Why are therapists indifferent to research?

In counselling and psychotherapy there is a serious research—practice gap. Why should research on the therapeutic process have such little impact? Five related factors are considered: (i) epistemology—reliance on experiential/personal knowledge; (ii) preciousness—reliance on nonaxiomatic truths; (iii) lack of theoretical rigour—looseness with which constructs are construed; (iv) non-Popperian logic—tendency to work within a theory and defend it; and (v) personalisation of theory—evaluation seen as criticism. The result is a proliferation of therapies rather than a refinement of therapy.     

Scientific associations in the German research system—Results of an empirical study

Within contemporary science, scientific associations have been found to fulfill at least four functions: a communicative function that furthers scientific communication within a discipline or subdiscipline; a profesional function that supports individual careers and represents the collective interests of the members within a discipline; a transfer function that provides a meeting place for scientists and societal users of research results; and a promotion function that advises research institutes and political institutions in science policy decisions. This empirical study investigates German scientific associations and shows how and to what degree they fulfill these functions. The results of the study indicate that the communicative and the transfer functions dominate. Uwe Schimank is currently a research fellow at the Max-Planck-Institut fur Gesellschaftsforschung in Cologne. He received his doctorate in sociology at the University of Bielefeld. He is presently working on an analysis of the development of extra-university state-financed research institutes in the German research system.     

Should protections for research with humans who cannot consent apply to research with nonhuman primates?

Research studies and interventions sometimes offer potential benefits to subjects that compensate for the risks they face. Other studies and interventions, which I refer to as “nonbeneficial” research, do not offer subjects a compensating potential for benefit. These studies and interventions have the potential to exploit subjects for the benefit of others, a concern that is especially acute when investigators enroll individuals who are unable to give informed consent. US regulations for research with human subjects attempt to address this concern by mandating strict protections for nonbeneficial research with subjects who cannot consent. Typically, humans who cannot consent, such as children, may be enrolled in nonbeneficial research only when it poses low risks and has the potential to gather information of sufficient value to justify the risks, an appropriate surrogate gives permission on the individual’s behalf and the individual agrees (assents). In contrast, US regulations for nonbeneficial research with nonhuman primates do not include these protections, even though it too involves subjects who cannot consent and who face risks for the benefit of others. Is this difference in regulatory protections justified? Or does the principle of fairness—treat like cases alike—imply that regulations for nonbeneficial research with nonhuman primates should include protections similar to those that apply to nonbeneficial research with humans who cannot consent?     

From understanding to insight: using reflexivity to promote students’ learning of qualitative research

Reflexivity is qualitative researchers’ thoughtful and self-aware examination of the intersubjective dynamics between themselves and study participants, evoking insightful understanding of others. Novice qualitative researchers need to acquire reflexive skills for their professional development. In this article, we examine reflexivity among Israeli students on a qualitative research course. We conducted thematic content analysis of the data gathered from the students’ written reflexive journals. Reflexivity was demonstrated by three dimensions in each stage of the students’ experience of learning qualitative research: (1) ‘I as a person’, relating to students’ critical personal perspective; (2) ‘I as a researcher’, referring to the students’ insights about their evolving competencies as researchers; and (3) ‘I as an individual in a sociocultural context’, stressing students’ awareness of their values, beliefs and norms. These findings are discussed, highlighting four key concepts in qualitative research: Taken-for-Granted Expectations; Experience of Discovery; Resonance, and Meaning Making and Insights.     

What smells? Gauging attention to olfaction in canine cognition research

Animal Cognition - One of the challenges of animal cognition research is overcoming anthropocentric sensory biases—in particular, favoring visual information and cues despite the dominance of...     

Does it matter whether investigators intend to benefit research subjects?

There has been long-standing, albeit largely implicit, debate over whether investigator intentions are relevant to the ethical appropriateness of clinical research. Some commentators argue that whether investigators intend to collect generalizable knowledge or to benefit subjects is central to the ethics of clinical research. Others do not even mention investigator intentions when evaluating what makes clinical research ethical. To shed light on this debate, the present paper considers the reasons why investigator intentions might be ethically relevant. This analysis reveals that investigator intentions are related to, but distinct from three ethical requirements: whether subjects understand that they are contributing to a project to help others, whether the included interventions have an appropriate risk/benefit ratio, and whether subjects' interests are adequately protected. Provided these three requirements are satisfied, the ethical appropriateness of clinical research does not depend on what intentions investigators have in conducting it.     

Do research assessments make college students more reactive to alcohol events?

This study examines possible synergistic effects of alcohol-related events and postevent assessments on changes in college student readiness to change alcohol use, frequency of alcohol use, and negative consequences. Students were participants in a longitudinal study of drinking behavior. A portion of those reporting negative alcohol events/consequences (e.g., injury, vomiting, memory loss) during the parent study were randomly selected to participate in the present study (n = 492) and randomized to a postevent assessment (n = 296) or a no-assessment control (n = 196). Participants in the postevent assessment group were interviewed soon after their event, and participants in both conditions were interviewed three months after their event. Linear regression models showed higher 3-month readiness to change alcohol use in participants who received a postevent assessment than those who did not. There were reductions in drinking days, heavy drinking days, and further consequences postevent, but no differences by assessment group. However, female participants showed greater reductions in drinking days and heavy drinking days if they were assigned to assessment compared to control. There also was greater postevent reduction in drinking days among assessment group participants with high precollege alcohol severity compared to low precollege alcohol severity. Conversely, participants who reported high aversiveness of their event and were in the control group showed greater reduction in heavy drinking days than those assigned to the assessment group. Findings suggest that college student heavy drinking is reactive to alcohol events, whereas reactivity to postevent assessments may depend on gender, alcohol severity, and event aversiveness. This work highlights the importance of considering possible interactions among extratherapeutic factors in clinical outcome research.     

The medical research council’s approach to allegations of scientific misconduct

The UK’s Medical Research Council (MRC) introduced a specific policy and procedure for inquiring into allegations of scientific misconduct in December 1997; previously cases had been considered under normal disciplinary procedures. The policy formally covers staff employed in MRC units, but those in receipt of MRC grants in universities and elsewhere are expected to operate under similar policies. The MRC’s approach is stepwise: preliminary action; assessment to establish prima facie evidence of misconduct; formal investigation; sanctions; and appeal. Strict time limits apply at all stages. The procedure will be evaluated after two years. The indications so far are that the procedure is robust, and its clarity and transparency have been an asset to all parties. The MRC is also convinced that it is equally important to achieve a working culture that fosters integrity. Thus education and training in good research practices are fundamental to the prevention of research misconduct. This paper was presented at a symposium, Scientific Misconduct: An International Perspective, organized by The Medical University of Warsaw, 16 November, 1998.     

Naive misconceptions of Cooke and Breedin’s research: response to Ranney

In this paper, we respond to Ranney's (1994) comment on our paper on naive physics (Cooke & Breedin, 1994). In his comment, Ranney criticizes our methods and analyses, as well as our claims of theoretical inconsistency. In response to Ranney, we show that mast of his criticisms can be traced to several misconceptions. Some of these misconceptions seem to stem from his drawing of inappropriate similarities between his own research and ours. Specifically, ftanney seems to hall faun' misconceptions about our research: (1) the belief that trajectory responses in our study were relevant to our claims about theoretical consistency, (2) tie belief that aggregation of theoretical variations weakens claims of inconsistency, (3) the belief that the method of written reports is inferior to the method of structured interviews, and (4) the belief that our proposal of on-the-fly theorizing is at odds with temporal consistency and nonimpetus beliefs.