BPS condemns expert’s action-research practice.

Faigman argues that as a general matter the various types of expert testimony courts see can be divided roughly into five categories. In summary:

  • In the first category are experts who propose to testify to a general or specific scientific opinion that is supported or refuted by sound research.
  • The second category includes experts who propose to testify to opinion that is based on experience but has not been studied extensively or at all.  However, it could be studied in a systematic and rigorous fashion.
  • In the third category, experts propose to testify to opinion based on experience that is inconsistent with other current research but that yet has to be studied fully.
  • Experts in the fourth category propose to testify to the application of a well-researched or well-regarded body of work but are not themselves familiar with the underlying theoretical or research basis for the work.
  • The fifth and final category includes experts who propose to testify to opinions based on experience that is not testable but comes from a field with certain professional standards.

To some extent, these categories overlap: in particular his second and third. The evidence cited by action-research oriented practitioners would encompass both. From a philosophy of science perspective this is characterised as progressive problem shifting.  The ‘progressive’ epithet is justified because familiar facts are cast in a new light; thereby progressing knowledge.

Although presenting itself as a scientific organisation,  the British Psychological Society, has  adopted the hypocritical position of rejecting this approach with the mind-body conditions identified and labelled converted and latent handedness.

The essence of the condition, at least as far as literacy is concerned, is where individuals write with their non-adept hand: whether right or left! Although it might seem perverse for individuals not to use their adept hand – particularly for writing – the reason is relatively straightforward in the case of converted / latent left handedness: we live in a world where the imperative is to do things, including writing, the right (handed) way.

Thus under Andrea Pecherek’s testimony,  the BPS’s expert witness, they rejected converted / latent handedness as a valid body-mind condition. The BPS’s true non-scientific stance is evidenced in its failure to allow Faigman’s second and third category expert opinion: in short it rejected the need to further research the phenomenon.

The not entirely rhetorical question is ‘why’? What vested interests are they defending? What costs would they have to bear if they adopted the progressive problem- shifting model of practitioner conduct?

The British Psychological Society’s anti-scientific position is all the more mysterious given that converted / latent handedness is accepted in criminal cases by County Court judges,  special education needs and employment tribunals,  in medico-legal cases involving PTSD, Headteachers and Parents.

Indeed, Dr Sattler has an internationally recognised consulting centre for the condition in Munich, Germany.  www.linkshaender-beratung.de/english/ConvertedBook.htm

About petermathews

Member of the Royal Society of Medicine
This entry was posted in British Psychological Society, Innovation, Pecherek, Pedagogy, scientific and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to BPS condemns expert’s action-research practice.

  1. xelerated guides says:

    Do you have any video of that? I’d love to find out some additional information.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>