Constructionists and creationists.

Comments on L. T. Hoshmand and D. E. Polkinghorne's (see record 1992-21300-001) article on redefining the science–practice relationship. A constructivist role in psychology such as that advocated by Hoshmand and Polkinghorne, it is argued, is analogous to that of creationism in biology. The aim of both is to undermine belief that reasoned application of the scientific principles provides a valuable domain of knowledge. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

On the role of theory in the postmodern integration of science and practice.

Comments on L. T. Hoshmand and D. E. Polkinghorne's (see record 1992-21300-001) article on redefining the science–practice relationship. Missing from their work is an account of the restrictions placed on theory by positivism. The challenge of postmodernism is not to look beyond theory for an assumption-free discovery of practitioner understanding but to expand the mechanistic and stage-based theoretical repertoires to include context-sensitive models of embodied psychological processes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The need for scientist-practitioner employment settings.

Comments on C. D. Belar and N. W. Perry's (see record 1992-21285-001), L. T. Hoshmand and D. E. Polkinghorne's (see record 1992-21300-001), and J. J. Sullivan and R. P. Quevillon's (see record 1992-21308-001) articles affirming a commitment to the scientist-practitioner model for training practicing psychologists. An important limitation, it is noted, is the lack of postgraduate employment that supports the internalization of the scientist-practitioner role. Organizational models are needed to compliment interdisciplinary work. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

On starting points and priorities: A rejoinder.

Responds to the reply by L. T. Hoshmand and J. Martin (see record 1997-02285-002) to S. C. Yanchar and K. B. Kristensen's comments (see record 1997-02285-001) on Hoshmand and Martin's (see record 1995-28533-001) proposal for a naturalistic epistemological approach to psychological science. Hoshmand and Martin argue that in Yanchar and Kristensen's stance toward some aspects of their proposal, they have attributed to Hoshmand and Martin a relationship between theory, method, and data that they do not hold. According to Hoshmand and Martin, in making their case Yanchar and Kristensen have objected to empirical means of evaluation, and essentially undermined their own argument. The authors clarify their position by responding to these claims. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Some scientist-practitioners do.

Comments on the argument of L. T. Hoshmand and D. E. Polkinghorn (see record 1992-21300-001) that psychological practice should inform science to the same degree that science informs practice. Based on a survey of 121 faculty members in programs accredited by the American Psychological Association, 65% reported practice activity. The authors agree that the problem involves a much more complex integrative task that goes beyond simply recognizing knowledge gained in practice settings as valid. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychology and religion.

Replies to comments by L. T. Hoshmand, B. L. Cox, H. Aguinis and M. Aguinis, L. C. Ward, and A. S. Weiss (see PA, Vols 43513; 43509; 43507; 43524; and 43525, respectively) regarding Jones's (see record 1994-29392-001) rejection of claims that religion and science are separate and mutually exclusive. Jones contends that he was not trying to establish that religion and science are equivalent, but rather that the barriers between religion and science are sufficiently permeable to allow a dialogue at their interface. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Review of Culture, psychotherapy and counseling: Critical and integrative perspectives.

Reviews the book, Culture, psychotherapy and counseling: Critical and integrative perspectives (see record 2006-00543-000) edited by Lisa Hoshmand. Lisa Tsoi Hoshmand points out in a new book she has edited, Culture, psychotherapy and counseling: Critical and integrative perspectives, framing the culture concept in this way trivializes and distorts the significance of "the cultural," both for psychotherapists and for psychologists more generally. In this volume, Hoshmand and her contributors both explicate and perform a much broader understanding of what culture is, and of the ways in which it inescapably does (and should) influence psychotherapeutic and counseling theory and practice. Most notably, she highlights the ways that personal history, sociopolitical context, social change, and globalization all influence an individual's cultural identity; as a corollary of this, she asserts, "the internalized culture and identity of a given individual cannot be presumed on the basis of ethnic origin and cultural tradition". In spite of the limitation, virtually all of the chapters blend personal history, theoretical reflection and clinical material in interesting ways that enhance the reader's appreciation of the many contexts that surround and infuse the therapeutic encounter. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Epistemology is more than method: A reply to Yanchar and Kristensen.

Responds to S. C. Yanchar and K. B. Kristensen's (see record 1997-02285-001) comments on L. T. Hoshmand and J. Martin's (see record 1995-28533-001) proposal for a naturalistic epistemological approach. Further clarification of the proposal is provided and implications for the development of a theory of method and issues of communal evaluation and intelligibility are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychology's ethics of belief.

Comments on S. L. Jones's (see record 1994-29392-001) attempt to steer away from conventional habits of discourse toward a discussion of metaphysical and moral issues in general and of the relationship between religion and psychology in particular. Hoshmand contends that what Jones failed to address fully are individual differences in the epistemic styles, and personal–developmental and cultural influences on the ethics of belief. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The Moral Dimensions of Globalization.

Responds to the comments by L. T. Hoshmand (see record 2003-08988-012) and J. Aros (see record 2003-08988-013) on the article by J. Arnett (see record 2002-18352-003) regarding the psychology of globalization. In this response, Arnett discusses the moral implications of globalization. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Relationships between instructional language and primary students' learning.

Causal modeling was used to examine how primary students' language ability interacted with pace and redundancy of instructional language during an expository science lesson to explain students' attention and learning. Language ability and pace of the instructional language, mediated by students' attention to the lesson, accounted for significant variance in learning outcomes. Higher language ability related to greater learning. Overall, slow-paced instructional language was positively related to learning, but students attended less to it than to fast-paced talk. Students with special needs attended significantly less and learned less, whereas students not so identified attended slightly less but learned more. Teachers' talk matters, but because instructional language impacts differentially on students, heuristics for modifying it are not straightforward. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The practice of science in the family.

Responds to comments by B. D. Forman (see record 1990-29006-001), S. A. Kirschner (see record 1990-29011-001), and M. Rohrbaugh (see record 1990-29019-001) on the present authors' (see record 1990-29009-001) work on the use of paradoxical interventions with couples. Focus is on (1) the subjectivist and objectivist research approach; (2) language, relationship, and content analysis; and (3) the relevancy of science to practice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Cognitivism: Whose party is it anyway?

Comments on F. I. Craik's (see record 1992-03788-001) argument that cognitive science will have to come back to experimental psychology because psychological questions are empirical and cannot be answered by rationalist means. It is argued that Craik's belief is based on a misapprehension about cognitive science. Cognitive science is not rationalist. It is scientific but redresses an imbalance in the relative regard with which theory and data are typically held by experimental psychologists. It is argued that rather than being buried by cognitive science, experimental psychology should merge with the new theoretical renaissance represented by the cognitive scientific movement. (French abstract) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The scientist-practitioner connection: A bridge in need of constant attention.

Recent criticisms of the methods and mission of science and the sufficiency of an empirically based epistemology extend to the scientist–practitioner model of practice because of its foundation in the traditional view of science. Applied psychology should draw on basic research, but it must blend this knowledge with technology and heuristics that relate it to the practical problem at hand. The development of guidelines translating robust implications of scientific knowledge into heuristics for professional use has been much neglected. Bonding of science and practice, from both directions, requires support of an organized group of specialists whose primary tasks are (1) to explore the utility of basic theories and research for practice and to develop rules of when to use which theory or data set for specified situations and (2) to formulate research questions arising from practice-based observations and speculations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Comment on Cooper's "The passing of psychology" (Vol. 23, no. 4, October 1982).

Comments on R. M. Cooper's original article, "The passing of psychology" (see record 1983-26906-001). According to Cooper, psychology has become fruitless, devoid of substance and honest accomplishment and the real productivity of science is to be seen in material accomplishments. According to the current author, a materialist view makes any step in the world of ideas pitifully small by comparison. Materialist "science" will seem awesome, while enlargement of understanding that does not have an immediate physical expression can only be trivial musing. This is an all too prevalent view of science. Psychology is not dead. The science and practice of psychology are blessed, as they have long been, with keen and competent minds. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A place for discontent and tensions in psychology.

R. M. Cooper (see record 1983-26906-001) commented on the failure of psychology for physiological psychologists and advised his colleagues to abandon psychology in favor of the neurosciences. Cooper's discontent may be seen as arising naturally from certain inevitable tensions between perspectives and methods in the physical and behavioral sciences. Clinical psychologists are similarly caught between differing perspectives—those of behavioral science and clinical practice—and they also experience tensions and discontent. The discontent and tensions in psychology sometimes lead to overly narrow specialization and destructive rifts within the discipline. It is argued that these effects need not occur and that tensions between differing epistemic/theoretic perspectives in psychology are healthy and should be maintained. Such dialectics are needed to generate more complete and integrated knowledge, and the tension between science and practice is necessary for the advancement of clinical skills. (French abstract) (51 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The language of therapy.

Discusses studies of language illuminating the theory and practice of psychotherapy from 3 perspectives: (1) the language used to describe therapy in theoretical terms, (2) the language of therapists engaging with clients, and (3) linguistic research into therapy. It is concluded that although interest is continuing in the use of paralinguistic variables in psychotherapy, not much research into therapy could be regarded as linguistically based. The most notable of the broadly linguistic analyses of therapy have been led by C. E. Hill (e.g., see record 1979-22606-001). It is suggested that the rigor of her research, its proximity to practice, and her careful use of ordinary language may lead to her client and therapist response system becoming part of a true lingua franca for psychotherapy. The authors doubt the relevance to therapy of elaborate linguistic analyses. However, applying to therapy such measures as rules of discourse, stylistic complexity, and semantic relations advances scientific knowledge because elements of the process are revealed that could not otherwise be inspected. (58 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)