|
Aubyn
writes...
I want
to disagree (pointedly and vigorously, but also respectfully and amiably) with
two aspects of what Chris says below, while agreeing with the basic
point.
First,
I don't think that a gentle, non-confrontational face is always appropriate in
the clinical setting either. Related to the problem that Scott has brought up is
the difficulty some clinical students have in appropriately confronting clients,
and that popularizations (which need not be as nasty a concept as it often is in
practice) of psychology have in telling laypeople anything other than what they
already want to hear. Thus, even psychology students who aim only for clinical
roles need to learn how to appropriately participate in honest give and
take.
Second, I don't think pluralism per se is a culprit in what I also see as
a widespread "wimp" factor when it comes to vigorous academic debate. Indeed, I
qualify as a person of "diverse" cultural background on several dimensions, yet
my pervasive personal experience has been that the mainstream, WASP professional
and academic world is far more tame and placid, far less confrontational, honest
and (to be blunt) interesting, than the non-WASP cultural contexts in which I
was reared (and you know how painful that can be). It may be that mainstream
culture, never entirely sure of when it really is being disrespectful, is so
insecure that it has chosen to err on the side of irresponsible, flabby
discourse, but I would see that more as a failure of knowing how to be genuinely
respectful of differences (and so able to confidently engage in vigorous
discourse) than of the pluralistic project itself.
I
finger the marketing culture which has seeped into even relatively elite
undergraduate institutions, and no doubt graduate programs as well. I don't
endorse the *Paper Chase* model of education, but I don't think it is entirely
bad for students to feel a little churning in the belly as they approach a class
room, and have a sense of needing to meet high performance expectations. Too
often we are told to focus on making students feel comfortable, instead of on
helping them become full functioning participants in the academic
community.
I save
another finger for the failure of many vigorous academic debates to maintain
genuine respect and collegiality. For this we have no one to blame but
ourselves.
****************************************************
Aubyn
Fulton, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
Chair, Behavioral Science
Department
Pacific Union College
Angwin, CA 94508
Office:
707-965-6536
Email:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*****************************************************
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
