See my comments below ;-):
corboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A few modest proposals.
>
> Corboy suggests that a healthy discipline
> is based on principles rather than personalities. Roger, check that!
> What are the results? Can the results be
> replicated by others and in different settings? Measurable, can be validated, check that!
> Are the results better than average? Comparative research, roger, check that!
Are the benefits greater than current modalities? Could not be worse!
>
> A healthy discipline outgrows its founders. A
> healthy discipline continues to make progress in
> the absence of charismatic personalities because
> its researchers use sound research protocol. Healthy non-narcissistic founders create successors and a sustainable legacy of inquiry and innovation. Roger, check that!!!
>
> * Has a professional code of ethics Roger, and, does not rely on self-governance, builds in diverse compliance structure, check that!
>
> * Will not use material obtained by unethical
> means Roger, roger, check that, and also transparently discloses on what research its recommendations are based, while welcoming PEER REVIEW!
>
> * Will conduct its research according to ethical
> guidelines protecting human subjects and
> safeguarding confidentiality and informed consent
> (eg APA guidelines) Roger, check that.
>
> * a) Has a standard of care -- and sets itself
> apart from shoddy practitioners Roger, check that, and not every warm body who pays a fee, and sits through a seminar is certified to practice.
> b) Is called elitist by shoddy practitioners Good indicator of success!
>
> * Does not automatically stifle reports of
> malpractice on grounds that criticism will ruin
> the discipline. Open societies are capable of self
> critique. Roger! Does not ignore or spin complaints, does not obfuscate ethical violations.
>
> * Full disclosure of source material and concepts See above.
>
> * Has a process for training, accreditation of
> training programs, and a procedure for examining
> and licensing practitioners Roger, and does not engage in relationships with providers that constitute conflicts of interest
>
> ** Requires training in scientific method and
> research design so that practitioners know the
> difference between methods that are personality driven vs
> s methods derived from testable hypotheses and
> which have results better than average and have been replicated in a variety of settings by different researchers Roger, model is research-based, not 'evidence'-based
>
> * Welcomes legal accountability. Cannot legally
> practice professionally or supervise trainees
> unless license is tied to state or national disciplinary board. Roger, and it that entity is training methodology that is psychological, or psycho-therapeutic in nature, it submits to bodies that govern such practices.
>
> * Can agree on defining terms so that discipline
> has a shared professional vocabulary that can be
> used in publications and presentations Roger, no esoteric jargon
>
> * Can agree and use research design methods
> (creating testable hypotheses, taking precautions
> against confirmation bias, knowing how to use and interpret statistics Roger, uses standard methods of analysis to measure efficacy of programs...NOT TESTIMONIALS, not APPEALS TO AUTHORITY
>
> * Uses methods and theories and findings from
> other disciplines (psychometrics, clinical
> psychology, psychiatry, biological psychology, sociologyy, anthropology, game theory, etc) Roger, is interdisciplinary, and utilizes any/all resources that can deliver value to clients.
>
> * Scholars and practitioners from other
> disciplines participate in conference and co
> author articles See above.
>
> * Different viewpoints
>
> * Discussions of different viewpoints take place
> publicly - articles, books, conferences, journals Roger, PEER REVIEW, internal rigor.
>
> * There are persons and teams pursuing different
> approaches. Good indicator of rigor, vitality, and opportunities for cross-polenization, innovation
>
> * Publishes a journal that is peer reviewed. More
> than one such journal is even better. Double Roger, check that, and publishes in journals outside of field.
I will add, is transparent in business practices, and affiliations, past and present.
Does not engage in practices such as multi-level marketing, and network entrepreneurship.
Is unaffiliated with political parties, religious groups, social identity groups.
corboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A few modest proposals.
>
> Corboy suggests that a healthy discipline
> is based on principles rather than personalities. Roger, check that!
> What are the results? Can the results be
> replicated by others and in different settings? Measurable, can be validated, check that!
> Are the results better than average? Comparative research, roger, check that!
Are the benefits greater than current modalities? Could not be worse!
>
> A healthy discipline outgrows its founders. A
> healthy discipline continues to make progress in
> the absence of charismatic personalities because
> its researchers use sound research protocol. Healthy non-narcissistic founders create successors and a sustainable legacy of inquiry and innovation. Roger, check that!!!
>
> * Has a professional code of ethics Roger, and, does not rely on self-governance, builds in diverse compliance structure, check that!
>
> * Will not use material obtained by unethical
> means Roger, roger, check that, and also transparently discloses on what research its recommendations are based, while welcoming PEER REVIEW!
>
> * Will conduct its research according to ethical
> guidelines protecting human subjects and
> safeguarding confidentiality and informed consent
> (eg APA guidelines) Roger, check that.
>
> * a) Has a standard of care -- and sets itself
> apart from shoddy practitioners Roger, check that, and not every warm body who pays a fee, and sits through a seminar is certified to practice.
> b) Is called elitist by shoddy practitioners Good indicator of success!
>
> * Does not automatically stifle reports of
> malpractice on grounds that criticism will ruin
> the discipline. Open societies are capable of self
> critique. Roger! Does not ignore or spin complaints, does not obfuscate ethical violations.
>
> * Full disclosure of source material and concepts See above.
>
> * Has a process for training, accreditation of
> training programs, and a procedure for examining
> and licensing practitioners Roger, and does not engage in relationships with providers that constitute conflicts of interest
>
> ** Requires training in scientific method and
> research design so that practitioners know the
> difference between methods that are personality driven vs
> s methods derived from testable hypotheses and
> which have results better than average and have been replicated in a variety of settings by different researchers Roger, model is research-based, not 'evidence'-based
>
> * Welcomes legal accountability. Cannot legally
> practice professionally or supervise trainees
> unless license is tied to state or national disciplinary board. Roger, and it that entity is training methodology that is psychological, or psycho-therapeutic in nature, it submits to bodies that govern such practices.
>
> * Can agree on defining terms so that discipline
> has a shared professional vocabulary that can be
> used in publications and presentations Roger, no esoteric jargon
>
> * Can agree and use research design methods
> (creating testable hypotheses, taking precautions
> against confirmation bias, knowing how to use and interpret statistics Roger, uses standard methods of analysis to measure efficacy of programs...NOT TESTIMONIALS, not APPEALS TO AUTHORITY
>
> * Uses methods and theories and findings from
> other disciplines (psychometrics, clinical
> psychology, psychiatry, biological psychology, sociologyy, anthropology, game theory, etc) Roger, is interdisciplinary, and utilizes any/all resources that can deliver value to clients.
>
> * Scholars and practitioners from other
> disciplines participate in conference and co
> author articles See above.
>
> * Different viewpoints
>
> * Discussions of different viewpoints take place
> publicly - articles, books, conferences, journals Roger, PEER REVIEW, internal rigor.
>
> * There are persons and teams pursuing different
> approaches. Good indicator of rigor, vitality, and opportunities for cross-polenization, innovation
>
> * Publishes a journal that is peer reviewed. More
> than one such journal is even better. Double Roger, check that, and publishes in journals outside of field.
I will add, is transparent in business practices, and affiliations, past and present.
Does not engage in practices such as multi-level marketing, and network entrepreneurship.
Is unaffiliated with political parties, religious groups, social identity groups.