Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:23:07 -0500
Reply-To: Joe Whitehurst <joewhitehurst@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: Joe Whitehurst <joewhitehurst@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Copyright status of NESUG and SGF material
In-Reply-To: <23815288.1261913609120.JavaMail.root@elwamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Peter,
I was somewhat amused to learn that you help psychologists with their
"research". I think you might find this little excerpt from my dissertation
interesting.
Joe
Given the foregoing discussion of the controversies among competing
approaches to management development training, it seems reasonable to ask
whether the phenomenon of management development might be systematically
studied so that the process can be better understood. Since at one level it
is a question of individual human experience and behavior, one might suppose
that one could turn to psychological science for appropriate theories and
methodologies or even a most widely accepted theory and method--at the very
least a rational and sustainable philosophy of science. Unfortunately this
is not a simple task. In fact, it is not even a possible task because, as
Sigmund Koch has pointed out: "never has the field been comparably
obfuscated by the babble of so vast and contentious a plurality of parochial
voices" (1975, p. 480). In the same exposition, Koch, whose entire career
has consisted largely of directing the massive, empirical, 10 year
self-study of "the" Science of Psychology (commissioned and supported by the
National Science Foundation and the American Psychological Association),
urged his peers to seriously consider the study's following conclusions:
The hundred year history of what is called "scientific psychology" has
established beyond doubt that most...domains that psychologists have sought
to order, in the name of science and via simulations of the analytical
pattern definitive of science, do not and cannot meet the conditions for
meaningful application of this pattern....Many legitimate and important
domains of psychological study then, cannot be called "science" in any
significant sense, and continued application of this misleading metaphor can
only vitiate, distort, or pervert research effort. I am saying that--in
fields as close to the heart of the psychological studies as perception,
cognition, motivation, and learning; and certainly social psychology...and
the empirical study of phenomena relevant to the domains of the extant
humanities--in all these areas, such concepts as law, experiment,
measurement, variable, control, and theory do not behave sufficiently like
their homonyms in the established sciences to justify the extension to them
of the term science. To persist in the use of this highly charged metaphor
is to shackle these fields of study with exceedingly unrealistic
expectations concerning generality limits of anticipated findings,
predictive specificity and confidence levels, feasible research and
data-processing strategies, and modes of conceptual ordering. The
inevitable heuristic effect is the enaction of imitation science rather than
the generation of significant knowledge. Pursuit of imitation science,
though a highly sophisticated skill, can only lead to the evasion and
demeaning of subject matter and to a constriction of problematic interests.
It is a deadly form of role-playing if one acknowledges that the
psychological universe has something to do with persons. This kind of
spurious knowledge can result in a corrupt human technology and spew forth
upon man a stream of ever more degrading images of himself. (Koch, 1975,
pp. 493-494)
*
*
Joe
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 6:33 AM, Peter Flom <
peterflomconsulting@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Good morning
>
> I figured someone here might know this.
>
> I've got a new website/blog, and I'd like to post my NESUG and SGF
> presentations/papers there.
>
> Is this OK to just do, or do I need permission from someone?
>
> thanks and HNY!
>
> Peter
>
> Peter L. Flom, PhD
> Statistical Consultant
> Website: http://www DOT statisticalanalysisconsulting DOT com/
> Writing; http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/582880/peter_flom.html
> Twitter: @peterflom
>
| 
