To clarify, I had a fair amount of exposure to various theories in psychology as a graduate student, but recall acquiring the best understanding of the _purpose_ and _function_ of a theory by reviewing Hull's learning theory. As background, we used the 4th edition of Hilgard & Bower's Theories of Learning and a couple of Hull's papers. Although I now forget which papers we reviewed and probably repressed (!) much of that material soon after I read it, that review was probably the one learning experience that best illustrated for me the role of theory in empirical psychology. To be fair and speaking of repression, I had similar experiences with Freud's 'theory' and how his clinical 'observations' led him to revise certain aspects of his theory (it was the 70s and early 80s!). Although much more appealing than Hull's theory, we all know about the pitfalls of that entire system. I just feel that whatever exposure I had as a student was not nearly enough for me as an academic and in recent years have regretted not having acquired a better background in theory construction. Gary's experiences notwithstanding, I sense that my own experience is far from unique within our cohort and often wonder why there is not more exposure (my assumption) at both, graduate and undergraduate levels, on, for example, how to construct a testable theory, how hypotheses ought to be derived from theory, how new data modify existing theory, etc., etc. Of course, it is never too late to learn about these important matters. But, like other have (Kline, 2014, http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959354314529616- I disagree with some of his reasons), I also wonder the extent to which the absence/weakness of theory in psychology (again, another possibly unwarrantable assumption) is responsible for the 'replication crisis' in our discipline :)
Miguel ________________________________________ From: Gerald L. Peterson [peter...@svsu.edu] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2017 9:56 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Consciousness Theory Is Where Science Goes to Die Theory was a central issue in my 70’s grad study, but I agree with Miguel that it seems un-explored. I do not recall much time given to it in my undergrad study, except perhaps, in History and Systems class. Today, I teach (developed) a Scientific Foundations class required of our majors. A primary objective is to prepare them for our research methods classes. I include information on theory, and have a section categorizing four types of theory they might encounter in psych. Students have trouble with this but alas, they get almost no study of theory beyond this. They too, might get a final hit in our History and Systems class. I would be interested in hearing if others share Miguel’s concern, and what we think undergrads should learn. G.L. (Gary) Peterson,Ph.D Psychology@SVSU --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=51777 or send a blank email to leave-51777-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
