CHUCK TUCKER 970811
Rick frequently complains that is very little (he usually
says 'none') research which compares PCT (or HPCT) with
other "theories." I think this is a matter of what he
accepts as 'research.' It is true that there are no
published accounts of research using "tracking" that make
the comparison of other theories to PCT but there are a
number of other research studies which do make the comparison
of other theories to PCT. Let me just mention a few that fit
my specifications for such research.
I can't cite the specific studies since I don't have his paper
in front of me but in all of Kent's papers he cites many
studies (Peter Burke's work is published in the major journals
of sociology) which show the support for PCT against other theories.
It seems to me that Gary Cziko's book WITHOUT MIRACLES shows
how PCT can be used (and is being used) to explain a wide
variety of phenomenon from biological behavior to the development
of knowledge. As Gary notes "... in all fields of inquiry, three
major types of explanations have been proposed for the origin
and growth of knowledge, that is, for the increase in fit
between an organism or product of an organism and its physical
or social environment. These three explanations are referred to
as PROVIDENTIAL, INSTRUCTIONIST, and SELECTIONIST theories. .. in
many diverse disciplines of knowledge we are about to explore, the
first two types of explanations have repeatly been replaced by the
third (x)." The SELECTIONIST explanation is the type of explanation
found in PCT (as Gary documents in Chapter 8). Thus, what Gary
shows is that all behavior of organisms is explained by PCT.
Another member of CSG, Clark McPhail follows a similar strategy
to Gary except he focuses specifically on the providential (which
he calls 'myth') and instructionist (which he calls
predispositional) explanations of collective action (which is any
two persons acting) in his THE MYTH OF THE MADDING CROWD. By
carefully reviewing the research on the transformational, pre-
dispositional, and emergent norm hypotheses of collective action
he shows that they are faulty on definitional and empirical grounds;
none of them can be used to explain collective action (people doing
things to, for, with and against one another). Then, he shows
that PCT (HPCT) does explain collective action.
It seems to me that Rijt and Plooij's WHY THEY CRY does an excellent
job of showing how PCT is very useful for explaining human
development (Bill's find it very useful in the little PCT book
on pp. 50-54).
Finally, it seems to me that all of Ed Ford's work (and some of
Glasser's) has been designed to demonstrate that reinforcement
theory does not work when dealing with people in the home, at school
or at work.
I'm certain I missed someone's research. Sorry, but this post is
on the spur of the moment.
Regards, Chuck