Re: astonishing Psy.D. dissertation

[Christopher Green]

Perhaps the problem here is that too many of us (with Ph.Ds) are regarding the Psy.D. as a real doctorate. It isn't, any more than the M.D. (the obvious model for the degree's name) is a real doctorate (which is why there are PhDs in medicine as well). It's is nothing more than an advanced practitioner's degree. Surely no one would ever hire someone with a Psy.D. into a position where high-quality research was expected, would they? Regards, -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.yorku.ca/christo Office: 416-736-5115 ext. 66164 Fax: 416-736-5814 =================== =================== Rick Froman wrote: Scott Lilienfeld wrote:  “(I also don't agree in principle that one can't judge at least some of the merits of a research project by reading an Abstract, as a silly research question is a silly research question regardless of how well or carefully the study is executed, but that's another matter).”  I agree that this study had methodological flaws and was too limited to fulfill the requirements of a doctoral dissertation. On the other hand, many Psy.D. programs do not have a dissertation requirement at all and many that do consider a detailed literature review to be a dissertation. Without reading the dissertation, it is difficult to say how detailed and developed the literature review may have been (or if, in this case, there was even a “literature” to review). I applaud the attempt to test an idea that has currency in the field without accompanying empirical support. I wish I could persuade all of my undergrads and grads who seek a career in counseling to have such a mindset of putting widely held assumptions and unquestioned therapeutic approaches to an empirical test.   I disagree that this is a silly research question on its face. Just because goats are used, doesn’t earn it the Golden Fleece (although I am sure Senator Proxmire would have criticized the research had he still been doing this and if it had received federal funds). Is it a silly research question to put Healing Touch therapy to an empirical test? What about Facilitated Communication? There are many programs today using outdoor experiences and interactions with animals in a therapeutic way. Should these therapies remain untested because it would seem silly to test them? Remember, the results found no significant effect. How likely would a study like this be published if it wasn’t a dissertation? Anecdotal evidence of positive effects are all over the place but since such questions are seen as below serious research, no one takes a chance at getting negative findings and the resulting difficulty in finding an outlet for the research. If research articles such as this are seen as silly on their face because they use goats, it is hypocritical of us to criticize therapists for not empirically validating questionable treatments. Serious scientists may have better things to do than test the silly (and in some cases dangerous, wasteful and misguided) ideas that are passing for therapy in some circles but I hope those we are training to be counselors will develop the attitude of putting even their most widely held and cherished beliefs to the test. Rick Dr. Rick Froman Professor of Psychology John Brown University 2000 W. University Siloam Springs, AR  72761 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (479) 524-7295 http://www.jbu.edu/academics/sbs/faculty/rfroman.asp --- 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: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]