The profession of psychology in South Africa has not always been regulated by a statutory body such as the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA). Currently, the profession of psychology is regulated by the HPCSA and psychologists and the HPCSA find themselves in a lawful and interminable relationship. The HPCSA’s motto is to protect the public and to guide the profession, but it was questioned whether psychologists actually experience guidance from the HPCSA. In response to this problem, this study aimed to explore the subjective experiences of a group of South African psychologists regarding the HPCSA as well as the ethical code which serves as a guideline for the conduct of psychologists. This study made use of a sequential mixed method design, which comprised of a qualitative phase followed by a quantitative phase. All participants in this study were qualified psychologists. Seven participants took part in the qualitative phase and 74 participants took part in the quantitative phase. The data from the qualitative phase was grouped into broad categories and served as the basis for compiling a questionnaire for the quantitative phase. After collecting the completed questionnaires, the data was read into SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), which was used for the statistical analysis of the data. The data was analysed by means of frequency distributions and mean scores. During the analysis of the data, six themes where identified: five regarding the HPCSA as the regulator of psychology and one regarding the ethical code that guides the conduct of psychologists. The themes include “guidance and mentorship”, “the HPCSA as a watchdog”, “the HPCSA’s motive”, “reverence that psychologists have for the HPCSA”, “the competence of the HPCSA” and “psychologists’ view on the ethical code”. The results indicated that an ambiguous relationship exists between this group of psychologists and the HPCSA, as these two entities seem to function separately. Generally, psychologists who took part in this research have a negative view towards the HPCSA, although they realise the necessity for the HPCSA as a regulating body for psychology. The recognition of this need is a platform for a workable relationship between psychologists and the HPCSA. The participants provided less detail and responded more neutral regarding their views on the ethical code, and it is concerning that quite a number of psychologists indicated that they did not know the code. This study concludes with recommendations for the HPCSA to be more approachable and to provide psychologists with more support. / Thesis (M.A. (Research Psychology))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.

The profession of psychology in South Africa has not always been regulated by a statutory body such as the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA). Currently, the profession of psychology is regulated by the HPCSA and psychologists and the HPCSA find themselves in a lawful and interminable relationship. The HPCSA’s motto is to protect the public and to guide the profession, but it was questioned whether psychologists actually experience guidance from the HPCSA. In response to this problem, this study aimed to explore the subjective experiences of a group of South African psychologists regarding the HPCSA as well as the ethical code which serves as a guideline for the conduct of psychologists. This study made use of a sequential mixed method design, which comprised of a qualitative phase followed by a quantitative phase. All participants in this study were qualified psychologists. Seven participants took part in the qualitative phase and 74 participants took part in the quantitative phase. The data from the qualitative phase was grouped into broad categories and served as the basis for compiling a questionnaire for the quantitative phase. After collecting the completed questionnaires, the data was read into SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), which was used for the statistical analysis of the data. The data was analysed by means of frequency distributions and mean scores. During the analysis of the data, six themes where identified: five regarding the HPCSA as the regulator of psychology and one regarding the ethical code that guides the conduct of psychologists. The themes include “guidance and mentorship”, “the HPCSA as a watchdog”, “the HPCSA’s motive”, “reverence that psychologists have for the HPCSA”, “the competence of the HPCSA” and “psychologists’ view on the ethical code”. The results indicated that an ambiguous relationship exists between this group of psychologists and the HPCSA, as these two entities seem to function separately. Generally, psychologists who took part in this research have a negative view towards the HPCSA, although they realise the necessity for the HPCSA as a regulating body for psychology. The recognition of this need is a platform for a workable relationship between psychologists and the HPCSA. The participants provided less detail and responded more neutral regarding their views on the ethical code, and it is concerning that quite a number of psychologists indicated that they did not know the code. This study concludes with recommendations for the HPCSA to be more approachable and to provide psychologists with more support. / Thesis (M.A. (Research Psychology))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.

Ce mémoire propose de faire l’analyse épistémologique du pouvoir créateur de la sélection naturelle. L’objectif sera de déterminer en quelle mesure il est légitime ou non de lui attribuer un tel pouvoir. Pour ce faire, il sera question de savoir si l’explication sélectionniste peut répondre à la question de l’origine des formes structurelles du vivant. Au premier chapitre, nous verrons le raisonnement qui mena Darwin à accorder un pouvoir créateur à la sélection naturelle. Nous comprendrons alors qu’un cadre exclusivement darwinien n’est peut-être pas à même de répondre au problème de la nouveauté évolutionnaire. Au deuxième chapitre, nous verrons dans une perspective darwinienne qu’il est possible de conserver l’essence de la théorie darwinienne et d’accorder à la sélection naturelle un pouvoir créateur, bien que deux des piliers darwiniens fondamentaux doivent être remis en question. Au troisième chapitre, nous verrons dans une perspective postdarwinienne que le pouvoir cumulatif de la sélection naturelle n’est peut-être pas à même d’expliquer l’adaptation sur le plan individuel, ce qui remet lourdement en question le pouvoir créateur de la sélection naturelle. Nous comprendrons alors que le débat, entre partisans d’une vision positive et partisans d’une vision négative de la sélection naturelle, dépend peut-être d’un présupposé métaphysique particulier. / This thesis proposes an epistemological analysis of the creative power of natural selection. The aim will be to determine to what extent it is legitimate or not to give to this selection such power. To do this, we will have to know if the selectionist explanation can answer the question of the origin of structural forms of life. In the first chapter, we will see the reasoning leading Darwin to give a creative power of natural selection. We will then understand that an exclusively Darwinian framework is maybe unable to address the problem of evolutionary novelty. In the second chapter, we will see in a Darwinian way that it is possible to retain the essence of Darwinian theory and to give natural selection a creative power, although two of the fundamental Darwinians pillars must be questioned. In the third chapter, we will see in a post-Darwinian way that the cumulative power of natural selection is maybe unable to explain adaptation at individual level, challenging seriously the creative power of natural selection. We will then understand that the debate, between supporters of a positive view and supporters of a negative view of natural selection, may depend on a particular metaphysical assumption.

Ce mémoire propose de faire l’analyse épistémologique du pouvoir créateur de la sélection naturelle. L’objectif sera de déterminer en quelle mesure il est légitime ou non de lui attribuer un tel pouvoir. Pour ce faire, il sera question de savoir si l’explication sélectionniste peut répondre à la question de l’origine des formes structurelles du vivant. Au premier chapitre, nous verrons le raisonnement qui mena Darwin à accorder un pouvoir créateur à la sélection naturelle. Nous comprendrons alors qu’un cadre exclusivement darwinien n’est peut-être pas à même de répondre au problème de la nouveauté évolutionnaire. Au deuxième chapitre, nous verrons dans une perspective darwinienne qu’il est possible de conserver l’essence de la théorie darwinienne et d’accorder à la sélection naturelle un pouvoir créateur, bien que deux des piliers darwiniens fondamentaux doivent être remis en question. Au troisième chapitre, nous verrons dans une perspective postdarwinienne que le pouvoir cumulatif de la sélection naturelle n’est peut-être pas à même d’expliquer l’adaptation sur le plan individuel, ce qui remet lourdement en question le pouvoir créateur de la sélection naturelle. Nous comprendrons alors que le débat, entre partisans d’une vision positive et partisans d’une vision négative de la sélection naturelle, dépend peut-être d’un présupposé métaphysique particulier. / This thesis proposes an epistemological analysis of the creative power of natural selection. The aim will be to determine to what extent it is legitimate or not to give to this selection such power. To do this, we will have to know if the selectionist explanation can answer the question of the origin of structural forms of life. In the first chapter, we will see the reasoning leading Darwin to give a creative power of natural selection. We will then understand that an exclusively Darwinian framework is maybe unable to address the problem of evolutionary novelty. In the second chapter, we will see in a Darwinian way that it is possible to retain the essence of Darwinian theory and to give natural selection a creative power, although two of the fundamental Darwinians pillars must be questioned. In the third chapter, we will see in a post-Darwinian way that the cumulative power of natural selection is maybe unable to explain adaptation at individual level, challenging seriously the creative power of natural selection. We will then understand that the debate, between supporters of a positive view and supporters of a negative view of natural selection, may depend on a particular metaphysical assumption.