Aubyn Fulton wrote:
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.
I don't either. Many students (and clinicians of certain stripes) seem
to, however.
Second, I don't think pluralism per se is a
culprit
I didn't say it was. I said the current "emphasis on pluralism... (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."
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).
Again, I didn't say anything about the "tameness" (or otherwise) of any
culture (being generally white, but only somewhat anglo-saxon, and
decidedly not Protestant -- as though any of that matters much). What
I said was that the pervasive pressure to appear "sensitive" to such
issues prevents many people (viz., professors) from saying what they
mean (because virtually any comment can be construed -- and seriously
taken as being -- ethnicity- or gender-related, even when it is focused
solely on the intellectual content of one's words).
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.
Were it only so simple. (Was that a respectful thing to say about
"WASPs"? Is "WASP" a respectful term to use? Are you sure?)
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.
Agreed.
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.
Perhaps. Perhaps we should also encourage students (and our colleagues)
to be just be a little less anxious to "take offense" at the slightest
perceived affront (especially in place of responsing effectively to a
pithy critique of a cherished position).
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,
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]
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
