Effects of Training Reflective Listening in a Corporate Setting

A communication skills training of insurance company employees was devised and evaluated. Study 1 compared trained and untrained employees on their Reflective listening (RL; Rogers, 1951) skills before and after a 16-hr training, as they conversed with a confederate who rated them, and their responses were categorized. In a follow-up Study 2, some of the employees audiotaped conversations with customers, and their responses were categorized as well. In a validation Study 3, students rated conversations by employees who used more or less RL. Results showed that training increased RL, and that the skills were subsequently transferred to an authentic setting. Results did not show that trained employees were evaluated differently than untrained. Implications of the results are discussed.     

Structure and Content: The Relationship Between Reflective Judgment and Laypeople's Viewpoints

A neglected research area involving the relationship between structure and content in thinking is explored in this study. Fifty-nine adults participated in initial (1986–88) and follow-up (1993–94) interviews on Reflective Judgment (RJ) dilemmas devised by Kitchener and King. An earlier study by A.-M. Pirttilä-Backman and A. Kajanne (2001) showed that Reflective Judgment mean scores were higher in the second interview round than those in the first. One of the Kitchener and King dilemmas on food additives was investigated further. In another study using the same data, A. Kajanne and A.-M. Pirttilä-Backman (1996) presented 4 categories of standpoints (Harmful, Safe, Both, and Neither) on food additives that were apparent in both interviews. A shift from the more clear-cut (Harmful and Safe) to the more moderate (Both and Neither) standpoints was detected between the 2 studies. The results of these two studies are utilized here in investigating the connection between form and content in thinking. In both interviews the mean stage scores on Reflective Judgment differed according to the standpoint taken. Stages 4 and 5 formed a dividing line: those under this line chose one of the clear-cut standpoints more often than those above it. Some contents were independent of the stage scores, but others were closely linked to them.     

PROCEDURES TO INCREASE SOME ASPECTS OF CREATIVITY

Instructions, reinforcement (team points), and practice were applied to four behaviorally defined creative behaviors of eight fourth- and fifth-grade students. All four aspects (number of different responses, fluency; number of verb forms, flexibility; number of words per response, elaboration; and statistical infrequency of response forms, originality) were demonstrated to be under experimental control. The procedures also raised students' scores on Torrance's tests of creativity. Application of the experimental procedures may well be practical for classroom teachers.     

Ethics of field research: Do journals set the standard?

To determine whether ethical issues concerned with field research are addressed in the peer-review process, instructions to authors and reviewers of 141 (mainly natural science) journals were examined to ascertain how often ethical issues were mentioned. Only one-third (n=41) of responding journals addressed ethical issues in their instructions to authors or reviewers. When ethical issues were considered, most of the journals limited their concerns to ethical issues associated with animal and general human experimentation. No journal mentioned ethical practices in working with indigenous peoples or on traditional lands. Only two journals addressed the ethics of research in sensitive areas in their instructions to authors, only one in its instructions to reviewers. We suggest that peer-reviewed journals respond to an emerging issue in ecological research by formally incorporating research ethics into their instructions to authors and reviewers. Furthermore, these instructions should address the ethical issues associated with field research and in working with indigenous peoples and on traditional lands.     

Peer review and innovation

Two important aspects of the relationship between peer review and innovation includes the acceptance of articles for publication in journals and the assessment of applications for grants for the funding of research work. While there are well-known examples of the rejection by journals of first choice of many papers that have radically changed the way we think about the world outside ourselves, such papers do get published eventually, however tortuous the process required. With grant applications the situation differs in that the refusal of a grant necessarily curtails the possible research that may be attempted. Here there are many reasons for conservatism and reservation as to the ability of a grant allocation process based on peer review to deliver truly innovative investigations. Other methods are needed; although such methods need not be applied across the board, they should constitute the methods whereby some 10–20% of the grant monies are assigned. The nomination of prizes for specific accomplishments is one way of achieving innovation although this presumes that investigators or institution already have available the money necessary to effect the innovations; otherwise it is a question of the selection and funding of particular individuals or institutions and requiring them to solve particular problems that are set in the broadest of terms.