In response to my post, Jim Clark wrote:
>I believe it is a misnomer to use the descriptor "scientific" in
>this general way and to refer to both of the approaches that you
>later described as "scientific." These are more like
>epistemologies or approaches to knowledge (i.e., ways of knowing)
>r
At 11:17 AM -0700 4/13/99, Dr. Barbara Watters wrote:
>Feminist scholars have, quite successfully, combined this approach with
>the more "objective tradition" to provide rich insights about human
>behavior. One could justifiably ask, exactly where do we find the truth
>about human behavior: from
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
>experim
The distinction you are making, Jeff, is somewhat simplistic, BUT as as
introduction to research methodology presented in an Intro to Psych
class, I think it's a nice approach. Can I have your permission to use
it? :)
I would recommend that you add a discussion of a
historical/political/social p
Hi
On Tue, 13 Apr 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In my intro-psych classes, I try to make sense of the enormous
> diversity in psychology, as well as possible causes of the
> controversies that sometimes rage in our discipline, by
> contrasting two scientific traditions that seem to me to be
>
In my intro-psych classes, I try to make sense of the enormous diversity in
psychology, as well as possible causes of the controversies that sometimes rage
in our discipline, by contrasting two scientific traditions that seem to me to
be solidly established. By the term "scientific tradition," I
