You grade the paper just like any other paper. There
is far too much political correctness in academia. To
give a paper on reparative therapy a lower grade just
because you don't agree with the topic is not fair to
the student or consistent with the precepts of
academic and scholarly freedom.
I agree with Barbara's first and third statements.
This is a psychology class so the paper, whatever the
topic, must be consistent with the class and the
discipline. That being said, is it possible for a
paper on reparative therapy to be written according to
such standards? Absolutely. The grade on the paper
should depend on the extent to which the student
supports his or her assertions with well-supported
research and well-reasoned conclusions. It does not
matter if his personal perspective on the topic of
homosexuality is based on a religious or spiritual
worldview. It could also be easily argued that
someone who believes that homosexuality *is not*
deviant is also basing that particular belief on a
certain worldview. We all have worldviews, and we can
find evidence to support any worldview, so that is not
the issue. The issue is whether or not his paper
cogently presents psychological ideas and principles.
I don't agree with Barbara on her second statement.
In her second statement she states that someone
shouldn't write a paper on a treatment for a
behavioral/affective pattern that is not recognized as
a disorder. However, we already do this in other
areas of psychotherapy. We have treatments for other
mental health problems (uncomplicated bereavement,
phase of life problems, etc.). Some of these are
listed as V-Codes and some are not. V-Codes, however,
are not considered mental disorders. The DSM also
does not list marital or family conflicts as a
disorder (unless you count the V-Codes), yet many
people write papers on the treatment of marital and
family conflicts.
Barbara then implies that we shouldn't take an
unequivocal stand on one type of treatment because all
disorders on complex and multidetermined. If this
were the case, then we also should not make the case
for medication plus cognitive-behavioral therapy or
interpersonal therapy for depression. The fact is,
however, that research has found this type of
treatment to be effective, despite the often different
etiologies of depression.
This is a difficult issue, but one that I think we
need to address. There is a large portion of the
public that believes sexual orientation can be
changed. There is a large segment that believes it
can not be changed. We need to do the research to see
if this is the case. But, just try to get funding to
do this! I don't imagine that this kind of research
would also lead to tenure. Academicians have been
fired for doing less politically-incorrect things.
Please people, let's keep academic inquiry free!
--- Barbara Watters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David and TIPSters,
> Counseling psychology is not my area, but I have
> faced similar situations:
> reading students' papers that expressed viewpoints
> counter to my own. I
> have several reactions to your dilemma, based on my
> experience:
>
> 1. Be sure to state the requirements for the paper
> ahead of time,
> explicitly and objectively, on your syllabus.
> Evaluate the paper in terms
> of those requirements; period. ...I know, easy to
> say but hard to do in
> some cases...
>
> 2. Specific to your example: You are justified to
> lower the student's
> evaluation in some fashion (e.g., take off points,
> lower the letter grade,
> whatever you're doing) because of several logical
> flaws. First, I'm not
> sure it makes sense to discuss a therapy for a
> behavioral/affective pattern
> that is not recognized by the APA as a disorder.
> (Sounds like a logical
> flaw and an ethical violation!) Second, even among
> patterns that are
> recognized as disorders, there are few if any (to my
> knowledge) for which
> we can conclusively cite their causes. Because
> disorders--as well as
> "normal" behaviors, however you define that--are
> complex and
> multi-determined, it is erroneous to take such an
> unequivocal stand on one
> form of therapy, in my opinion.
>
> 3. Specific to your example, but also a more
> general comment: It is
> important for students to learn and demonstrate
> their understanding of both
> the content and the reasoning of a discipline, in
> your example, counseling
> psychology. If students express ideas that are
> based on their own personal
> _opinions_ and that are inconsistent with the
> content and reasoning of the
> discipline, then you are justified in lowering your
> evaluations. If a
> scientific and logical treatment of a topic was your
> assignment, then
> religion does not belong in the paper. If you
> encouraged students to
> examine a topic from multiple disciplines, then
> that's fine, but they still
> must demonstrate correctly the content and reasoning
> of the primary
> discipline of the course.
>
> I'll be interested to hear other TIPSters'
> approaches to this dilemma.
> Barbara
>
>
> Dr. Barbara Watters
> Penn State Erie, The Behrend College
> School of Humanities and Social Sciences
> Station Road
> Erie, PA 16563
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
