[From Dick Robertson, 2001.0426.0705CDT, recent 2001,0417.1600]
Sam:
Yes, I used Runkels' "Casting nets in an undergrad "experimental Psych
course." As ex-psy was viewed in our department it really was an
introduction to research methods. I started with Phil's book, stressing
the difference between casting nets and testing specimens. Then I used
one of my colleague's standard text to review some of the traditional
methods, pointing out that they mainly consisted of strategies for
"casting nets" types of research. Then I came back to the argument as to
why _basic_ research, in psych as in probably all fields, requires the
testing specimens approach because you are looking for universal
principles: the basic nature of the phenomena in question. In psych
that would mean every subject would show the "same" action. I then
illustrated that approach with a few instances: Psychophysics,
Ebbinghaus' studies of memory as a classic example, and my own paper on
Testing the Self as a control system--as a crude first step toward
developing a methodology for "personality" studies, or in HPCT terms,
higher order "behavior."
Some (a minority I believe) seemed really to get some insight from the
distinction between nets and specimens. However, our school does not
generally see many students who think of themselves as interested in
basic science. Being mainly focused on whatever in Exp-Psy would
help them in grad school, most didn't spend much time pondering the
significance of the issues posed for research in psychology.
Now, to Bruce N & [Chuck Tucker (2001.0424b.07:52)]
In a message dated 4/23/2001 2:47:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
bnevin@CISCO.COM writes:
<< But there it is: I would benefit greatly from description and
discussion of practical examples of designing experiments or case
studies and collecting data in a variety of naturalistic settings. (And
I don't know what a quasi-experiment is. So many gaps in my education!)
One of the major complaints I have (and have so protested in many
forums) with "social science research" is the lack of any useful
description of procedures in any research. It is impossible to
replicate such research for that very reason. Since PCT uses a different
method than is customary in human research (testing a specimen) it is
extremely important that procedures are describe in great detail.
Unfortunately, this is rarely done.
So what did you guys think of my reference to my attempt to see whether
I could check out student's work in a course as an instance of control--
controlling for a chosen grade? True, I didn't give as many of the
details as I have in the past, but did you get the idea of the attempt
to analogize that investigation with the control of a cursor as in a
tracking experiment? Some of the students did (the brighter ones, I
like to believe.) There was some evidence of increasing output to
counter increasing error -- with those students who acknowledged that
they were in fact attempting to control their grade to their chosen
reference value. But, there were too few data points to attempt any
decent kind of model. There could conceivably have been 85 or more data
points (17 tests each taken 5 or more times) but that would have been
for the slowest learners. In fact the best students, those who
consciously tried to control for an A (90% or better) also tended to
supply the fewest data points. No real surprise, huh? Bill pointed out
you can't make much of a model from that. But, what do you think of the
attempt? How could you do it better? Do you think it worth trying?
Best, Dick R.