At 7:31 AM -0700 4/13/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
....
>"The objective tradition in psychology is characterized by the following: (a)
>There is a focus on group averages. Thus, the data collected are most
>likely to
>involve the measurement of large numbers of subjects. Correlational and
>experimental studies are typically performed within the objective tradition.
>(b) There is at least a moderate amount of control of the research situation.
>In fact, research often occurs in laboratory situations where manipulation and
>control of possible causal variables can more easily be performed. (c)
>There is
>a focus on observable phenomena. In fact, objective researchers typically
>prefer operational definitions that specify the observations we must make when
>measuring a phenomenon. (d) There is a strong motivation to develop basic
>knowledge. Although objective researchers prefer that their research findings
>have applications to everyday life, they are more motivated by simple
>curiosity: they desire to know the causes of a phenomenon. (e) There is a
>focus
>on proximate causation of phenomena. That is, objective researchers often
>study
>causes that are very close in time to the phenomenon being investigated."
>
>I use B. F. Skinner to illustrate the objective tradition. Although I make the
>point that it is not always a simple matter to classify a PARTICULAR
>RESEARCHER
>as being within one or the other tradition, it seems to me that these
>characteristics do paint a portrait of two fundamental kinds of research that
>are performed within our discipline.
>
>What do you think about this distinction? Is it a valid one? Is it too
>simplisitic? Is it leaving out other variations?
Jeff--
Personally, I don't find the subjective/objective dichotomy very useful.
Skinner is a particularly bad choice for your objective:
(a) Behavior analysis (following Skinner) tends to reject the use of group
averages, concentrating instead on signle subject experimental designs.
(c) Behavior analysts insist that events studied be observable by at least
one person; we do not insist on public agreement.
We do not define terms operationally; rather we prefer functional
definitions (definitions in terms of behavior-consequence relationships).
(e) Behavior analysis rejects proximal (mechanistic) causes in favor of
distal (historical) ones.
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Department 507-389-6217 *
* "The University formerly known as Mankato State" *
* http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
