there between performance taken over a day's work, and performance over a week, a year, a working life-time? And when, as is com- monly the case, an individual does a variety of work in the course of a week or even a day, how can we relate performance at one task with that at ano- ther? And should not performance be related to the effort involved? The same level of performance may be achieved by two individuals with very different degrees of effort.

How is satisfaction to be assessed-and how far is it something general to a working situation, or how far should it be considered in relation to each aspect of the job separately? Are absence and labour turnover figures really very useful measures of satisfaction?

5

Since performance and satisfaction are probably affected by virtually everything in the individual and in the environment, we badly need information about the relative importance of the main factors in the most commonly occur- ring sets of circumstances.

I am sure that in other branches of psychology long lists of questions of the same kind could be asked and that we must admit that most of the fundamental knowledge needed for classification of behaviour and circums- tances has not yet been acquired. We work too largely on assumptions about these classifications, derived from thinking about them rather than from obser- vation of the real situation. In this state of ignorance, the formulation of hypotheses must often be little more than a chance affair, and their careful testing cannot be expected to lead very far. A Research Project of an Unusual Kind

Accidents at work have been a subject for concern for many years; economically, accidents, a t least in Great Britain, cause a greater loss of industrial production than strikes. They cause suffering and anxiety to tens of thousands of men and women each year.

It is natural, therefore, that much research into the causes of industrial accidents has been carried out. But so far, we have to admit, we don't know a great deal about the relative importance of the things that contribute to an accident.

Most of this research has been designed to test the hypothesis that a par- ticular factor has a bearing on accidents-temperature, ventilation and humi- dity, lighting, time of day or shift, age, extent of experience at the job, psycho- motor skill, temperament, and so on. The usual result is that some small relationship between the factor under investigation and liability to accidents is demonstrated. But in most of the reports one sees evidence of those mental blinkers I have spoken about. The investigator has not collected data on some of the other factors and he cannot therefore provide any information about their possible bearing on his results.

My Institute is hoping to be able to begin next year a study of accidents on different lines. The plan of research has been prepared by Dr. R.B. Buz- ZARD, who directs our research team. Essentially, it provides for setting up a system of observation and recording in the fullest possible detail of conditions and events in a pair of contrasting workshops in at least two factories. Each workshop will be continuously under observation during working hours for two years. The observer will compile detailed records of the work and its environment, and will check the information and record changes daily. Among the factors to be observed and recorded are the operations, rest pauses, rhythm and pace of working, working equipment, posture, temperature, humidity and ventilation, rates and methods of payment, quality of supervision, trai- ning, and many others. Information about the individual workers will also be collected in detail.

The aim is to have available a picture of the situation in the workshop befure an accident occurs. And since an accident will be defined as any unto- ward event resulting in death or injury for which treatment, however minor, is given, it will not be difficult to And workshops where accidents occur a t the rate of at least fifty per hundred persons employed per month.

I must not take up the time necessary to explain the whole research plan; its essence is to have no hypothesis, other than the fundamental one that anything and everything may be important. Special inquiries after an acci- dent are notoriously unreliable in the information they provide, but in this

May I illustrate with another example from my own field.

- 66 -

research a running description of conditions in the workshop will be maintai- ned. This will enable a search to be made for common patterns in theinter- relationships between environmental and personal factors and events in acci- dents occurring in different circumstances.

I have referred to this project to illustrate a kind of study which I think is greatly needed. We may gain useful knowledge about accident causation, but we are also certain to develop considerably our procedures for systematic observation and recording in an industrial situation, which will be useful in other studies. We shall acquire evidence of how the conditions in a number of workshops can change, from day to day and from week to week, and of how extensive the changes can be. And we shall have a better idea about the length of time necessary to ensure a reasonable sample of conditions under every heading for use in future experimental studies.

It is surprising, perhaps, that an investigation of this kind does not appear to have been carried out before, but we have not been able to find an account of such a study. It is, of course, going to be one which will heavily tax the patience and persistence of the research staff who will be employed; it will require a team of a t least five people, and it will be relatively expensive. As a project on its own, it might well appear to lack attraction to many small research units. Possibly all these reasons have a bearing on the fact that this research is a novelty. In our case, the inquiry will fit in very well with our general research programme, which is concentrating on the development of better methods for observing, recording and describing behanour in the working environment, and the features of that environment.

Finance for Research The methods adopted to finance research have some bearing on the kind

of research undertaken. If grants are made for specific projects, and on a relatively short-term basis-two to three years, as has been the case in the United Kingdom for a large part of finance allotted to research in psychology and sociology, the projects adopt a fairly standard pattern. A proposal must be tidy and compact, and offer promise of some kind of result being obtai- nable in, say, three years; and to obtain support proposals have to take some account of the interests and prejudices of the people who control the purse- strings.

I think it is significant that units in the United Kingdom with the most important results to their credit are those which have been established on a permanent basis with assured annual funds. I know that a recent change in the method of supporting my Institute’s research from Government Funds, from ad hoc grants to a general grant, reviewable every five years, has made it possible for us to transform our programme and give it a coherence which was impossible under the former financial arrangements.

The method of making research grants to postgraduate students can also be of importance. It, and university redat ions about the nature of work for higher degrees, cnn easily impose a necessity for purely individual work.

Team Work and the Interdiaciplinary Approach I think we must recognise that in applied psychology the individual resear-

cher working on his own i s not likely to be able to do much to advance our knowledge. But if he is part of a team, and that team is working on a research programme conceived as a whole, the situation is different. In most areas it is necessary to have fairly wide terms of reference; too narrow a concentra- tion of effort may result in highly relevant issues being ignored without the

- 67 -

researdier hecoming awnre of their existence. This meiiiis a rwrnhcr of peoplc working on the same problems Imt from rather different angles or in different circumstances.

We have to recognise also the value of an interdisciplinary approach on many issues. The design of equipment and machinery to suit human needs and with recognition of human limitations provides an excellent example. This is a question on which a very great deal of information is now available to guide designers. It has been accumulated mainly by anatomists, engineers, physiologists and psychologists. A great stimulus was given to research of this kind by the development of exceedingly complex weapon systems in the Armed Forces during the 1939 war. What began as attempts to find answers to highly practical questions led on to basic research into the nature of human skills.

Sotable ill work in this field has been the British Medical Research Council’s Applied Psychology Research Unit. It is a substantial group in numbers and it took over the work begun in the Experimental Psychology Departmcnt of Cambridge Uni- versity by Sir Frederic BARTLE-IT, who became the Unit’s first director. I t has always pursued a programme, long-term in general aim, largely devoted to the study of human skills, but, with its empirical appro:ich, it has been ready to follow new lines suggested by its work. The importance of its achieve- ments is, I think, internationally recognised. Con cl itsion

In recapitulation, then, I urge that there is a great need for more inten- sive research in all fields of applied psychology. There is a risk, very real, I am afraid, of practice diverging from science, unless every opportunity is taken of evaluating practice by the kind of study which I have called techno- logical research. Validation studies are essential if our methods are to advance on a firm basis. Without them, and the evidence that they, and only they, can provide of the effectiveness of the psychologist’s procedures, he can make no legitimate claim to be able to contribute to the problems of day-to-day life.

I have suggested that knowledge of the determinants of human behaviour can be gained not only in the laboratory, but by research in real life situations. And validation investigations can often suggest profitable lines to follow to discover why a particular kind of procedure should be effective. For example, studies arising from vocational guidance and vocational selection practice, or from education and training methods may throw light on the nature of human abilities, disposition and skills.

Research means people well qualified to undertake it; the training of research workers in the laboratory is not always very relevant to the conduct of research in the field. More liaison between universities awarding research degrees and institutes and research units in the applied field might contribute to the problem. There is a further advantage, in that the individual on an isolated project is unlikely to make very much of an advance in knowledge, while if he is working as one of a team, with his own part in a coordinnted research programme, his work is likely to be more fruitful and his training no less effective.

With the increasing tendency to an interdisciplinary attack on many subjects, it is as well for the research student to learn something of the methods of other disciplines as early as possible.

I have ventured to criticise the acceptance of the notion that the hypo- thetico-deductive system is the only respectable research method, and that unless the psychologist limits himself to its use, he is in some way inferior

I take this example to illustrate another point.

- 68 -

to the physical scientist. Its disadvantages to psychology arise, first, from the lack of recorded data about the detailed nature of behaviour of different people in different circumstances, so that hypotheses may not be very relevant. .And secondly, from the tendency it induces to the wearing of mental blinkers.

In our present state of knowledge, a psychologist in blinkers is likely to miss points of greater importance than those on which he is focussing his attention.

Psychology, growing after the development of the physical and other biological sciences, has tried to pass too rapidly through a n essential stage, and it is time to remedy this state of affairs. We need more psychologists with the interests, the patience and the powers of observation and systema- tic recording of the field naturalists. In every branch of applied psychology the systematic accounts of behaviour as it occurs in different circumstances are woefully inadequate. Until this state of affairs is remedied, we shall continue to be in dilficulties in our validation studies, because our criteria of behaviour are unreliable and insufficient.

Finally, because of the complexity of man’s behaviour and of its deter- minants, i t is nearly always desirable to adopt an ecological approach in psy- chological research, especially in applied psychology. At least until we have :i wider understanding of the fornis which behaviour can take with different kinds of people, in different circumstances, and until we have a classification of behaviour and circumstances which is soundly based on detailed observa- tion.

Shortly before I left London I was reading an article by the Medical Correspondent of the London Times (4). It contained something which struck me as very relevant to my theme. The writer quoted Professor Albert SZENT-GYOHOI, whom lie described as one of the most brilliant biological inves- tigators of the present time, as follows:-

‘‘ <Organisation’ niems t h a t if nature puts two things together in a meaningful way, something new is generated which cannot be described, any more, in terms of the qualities of its constituents. This is true through the whole gamut of complexity, from atomic nuclei and electrons up to macromolecules or a complete individual. Nature is not additive. If this is true, then the opposite is also true, and when I take two things apart I have thrown away something, something which has been the very essence of that system, of that level of organisation.”

There is still plenty of room for empirical research.

The writer continued:- $<In other words, the scientist’s laboratory approach to... research

is only one facet of a complex problem. Equally important is the natu- ralist’s approach of studying man as an individual, and in relationship to his environment.”

(4) The Times July 10th 1064

- fj!J -