Is an undergraduate scientfiic grounding important for Parapsychology?

[Dr B]

I would like to ask everyone’s opinion on something. Is it a good thing, for people to be allowed to do a PhD, without a mainstream undergraduate scientific background first? In addition, are there any implications for our future parapsychologists (or any scientist really) that come down this route? Will the quality of research be reduced or increased? Maybe there are no real implications at all!

Let me explain. Some students, usually ones who are older or have been in a profession for some time, can get onto a PhD without a formal BSc (hons) / BA degree or an MSc. The argument goes that they might find the undergraduate degree non-demanding and their experience of the world may have prepared them for a PhD. I can see some merit in this for certain subjects and in certain cases – but I remain unconvinced that this is a good thing for science students and even more so for parapsychology students.

I can see how a business person might want to take an MBA say – five years after establishing themselves in the commercial world – but is it the same for academic / research sciences where the skill and knowledge base is so vast? Maybe it is. :-\

Only some universities endorse this approach – others take a very dim view of it.

In relation to Parapsychology, it is a controversial area as it is – do these shortcuts really help? At a time when many universities are talking about extending their undergraduate degrees to 4 years (and their PhDs to 4 years) is providing this short cut a good thing? It is good for the university in one sense – as they get fees for the student. However, there may be problems in the future – in terms of the quality of the science / scientist. :sad:

I can see an argument for some people to jump onto an MSc before a PhD – but I cannot really see a good argument for jumping straight to PhD – with no formal background at all in experimental science.

If you cut out this basis in say Psychology, then you throw away, research methods, statistics, analytical thinking, not to mention some philosophy, critical thinking and logic. As such the student may not have as solid a basis in science as perhaps they should have. If the undergraduate degree is non-demanding then thats as much an argument to make it harder as it is to let some jump in at PhD level. Thoughts anyone?

hhhmmmmm

[Allo Allo]

"Some students, usually ones who are older or have been in a profession for some time, can get onto a PhD without a formal BSc (hons) / BA degree or an MSc."

Blast! I didn't know this! I should be doing a doctorate instead of "Introduction to Science" or "Discovering Science" whatever. I already have a BA, I'm an older person, and I have successfully established two businesses.....>:-) I wish you'd posted this before I signed up with the Open University!!!!! ;D

[Dr B]

No..no...sounds to me like your 'grounding' is spot on. I am not convinced in all cases, that short cuts are a good thing.

I would do it your way - trust me. The early parts of ones journey into science are by far the most crucial. You need to make sure that the quality of the information you deal with (and the courses) is high.

Most take a dim view of the short-cut route (though it can be justified in certain cases - depending on the existing knowledge and skills base of the applicant).

O0

[Mongrel]

I would do it your way - trust me. The early parts of ones journey into science are by far the most crucial. You need to make sure that the quality of the information you deal with (and the courses) is high.

Most take a dim view of the short-cut route (though it can be justified in certain cases - depending on the existing knowledge and skills base of the applicant).

O0

I think this is one of those questions where there's no absolute Yes\No answer, each case would have to be judged on the applicants merits and experience.

[Dr B]

I totally agree - but in principle and on the whole - do you think taking a short-cut around all the information contained in a science degree - is a good thing for our future parapsychologists?

[vbloke]

I totally agree - but in principle and on the whole - do you think taking a short-cut around all the information contained in a science degree - is a good thing for our future parapsychologists?No.

[Nicky]

I think absolutely not. If you want to study science at postgraduate level I fail to comprehend how this can be successfully achieved with a firm scientific research grounding at undergraduate level.

People may argue that they have read science books, ethics books, research methods etc., but that's nothing compared to having to apply it within academia, within BPA or APA confines etc.

I graduated 3 years ago, and already I've lost a lot of learning. I try to keep it fresh and relevant through the research we do with PSI, keeping up to date with others research etc., but its nothing compared to how on the ball I was a few years back. I'm not saying it would take a lot to get back up to scratch, but I don't think get there at all if it wasn't for my initial BSc.

Parapsychology is possibly one of the less respected and recognised disciplines and I cannot see how anyone entering the field at PhD level without a firm grounding in scientific method, critical thinking, research methodology and statistical analysis can positively enhance its reputation or, indeed, its work.

But, as I often get told .. I'm an academic snob ..

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I graduated 14 years ago, and although I have forgotten almost everything I learnt (those fluid dynamics were tough!:'(), I do still constantly apply the methods and thought processes I learnt at University to my job.

I work in an IT department, and probably only about half the graduates taken on have a technical or scientific degree. The IT work we do isn't hardcore or incredibly technically complex, however it still requires the ability to think logically and in a structured manner.

Without doubt, most of the people who have struggled in this type of role have arty type degrees. Having IT knowledge isn't a big advantage due to the amount of training you would receive and the difference in the working environments compared to what people would have learnt on IT courses.

One of the guys I work with who has a MSc in Computing (and a degree in Politics ::)), and he struggles sometimes in a technical role.

Many of the people who don't have an aptitude for the technical side migrate to project management or other such roles.

Of course this is mostly anecdotal type information, but what I would say from my 14 years of working experience, is that people who haven't been exposed to the scientific method at a detailed enough level, would probably not on the whole be equiped with the right skills to understand and work through complex scenarios in a logical and scientific manner.

Art degrees do have a place - however I don't think they are an ideal introduction to further work in the scientific field.

I would have to question some of the teaching and courses I took at university though, the standard and quality was at times serverely lacking. However looking back now, I can see that what I learnt was the ability to think scientifically, not the ability to work out 10 page long calculus equations!

[median]

I would like to ask everyone’s opinion on something. Is it a good thing, for people to be allowed to do a PhD, without a mainstream undergraduate scientific background first?


No, not really. You have to pay your dues.

those fluid dynamics were tough

[In best Homer voice]......ahhhh...fluid dynamics...mmmmm

[Cuddles]

I will add my voice to the "no" camp. If anything, I think a solid grounding in science is more important for parapsychology than other sciences. If you are working as, say, a physicist, either you know the work or you don't. In more complex work it might not be immediately obvious to everyone if your answers are right, but anyone can work through to check the answers or compare your model with reality. In fact, if you don't know what you are doing, you are unlikely to even get an answer in the first place. This means that your actual level of qualification is largely irrelevant, all that matters is that you can do what you are supposed to be doing (although obvoiusly qualifications are a good way of showing that you can do so).

Parapsychology, and probably some other softer sciences, don't have this. Whether you know what you are doing or not, you can take some measurements, claim they show a ghost and publish your work. This makes qualifications and training much more important, since it is useful to be able to tell the difference between a postgrad doing real research and some crank making stuff up in their back garden.

An analogy with kayaking would be the difference between white water and flat water paddling. If you're on white water, qualifications are largely irrelevant. Either you can get down it or you can't so it is obvious who actually has useful knowledge. On flat water however, pretty much anyone can get on and paddle around, so qualifications are needed to tell the real paddlers apart from the wannabees.

Incidentally, I don't actually have a PhD, but I am working in a technically postdoc position. I don't have any kayaking qualifications either.

[Matt]

Obvoisuly a scientific grounding is essential. I'm in tow mind whether that scientific grounding needs to take the form of a BSc. I can imagine few other opportunities to gain such a grounding but can't dismiss the possibility.

[Dr B]

So I would take it by all of the above, most of us would be horrified to learn such things are happening?

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Horrified or surprised? ::)

[vbloke]

So I would take it by all of the above, most of us would be horrified to learn such things are happening?No, not really, given the rubbish a lot of them tend to come out with.

[Dr B]

Horrified - this is the quality of science we are duscussing here!

[Dr B]

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

Agreed O0

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....:cheesy:

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.....:cheesy:


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.....;D). 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). O0


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/glasgow_and_west/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....:cheesy:

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.