Is an undergraduate scientfiic grounding important for Parapsychology?

[Dr B]

No, not really, given the rubbish a lot of them tend to come out with.

Agreed

But the problem is that 'rubbish' which is clear to some, is hard to spot by others and so rather perverse views of the world and science emerge......

The process outlined above might be one emerging and contributing factor to this.....dunno......:-\

[Nicky]

I think we also need to be mindful of the fact, however, that not all BScs provide a grounding in science as much as others, so we can't simply assume someone has a strong understanding of research methods by just having a BSc.

When I was a student, everyone living with me were doing BScs, but at least two of them were doing sociology and/or politics and from talking to them about their research methods training it was vastly less comprehensive and had far less emphasis on it than my course provided.

[dalriada]

It might not be just a question of having an appropriate undergraduate degree, I think its also a question of knowing how to think logically and having some sort of mental capacity for critical analysis. It is disenhearteningly possible to acquire a science degree without possessing such attributes. I teach research methods to postgrad students (broad spectrum-life and health sciences) and I find I really have work hard to get across the point that its not just a question of picking a general area of interest, deciding that's what you're doing your research on, and considering the matter closed.

When it comes to making specific definitions on what specific topic they're going to research , explaining why such research should be done and how it should be done in order to test hypotheses or answer research questions in adequate fashion, students can struggle. More often than not a first draft of a research proposal has a significant mismatch between research questions and methods proposed. I have a sneaking suspicion that law students with a background in gathering evidence , presenting cases and an understanding of standards of proof may be better equipped to start a research degree than many science graduates.

I assumed that it was standard practice for universities to require undifferentiated postgraduate students to complete standard research skills training before being allowed to register as a PhD candidate, is this not the case?

I wouldn't be entirely surprised if it wasn't. There seems to be vast differences in research governance practices across universities too- none of our postgrad students has permission to start to collect data unless an officially submitted proposal acquires at least three other sets of paper work 1) favourable peer review from a member of staff not involved in supervision, 2) favourable ethical review from another member of staff 3) approval after discussions by the school filter committee. In more sensitive research the process is more complicated and considerably longer because we have to involve external reviewers. The same process applies to staff research. It must be followed, otherwise no degree (or possibly no job!) We also have a seminar program with compulsory presentations once a year for higher degree students and these are also reviewed and assessed. In short, If you have wacky ideas, you'll probably have them beaten out of you in-house, Painful process, but I suppose its for the good of our souls.

My own general feeling is that parapsychology researchers shouldn't just be parapsychology researchers- they should be grounded in another discipline and research active another research area too. Otherwise I think there's a danger of just doing work thats only ever as good as it needs to be- and as parapsychology is a narrow field and on account of its audience, it doesn't need to be that good. So I guess that's when the rot can set in. In wider academia, its a bit of a jungle and the principles of Darwinian selection apply, if parapsychologists were a less insular breed, competing in the big bad world, possibly parapsychology might evolve into a stronger fitter beastie? Obviously a few people may get eaten first but it can be done-

Richard Wiseman and Peter Lamont have published in Nature- surely the parapsychologist's equivalent of walking on water....?

[Dr B]

Hi Nicky

I think we also need to be mindful of the fact, however, that not all BScs provide a grounding in science as much as others, so we can't simply assume someone has a strong understanding of research methods by just having a BSc.

That is true - I guess the main thematic point I was making was a degree in science - or one that draws heavily on it (like the Philosophy of science) should be more of a help than a hindrance.

Some degree's are either poor quality, or simply irrelevant - but that does not go against the essence of the point (but quite right it is no direct assurance).

What you mention above becomes even less likely however, if the individual has more degrees of a relevant subject area (BSc / MSc / PhD) which is quite normal within the mainstream.

When I was a student, everyone living with me were doing BScs, but at least two of them were doing sociology and/or politics and from talking to them about their research methods training it was vastly less comprehensive and had far less emphasis on it than my course provided.

Many universities see no difference between a BA and BSc - it is the subject matter that is more crucial than the name of the qualification. I know of some courses that are identical in content - yet you can request either a BA or BSc on your certificate. Dont ask me why....

Qualifications are certainly no guarantee i this field.

[Dr B]

It might not be just a question of having an appropriate undergraduate degree, I think its also a question of knowing how to think logically and having some sort of mental capacity for critical analysis.

That is exactly my point. This is what I meant when I said that bypassing formal undergraduate degrees can remove this (i.e., critical thinking / scientific reasoning / logic) from your training. Of course, if you are getting this training from other sources then fine - but it is unlikely.

A high quality undergraduate degree in science should cover these aspects and it would be very difficult to graduate with a high-class degree without being proficient in these areas. However, if you choose a short cut.....

It is disenhearteningly possible to acquire a science degree without possessing such attributes.

I know - but it is harder in the top institutions, with the more respected degrees, to get the top grades.

I teach research methods to postgrad students (broad spectrum-life and health sciences) and I find I really have work hard to get across the point that its not just a question of picking a general area of interest, deciding that's what you're doing your research on, and considering the matter closed.

Indeed - and I have had many similar experiences. For me most students struggle with logic (informal logic that is) and have little training in it when they get to us. Actually, I know professionals that are regularly prone to fallacious reasoning and you can tell they are simply ignorant to a whole area which is crucial for understanding how to make cogent arguments.

I have a sneaking suspicion that law students with a background in gathering evidence , presenting cases and an understanding of standards of proof may be better equipped to start a research degree than many science graduates.

As a student I had many late nights dicussing argumentation with law students.....ahhhh...happy days.

I assumed that it was standard practice for universities to require undifferentiated postgraduate students to complete standard research skills training before being allowed to register as a PhD candidate, is this not the case?

For the top institutions yes - for many of the lower down ones - struggling for cash - no!

We also have a seminar program with compulsory presentations once a year for higher degree students and these are also reviewed and assessed. In short, If you have wacky ideas, you'll probably have them beaten out of you in-house, Painful process, but I suppose its for the good of our souls

I think the generic process you describe here sounds quite excellent (not the beating of course.....). However, my hunch is this is not going on in parapsychology departments (or if it is - it is not the norm and an accepted criteria). I could be wrong of course.....

My own general feeling is that parapsychology researchers shouldn't just be parapsychology researchers- they should be grounded in another discipline and research active another research area too.

This has always been my idea as well. Of course, it is true for some of our more senior parapsychologist who came through more traditional routes. But the academic landscape is changing - and it is the future we need to think about in this regard.

Richard Wiseman and Peter Lamont have published in Nature- surely the parapsychologist's equivalent of walking on water....?

But i dont think they were publishing para-stuff were they? Maybe they were.

Anyway, my hunch is that more senior guys came through the traditional route (and I know most have excellent undergraduate credentials) - it is this route - which produced good researchers - which might be getting bypassed now (or at least there is a potential for it).


Edit - so I guess the main point to keep in mind here is that many aspects of this discussion refer to recently qualified parapsychologists (USA / Europe and UK) and future ones - rather than the more senior ones which came through more traditional admirable routes.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Hi Nicky


Qualifications are certainly no guarantee i this field.

Couldn't agree more, the number of 'universities' these days is staggering.

Just last week, the University of Paisley merged with a college. You have to wonder sometimes how standards can be maintained, or even improved to the necessary level, in such a sprawling organisation where financial performance is key.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/6923967.stm

[Cuddles]

Many universities see no difference between a BA and BSc - it is the subject matter that is more crucial than the name of the qualification. I know of some courses that are identical in content - yet you can request either a BA or BSc on your certificate. Dont ask me why....

And of course, at Oxford and Cambridge it's quite a struggle to find a BSc course. Although they have plenty of MScs to distinguish them from the MA you can get by giving them some money.

[Dr B]

is it the case that old polytechnics are the worst offenders in terms of this discussion????

all about bums on seats at any cost?

[Dr B]

bump......

I've heard some recent stories that some Universities (with para departments) are indeed letting unqualified people onto PhD courses....all deeply worrying.

I also know that some of these people bill themselves as 'leading researchers' in the field - even though they have no 1st authored peer-reviewed papers on the subject, on apparitional theory, on anomalous cognition, etc....how can they be 'leading' as is this not a term for others to use about you rather than one to claim for yourself????

[Harryprice]

Surely you have to have a first degree to do a PhD, don't you? In what other circumstances would someone be allowed to do a PhD?

[dalriada]

Surely you have to have a first degree to do a PhD, don't you? In what other circumstances would someone be allowed to do a PhD?

Yes, one would be expected to have a good (2.1 or first class) undergraduate degree before going on to do a research degree- although this is sometimes bypassed if someone has professional qualifications and a masters degree. Graduate Basis for Registration (GBR) is required by the BPS for entry onto professional psychology programmes which generally means either doing an accredited psychology degree or getting your qualifications validated by the British Psychological Society.

http://www.bps.org.uk/membership/grades/grades_home.cfm

However, if one were a professional ghostbuster on a dodgy TV show and your ghost busting buddy was a lecturer at a university parapsychology department with pretty low standards, the above may not apply to you, which might be the explanation for why a person might think pseudopsychological burble like this * could ever be greeted with anything but laughter.


* PS I was amused to see this theory has been modified to have "memories" travelling from water droplets in the lungs, via the bloodstream to the brain without the previously stated hilarious involvement of a molecule in the brain which "triggers a wave of copies across the Cerebral Spinal Fluid ..." (!!) BUT IT'S STILL COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS & the fact that someone thought that this edit made the concept more credible, is just...hilarious

[Jules]

I didn't even realise it was possible to do a higher degree in parapsychology.

I have a cousin who works in the NHS (as a Cognitive Behavioural Therapist) and is working on a PhD in research. He doesn't have ANY scientific background, apart from what he might have picked up during his years as a psychiatric nurse, but he does have a degree in dance.

[dalriada]

I didn't even realise it was possible to do a higher degree in parapsychology.

I have a cousin who works in the NHS (as a Cognitive Behavioural Therapist) and is working on a PhD in research. He doesn't have ANY scientific background, apart from what he might have picked up during his years as a psychiatric nurse, but he does have a degree in dance.

Graduate status, plus Registered nurse (involves several years of training) with additional years of psychiatric experience and CBT qualifications- sounds competent enough Nursing involves science too y'know.... I expect your cousin is taking quite a few research methods classes too.

.

[Jules]

I have a sneaking suspicion that law students with a background in gathering evidence , presenting cases and an understanding of standards of proof may be better equipped to start a research degree than many science graduates.

What about Philosophy students? they should have a good grounding in logic, at least.

[Jules]

Graduate status, plus Registered nurse (involves several years of training) with additional years of psychiatric experience and CBT qualifications- sounds competent enough Nursing involves science too y'know.... I expect your cousin is taking quite a few research methods classes too.
.

I dare say you're right. Nursing isn't what it used to be, hence the expression "too posh to wash".