I just finished reading the Nature article on psychotherapy and here's my 2 cents: I taught Research Methods and Statistics for psychology majors for many years and as all know, students loathed the idea of taking the course. They considered themselves "people people" and not scientists. All teachers of methods and stats grapple with this issue. But I'll leave this aside for a moment and address this issue instead: have you read a scientific article from a psychology journal recently? Thank god we're starting to get past the passive voice and third person writing style (but only starting) which makes such articles so unnecessarily difficult and boring to read. But even if you can get past the dry, boring writing in the Intro and Methods section, then you have to deal with the Results section. Forget about the relatively straightforward t-test or anova. Today's articles are filled with lengthy explanations of the most detailed statistical procedures imaginable (Auto-Regressive Integrated Moving Average anyone?). I taught stats for many years and took a multivariate stats class in grad school and I can only begin to understand the typical results section of some of these articles. And we expect "people-people" to connect with (or even want to read) a typical scientific article in our field?
When are we going to make psychological research more "digestible" for the average practitioner? Maybe there is such a journal and I haven't heard of it? Michael Michael Britt [email protected] www.thepsychfiles.com On Oct 15, 2009, at 9:04 AM, Christopher D. Green wrote: > > > > Allen Esterson wrote: >> >> Clinical psychology at least has its roots in experimentation, > > Hmm. I wonder what you mean by that. There are many "roots" to what > has become clinical psychology, but the "tap root" (if I may extend > the metaphor) was a group of Boston physicians and neurologists > working with the Emmanuel Movement, a group of Boston clergy (one of > whom had been a student in Wundt's Leipzig lab) holding private > "spiritual" sessions (some talk, some prayer, probably some > lingering Mesmerism) with some of their congregation (see, e.g., > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Movement) > . The movement quickly spread to several other eastern US cities, > but eventually drew so much "professional" criticism that the > physicians and neurologists were forced to drop out and denounce it. > Still, the idea of talk therapy had been ignited. A few years later, > in 1909, Freud made his famous visit to Clark U. > > The best historical account of these events is probably given in > Eric Caplan's book _Mind Games_ (U. Cal, 1998). Eugene Taylor has > written about them as well (most accessibly in 2000, > "Psychotherapeutics and the Problematic Origins of¨ Clinical > Psychology in America," American Psychologist,¨ 55 (9), 1029-1033). > > The traditional story of Lightner Witmer having founded "clinical > psychology" is based on a misunderstanding of what he meant by that > phrase. What he invented in Philadelphia in the mid-1890s was much > more the basis of school psychology than of modern clinical > psychology. > > Regards, > Chris > -- > Christopher D. Green > Department of Psychology > York University > Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 > Canada > ¨ > 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 > [email protected] > http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ > ========================== > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([email protected]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
