For me, this discussion raises another issue, which perhaps partly explains the somewhat unusual nature of this dissertation. The issue is this: To what extent should a doctoral dissertation be the student's own original idea? I suspect that the dissertation under discussion was the student's own idea that was obviously pursued under the direction of a faculty mentor.
Be that as it may, I believe that in the universe of doctoral dissertations there is a continuum between those dissertations that are entirely the student's own conception and design and those that are entirely conceived by their thesis advisor. One would hope that the skewness lies in student-driven theses. However, I am sure that there are more than a few dissertations out there that are mostly mentor-driven and those are probably the ones that are more scientifically sound. If this is correct, I wonder then the extent to which such experiences result in students who fall way short of their presumed ability to carry out independent research, to generate and test a set of novel hypotheses, and in the case of those who are getting mental health-related degrees, to be true representatives of the so-called scientist-practioner model. The APA authorship guidelines state that when dissertations are published as journal articles the student should always receive senior authorship (except in rare exceptions). To me, these rules were formulated based on the assumption that the student was primarily responsible for conceptualizing the study, for making the major decisions about data analyses, and for writing the up the thesis. But how often is this true? I bet that in a significant number of cases, students do not meet the first two requirements, and the third one is only partially met because, as I understand it, in too many cases the mentor ends up doing much of the rewriting required for submission as a journal article. just some thoughts on a windy late afternoon ... Miguel -----Original Message----- From: Scott Lilienfeld [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 10:53 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Subject: Re: astonishing Psy.D. dissertation 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] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
