Changing explanatory frameworks in the U.S. government’s attempt to define research misconduct

Nearly two decades of debate have not settled the definition of research misconduct. The literature provides four explanatory frameworks for misconduct. The paper examines these frameworks and maps them onto efforts by the U.S. Public Health Service to define research misconduct and subsequent responses to these efforts by the scientific community. The changing frameworks suggest that closure will not be achieved without an authoritative effort, which may occur through the Research Integrity Panel’s recent attempt to create a government-wide definition.     

A methodological caution on the use of the term “parent(s)” in family research

This study considers problems relating to the use of the term “parent(s)” in family-related research. Results of a survey of the literature over a 15-year period and results of empirical data collected by the authors are presented. Difficulties relating to the use of the term “parent(s)” are analyzed and suggestions for minimizing such problems in future research are provided.     

Changing the Scripts: Midlife Women’s Sexuality in Contemporary U.S. Film

This article examines the portrayal of midlife women’s sexuality in 13 recent U.S. narrative films. Content analysis of these films suggests that film portrayals of midlife women’s sexuality are relatively muted, with the most positive portrayals found in the broadest comedies. In addition, midlife women’s bodies are more often displayed as objects of humor than as objects of desire, the “female gaze” at the male body is shown only humorously, and midlife women’s sexuality is primarily validated for slim, white, middle-class women in committed romantic relationships with “age-appropriate” partners. Nevertheless, these films suggest that midlife women should have sexual desires, should act on those desires, should experience sexual pleasure, and should not sacrifice their sexual needs for a man’s approval.     

Examining U.S. drivers’ characteristics in relation to how frequently they engage in speeding on freeways

Speeding and speed-related crashes have consistently represented over 25% of all traffic fatalities over the past two decades. The severity of these speed-related incidents not only impact the drivers but all road users. Thus, characterizing drivers who speed, understanding their motivations, and identifying the types of risky driving behaviors associated with speeding play a critical role in developing, implementing, and sustaining effective countermeasures. Using a survey administered to a U.S. nationally representative sample (N = 2,930 licensed drivers aged 16 or older), this study develops a partial proportional odds model to examine differences in characteristics between types of speeders – frequent, occasional, and non-speeders – and explores characteristics and risk driving behaviors that are most associated with speeding behavior. Additionally, motivations for speeding are examined for drivers who frequently speed compared with those who occasionally speed. Results show speeders tended to engage in other unsafe driving behaviors, such as distracted, aggressive, unbelted, and alcohol-impaired driving. Among demographic and socio-economic variables examined in this study, drivers’ age was the greatest associated determinant. The association with engagement in red-light running, however, outweighed that with drivers’ age. Interestingly, the interaction between educational attainment and engagement in aggressive driving was also predictive of speeding behavior. For motivations for speeding, frequent speeders were more likely to report enjoying driving fast and disagreeing with speed limits compared with occasional speeders. The findings of this study are useful towards identifying the various characteristics and behaviors of drivers who engage in speeding, which can provide future insights into where effective countermeasures and prevention efforts should be focused.     

Commentary on Nikolay Mintchev’s “Object-Relations and Cultural Narratives in the Analysis of Racism”

Nikolay Mintchev’s (this issue) consideration of the use of psychoanalytic thought as a critical framework for the analysis of racism focuses on the differences between the Kleinian and Lacanian schools. While his depiction of their differences and the relevance of those differences for social theory is fundamentally fair and accurate, he overlooks the fact that as clinical theories, they may indeed have more in common than their apparent differences suggest. Their shared attention to the importance of unconscious fantasy and to the mechanisms of transference or the encounter with the Other in clinical work undermines the rigid distinction between them that is necessary for Mintchev’s thesis. By accepting the common view of their differences, Mintchev assumes a weaker version of each and sacrifices the dialectical dimension of psychoanalytic thought that indeed enhances its utility as social analysis.     

Reply to Janine de Peyer’s “Traversing the Ineffable: Commentary on Sharon Farber’s ‘Becoming a Telepathic Tuning Fork’”

Janine de Peyer’s thoughtful and stimulating response to my paper evoked a good deal of thinking about playfulness and creativity in doing psychotherapy, what part intuition and empathy play in promoting telepathic communication, the distinction between thoughts and feelings unconsciously transmitted between people within close proximity and those transmitted across geographical distance, where there is no reliance on sensory clues involving sight, sound, smell, touch, and taste. De Peyer’s summary of research on telepathy tells us that most of the research tries to rule out the variable of unconscious sensory exchange by physically separating the “sender” from the “receiver.”

In her discussion of my paper, Janine de Peyer raises some very interesting questions about how telepathy is to be defined. I recall reading years ago about someone who had gone to a medium and heard some startling information about herself and those in her circle. As I wondered how the medium could know so much about someone she had never before met, it occurred to me that there was a lot of knowledge about a person conveyed by the brain-to-brain sensory cues, and this was not telepathic but more a function of intuition and empathy. I think that was true about the relationship I had with my patient. but as with the medium there was a lot of other information I received about her that did not depend on sensory cues, and that information was, I believe, conveyed telepathically. So yes, I say, to de Peyer’s (this issue) question, “Is it not worth differentiating between in-session heightened intuitive receptiveness, and unexplainable transmissions of affect/thoughts/information that traverse time and geographical space?” (p. 736, italics in the original). In considering the time spent in my patient’s physical presence, much of my empathic attunement originated from the intuitive response that was induced in me by her physical presence. I think the increasing empathic attunement laid the foundation for subsequent telepathic communication.