While I was a graduate student in psychology, I began to wonder why psychology seemed so insipid. “We give the same exam every year, we just change the answers.” I wrote a paper about this problem. In the graduate program in which I was enrolled, we had to write a “major” paper, a “minor” paper, and do a dissertation, as requirements for the Ph.D.. My first attempt at the minor paper was an attempt to provide guidelines for important research in psychology. I used criteria such as amount, duration and transferability of change produced, repeatability, speed of change, efficiency and so on. So many revisions of this paper were required by my supervising professor (that’s academia’s way of refusing to accept something–require endless revisions) that I gave up and wrote a paper on "Observational Learning" which was bland enough to be acceptable.
For lo these many years, this problem vexed me until I decided to write a book about the matter. Still unpublished, but nearing completion, I called it: Shadow Dancing on the Grave of Hope:
This creation has gone through three stages. Originally, I intended it to contain a catalog of principles underlying effective programs along with exemplar programs illustrating these principles. It still contains these features, but as I read and thought about the problem, exemplified by this quote, about alcohol rehabilitation from Hester and Miller:
"The negative correlation between scientific evidence and application in standard practice could hardly be larger if one intentionally constructed treatment programs from those approaches with the least evidence of efficacy." (p. 33).
This situation obtains for almost every area in psychology.
Using effective psychology to determine why most psychology is ineffective, it came to me that most social service programs are run under the direct or indirect aegis of government agencies. This means that all the political considerations such as rhetoric, intention and misrepresentation apply. All of this is inimical to good results. Where contingencies are not centered on results, results will be ignored.
Then came the third act when it occurred to me that all situations involving coercion and limited choice produce the same things, costly and ineffective interventions. When Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand becomes visible, chaos results.
The only solution to this is to put all social sciences into the free marketplace and let the customers decide which methods work.
Hester, R.K., & Miller, W.R. (Eds), (2002). Handbook of Alcoholism Treatment Approaches: Effective Alternatives. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
November 27, 2009 at 2:16 pm |
“The only solution to this is to put all social sciences into the free marketplace and let the customers decide which methods work.”
If this were only true!
Unfortunately, other factors affect the “free” marketplace. Misinformation and supply are two that come to mind.
Misinformation is rampant in education circles. I still hear private preschools claim that “play-based” preschool education is better, while there is absolutely no proof to back this up. However, even well-educated parents can’t challenge this because they don’t know the alternatives.
Parents also can’t challenge a lot of beliefs because the supply of good providers is limited. Charter schools, which provide at least some refuge for parents (but it’s limited because even charter schools can pick ineffective curricula), have waiting lists so it’s very hard to get into one even if you’d like to (I know one where they get 400 applications a year for 100 slots). And dysfunction will continue to be rampant in education because the only way to get an advanced degree is to drink the poison of ineffective practices (see your example).
I believe there are 2 methods to help the free market . . .
1. Do it yourself. Home-schooling. Personal coaching of yourself. In both cases, you’ll still need guidance and outside materials, but you can use “mother’s rule” if it doesn’t work.
2. Try to argue to the undecided and interested. Continue blogs like yours, hone your message so it’s a book that people will read (e.g., cut out the penalties for the non-believers in the introduction and go with a lighter, more interesting approach, a la “Freakonomics”), and do a multitude of other things to bring people around. I’m not sure if it will work, but it’s worth a try!
November 27, 2009 at 8:52 pm |
Can’t disagree with what you’ve said. I’ve thought about jazzing up my book as Glen Beck did in Arguing With Idiots, but I’ll have to finish it first. Charter schools differ so widely, most of them being variants of government schools, that I don’t see much help there.
As long as no one tries to reform the dismal morass of special interest groups and rent-seekers that comprise government education, he has a fighting chance of doing some good. One student at a time.
Cheers,
Grant Coulson
November 27, 2009 at 2:19 pm |
one more thought . . .
are there any studies on the best ways to convert the unconverted? (i.e., educate parents on the need for evidence-based educational practices, with quick ways to determine if the evidence provided is suspect)
November 27, 2009 at 8:46 pm |
Studies, I don’t know about. What I give the parents who come to see me are a couple of paragraphs debunking the importance of education, the Book of Wrong, and Right, the Follow Through data shown on my blog in the October 1st and 10th entries. These data show DI compared to other methods and the slope of learning categorized by IQ. I point out that the methods which failed then are still used now and that the cognitive ability of the child is not important under proper teaching in terms of learning rate. I’m preaching to the converted, of course. I gave up trying to convert anybody else. As I tell people, I’m not teaching children, I’m only teaching a child.
Cheers,
Grant Coulson