Interesting times: practice, science, and professional associations in behavior analysis.

Critchfield (2011) wrote a position paper. It says one big association cannot serve both scientists and practitioners.

The author claims the two groups have different needs. Scientists want grants and journals. Practitioners want licensure and pay.

The paper urges creating two separate professional associations. Each group would set its own rules and goals.

The paper does not give data. It gives an argument. The argument is that shared associations create conflict.

When one board tries to please both camps, neither feels fully served. Splitting would end the tug-of-war.

de la Cruz et al. (2025) show the opposite path works. They list real policy wins gained when scientists and practitioners lobby together.

This looks like a contradiction. Critchfield (2011) says split; de la Cruz et al. (2025) say unite. The gap is about timing. The 2011 paper fears future gridlock; the 2025 paper shows current unity already wins licensure and funding laws.

Brodhead et al. (2018) move the focus from groups to people. They ask each single BCBA to track personal competence, not to pick a tribe. Elcoro et al. (2023) add tools: citation maps and co-authorship counts so split groups can still talk. Together the later papers keep the field connected even if structures diverge.

You may soon vote on bylaws or new divisions. This paper tells you to pick the side that matches your daily work. If you mainly see clients, push for a practitioner-heavy board. If you mainly run labs, push for a scientist-heavy board. Either way, keep collaborating across the line so we still win policy fights like de la Cruz et al. (2025) describe.