************* FROM CHUCK TUCKER 930505 ************
Some thoughts on "joint paper" and "acceptance of PCT"
I see no great problems with the "joint paper" as drafted if it
is seen mainly as a "commentary" piece wherein a question is
posed which very gently nudges someone to think about the issue
of the rejection of different ideas in the social and behavioral
sciences. With all due respect for Rick, I do not believe that
his suggestions (930502.1100) would result in anything but
another rejection. As one can read on the net, very few people
tolerate being told that their ideas are wrong. I know that
scientists are not supposed shy away from having their ideas
rejected with sound reasoning and sound evidence but it appears
that there are very few scientists that are like that in the life
sciences; perhaps this is why other scientists don't consider us
very scientific. But I have spent too much of my time critically
evaluating the so-called theories and research in social
psychology only to realize that it has made very little
difference in the discipline. I intend to keep doing it but my
hopes for any change in the field are very limited and the
expectations that anyone but a few of my friends will appreciate
my efforts are extremely low. If you set these references high
you are bound to live a life of error. But I do have another
suggestion as to how PCT might make a difference in the life
sciences.
Actually my suggestion is not new but rather a continuation of
previous work done by Bill, Clark and Gary. All of them have done
work to show how PCT makes a difference in the theory,
methodology and research that is done in psychology, sociology
and educational psychology. What each has done is to take some
research and re-cast it in PCT terms. Bill showed how
experiments done with rats look differently from a PCT view.
Clark has done the same with a host of ideas in collective
behavior - contagion, locomotion, deprivation-frustration-
aggression, deindividuation - and several others. Modestly, I
think our work (with Ernie Rigney) on a re-analysis of the entire
series of Milgram experiments (which we did BEFORE we knew of
Powers's CT) is a excellent illustration of what can be done.
Gary has done it with selected research in education (note that
Gary's work was used to critically attack Rick's paper that
started this most recent round of "what can be done to get PCT
accepted" posts). The PCT message for methodology and actual
research practices is as important as its theoretical notions
[see Bill's (930428.0700) as an excellent example]. Most of the
research has to be re-cast in more precise terms from a PCT
perspective but it can be done. So take your favorite area of
research and show how it would look differently from the PCT
perspective. If nothing else you will have a better
understanding of the model and the research it requires and
perhaps a journal would publish it as a commentary with responses
from other scientists defending their work. I think it would be
quite useful to see some of this work done.