Well, if I think back to my experience with writing a doctoral
dissertation, it
was partly mentor driven in the sense that it was within his field of
expertise
and as the apprentice I naturally stayed in that general area. That
having been
said, *it seemed to* take me forever to find an original niche within that
general area! Because that was what was expected of me--something that was
driven in originality by my own thinking, and that did not overlap with the
'parent' work.
To meet that expectation I needed to examine several additional variables that
my mentor had not previously examined--that is, where I was making some
assumptions about things, I had to provide additional data, carry out
additional studies, and all of this then became part of the large work
that was
the dissertation.
I always thought that was SOP....perhaps standards have changed, after all who
takes 3-day comprehensive exams any more? It seems that literature
reviews have
taken the place of the 3-day sit down pour-your-brain-out exams. For
better? For
worse? Certainly I have heard the arguments on both sides and can't
really tell.
But the quality of the magnum opus, the capstone, of one's education
should meet
a higher standard than an average journal article, should it not? After that
journal articles are a piece of cake :)
Annette
Quoting Miguel Roig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
For me, this discussion raises another issue, which perhaps partly explains
the somewhat unusual nature of this dissertation. The issue is this: To what
extent should a doctoral dissertation be the student's own original idea? I
suspect that the dissertation under discussion was the student's own idea
that was obviously pursued under the direction of a faculty mentor.
Be that as it may, I believe that in the universe of doctoral dissertations
there is a continuum between those dissertations that are entirely the
student's own conception and design and those that are entirely conceived by
their thesis advisor. One would hope that the skewness lies in
student-driven theses. However, I am sure that there are more than a few
dissertations out there that are mostly mentor-driven and those are probably
the ones that are more scientifically sound. If this is correct, I wonder
then the extent to which such experiences result in students who fall way
short of their presumed ability to carry out independent research, to
generate and test a set of novel hypotheses, and in the case of those who
are getting mental health-related degrees, to be true representatives of the
so-called scientist-practioner model.
The APA authorship guidelines state that when dissertations are published as
journal articles the student should always receive senior authorship (except
in rare exceptions). To me, these rules were formulated based on the
assumption that the student was primarily responsible for conceptualizing
the study, for making the major decisions about data analyses, and for
writing the up the thesis. But how often is this true? I bet that in a
significant number of cases, students do not meet the first two
requirements, and the third one is only partially met because, as I
understand it, in too many cases the mentor ends up doing much of the
rewriting required for submission as a journal article.
just some thoughts on a windy late afternoon ...
Miguel
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Lilienfeld [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 10:53 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
Subject: Re: astonishing Psy.D. dissertation
But Steven, even if it's only "problematic" (and admittedly, my judgment
is more negative than yours and Chris Green's), doesn't it worry you
that we are awarding such people the highest scholarly degree in the
world? A Psy.D. is, after all, a doctoral degree, and in most Psy.D.
programs the dissertation is the sole piece of work conducted by the
candidate. In other scientific fields (e.g., Physics, Chemistry), do
committee members routinely award doctoral degrees to candidates whose
dissertation work is "problematic?" I worry that we've become so inured
to low quality in many of these programs that we barely bat an eye when
we see something of crappy conceptual and methodological rigor.
But we do agree that the candidate was at least thinking outside
the "baaaaa...ox." So I wouldn't want to "scapegoat" him for that.
In response to Chris Green's latest message, my hands (and feet)
are up.
....Scott
Steven Specht wrote:
Scott,
I do share your concerns that there are some problems with design and
potential interpretation of the results. But I doubt if any of our
dissertations were "air-tight". Don't get me wrong, the design issues
need to be addressed and any generalizations from this study would be,
imho, tenuous at best. On the other hand, there are a significant
number of "dissertations" from APA accredited Psy.D. programs which
are not much more than extensive literature reviews or that may only
involve only a couple survey instruments with relatively simple
correlational analyses. Again, I am not defending these, but compared
to that approach, I find at least an attempt at experimental
manipulation encouraging. In addition, this individual seemed to be
thinking outside the "baaa"ox. ;-)
So I would say, problematic, "yes"; astounding and ridiculous "not".
Cheers,
-S
On Jan 18, 2006, at 10:30 AM, Scott Lilienfeld wrote:
Just curious....
Am I the only TIPs member who finds it rather silly to conduct a
study that on attachment that:
(1) relies exclusively on participants diagnosed with one of the most
poorly validated diagnoses in the DSM (reactive attachment disorder,
for which the validity evidence is very poor);
(2) attempts to measure changes in attachment among a group of
children with severe and lasting attachment deficits, who presumably
would be among the very children most resistant to short-term changes
in attachment;
(3) anticipates statistically (and presumably clinically) significant
changes in measured attachment behavior in children with severe and
lasting attachment deficits as a consequence of a single videotaped
presentation;
(4) relies exclusively on an independent variable that almost surely
exerts markedly multiple effects within and across participants
(e.g., empathy, disgust, curiosity, fascination), rendering negative
(and perhaps even positive) findngs difficult to interpret;
(5) relies on an independent variable that features both (a) the
birthing process itself and (b) modeling of parenting behavior with
children, rendering any positive findings difficult to interpret;
(6) relies on an independent variable that confounds two influences:
(a) the direct exposure of participants to cute animals with (b) the
direct witnessing of the birthing process in such animals, making it
impossible to determine whether any positive findings might be due to
(a), (b), or their interaction; and (7) relies solely on the birth of
an animal rather than a human as an independent variable yet uses
dependent measures that assess attachment to relationships with other
children, so that negative findings could readily be due to an
absence of generalization in attachment feelings across species?
If so, I guess I'll just have to play the role of TIPS Grinch
today......
....Scott
Beth Benoit wrote:
I sent that info to a very bright student of mine who, with her
husband, runs a farm with sheep and goats. I agree with her, and
didn't find the paper to be ridiculous or astonishing at all. Below
is an excerpt from her reply:
Beth Benoit
Granite State College
Portsmouth NH
Do I take it that Scott Lilienfeld doubts the efficacy of the
experiment? Two years ago my neighbor brought her steadfastly
unattached
21-year-old daughter to the farm to see the babies. They witnessed
twin
kids being born. The daughter promptly proposed to her boyfriend
and had a
baby. She says that seeing the birth and the mother goat's behavior
radically changed her feelings. Anecdotal but interesting. I'm a firm
believer in animal behavior informing our own (for better and worse).
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D.
Associate Professor Department of Psychology, Room 206 Emory University
532 N. Kilgo Circle Atlanta, Georgia 30322
(404) 727-1125 (phone)
(404) 727-0372 (FAX)
Home Page: http://www.emory.edu/PSYCH/Faculty/lilienfeld.html
The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice:
www.srmhp.org
The Master in the Art of Living makes little distinction between his
work and his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body,
his education and his recreation, his love and his intellectual
passions. He hardly knows which is which. He simply pursues his
vision of excellence in whatever he does, leaving others to decide
whether he is working or playing. To him – he is always doing both.
- Zen Buddhist text (slightly modified)
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
========================================================
Steven M. Specht, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Psychology
Utica College
Utica, NY 13502
(315) 792-3171
"Mice may be called large or small, and so may elephants, and it is
quite understandable when someone says it was a large mouse that ran
up the trunk of a small elephant" (S. S. Stevens, 1958)
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Psychology, Room 206
Emory University
532 N. Kilgo Circle
Atlanta, Georgia 30322
(404) 727-1125 (phone)
(404) 727-0372 (FAX)
Home Page: http://www.emory.edu/PSYCH/Faculty/lilienfeld.html
The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice:
www.srmhp.org
The Master in the Art of Living makes little distinction between his work
and his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his
education and his recreation, his love and his intellectual passions. He
hardly knows which is which. He simply pursues his vision of excellence in
whatever he does, leaving others to decide whether he is working or playing.
To him – he is always doing both.
- Zen Buddhist text
(slightly modified)
---
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]
Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D.
Department of Psychology
University of San Diego
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
