Agreed.
And I too am worried at all levels about being inured by low quality.
If I may change the discussion a bit (although I think this is very
relevant)... I am increasingly amazed/puzzled by undergraduates who are
"average" (or less) in terms of academic performance, but who
nonetheless simply assume that they are going to graduate school... TO
GET A Ph.D.! As if it's simply a choice one makes independent of
academic performance. I was far above average and was very concerned
that I wouldn't get in or be able to "make it". Of course, many of them
don't get in, but. still. One of the issues that I firmly believe
contributes greatly to this problem is the availability of lots of
"pay-for" graduate programs which have proliferated across the country.
Administrations have taken advantage of the widespread "desire" for
graduate degrees and offer programs of questionable quality to students
of questionable quality who are willing to "pay for" their degree.
Argh! It drives me crazy and it's very difficult to stop.
-S
On Jan 18, 2006, at 10:52 AM, Scott Lilienfeld wrote:
But Steven, even if it's only "problematic" (and admittedly, my
judgment is more negative than yours and Chris Green's), doesn't it
worry you that we are awarding such people the highest scholarly
degree in the world? A Psy.D. is, after all, a doctoral degree, and
in most Psy.D. programs the dissertation is the sole piece of work
conducted by the candidate. In other scientific fields (e.g.,
Physics, Chemistry), do committee members routinely award doctoral
degrees to candidates whose dissertation work is "problematic?" I
worry that we've become so inured to low quality in many of these
programs that we barely bat an eye when we see something of crappy
conceptual and methodological rigor.
But we do agree that the candidate was at least thinking outside
the "baaaaa...ox." So I wouldn't want to "scapegoat" him for that.
In response to Chris Green's latest message, my hands (and feet)
are up.
....Scott
Steven Specht wrote:
Scott,
I do share your concerns that there are some problems with design and
potential interpretation of the results. But I doubt if any of our
dissertations were "air-tight". Don't get me wrong, the design issues
need to be addressed and any generalizations from this study would
be, imho, tenuous at best. On the other hand, there are a significant
number of "dissertations" from APA accredited Psy.D. programs which
are not much more than extensive literature reviews or that may only
involve only a couple survey instruments with relatively simple
correlational analyses. Again, I am not defending these, but compared
to that approach, I find at least an attempt at experimental
manipulation encouraging. In addition, this individual seemed to be
thinking outside the "baaa"ox. ;-)
So I would say, problematic, "yes"; astounding and ridiculous "not".
Cheers,
-S
On Jan 18, 2006, at 10:30 AM, Scott Lilienfeld wrote:
Just curious....
Am I the only TIPs member who finds it rather silly to conduct a
study that on attachment that:
(1) relies exclusively on participants diagnosed with one of the
most poorly validated diagnoses in the DSM (reactive attachment
disorder, for which the validity evidence is very poor);
(2) attempts to measure changes in attachment among a group of
children with severe and lasting attachment deficits, who presumably
would be among the very children most resistant to short-term
changes in attachment;
(3) anticipates statistically (and presumably clinically)
significant changes in measured attachment behavior in children with
severe and lasting attachment deficits as a consequence of a single
videotaped presentation;
(4) relies exclusively on an independent variable that almost surely
exerts markedly multiple effects within and across participants
(e.g., empathy, disgust, curiosity, fascination), rendering negative
(and perhaps even positive) findngs difficult to interpret;
(5) relies on an independent variable that features both (a) the
birthing process itself and (b) modeling of parenting behavior with
children, rendering any positive findings difficult to interpret;
(6) relies on an independent variable that confounds two influences:
(a) the direct exposure of participants to cute animals with (b) the
direct witnessing of the birthing process in such animals, making it
impossible to determine whether any positive findings might be due
to (a), (b), or their interaction; and (7) relies solely on the
birth of an animal rather than a human as an independent variable
yet uses dependent measures that assess attachment to relationships
with other children, so that negative findings could readily be due
to an absence of generalization in attachment feelings across
species?
If so, I guess I'll just have to play the role of TIPS Grinch
today......
....Scott
Beth Benoit wrote:
I sent that info to a very bright student of mine who, with her
husband, runs a farm with sheep and goats. I agree with her, and
didn't find the paper to be ridiculous or astonishing at all.
Below is an excerpt from her reply:
Beth Benoit
Granite State College
Portsmouth NH
Do I take it that Scott Lilienfeld doubts the efficacy of the
experiment? Two years ago my neighbor brought her steadfastly
unattached
21-year-old daughter to the farm to see the babies. They
witnessed twin
kids being born. The daughter promptly proposed to her boyfriend
and had a
baby. She says that seeing the birth and the mother goat's
behavior
radically changed her feelings. Anecdotal but interesting. I'm a
firm
believer in animal behavior informing our own (for better and
worse).
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D.
Associate Professor Department of Psychology, Room 206 Emory
University
532 N. Kilgo Circle Atlanta, Georgia 30322
(404) 727-1125 (phone)
(404) 727-0372 (FAX)
Home Page: http://www.emory.edu/PSYCH/Faculty/lilienfeld.html
The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice:
www.srmhp.org
The Master in the Art of Living makes little distinction between his
work and his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body,
his education and his recreation, his love and his intellectual
passions. He hardly knows which is which. He simply pursues his
vision of excellence in whatever he does, leaving others to decide
whether he is working or playing. To him – he is always doing both.
- Zen Buddhist text (slightly modified)
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
========================================================
Steven M. Specht, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Psychology
Utica College
Utica, NY 13502
(315) 792-3171
"Mice may be called large or small, and so may elephants, and it is
quite understandable when someone says it was a large mouse that ran
up the trunk of a small elephant" (S. S. Stevens, 1958)
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D.
Associate Professor Department of Psychology, Room 206 Emory University
532 N. Kilgo Circle Atlanta, Georgia 30322
(404) 727-1125 (phone)
(404) 727-0372 (FAX)
Home Page: http://www.emory.edu/PSYCH/Faculty/lilienfeld.html
The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice:
www.srmhp.org
The Master in the Art of Living makes little distinction between his
work and his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body,
his education and his recreation, his love and his intellectual
passions. He hardly knows which is which. He simply pursues his
vision of excellence in whatever he does, leaving others to decide
whether he is working or playing. To him – he is always doing both.
- Zen Buddhist text (slightly modified)
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
========================================================
Steven M. Specht, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Psychology
Utica College
Utica, NY 13502
(315) 792-3171
"Mice may be called large or small, and so may elephants, and it is
quite understandable when someone says it was a large mouse that ran up
the trunk of a small elephant" (S. S. Stevens, 1958)
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
