Mixing Theory and Research
All thought processes operate out of a theory. They reflect the assumptions,
categorisations, quantifications, if - thens, random bits, emotional tonings
, and
much more...... all of which make up our accumulated memories. Those who
write scholarly books about their theory are forced to organise it all for
their
colleagues and students.
But, when push comes to shove, its all just a bunch of words to be fought over.
I'm reminded of the all-to-frequent phenomena of the professor, who's favourite
student helper/associate, goes off to another posting and publishes papers. The
professor's comments, I thought this guy really understood my theory. I'm sure
the former student is convinced that he did and does and his paper proves it!
Our theories represent word choices, a small selection of the myriad of complex
images and thought patterns that underlie our accumulated experience. We take
great satisfaction in being able to organise it all into something that seems
coherent to us. And, once we do, were ready to go to war with the rival
theories.
Our weapons are research data ...... the hard facts. We observe the accepted
canons of current scientific methodology, apply the currently accepted
statistical
procedures, and voila, prove our point (at least enough to get through the
journal
reviewers).
And, so it is with Perceptual Control Theory (PCT). Our daily email has been
dominated by detailed defences of relationships between theory and data,
between theory and reality, between pig-headedness and truth, between novice
and expert ...... mostly based on standard assumptions, the old-wives tale, of
theory requiring research support.
Personally, I know that PCT is correct. I knew it when I read Power's book
while
immersed in neurophysiology research ... actually brain and behaviour stuff.
I've
felt like a convert ever since, as my former life as a sociologist and clinical
psychologist had, of necessity, involved immersion in stimulus - response
thinking. In the ensuing years, I've been bothered by Powers not being awarded
the prestigious prizes and PCT remaining as a subterranean presence somewhat
buried by the continued tall mounds of S - R academialis. It smells pleasant
enough. A thousands of times a day, in and out of the lab, you can
experience it.
You see the red light and push on the brake. You shout at your wife and she
shouts back. You sound a bell and the rat salivates.
This is all an overly long introduction to my chief point: PCT is validated
every
day in the classrooms of the teachers who realise they are much more effective
after switching from an S-R approach to PCT. I personally validate it every day
when my relationships with my wife are based on my understanding of PCT.
And, the people who apply PCT in therapy and counselling will attest to its
power
.... and truth. So, research, schmesearch .... let's ease up on each other!
I doubt
if there is the ultimate experiment that will prove to the existing
academics that
PCT has triumphed over S- R.
My early research life was on the auditory system. At the time ...... and
still, forty
years later, there were two theories of pitch perception: place and
frequency. My
professor, trained at Princeton with the leading exponent of frequency
theory, and
I were frequentists. We suffered a blow when Georg Bekesy, a placer, got the
Nobel physiology prize for his accumulated body of auditory research. Place
theory was underpinned by clever mathematicians analysing the structural
components of the inner ear ..... all that complex of cellular types
sitting on the
basilar membrane. They proved that the differential dynamics of vibratory
responses to pure tone (single frequency) auditory stimuli were capable of
enough physical separation as to be consistent with our ability to detect fine
differences in pitch. It never bothered the mathematicians that their formulas
assumed many unmeasurabeables concerning the stiffness and mass of hair
cells and other cell types of the inner ear ...... plus, the difference in
chemical
composition and viscosity of the two fluid spaces, endolymph and perilymph.
What seemed more important was that there was a basic simplicity and rightness
about place theory while frequency theory ran up against the upper limit of
nerve-
cell-firing rates.
The relevance of all this to me now, in this current PCT vs S-R research and
theory stuff, is that, since these things all happen inside the brain and we
are still
awash in a sea of complex theories of the neural basis of consciousness, we
have no choice but to be making some leaps of faith. With most of you, I
despair
at the irrelevance of much research and theory for the serious problems of
today's world while wishing for the ascendance of PCT. However, I suspect the
eventual victory of PCT will come more from universities and their ever
proliferating ever narrower disciplines being declared a danger to our health,
redundant, needing recycling, or whatever, than from the usual forms of academic
fencing.
All this leads up, and please excuse the verbosity, to my conclusion: lets
do PCT
research because we think there are real-world problems searching for solutions
or, at least, better management. Once a large body of PCTers are gaining
recognition for making life on this earth better, our case will be made.
David Wolsk