What’s it all about? A qualitative study of meaning in life for counseling psychology doctoral students

The interviews of 10 female counseling psychology doctoral students regarding their views about meaning in life (MIL) were analyzed using consensual qualitative research. The participants defined MIL as goals or purposes, were actively involved in searching for meaning, and believed that MIL had been stimulated by life-changing experiences and culture. On a personal level, they gained meaning from relationships, personal growth, and religion/spirituality. On a professional level, they gained meaning from providing therapy, conducting research, and teaching. As therapists, participants approached MIL indirectly by asking about client goals/motivations or by focusing on other clinical problems that if resolved would enhance MIL. Implications for doctoral training and for psychotherapy are offered.     

Ethics in Psychology and Law: An International Perspective

Some psychologists working in the psychology and law (psycholegal) field feel that the profession does not provide them with adequate ethical guidance even though the field is arguably one of the oldest and best established applied fields of psychology. The uncertainty psychologists experience most likely stems from working with colleagues whose professional ethics differs from their own while providing services to demanding people and the many moral questions associated with the administration of law. I believe psychology’s ethics does, however, provide adequate moral guidance. It has a sound historical basis, has face validity and emphasizes those social moral principles that allow psychologists to best serve individuals and society. Psychologists may nevertheless be confronted with conflicting demands because there are other norm systems that also regulate their behavior as researchers and practitioners, and they, like all people, are influenced by their conscience. Ultimately, psychologists working in the psycholegal field will be best served if they have good knowledge of, and have internalized, the ethical principles of psychology.     

Using a Two-Tier Test to Examine Taiwanese Graduate Students’ Misunderstanding of Responsible Conduct of Research

The present study investigates Taiwanese graduate students’ general understanding and misunderstanding of Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR). A total of 580 graduate students responded to the self-developed Responsible Conduct of Research Reasoning Test. The results reveal that, first, students did not have sufficient knowledge to reason why a particular instance of research (mis)conduct was doable or not. Second, the statistical results show that female students, students majoring in the humanities or the social sciences, doctoral-level students, and students with RCR-related training outperformed others. In addition, the misbehaviors that students judged relatively uncritically comprise the following nine categories: (a) seeing authorship as a property or power, (b) misinterpreting research coauthors’ responsibilities, (c) inaccurately conducting the informed-consent process, (d) fabricating and falsifying research data, (e) misinterpreting the correct citation of research sources, (f) holding vague concepts of self-plagiarism, (g) misinterpreting the Taiwan Copyright Act, (h) accepting duplicate-publication practices, and (i) accepting piecemeal publication practices. The present study discusses participative students’ major misunderstandings of actual RCR-related practices. The study also presents further implications and suggestions based on the findings.     

“Who Am I?”: The Biblical Moses as a Metaphor for Teaching

This essay presents Moses, the protagonist of the biblical books of Exodus and Deuteronomy in the Hebrew Bible, as a playful but generative metaphor for current teaching practices and experiences in higher education, including my own. Among numerous similarities (such as the fact that Moses, other teachers, and I are all bound by context), the most humbling insights come from Moses's role as a mediator or intermediary. It is a role that we also inhabit – standing, as it were, between our students and the knowledge of our discipline – and that we might consider further, particularly in terms of our responsibilities.     

Ultraorthodox young drivers in Israel – Driving through cultural lenses

Research has paid little attention to driving and road safety in the ultraorthodox communities in Israel, in which perceptions on such issues display unique cultural characteristics, and may have long-term effects on traffic safety. This study attempts to gain insight into the attitudes and behaviors of the ultraorthodox young men road users in Israel with regard to driving and road safety, using a qualitative research method based on 42 face-to-face in-depth interviews with men from different ultraorthodox circles in different stages of life. The analysis reveals that the stringent cultural norms strongly influence road behavior, far beyond what is known about young novice drivers and their peers in general. For example, owning a license by young, single ultraorthodox students is seen as an offense against the ultraorthodox establishment compared to driving without a license, which is considered a one-time lapse. The findings indicate that unique cultural phenomena such as concealing the process of licensing, unlicensed driving and road interactions create a dangerous effect extending beyond the ultraorthodox neighborhoods. They also imply that road safety can be interpreted differently in diverse cultures, a fact which should be considered while planning safety intervention strategies.     

What kind of discipline is psychoanalysis?

Current controversies involving clinical, conceptual and empirical research shed light on how psychoanalysis confronts its nature and its future. Some relevant debates in which Wallerstein, Green, Hoffman, Eagle and Wolitzky, Safran, Stern, Blass and Carmeli, and Panksepp have participated are examined regarding the characteristics of their argumentation. Agreements and disagreements are explored to find ways that could have allowed the discussion to progress. Two foci are highlighted in these debates: (a) whether a clinical common ground exists in psychoanalysis and what kind of procedure could contribute to further clarification; (b) complementation of in‐clinical and extra‐clinical evidence. Both aspects are scrutinized: the possibility of complementing diverse methodologies, and the nature of the shared clinical evidence examined in clinical discussion groups such as those promoted by the IPA Clinical Observation Committee. The importance of triangulation and consilience is brought to bear regarding their contribution to the robustness of psychoanalysis. So as to strengthen a critical perspective that enhances the discipline's argumentative field, psychoanalysis should take into account arguments from different sources according to their specific merits. By doing this, psychoanalysis increases its relevance within the current interdisciplinary dialogue.     

Delving into the ‘emotional storms’: A thematic analysis of psychoanalysts’ initial consultation reports

Psychoanalysts’ written reports on initial consultations are a window into the complexities of a crucial aspect of psychoanalytic work. However, systematic research in this area has largely focused on patients’ demographic factors or standardized measures. The present study looked at reports of all the consultations taking place at the London Clinic of Psychoanalysis over one calendar year (N = 100). The aim was to explore psychoanalysts’ different explicit styles of working and reporting as well as further understanding implicit processes used in thinking and writing about each particular consultation experience. A thematic analysis revealed a set of themes that related to a style of working and thinking about the consultation process as a dyadic experience, where the interaction, affective reactions and contact made between the two are the focus when thinking of making a recommendation for psychoanalysis. The majority of the reports had an open, exploratory quality. The writing of reports appears to give the analyst an opportunity to process the consultation experience and arrive at a more triangular position. Writing reports is a more valuable part of the consultation process than has formally been recognized and acknowledged. The limitations of this study as well as the relevance of these findings for future research are discussed.     

On Murray Jackson's 1961 ‘Chair,couch and countertransference’

One of the problems facing psychoanalysts of all schools is that theory has evolved at a much faster pace than practice. Whereas there has been an explosion of theory, practice has remained, at least officially, static and unchanging. It is in this sense that Murray Jackson's 1961 paper is still relevant today. Despite the rise of the new relational and intersubjective paradigms, most psychoanalysts, and not a few Jungian analysts, still seem to feel that the couch is an essential component of the analytical setting and process. If the use of the couch is usually justified by the argument that it favours regression, facilitates analytical reverie and protects the patient from the influence of the analyst, over time many important psychoanalysts have come to challenge this position. Increasingly these analysts suggest that the use of the couch may actually be incompatible with the newer theoretical models. This contention is strengthened by some of the findings coming from the neurosciences and infant research. This underlines the necessity of empirical research to verify the clinical effectiveness of these different positions, couch or face‐to‐face, but it is exactly this type of research that is lacking.     

Video Feedback in Philosophy

Marginal comments on student essays are a near‐universal method of providing feedback in philosophy. Widespread as the practice is, however, it has well‐known drawbacks. Commenting on students' work in the form of a video has the potential to improve the feedback experience for both instructors and students. The advantages of video feedback can be seen by examining it from both the professor's and the student's perspective. In discussing the professor's perspective, this article shares observations based on the author's experience delivering feedback through video. Turning to the student's view, it discusses qualitative feedback solicited from students that indicates a clear preference for video feedback over written marginalia. In particular, students describe video feedback as more informative, more personal, better at suggesting improvements on future assignments, enhancing the professor's ability to communicate through tone of voice and gesture, and easier to understand compared to written feedback.