On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 21:11:27 -0700, Mike Wiliams wrote:
When responding to the research of students in high school or undergrads, I go by a simple maxim: What would Mr. Rogers say? They need to feel that the work is important and that they are important. They can have the drivel shaken out when they get to grad school.
I don't know if Mike Williams has lapsed into "Louis Schmierism" (i.e., uncritical, unconditional positive regard that is usually safe only for tenured professors and ill prepares students for learning how to deal with professors and colleagues who will ruthlessly exploit them in their quest for fame and fortune) but let me provide a counterweight to the Mr. Rogers' position by asking what would one of the most difficult professors I ever had might do (and by difficult, I mean that in all possible senses, from being intellectually opaque -- if you could not understand him it was because you were too stupid -- to emotionally distant -- the "don't bother me with the reasons why you can't make a deadline/get work done/need a social life/etc, there are others who can do your job). I'll refer to this professor as "GS" and ask the question "What would GS do?" A little more background: when GS was hired for his professorship, he initially taught a course at the undergraduate and graduate level. After the first semester, the complaints from the undergraduates were so great that the university administration (who viewed GS as a prized faculty member and a jewel in its crown) decided that GS didn't have to teach undergraduate courses, only graduate level courses (presumably he would cause the least amount of damage with graduate students). GS's level of productivity (often through the efficient and effective use of graduate students) and ability to get grant money secured his position in the university -- his teaching was secondary to all of this. So, he would become a power in the psychology department, in the university, and in the field, ultimately making him a member of the National Academy of Sciences. So, what would GS do? I imagine that he would argue that we should not encourage people who cannot do good science or are unable to distinguish between good science and bad science from engaging in anything that can be construed as "science" given the view that most of what passes for scientific research is flawed, misleading, and a waste of precious resources. With respect to high school students doing research projects, I think that he might say that "bad science" has to be nipped in the bud. Perhaps the student would be better off doing something more suited to their intellectual abilities, such as selling real estate or becoming a politician. This, however, is just speculation on my part; I don't think GS would have cared what the student did with their life -- there are far too many more important things to be concerned about. I'd like to point that I have come across other faculty/researchers who came from the mode that made GS: some legitimately brilliant but lacking in empathy and compassion, some who just seemed good at denigrating and exploiting people even though they never accomplished much in their own career. I have stopped being amazed that people like this seem to rise to high levels of power in the discipline because that seems to be a primary goal (though some can't get to a very high level because they are "B list" or "C list" academic superstars, but an academic superstar is still a superstar from the perspective of administrators). In the situation of reviewing a student's work on learning styles, I would try to point out what the strengths and weaknesses are of the research but would recommend that the student engage in scholarship on the topic and to be mindful of the confirmation bias, of only looking for research that supports one's favorite hypothesis or position. They need to come to their own realization of the limitations of their understanding of the phenomenon -- like most of us, they probably won't really follow the advice given to them. But one has to look on the bright side of this situation: the student could have attempted a replication of one of Bem's PSI "experiments" and had a successful replication. Who would wants to explain that "retroactive causation" doesn't really exist and that the results are probably due to expectancy effects and other problems? What if the student's faculty sponsor actually believes such stuff? Good luck. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=35634 or send a blank email to leave-35634-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
