Talk:Landmark Education/Abd/Academic analysis

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Source for the APA award[edit]

The research reported in the book garnered the American Psychological Association's "National Psychological Consultants to Management Award", in 1989.[2]

The note is to the book itself, as published by Springer. I have no idea what that award was about. "National Psychological Consultants to Management"? It sounds like something that might be on a book jacket. What's the fact here? I found nothing relating to this in the Wikipedia article, the claim is unsourced there. The award seems to be awarded to individuals, not to books or research projects, as the title of the award implies. So which author won the award?

It's rather obvious what is going on here. Whoever added this to the Wikipedia article wanted to increase credence for the results. It is completely unclear that the award established anything of the kind. Maybe. Maybe not. I am not claiming that the results of the study are incorrect, invalid, or biased. I think it likely they were not biased, but studies like this can go south for many reasons. From the Wikipedia article, it appears that all participants attended a single Forum session. While in my experience, Forum results are reasonably uniform, there can still be substantial variation, and I have no idea what it was like in the year of that forum, 1985, i.e., almost thirty years ago.

At one point I had occasion to call every graduate from within the last 18 months in my area of Western Massachusetts, this was almost 100 people, and I called every one. My purpose was organizing a local graduate's group, it wasn't any kind of sales or the like. I found no dissatisfaction among those people, but it's possible that the list had been filtered, because if anyone had asked Landmark that they not be called, they'd have been removed from the list. I found one woman who didn't want to participate any more, but she actually praised the work, she just didn't like something specific about it, she had a pre-existing idea that leaders should not speak from an elevated platform (and a very low "stage" is used in Landmark Programs, maybe eight inches). I could tell a graduate immediately, i.e., sometimes a non-graduate answered the phone. It was palpable. Graduates were bright, cheerful, and eager to know what I was calling about.

Again, this could be a selected group. Some people did not call me back. What I do know is many people who have been doing the work, engaged in "the conversation" for 10, 20, 30 or more years, and I know the stories of their lives. Maybe it doesn't happen for everyone, but these peoplehad experienced changes that were very obviously due to the training. A waitress became an ordained minister, in a recognized mainstream denomination, for example. Landmark has commissioned other studies, so I'll look for information on that.

Something that should definitely be considered here. The Forum, studied in 1985, was not a fixed thing. Erhard, and later, Landmark, may have responded to the study, may have modified the course offerings and how they were put together, to generate more lasting effects. From how "continuing education" is handled in Landmark today, this could be quite believable for me.

In any case, it's quite possible for an individual to effectively experience the Forum without actually signing up, so that they will have a clear idea of what they will get out of it. That's what an "Introduction to the Landmark Forum" is, a piece of the technology, and a particularly powerful one. It's free, always, and it can be repeated, and there are different forms of it. --Abd (discusscontribs) 20:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Springer is a major academic publisher. The fact is confirmed and reliable. -- Cirt (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
What fact, Cirt? I know about Springer, for sure, I've been mentioned in a 2010 Springer publication on cold fusion. Apparently "reliable source" can mean "the sources we like and not the sources we don't like." No specific reference has been provided. In what you put on the page, the entire book was cited as a reference for what would be a tiny part of it, no page number, no specific text, nothing. The text as it was originally stated was implausible, from other evidence I found about the award itself, and your minor correction is only a slight improvement. Do you have the book? Or can you point to a better source? You do raise an interesting question. Is self-praise in a Springer publication reliable source? I'd much rather see an APA source, even though that would be primary source, at least we'd have an idea what the award was about. And ,bottom line, it's irrelevant. This is the kind of fact inserted in Wikipedia by POV editors attempting to shore up their position by making a source they want to use look as strong as possible. Nobody would mention this fact in a university seminar on the topic. it was completely unnecessary, the study itself is RS, but is a primary source. What's the reliable secondary source, and it's not the APA award, very likely. I think that some reliable secondary source likely exists.
Nobody is going to exclude the actual information here, Cirt. We are not Wikipedia. You can even simply state your opinion, if you acknowledge it as yours and it is within civility policy. --Abd (discusscontribs) 23:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Please check the cite, again. The relevant page numbers are cited. -- Cirt (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
You are correct that there are page numbers; however, there are 46 pages cited. I'm looking for one fact. Normally, there would be separate notes for each fact cited, so that one is looking at one or two pages only for a single fact. Cirt, you didn't answer the question about whether or not you have the book or have verified the information in the citation. Are you personally responsible for it? What exactly does it say about the award. It does not appear to be an award for research, it's an award to a person. Which person. All of them? What? --Abd (discusscontribs) 04:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
It's an award for the research, to all the researchers. It's one of the first 2 page ranges cited. Quite easy to find if you have the book. -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • You didn't answer the question specifically, Cirt. I did find the location of the material, it appears to precede the Table of Contents, so it it's page vii. The text is apparently: The research reported in this volume was awarded the American Psychological Association, Division 13, National Psychological Consultants to Management Award, August 13, 1989. That's it. No detail. It's a publisher note, added probably at the last minute. The name of the award makes it reasonably unlikely that the claim is fully accurate. Looking at other recipients, they are *consultants to management.* But it's possible that something unusual happened. Awards are not given to research generally, but to people. What is "Divison 13"? Is this a regional award, or is that a division of the APA as to "management consultant psychology"? It's the latter, see [1].
  • The award may be given not by the APA as such but by the Society of Consulting Psychology, which is Division 13. Whatever, this award is strangely elusive. I'd think it would have been mentioned in the Journal of the Society. This is a reason why I was happy to abandon Wikipedia. Way too much time spent over trivia. --Abd (discusscontribs) 04:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
    • The fact that you question everything critical of Landmark and virtually nothing promotional of Landmark shows your strong cognitive dissonance. Unfortunately, it is reflected here, as well, with your questioning of reliable sources such as Springer and the American Psychological Association. -- Cirt (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)