Re: brain pick for TIPSTERS

[Christopher D. Green]

Scott, I think you've hit upon a serious and pervasive problem in many colleges and universities today. The notion of "respect" (which, in principle, is a good one) has expanded its parameters so vastly in the minds of many that it is now often considered "inappropriate" even to publicly pose questions that might "embarrass" the speaker (by highlighting methodological flaws or alternative interpretations of results). As you did, I find this attitude particularly prevalent among clinical folk (especially students who are inexperienced with mature scholarly debate) who, I think, sometimes mistake the extremely gentle, non-confrontational "face" they are trained to present in the clinical setting for the one that it is "correct" for a "professional" to maintain in all situations. The problem is not limited to clinical students, however. I carried on a playful debate about "ape language" in a philosophy colloquium with a colleague of mine a while ago (he "played" Wittgenstein, I "played" Chomsky), and the reaction from students was truly astonishing (this in *philosophy*, where debate is often the only tool tpically available). Their heads whipped back and forth like they were watching a tennis match played with a hand grenade. Afterwards some came up to both my colleague and I saying they had never seen anything like that, and wondering whether we thought the other one had been excessively "mean" (in fact, it had all been quite civily, if somewhat pointed at times). The enormous emphasis on pluralism and acceptance of divsersity in today's society (one which I  am generally in favor of) also has the potential to be used as a kind of "defensive weapon" to deflect any criticism, no matter how well-intentioned and pertinent.  I don't think there can be much doubt that *we* inculcate this in our students by the behavior we've been forced into in the undergraduate setting -- where "offended" students and parents seem to carry enough weight with deans and other administrators enough of the time that most of us would rather avoid problems by reflexively giving students the "benefit of the doubt" (whether in class discussion, in-class seminars, papers, or exams) rather than have to risk the trivial complaint of an oversensitive student becoming a full-blown "incident" (with the ensuing paperwork, meetings, possible litigation, etc.) New graduate students, understandably enough, expect the environment they experienced in undergrad to be the "real thing" and can be horrified when they see "real" scholars and scientists respectfully but exactingly shedding a colleague's position on this, that, or the other issue. Of course, most people "in the know" fully expect other academics to be able to defend themselves by coming back with an equally compelling ripost. For me (and many others on this list, apparently) this kind of intellectual sparring is a good part of the fun of being an academic (not to mention invaluable in working our way toward resilient theories about the way the world works). For those who do not have the stomach for open debate (and weren't told as undergrads that this is how the process really works in academica) I suppose it can be horrifiying and seem cruel. So be it. They will either get out while they still can, or they will learn the intellectual skills necessary to carry on. There is really very little point in having universities at all if anyone can say any old thing they want without fear of anyone taking them to task for it. We can already do that on the street (not to mention talk shows). Sorry, I don't have any references to offer you -- they would, no doubt, offend someone!. :-) Regards, -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 416-736-5115 ext. 66164 fax: 416-736-5814 http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ ============================ . Scott Lilienfeld wrote: Dear TIPSTERS: I'm writing with a "brain pick" for all of you dealing with graduate education in psychology (I hope that questions regarding graduate education are acceptable on this listserv; if not, I apologize). My question was prompted by a recent talk in our clinical psychology program in which a non-tenure track faculty member, assisted by a beginning graduate student, presented the preliminary results of some psychotherapy outcome research. The faculty and students (unexpectedly) encountered a large number of difficult and challenging questions from other faculty, none of which (in my view or that of virtually all of my clinical psychology colleagues) were in any way inappropriate or unprofessional. Nevertheless, a sizeable number (apparently a minority, but a nontrivial minority) of our graduate students were extremely upset by the nature of the questions, believing that it was somehow cruel for faculty to ask numerous tough questions of one of their fellow colleagues (and of one of the beginning graduate students). A few of them even took the steady line of questions as an "attack" or "assault" on the speakers, even though none of the questions was even remotely ad hominem in any respect. In reality, most of the questions were no tougher than one might encounter at a typical high-level professional conference. In reflecting on this incident, it occurred to me that some of the fault probably lies with us as faculty members. Specifically, I don't believe that we've done as good a job as we could of socializing our graduate students, and in particular of helping them to recognize the crucial difference between tough substantive questions and personal attacks. So here's my (perhaps naively broad) question...can any of you recommend good readings on the role of constructive criticism (including challenging but respectful questioning) in graduate education in psychology, or in graduate education in general? Either full list or backchannel responses (to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]) would be greatly appreciated. Thanks very much in advance....Scott   --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]