Hi, All -- I don't disagree with Don at all, but I want to turn Michael's question on its head: why are we (or is APA) not serious about training practitioners so that they can read and evaluate research? Why is this sort of training not a part of the continuing education that clinicians and counselors are required to get?
How can we in conscience send practioners out into the world who are incurious, unsophisticated and gullible? Isn't it our (or at least APA's) responsibility to certify programs that turn out people who know how to read research and evaluate it? I give you as an example _The Courage to Heal_ and the great damage that caused simply because of gullibility and a pervasive sense that an effective therapy can be judged because, "well, this sounds right." I certainly don't want my doctor choosing a medicine on the basis of anything other than what's been shown to work. Why should we expect less of therapists? It frightens me. m -- Marc Carter, PhD Associate Professor and Chair Department of Psychology College of Arts & Sciences Baker University -- ________________________________ From: Don Allen [mailto:dal...@langara.bc.ca] Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:03 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] *Nature* on APA and clinical psychology Michael Britt wrote: snip<When are we going to make psychological research more "digestible" for the average practitioner? Maybe there is such a journal and I haven't heard of it?> I agree with you that a great deal of the literature is written in an obtuse and cluncky way. I think a large part of the blame falls on the shoulders of the APA and their horrid style guide. Articles written years ago were much more readable and enjoyable than most current efforts (e.g. Miller's "The Magic Number Seven...). However, there are many journals which make research "digestible". These are journals which focus on a synthesis of research rather than on individual studies. For example, "Current Directions in Psychological Science", "Psychological Science in the Public Intrest" and "Perspectives on Psychological Science" are all far more "digestible" than "Psychological Science". Of course, the danger is that someone who only reads review articles will only be exposed to research which favours the authors' biases so students will still have to learn how to dissect and critique individual studies. None the less, I find that these review articles can be very helpful in getting students to comprehend important research without getting bogged down in the minutia of methodology and statistics. -Don. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Britt, Michael" Date: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:00 am Subject: Re: [tips] *Nature* on APA and clinical psychology To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" > I just finished reading the Nature article on psychotherapy and > here's > my 2 cents: I taught Research Methods and Statistics for > psychology > majors for many years and as all know, students loathed the idea > of > taking the course. They considered themselves "people people" > and not > scientists. All teachers of methods and stats grapple with this > > issue. But I'll leave this aside for a moment and address this > issue > instead: have you read a scientific article from a psychology > journal > recently? Thank god we're starting to get past the passive > voice and > third person writing style (but only starting) which makes such > articles so unnecessarily difficult and boring to read. But > even if > you can get past the dry, boring writing in the Intro and > Methods > section, then you have to deal with the Results section. Forget > about > the relatively straightforward t-test or anova. Today's > articles are > filled with lengthy explanations of the most detailed > statistical > procedures imaginable (Auto-Regressive Integrated Moving Average > > anyone?). I taught stats for many years and took a > multivariate > stats class in grad school and I can only begin to understand > the > typical results section of some of these articles. And we > expect > "people-people" to connect with (or even want to read) a typical > > scientific article in our field? > > When are we going to make psychological research more > "digestible" for > the average practitioner? Maybe there is such a journal and I > haven't > heard of it? > > Michael > > > > Michael Britt > mich...@thepsychfiles.com > www.thepsychfiles.com > > > > On Oct 15, 2009, at 9:04 AM, Christopher D. Green wrote: > > > > > > > > > Allen Esterson wrote: > >> > >> Clinical psychology at least has its roots in experimentation, > > > > Hmm. I wonder what you mean by that. There are many "roots" to > what > > has become clinical psychology, but the "tap root" (if I may > extend > > the metaphor) was a group of Boston physicians and > neurologists > > working with the Emmanuel Movement, a group of Boston clergy > (one of > > whom had been a student in Wundt's Leipzig lab) holding > private > > "spiritual" sessions (some talk, some prayer, probably some > > lingering Mesmerism) with some of their congregation (see, > e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Movement) > > . The movement quickly spread to several other eastern US > cities, > > but eventually drew so much "professional" criticism that the > > physicians and neurologists were forced to drop out and > denounce it. > > Still, the idea of talk therapy had been ignited. A few years > later, > > in 1909, Freud made his famous visit to Clark U. > > > > The best historical account of these events is probably given > in > > Eric Caplan's book _Mind Games_ (U. Cal, 1998). Eugene Taylor > has > > written about them as well (most accessibly in 2000, > > "Psychotherapeutics and the Problematic Origins of¨ Clinical > > Psychology in America," American Psychologist,¨ 55 (9), 1029-1033). > > > > The traditional story of Lightner Witmer having founded > "clinical > > psychology" is based on a misunderstanding of what he meant by > that > > phrase. What he invented in Philadelphia in the mid-1890s was > much > > more the basis of school psychology than of modern clinical > > psychology. > > > > Regards, > > Chris > > -- > > Christopher D. Green > > Department of Psychology > > York University > > Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 > > Canada > > ¨ > > 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 > > chri...@yorku.ca > > http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ > > ========================== > > > > --- > > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > > > Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) Don Allen, Retired Formerly with: Dept. of Psychology Langara College 100 W. 49th Ave. Vancouver, B.C. Canada V5Y 2Z6 Phone: 604-733-0039 --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail") is sent by Baker University ("BU") and is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify Baker University by email reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you. --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
