X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:47:43 -0400
From:         psy_delprato@EMUNIX.EMICH.EDU
Subject:      Disturbances
X-To:         emunix..csg-l%uiucvmd.bitnet@princeton.edu@emunix.emich.edu

[FROM Dennis Delprato (920813)]

I have been enjoying the discussion of disturbances and simplifying
assumptions.  For those who wish to talk to non PCT experimental
psychologists, I suggest you have an excellent "hook" here.

Start at the beginning.  What is the raison d'etre of the much
acclaimed experimental method?  Control over so-called extraneous
variables that are the source of unaccounted-for (error) variance
in events of interest.  How successful is the IV-DV  strategy?
Citation, citation, ....  Not very, even when statistical control in
the form of factorial designs and multivariate statistics is
incorporated into the manipulative strategy.  Furthermore, aren't
we aware of a fundamental problem with highly controlled
experimental research, even when (or if) its application permits
impressively confirmed predictions?  Yes, we find the actual
world controlled away such that results are applicable to only
a very restricted set of conditions.  We end up not knowing any more
than before the rigorous experimentation was conduct--with the
exception of what applies to an extremely narrow range of conditions.
Tied in here are ceteris paribus assumptions in an attempt to salvage
the experimenter-as-manipulator methodology.

Thirdly, what is one implicitly assuming when control over
extraneous variables is placed in the hands of the experimenter?
Aren't we assuming that the individual is pushed and pulled around
by external forces, that they are not active participants in their
world?

Well, here's a suggestion from an area that is based on the
fundamental proposition that the psychologically-active
individual  always participates fully in all actions.  First,
consider this notion of extraneous variables; this idea that
there are variables that often operate insidiously to befuddle
well-intentioned researchers.  An alternative is not to deny
that something like extraneous variables is found in psychological
events, but to re-conceptualize them as disturbances.  With
the idea of disturbances and the conceptual framework in which
they are found as formal constructs, we (a) need not rely on
a wind-weather vane conceptualization of psychological behavior,
(b) can methodologically handle all variables of whatever number
and however classified by the classical experimental model....

Get the point?  KISS (Keep It Simple ...)

Basically, I am suggesting a critical look at the classic
experimental framework (CEF), a set of assumptions not questioned by
adherents to otherwise divergent theories and approaches.  CEF-thinking
is taught to all psychologists.  It is possibly one of the very few
points of general agreement in the fractured field of psychology.
Not a pleasant thought for those who are not impressed with it.
However, it does seem that there may be enough of an undercurrent
of dissatisfaction to lead some, at least, to consider an alternative.

Dennis Delprato
Dept. of Psychology
Eastern Michigan University
Ypsilanti, MI 48197 U.S.A.
Psy_Delprato@emunix.emich.edu  (Internet)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU