Generational Shifts, New Methods, and the Future of Our Field

For the last few years, I have become immersed in the new worlds of big data and large language models. I’m embarrassed to say how much I love them. These technologies are among the most exciting I have seen in my life.

As enthusiastic as I am about the innovations wrought by artificial intelligence (AI) and other new technologies, they are shaking the very foundation of psychological science. 

In many ways, these are heady times. Psychological science is thriving intellectually. But in my brief term as APS president, I’m seeing a growing generational gap between senior and early career scientists. Most senior academics have largely been untouched by these changes. They continue to publish papers and secure grants on the basis of theory-guided experimental methods, although not as easily as in the past.

Read all of Pennebaker’s presidential columns

It’s a different story for our early career scientists. They face a very different world. The academic worlds that most senior psychological scientists inhabit are almost unattainable. Those who land a tenure-track academic position are often expected to do research that is integrative, applied, and public-facing. Academic jobs are scarce, and the revolution in methods adds even more tension to those starting in the academic field. On top of this, our graduate training models are slow in adapting to the new realities of today’s psychological science.

Signals of a changing psychological science 

A radical shift is occurring in the ecology of psychological science. Almost simultaneously, we are seeing changes in the job market and the ways we do science, and potentially large-scale shifts in cultural attitudes about science. Although unsettling, many of these changes will likely have value for psychology.

Employment patterns. Although precise statistics are hard to find, even the strongest doctoral programs in psychological science report that only about 25%–35% of their graduates hold a tenure-track position 5 years after receiving their PhD.

This reflects both a long-term reduction in new academic tenure-track jobs and the growing availability—and appeal—of research-oriented positions in nonacademic settings. In other words, the majority of psychological scientists are now doing psychological research outside of university settings.

If you were trained to think that getting a nonacademic job is failure, get over it. About half of my former students now work in the private sector and most love it. They are involved in cutting-edge projects, collaborating with people from multiple disciplines. They find their work intellectually satisfying. Most tell me that they feel that they are making significant and positive changes to the world. 

Research methods. Over the last decade, research methods in psychology have changed rapidly. The replication crisis served as a stark reminder of the limitations of small-sample laboratory research. In response, an extensive new infrastructure was developed to promote more rigorous practices, replication, and transparency, resulting in journals that now publish more trustworthy findings. At the same time, there has been a shift away from traditional laboratory experiments toward large-scale correlational methods, which are increasingly central to fMRI and other neuroscience research, AI, and large-scale field studies.

Work in AI and machine learning is particularly consequential in this regard. Using massive datasets with thousands of variables, researchers can now build models that predict individual and group behaviors with levels of accuracy that often exceed those of existing human-constructed models. Yet these models are frequently opaque and difficult to interpret. This raises an uncomfortable question for psychological science. Traditionally, one of the primary values of theory was its ability to explain and predict behavior. But what does theory mean in a world where behavior can sometimes be predicted accurately without an explicit theoretical framework?

Cultural attitudes about science. Most senior scientists grew up in a world in which science was rarely questioned at a fundamental level. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, debates surrounding vaccines have escalated and there has been increasing public skepticism toward science—not only in medicine, but also in areas such as climate change and public health. Although this skepticism has been particularly visible in the United States, history offers many examples of governments selectively embracing scientific expertise only when it aligns with political priorities. When trust in science erodes, the long-term funding of research and the ability to conduct sustained, cumulative programs of inquiry are compromised.

What are the implications of a changing job market, radically evolving research methods, and shifting cultural attitudes toward a science for how we train, support, and socialize the next generation of psychological scientists?

From individual adaption to collective responsibility

Taken together, these trends point to a deeper issue. The challenges facing psychological science are no longer primarily about individual training decisions or even departmental curricula. They reflect a broader misalignment between how our field is organized and how knowledge is now produced, evaluated, and used in the world.

Individual scientists can—and do—adapt. Departments experiment with new courses, new methods, and new career advice. But many of the pressures shaping psychological science operate at levels far beyond any one laboratory, program, or university.

Employment markets, publishing norms, funding priorities, ethical expectations, and public trust are all shaped by forces that require coordination across the field. This creates a familiar but often unspoken problem. When responsibility is widely shared, it is also easily diffused so that nothing gets done.

Where APS fits 

It is against this backdrop that the role of professional societies—and APS in particular—comes into sharper focus.

APS was created to provide a scientific home for psychological researchers across subfields and methods. Today, that role must expand beyond publishing journals and organizing conferences. The field needs a place where these larger questions can be addressed. How do we define rigor? How do we think about different career paths? How do we engage with the public? And how do we sustain psychological science around the world?

We are living through a period of extraordinary intellectual expansion. New tools and methods are allowing us to ask questions—and see patterns in human behavior—that were unimaginable even a decade ago. The scope of psychological science is widening, not narrowing, and its relevance to society has never been greater. 

The challenge before us is not whether psychology will thrive, but how we choose to organize ourselves in response to this changing world. Professional societies like APS cannot—and should not—dictate the future of the field. But they can help provide the structure, coordination, and collective voice needed to ensure that psychological science remains rigorous, relevant, and resilient. My hope is that, by confronting these shifts directly and thoughtfully, we can build a professional home that supports not only today’s scientists, but the generations that will follow. 

Feedback on this article? Email [email protected] or login to comment.