The Behavior Analyst

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 141–148 | Cite as

Behavior analysis and the R&D paradigm

Article

Abstract

This paper considers research and development (R&D) as a style of investigation that holds promise for the field of behavior analysis. Contrasted with academic-style research, R&D tends to be highly targeted toward achievement of specific outcomes, which are determined by a user community. R&D is typically multidisciplinary in character and is coordinated by a funding source. R&D usually includes extensive field testing and systematically addresses technology transfer. A program of R&D focused on detector dogs serves as an exemplar of this approach for behavior analysis.

Key words

dogs olfaction research and development detection explosives illicit drugs 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bailey, M., & Bailey, R. (1977). The uses of sensory systems and response capabilities in security systems. In Joel J. Kramer (Ed.), The role of behavioral science in physical security (pp. 123–144). Proceedings of the Second Annual Symposium, Center for Consumer Product Technology, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  2. Birnbrauer, J. S. (1979). Applied behavior analysis, service, and the acquisition of knowledge. The Behavior Analyst, 2, 15–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Breland, K., & Breland, M. (1951). A field of applied animal psychology. American Psychologist, 6, 202–204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Deitz, S. M. (1982). Applied behavior analysis: An historical analogy. The Behavior Analyst, 5, 53–64.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Hayes, S. C, Rincover, A., & Solnick, J. V. (1980). The technical drift of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 275–285.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Herman, E. (1995). The romance of American psychology: Political culture in the age of experts. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  7. Johnston, J. M. (1991). We need a new model of technology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 425–427.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Johnston, J. M. (1993). A model for developing and evaluating behavioral technology. In R. Van Houten & S. Axelrod (Eds.), Effective behavioral treatment: Issues and implementation (pp. 323–343). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  9. Johnston, J. M. (1996). Distinguishing between applied research and practice. The Behavior Analyst, 19, 35–47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Mace, F. C. (1991). Technological to a fault or faulty approach to technology development? Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 433–435.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Mace, F. C. (1994). Basic research needed for stimulating the development of behavioral technologies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 61, 29–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Michael, J. L. (1980). Flight from behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 25, 83–88.Google Scholar
  13. Pennypacker, H. S. (1986). The challenge of technology transfer: Buying in without selling out. The Behavior Analyst, 9, 147–156.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Pierce, W D., & Epling, W F. (1985). What happened to analysis in applied behavior analysis? The Behavior Analyst, 3, 19.Google Scholar
  15. Skinner, B. F. (1961). Cumulative record. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Technology against terrorism: The federal effort. (1991). (OTA–ISC–481). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  17. Verhave, T. (1966). The pigeon as a quality control inspector. In R. Ulrich, T. Stachnik, & J. Mabry, J. (Eds.), Control of human behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 213–221). Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology, 211 ThachAuburn UniversityAuburnUSA

Personalised recommendations