REFLECTIONS ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION GOALS IN PSYCHOLOGY ADMISSIONS

Four goals of affirmative action in higher education are described as they relate to psychology admissions. Broadly conceived, these goals are compensating for past injustice, correcting present inequity, promoting intellectual diversity, and enhancing the presence of role models. It is argued that the four goats differ in their underlying assumptions about the purposes of affirmative action and that these differences can result in disparate admission decisions. Data from three experiments on decision making in graduate psychology admissions are presented to illustrate the analysis. In these studies, academic psychologists rated the admissibility of hypothetical graduate student applicants who varied on a number of characteristics (e g., ethnicity, social class, interest in minority research) pertinent to affirmative action. A consistent pattern of ethnic group differences in admissibility ratings was documented, illustrating that compensation for past injustice can be interpreted as a salient affirmative action goal in graduate admissions decisions. Implications of the analysis for clarifying admissions decisions guided by affirmative action goals are discussed.     

Globalization or indigenization: New alignments between knowledge and culture

The pace, shape and meaning of development are cultural phenomena—fundamentally driven by the meanings people ascribe to their action, to the symbols they aspire to, and by the wider values contexts within which they are acting. However, people participating within the development process continuously confront a tension between the assertion of the cultural meanings of the local known social world and the assertion of the meanings of an idealized largely unknown social world that stretches beyond immediate experience, and that is particularly represented in commodity symbols and media images. Tension is therefore between indigenization or globalization. The product, greater valence of indigenization or globalization, results from the alternative ways in which tension between the two domains is resolved. In the modern social world access to knowledge, as well as the impact of knowledge embodied within technological artifacts, are key drivers in both the level of participation in development and the level of colonization of indigenized meanings by globalized frameworks of understanding. The current paper therefore focuses on the role of knowledge within the interactions between globalization and indigenization. The paper demonstrates that the general trend of development during the last half of the twentieth century has driven cultural change towards more globalized meanings and dependencies. The dynamics of technological access and change are centrally implicated. However, new opportunities are opening up at both local indigenized levels and within modernizing sectors, and the essence of these opportunities lies in capturing a cultural advantage. At the indigenous society level, a focus on capitalizing on indigenous technical knowledge can have enormous payoffs in terms of economic development outcomes. Meanwhile, a focus on linking local with modernizing sectors through bridging technologies and knowledge across indigenous and global cultures allows indigenous cultures to share in the economic benefits of modernization. And finally, a new wave of change is emerging in the modernized sector itself, opening up quite new opportunities for “small players”—whether they be small firms or small countries. The opportunities are set within change in the global orders of technology and science over the last five to ten years. What matters is the ability of these small players to be highly responsive, to capture knowledge flows through both technical and social capabilities of their people; in other words, global advantage follows from capture of local cultural strength. Stephen Hill is foundation director for the Center for Research Policy, located at the University of Wollongong, and established as a special research center of the Australian Research Council. More recently, he was appointed Regional Director of UNESCO for South East Asia and the Pacific. Professor Hill will assume his new appointment in June, 1995.     

Comparison between Oral and Written Spelling in Alzheimer's Disease

Written and oral spelling were compared in 33 patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and 25 control subjects. AD patients had poorer spelling results which were influenced by orthographic difficulty and word frequency, but not by grammatical word class. Lexical spelling was also more deteriorated than phonological spelling. Moreover, oral spelling was more impaired than written spelling in AD patients, whereas no difference was present between oral and written spelling of controls. Analysis of spelling errors showed that, for controls, errors were predominantly phonologically accurate in both spelling tasks. Significantly, AD patients produced more phonologically accurate than inaccurate errors in written spelling, whereas these errors did not differ in oral spelling. In contrast to controls who produced more constant than variable responses in oral and written spelling, AD patients made more variable responses (words correctly spelled in one task but incorrectly in the other) and they showed many instances of variable errors (different misspellings from one spelling task to the other). Two stepwise regression procedures showed that written misspellings were specifically correlated with language impairment, whereas oral spelling errors were correlated with attentional and language disorders. These results suggest that AD increases the attentional demands of oral spelling process as compared to written spelling. This dissociation argues, either for a unique Graphemic Buffer in which oral spelling requires more attentional resources than written spelling or for the hypothesis of separate buffers for oral and written spelling.     

Family therapy research: What are the most important variables?

This report summarizes the results of a nearly day-long session of a group of experienced and distinguished family therapy practitioners and researchers. The task the group set for itself was to begin delineating the most important variables to attend to in understanding family therapy and evaluating its effectiveness. With full recognition that such a task could be only partially and tentatively accomplished in the time allotted, a great many such variables were outlined.