On my mind this week, are some of the unanticipated challenges we can face in our research work.
Dr. Giles referred to one in her recent post, when a valid scale (e.g. for LoC) still somehow does not *fit* our purposes of population. Another is when we discover parameters such as deadlines, technical/software problems that we had not anticipated. Still another is the simple challenge of working with differences in personality/work styles. These issues crop up despite one's best attempts to anticipate and mitigate such events. So be prepared for the unexpected may be the lesson here!
Given the likelihood that some such events might impact one's work and that we cannot always avoid these events, I find myself trying to 'be the research'....I am not sure Buddha would have intended his teachings to be applied in such a manner...but then again - why not?
AES
I had to laugh about this post, and unanticipated consequences and synchronicity. I'm not so worried about the actual research on our project; at the moment I'm more worried about where I'm going to live. I survived the first round of foreclosure roulette when my house didn't sell at auction yesterday, but I am looking for a place to live. This problem has been hanging on since 2008, and I really need to resolve it so I can get on with my life.
ReplyDeleteThe synchronous part is that a friend I met at the San Diego residency is Vietnamese, and contacted a Buddhist retreat down in Louisiana to see whether they might find a place for me. One of my fellow statistics II students is a monk at that place. How weird is that?
Any suggestions will be much appreciated!
As to locus of control scales, have you considered the three dimensional scale developed by Abramson, Seligman, and Teasdale (1978)? I've been finding it to be particularly useful, since it places our locus of control in a more complex cognitive space: internal-external, global-local, stable-unstable.
For example, in my current foreclosure mess, I could attribute the problem to my ex-domestic partner's con artistry; I'm at least the 3rd person whom she has financially ruined. That would be an external, local, and stable attribution—external (my ex caused it), local (it just affected me), and stable (the fact it happened can't be changed).
On the other hand, if I were to interpret the problem as being caused by my being too trusting, and not putting a stop to things before they got out of hand, that would be internal-global-unstable. I could choose to learn the lesson of being more cautious to avoid getting in such trouble again.
Or I could blame the whole thing on the mortgage crisis, and the inflated level of real estate prices that lured us into fixing our budgetary problems with a refinancing of my house—external, global, and unstable. This alleviates me from some of the "shame and blame" part of the problem, but doesn't alter the outcome—I've still got to find a new home.
In any case, give the Abramson, Seligman, and Teasdale (1978) article a read. It makes a good case for an LOC structure that you may find more helpful than Rotter's.
Michael
References
Abramson, L., Seligman, M., & Teasdale, J. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. _Journal of Abnormal Psychology_, 87(1), 49-74. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.87.1.49.
Hi Michael,
ReplyDeleteI missed this post earlier...sorry to hear about your housing stress and hope that resolves soon.
Your post does a nice job of highlighting the perpetual, it would seem, balancing act we all must face - not only in research/our work but in life on the whole.
Thank you for the Abramson, et al reference. Given the nature of this post and my original one, I rather like your reference to 'Learned Helplessness' ;-)
AES