ESID,Dissemination, and Community Psychology: A Case of Partial Implementation?

Dissemination, the second stage of Experimental Social Innovation and Dissemination (ESID) is a critical, if not defining, element of this social change model. This paper attempts to assess the extent to which community psychology has adopted and implemented ESID's dissemination focus in its training and publications. We identify four levels of commitment to dissemination: dissemination advocate, dissemination activist, dissemination researcher, and experimental dissemination researcher. Content analyses of textbooks, journal publications, and conference papers and a brief survey of doctoral training in the field were conducted. Findings suggest that the dissemination aspects of ESID have been modestly and partially implemented within the field. That is, although there is some evidence of a commitment to dissemination practice (advocate, activist), there is much less evidence of a commitment to dissemination research. The implications of these findings for the effectiveness of the ESID model and for training and practice in community psychology are discussed.     

Challenges in studying the effects of scientific societies on research integrity

Beyond impressionistic observations, little is known about the role and influence of scientific societies on research conduct. Acknowledging that the influence of scientific societies is not easily disentangled from other factors that shape norms and practices, this article addresses how best to study the promotion of research integrity generally as well as the role and impact of scientific societies as part of that process. In setting forth the parameters of a research agenda, the article addresses four issues: (1) how to conceptualize research on scientific societies and research integrity; (2) challenges and complexities in undertaking basic research; (3) strategies for undertaking basic research that is attentive to individual, situational, organizational, and environmental levels of analysis; and (4) the need for evaluation research as integral to programmatic change and to assessment of the impact of activities by scientific societies. This topic was initially discussed at the AAAS-Office of Research Integrity (ORI) meeting in Washington DC on the theme: “The Role and Activities of Scientific Societies in Promoting Research Integrity” held on April 10–11, 2000. Joyce Miller Iutcovich, PhD, is President of the Keystone University Research Corporation.     

Guard dogs of perception: the corporate takeover of science

The belief that science is "a driver of growth in the knowledge economy" has led in recent decades to increasing encouragement by government of the involvement of industry and of commerce in the sponsorship and direction of research in universities, and to the increasing influence of industrial representatives on advisory panels associated with the publicly funded scientific research councils. By extending the doctrine of commercial confidentiality into university laboratories, inconvenient findings have been suppressed, and both free endeavour and free speech undermined. This has narrowed our scientific horizons and compromised government advisors. It is argued that scientific freedom is a guarantor of our wider liberties. Science, which tells us who we are and how we can live better, is being distorted so twisting our understanding of the ways in which we might progress, shutting off alternatives to existing models of development. Business now stands as a guard dog at the gates of perception. Only the inquiries which suit its needs are allowed to pass.     

The role of scientific associations in promoting research integrity and deterring research misconduct

The nature of scientific societies’ relationships with their members limits their ability to promote research integrity. They must therefore leverage their strengths as professional organizations to integrate ethical considerations into their ongoing support of their academic disciplines. This paper suggests five strategies for doing so.     

An ESID Case Study at the Federal Level

The D (dissemination) phase of the ESID model has been often overlooked in our efforts to create innovative and widespread social change. The process of replicating successful social innovations is both a prerequisite for dissemination (in order to assess the consistency of effects) and an obvious outcome of a successful dissemination effort. Fidelity, the extent to which a replicated program is implemented in a manner consistent with the original program model, is an important dimension of replication. This study was designed to provide empirical data related to three questions. Can complex social programs be implemented with fidelity? How much fidelity is appropriate or desired? What are the organizational dynamics of adoption with fidelity? Data were collected from grantees of a national replication initiative funded by the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. Data suggest that high fidelity can be achieved, at least in the context in which programs are mandated to do so as part of the funding agreement and are given technical assistance in achieving fidelity. Secondly, programs perceived high fidelity as having positive effects on the program and its participants, a finding consistent with a limited assessment of the relationship of program outcomes and fidelity. Finally, much was learned about the human and organizational dynamics of replicating with fidelity. Implications for policy and direction regarding replication are discussed.     

Fairweather and ESID: Contemporary Impact and a Legacy for the Twenty-First Century

This paper illustrates how the articles in this special issue demonstrate the central values, research, and action principles inherent in Fairweather's ESID model. The programs described in these articles address earlier social problems in new forms (e.g., previously, institutionalized mentally ill patients and now, the homeless mentally ill) and new issues (e.g., HIV prevention). Dissemination of innovative programs is abundant, but only recently has research begun in earnest to study the critical processes of dissemination. Moreover, Fairweather has pointed us in important, but yet unrealized directions for how to pursue a theory of social change on the basis of ecological concepts, innovative research methods and data analytic techniques, and salient change agent behaviors and principles.     

Is Putnam's Causal Theory of Meaning Compatible with Internal Realism?

Putnam originally developed his causal theory of meaning in order to support scientific realism and reject the notion of incommensurability. Later he gave up this position and adopted instead what he called ‘internal realism’, but apparently without changing his mind on topics related to his former philosophy of language. The question must arise whether internal realism, which actually is a species of antirealism, is compatible with the causal theory of meaning. In giving an answer I begin with an analysis of the content and metaphysical background of scientific realism. I show that it presupposes metaphysical realism and that Putnam's philosophical conversion is due to his becoming aware of the latter's incoherence. After giving a brief sketch of internal realism I conclude by arguing that within this new theoretical framework the causal theory of meaning loses its force as a weapon against incommensurability. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Embodied AI, Creation, and Cog

This is a reply to comments on my paper Cog, a Humanoid Robot, and the Questions of the Image of God ; one was written by Mary Gerhart and Allan Melvin Russell, and another one by Helmut Reich. I will start with the suggested analogy of the relationship between God and us and the one between us and the humanoid robot Cog and will show why this analogy is not helpful for the dialogue between theology and artificial intelligence (AI). Such a dialogue can succeed only if both our fascination for humanoids and our fear of them are equally accepted. Any avoidance of these emotions, as well as any rejection of the possibility that Cog might one day be humanlike, destroy the dialogue. The interpretation of both scientific theories and religious metaphors as stories replaces seemingly "rational" arguments with the confession of the respective commitments to a body of stories and opens up a space for exchange and friendship between AI-researchers and theologians—an option that usually remains closed.     

What Every Teacher of Science and Religion Needs to Know about Pedagogy

This essay provides practical tips for effective teaching in science-and-religion courses. It offers suggestions for dealing with difficult questions and creating a climate of shared learning. Along with pedagogical advice, it covers fundamental principles for teaching broadly integrative religion-and-science courses. Instructors are encouraged to reflect on their purpose(s) in offering their course and to formulate specific objectives using the techniques and resources outlined here.     

Scientific societies and whistleblowers: the relationship between the community and the individual

Formalizing shared ethical standards is an activity of scientific societies designed to achieve a collective goal of promoting ethical conduct. A scientist who is faced with the choice of becoming a “whistleblower” by exposing misconduct does so in the context of these ethical standards. Examination of ethics policies of scientific societies which are members of the Council of Scientific Society Presidents (CSSP) shows a breadth of purpose and scope in these policies. Among the CSSP member societies, some ethics policies chiefly present the ethical culture of the community in an educational context and do not have enforcement procedures. Other policies are more comprehensive and include standards for certification, procedures for addressing ethical issues, and established sanctions. Of the 36 member societies of CSSP that have developed a code or adopted a code of another professional society, 18 specifically identified a responsibility to expose ethical misconduct, demonstrating an acknowledgment of the possible critical role of the whistleblower in addressing ethical issues. Scientific societies may revise their ethics codes based upon experience gained in addressing cases of ethical misconduct. In most cases, the action of a whistleblower is the initial step in addressing an ethics violation; the whistleblower may either be in the position of an observer or a victim, such as in the case of someone who discovers that his or her own work has been plagiarized. The ethics committee of a scientific society is one of several possible outlets through which the whistleblower can voice a complaint or concern. Ethical violations can include falsification, fabrication, plagiarism and other authorship disputes, conflict of interest and other serious violations. Commonly, some of these violations may involve publication in the scientific literature. Thus addressing ethical issues may be intertwined with a scientific society’s role in the dissemination of new scientific results. For a journal published by a scientific society, the editor can refer at some point to the ethics committee of the society. Whereas, in the case of a journal published by a commercial publisher, the editor may be without direct support of the associated scientific community in handling the case. The association of a journal with a scientific society may thus direct a whistleblower towards addressing the issue within the scientific community rather than involving the press or talking to colleagues who may gossip. A formal procedure for handling ethics cases may also discourage false accusers. Another advantage of handling complaints through ethics committees is that decisions to contact home institutions or funding agencies can be made by the ethics committee and are not the responsibility of the whistleblower or the editor of the journal. The general assessment is that the establishment of ethics policies, especially policies covering publication in society journals, will promote a culture supportive of whistleblowers and discouraging to false accusers. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the symposium entitled “Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t: What the Scientific Community Can Do About Whistleblowing” held during the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Seattle, Washington, 15 February, 1997.