🚀 go-pugleaf

It all comes down to what you study!! I cannot conduct my research on
anxiety disorders without a clinical population (who aren't lab rats - I
must also treat them!) Some programs might simply "require" their students
to do research, but I take high offense to the notion that I like to "use
the word" research -- I and many other clinical students *are* researchers.
Just because our hypotheses pertain more directly to clinical issues makes
them no less part of scientific research than other branches of
psychology. I make no apologies for having a passionate interest in a
research area that just so happens to at times dramatically benefit a
person with OCD, panic disorder, etc. I didn't realize that a "real
research conversation" was one about statistics & methods. I'm sure many
of us would be happy to talk about stats (just finished a cluster analysis
with OCD subgroups) but I haven't heard anybody pondering that. I would
suggest that we don't make blanket statements - I'm not sure of anyone
elses opinion, but I don't find it particularly useful for the list. We
can only speak for our own programs & training; I find that
my experiences at Chicago Med School have formed quite different opinions
about this topic than perhaps Matthew's education has led him to. I agree
that there are a bunch of "non-publishing, non-researching clinicians,"
but we've come this far in my area thanks to those that do. Good research
starts with theory & ends with application. I believe anyone who wants to
talk more about the middle processes will garner much support from the
list - even the clinical PhD students!
 -- Respectfully, Lisa Hale

 On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Matthew Simpson wrote:

> Think about it.  The research oriented folks on the list ask for
> more discussion on research topics (and some folks even throw out
> some excellent research questions).  The clinicians then pipe up,
> "We are researchers too!" wave the research banner and start an
> excellent discussion (in my opinion) on the application of research
> findings in the contemporary market.  They don't focus on the
> research in the discussion; They focus on the application.
>
> Stress Innoculation - If I were someone ONLY doing research (ie. not
> planing to directly apply the knowledge in any marketable way) and
> I saw the flood of comments on clinical applications of research
> skills and knowledge, I might just draw the conclusion that this
> group doesn't really want to talk about research.  I might kinda
> ignore the fact that among all psychologists, academics are a
> minority and this may be reflected in this list.
>
> My bet is that clinicians have a bit of an identity crisis when it
> comes to their participations in discussions of research.  They like
> to THINK of themselves as researchers.  They are actually being
> required to do research witin their graduate program.  They like to
> use the word "research" in their conversations.  But, when I really
> look at where their attention is focussed, I find that it's on
> application.
>
> Statistically speaking, I have heard of studies which site a very low
> the percentage of clinicians who actually publish, let alone do research.
> Anyone have those stats?
>
> For the "pure" researchers... please don't get flooded with all the
> clinical talk.  It's quite normal for us to do.  We do outnumber you.
> So the tendency is to have the conversation sway towards application
> and theory.  However, historically, there have been excellent
> conversations which have thrived on the list concerning everything from
> when to use a connonical correlation over a manova to factors which
> tend to corrupt data in laboratory studies to computer programs designed
> to help manage experiemental presentation of data.  You name it.
>
> The more specific the question, the less likely it is that someone here
> knows the specifics of it (eg. does anyone know how to use fast fourier
> analysis in measurement of male sexual arousal using plethysmograph data?)
> When placed in a more general sense, we tend as a group to be able to
> respond (eg. What is the best way to do statistical tests for significance
> when collecting data which is measured continuously?  OR  When we use the
> null hypothesis, are we really changing our research question, or are we
> just performing a statistical trick?)
>
> Have fun!
> """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
>  Matthew Simpson, M.A.
>  matthew.simpson@erols.com
>  http://www.erols.com/matthew.simpson
>