Cybertherapy or psychobabble? A mixed methods study of online emotional support

ABSTRACT

The provision of online counselling and emotional support is a subject of intense debate among service providers. The subject is explored here by triangulating data from a statistical analysis of data from a children's helpline, interviews with practitioners and a focus group. Despite practitioners' concerns relating to misinterpretation, misrepresentation and the lack of non-verbal cues, online conversations are shown to span a greater variety of topics and focus on more sensitive issues than verbal sessions. Online services have potential for reaching clients in accessible and meaningful ways. However, practitioners need to consider online-specific issues, undertake specialised training and become comfortable with these new communication formats.     

Is multicultural psychology a-scientific?: diverse methods for diversity research

This article asks, and answers three separate questions: What is multicultural psychology? What is psychological science? Are multicultural psychology and (empirical/positivist) psychological science incompatible? A brief overview of the history of science is provided emphasizing the emancipatory impulses behind a modernist, empirical, positivist approach to science. It is argued that such an approach is not incompatible with multicultural psychology. The author concludes that multicultural psychological will be strengthened if psychologists draw upon both qualitative and quantitative methods, including those that come from a positivist tradition, when investigating psychological and social issues as they affect diverse populations.     

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?     

Do children with autism recognise surprise? A research note

Abstract

We take a fresh look at emotion recognition in autistic children, by testing their recognition of three different emotions (happy, sad, and surprise). The interest in selecting these is that whereas the first two are typical “simple” emotions (caused by situations), the third is typically a “cognitive” emotion (caused by beliefs). Because subjects with autism have clear difficulties in understanding beliefs, we predicted they would show more difficulty in recognising surprise. In contrast, as they have no difficulty in understanding situations as causes of emotion, we predicted they would not show deficits in recognising happy and sad. These predictions were borne out, in a comparison with a group of normal children and in a group of subjects with mental handicap. This result shows the importance of fine-grain analysis in emotion-recognition tasks, and is discussed in relation to affective and theory of mind models of autism.     

Building capacity or enforcing normalcy? Engaging with disability scholarship in Africa

In contemporary South African academia, “community engagement” is a valued commodity. My work as a nondisabled white man with disability activists and as editor of the African Journal of Disability is viewed as good for my career, and as an appropriate form of engagement and empowerment. In this article, I engage critically with the question of the extent to which capacity building is simply about increasing capacity. I ask whether capacity building inevitably involves elements of disavowal of the experience and competencies of less powerful people. I compare capacity building to the enforcement of normalcy, a process which disability scholars criticize with justification. I ask whether it is possible in unequal social contexts to engage with the politics of voice without imposing a hegemonic narrative on nondominant voices. I suggest links between the politics of engaged scholarship and processes of domestication of troubling bodies and minds.     

Are they really interested but concerned? A mixed methods exploration of the Geller bicyclist typology

The Geller typology, which categorizes the population into four types of bicyclists (strong and fearless, enthused and confident, interested but concerned, and no way no how) has gained considerable popularity amongst researchers and planners. One large U.S. study used a survey-derived approach to categorize respondents into Geller’s typology, and found the majority of Americans were “interested but concerned”. While the U.S. findings are widely cited in planning documents, there has yet to be an assessment as to whether this indirect survey-derived categorization into Geller’s typology corresponds with how bicyclists perceive themselves. Using a mixed methods approach, we explored the Geller typology from the view of bicyclists themselves. Our specific objectives were to assess whether the survey-derived categorization method aligned with bicyclists’ perceptions, and to also examine bicyclists’ interpretations of Geller’s typology. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of bicyclists (n = 281) and interviews with a subset of participants (n = 25). According to the survey-derived categorization, the distribution of the sample (n = 25) was: 4% strong and fearless, 12% enthused and confident, and 84% interested but concerned. In the interviews we learned there was only a match between survey-derived and self-perceived bicyclist type for seven of twenty-five (28%) participants. When asked, participants were more likely to categorize themselves to strong and fearless (24% overall) or enthused and confident (52% overall). Our findings suggest that the category titles are intuitive, however, the survey-derived categorization does not necessarily match with how bicyclists perceive themselves. This suggests that, at least for those who currently bicycle, a direct approach of asking people which type of bicyclist they identify with may be preferable.     

Who is buying bioethics research?

Growing ties to private industry have prompted many to question the impartiality of academic bioethicists who receive financial support from for-profit corporations in exchange for ethics-related services and research. To the extent that corporate sponsors may view bioethics as little more than a way to strengthen public relations or avoid potential controversy, close ties to industry may pose serious threats to professional independence. New sources of support from private industry may also divert bioethicists from pursuing topics of greater social importance, such as the needs of medically underserved communities. To inform ongoing debates about the financing of bioethics and its transparency to those concerned about potential sources of bias, we examined funding disclosures appearing in original research reports in major bioethics journals. Reviewing research published over a 15-year period, we found little evidence that for-profit corporations are influencing bioethics research directly. Instead, we found evidence that a great number of organizations, both public and private, support bioethics research. These findings suggest that worries about the cooption of bioethics research by a few interested stakeholders are greatly overstated and undersupported by available data.     

Naked narrative: Real research?

A multi‐layered narrative is presented as a way of inviting discussion about narrative as research in the talking therapies and social sciences. The core issue under consideration is the challenge of researching lived experience and how this is distorted or eliminated by many traditional approaches to research. The paper contains an account of a first experience of presenting a narrative about ethical decision‐making to a national research conference by someone more accustomed to writing and researching in traditional propositional discourses. The aim of this narrative is to focus attention on the lived experience of generating new understanding and practice and to raise questions for discussion about the role of narrative in research, especially research directed towards developing insight into lived experience.     

Is Stephen Hawking Building Walls? A Cosmic Dilemma

Stephen Hawking leaves us with the ancient hospitality dilemma: do we welcome ETIs as immigrants or build a wall to keep them away?