harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) (11/20/90)
PSYCOLOQUY Mon, 19 Nov 90 Volume 1 : Issue 15
Electronic Journals (R Jansen)
Archives and organization: Response to W Gardner (D Stodolsky)
Consensus Journals (D Stodolsky)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Editorial Comment: The following observations about the relative
advantages of electronic media over print pertain only to static texts,
presumably available in print first. Psycoloquy is an extremely rapid
and global INTERACTIVE medium. The dynamic potential of this
"Skywriting" is a medium unto itself and has possibilities that one
cannot even dream of in the print media. We agree, however, about the
desirability of hypermedia, and as announced earlier, we eventually
hope to implement this with the help of new software from Bellcore.
-- Stevan Harnad]
From: "Bob.Jansen" <jansen@syd.dit.csiro.au>
Subject: Electronic Journals
Although the techniques we are proposing are currently applicable to static
text only (ie. paper form research papers, reports etc.) the ultimate goal
would be to allow a researcher to represent their conceptual space in a computer
assisted environment, and then to generate a skeleton paper, or paper outline,
by selecting the subset of the conceptual space that represents the knowledge
they wish to impart via the paper representation. We are assuming no technical
restrictions now, and probably are living in the 21st century. For static
journals with a short cycle time, ie forums of this sort, the author could
decide to publish the text, underlying data, and/or the conceptual space
representations. The combinations of all three facilitates hyppothesis testing
by other 'experts' of the authors conceptual space and opens up for scrutiny
the grasp the author has of the domain, the processing applied to form
conclusions, etc.
The combined contributions of an author over time would form an extremly
valuable asset, namely an animated representation of the growth of the
conceptual space. This might be viewed in a similar vein to an artist's
retrospective exhibition, where the analogous conceptual representation is
displayed. An example of the usefulness of this approach would be to see an
retrospective of cubism, showing the development of cubism from its infant stage
to the complex forms of say the latter Picaso works. This would have a side
benefit of being an extremely worthwhile educational resource.
bob jansen
------------------------------
From: David Stodolsky <david%harald.ruc.dk@pucc>
Subject: Archives and organization: Response to W.P. Gardner
DSS> If we take maximum advantage of the capabilities of network technology,
DSS> central organization could be limited to the registration of user names.
WPG> There is another place where central decisions could be made: the
WPG> development of international standards for scientific documents and
WPG> related services.
The registration of user names is a technically complex enterprise, if the
process is to uphold the requirements of protection and responsibility that
scientific communication is to ideally satisfy. It may also mean coming into
conflict with "national security interests" in certain states that presume to
restrain the free exchange of information and cryptographic methods.
Standardization of these features is crucial if the relations among scientists
are to be regulated appropriately. Standards for graphics and data interchange
are important, but is this a function for a society per se? A scientific society
should have input to such standard setting, but I hardly see this as a central
function. As things stand right now, the social incentives for data exchange are
such that very little of it occurs (Sterling, T. D. & Weinkam, J. J. [1990].
_Communications of the ACM_, _33_(8), 113-119), and standardization in the
format for such data are not going to change this. Further, their are real
impediments; the Group on Economic Issues of the International Council for
Scientific and Technical Information states, "We have found in the United States
that intellectual property rights constitute an expensive and perplexing barrier
to sharing of scientific and technical information collections (Group on
Economic Issues. [1990, January]. _ICSTI Forum_, _1_[1], 3)."
DSS> Counteracting commercial interests requires a massive, but
DSS> decentralized investment. Democratization of scientific communication
DSS> is a solution to the domination of science by outside interests and
DSS> could lead to the achievement of real scientific freedom.
WPG> I agree with the spirit, but what, in practice, do you mean by
WPG> democratization? I think we need to give careful thought to the issue
WPG> of decentralization & commercialization. They may well go
WPG> hand-in-hand. Can you propose a decentralized structure that is not a
WPG> market and nevertheless works efficiently to store and distribute
WPG> documents?
Democratization means each person has fundamental communication rights
(Stodolsky, D. [1985]. Information systems for self-management. _Human Systems_
Management_, _5_, 39-45; Stodolsky, D. [1985]. The complete self-management
information system [Letter]. _Human Systems Management_, _5_, 261-262.) that
include, especially for a scientist, the right to publish. Further, decisions
with regard to the structure of the communication system are defined one-man
one-vote, not by commercial considerations (one-dollar one-vote). Gift exchange
seems to be a more appropriate model for scientific communication than a market
(Hagstrom, W. [1965]. _The Scientific Community_. New York: Basic Books).
David S. Stodolsky Office: + 45 46 75 77 11 x 21 38
Department of Computer Science Home: + 45 31 55 53 50
Bldg. 20.2, Roskilde University Center Internet: david@ruc.dk
Post Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark Fax: + 45 46 75 74 01
------------------------------
From: David Stodolsky <david%harald.ruc.dk@pucc>
Subject: Consensus Journals
Consensus Journals:
Invitational journals based upon peer consensus
David S. Stodolsky
Roskilde University Centre
DK-4000 Roskilde
david@ruc.dk
Abstract
Computer networks open new possibilities for scientific communication in terms
of quality, efficiency, and rapidity. Consensus journals have the economy of
invitational journals and the objectivity of journals based upon the peer
review. That is, all articles are published and the reader benefits from
article selection based upon impartial refereeing. An additional benefit of
consensus journals is that the negotiation process, that typically occurs
prior to publication, is automated, thus saving efforts of participants.
Readers submit reviews that evaluate articles on agreed dimensions. A
statistical procedure is used to identify the most knowledgeable representative
of each consensus position and these persons are invited to submit articles
that justify the review judgments they have submitted. A major advantage of
this approach is the ability to develop reputation without article publication.
The approach includes a protection mechanism based upon pseudonyms, that
substitutes for the protection of anonymity typical with scientific journals.
This reduces the potential for irresponsible behavior and facilitates
reputation development. The level of quality enhancement is superior to
that achievable with anonymous peer review.
Eliminating the editor and the delay associated with conventional refereeing
makes message quality enhancement available in message systems for educational
and business environments.
________________________________________________________________________________
This document has been prepared for electronic publication. Underscore
characters indicate the start and end of italicized character sequences.
Figures and tables assume a monospace font. Citation: Stodolsky, D. S. (1990).
Consensus Journals: Invitational journals based upon peer consensus.
_Datalogiske Skrifter_ (Writings on Computer Science). No. 29 / 1990.
Roskilde University Centre, Institute of Geography, Socioeconomic Analysis,
and Computer Science. (ISSN 0109-9779-29)
________________________________________________________________________________
Invitational journals can be distinguished from typical scholarly journals by
the sequence of events that results in publication of an article. The sequence
of events with a typical journal starts with the writing of an article. The
article is then transmitted to an editor and refereed. After a successful
review, often contingent upon negotiated revisions, the article is published
and read. With invitational journals, however, events are reversed.
The tentative decision to publish an author is made first,
often based upon the reading of previous work by that author. Then negotiation
between the editor and author occurs, or there is informal refereeing of a
proposal, which if successful, results in the writing of an article. The great
advantage of this second sequence -- read, negotiate, write -- is that almost
every article written gets published. The disadvantage is that selection of
authors is somewhat arbitrary and there is no way an unknown author can get
published. The objective of this article is to outline a method of scientific
communication that has the economy of invitational journals and the objectivity
of journals based upon the peer review. These self-edited journals will be
called _consensus journals_ in order to distinguish them from conventional
invitational journals.
Any reader of an article in a consensus journal can act as a referee. Assume,
for simplicity, that referees send reviews to a mediator. At a deadline, the
mediator performs calculations and issues invitations to the referees who have
been selected as new authors (Figure 1). These calculations are implicit
negotiations, that is, they predict which persons would have been selected to
respond to the reviewed article if referees has actually negotiated and reached
a consensus. One benefit of consensus journals is that the negotiation process
is automated, thus saving participant effort.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------ R: Review ------- M: Invitation -------
| Read |----------->| Calc. |--------------->| Write |----------->
------ ------- ------- R: Article
|
| R: Renege
R = Referee Calc. = Calculate consensus |
M = Mediator V
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Figure 1. Simplified cycle of operation for a consensus journal
The simplified cycle of operation for a consensus journal shows actions in boxes
and messages as arrows. In this simplified cycle, referees invited to publish
(and justify the reviews they have submitted) have a choice of submitting their
article by a deadline or reneging on the promise implied by their review. This
simplified cycle of operation assumes, additionally, that consensus positions
can be calculated and that published articles are retained indefinitely.
Eliminating these assumptions requires a more articulated cycle of operation
and additional message types.
Before considering a more articulated cycle of operation, however, it is
necessary to note an important feature of peer review that contributes to
impartial judgment. This feature is a protection mechanism, typically
anonymity, that shields referees from pressures that might be associated with
evaluation of a colleague. Further, names and affiliations of authors are often
hidden from referees to ensure that only article content is the basis for
evaluation. Protection can be alternatively be provided by a pseudonym system.
This has the advantage of reducing opportunities for irresponsible behavior as
compared to systems based upon anonymity (Stodolsky, 1990). It has a further
advantage of permitting reputation development through the refereeing alone,
thereby making it possible to establish a reputation without contributing
articles.
When there are multiple referees, it is important that their judgments are
independent, so referee reports must not be made available until all have been
submitted. This last requirement can be met by ensuring that reviews
transmitted to the mediator are hidden until the deadline. The dynamics and
implementation of protection systems are beyond the scope of this article,
so only the necessity for the simultaneous release of information is addressed
here.
Definition of message types
While in the simplest case, messages in the consensus journal environment
consist of only articles and reviews (Stodolsky, 1990), considerations of
effective negotiation and of storage management suggest defining additional
message types. There are five types of messages transmitted in the consensus
journal environment.
_Article
Articles, while shorter than those usually seen in conventional journals, will
most often play the same role. However, it is quite possible to have an article
in a consensus journal that is only a few lines long, and that can only be
understood in connection with the review message it follows and its target
article.
_ Review
Review messages must be distinguished from conventional reviews because they are
characterized by a vector of numbers that summarize a reader's reaction to an
article. If we think of articles as nodes in a graph or pages in a hypertext
network, then review messages are the labels on arcs or links that connect the
articles. Reviews can go beyond merely evaluating an article, by offering to
provide new information that may be essential to support the target article's
position. Review messages also serve as a commitment to deliver a
justificationof the reader's judgment, if invited.
_ Invitation
Invitations are public, and therefore, impossible to refuse without some loss of
reputation. This makes them somewhat different than invitations from an editor
of a journal. In effect, the invitation says, "We offer you storage space for
an article." Also , a person may post an invitation for themselves during the
negotiation stage of review, if they feel confident they can support the
position claimed in their review message.
_ Cancellation
It is possible for an author to cancel an article, thereby releasing the
associated storage space. The article then goes off-line (i.e., "out of print")
along with its reviews and the articles that were dependent upon it for their
place in storage. This would typically occur during explicit negotiation
after the author had seen the article's reviews. It could, however, occur much
later, when a new criticism was delivered.
_Withdrawal
Finally, during explicit negotiations, a review may be withdrawn.
This eliminates the referee from those prepared to respond to an invitation.
Cycle of operation
The sequence of events with a consensus journal is the same as with an
invitational journal. The review method, however, involves the entire
readership, or at least those who offer a judgment. New authors are then
selected based upon the review judgements. While most articles will follow
from reviews and be connected to their target articles, independent articles
are also permitted. However, articles posted without consensus based invitations
are less likely to be read and cannot be assumed to have support of other
referees.
If we assume that a consensus journal is already functioning, we can follow the
events through a cycle of operation that starts with reading of an article.
While it is not essential for smaller readerships, we assume that participants
exchange information electronically.
All readers are presented with a target article at the same time. A reader
offers a review judgment in order to be considered for future authorship. The
review message must be received before a certain deadline, say one week later.
The review message consists of scores along several preselected dimensions.
For instance, a scientific article is expected to be relevant, correct, and
original. A more conversational approach might include the dimensions
completeness, clarity, and appropriateness.
At the deadline, the mediator runs a statistical procedure to determine if there
are consensus positions among the referees. The most central referee from each
of these positions is invited to submit a new article. These most central
referees are also considered most knowledgeable, within the framework of
cultural consensus theory. D'Andrade (1987) discusses the evidence
supporting this view.
Cultural consensus theory is based on the assumptions of common truth (i. e.,
there is a fixed answer pattern "applicable" to all referees), of local
independence (i.e., the referee-dimension response variables satisfy
conditional independence), and of homogeneity of items (i.e., each respondent
has a fixed "cultural competence" over all dimensions) (Romney, Weller &
Batchelder, 1986). Results can be obtained with as few as three respondents,
but four are required if the significance of the results are to
be calculated (i. e., a degree of freedom is then available in the statistical
model) (Batchelder & Romney, 1988). A recent development in the model is the
ability to identify two consensual groupings within the population of
respondents (Romney, Weller & Batchelder, 1987) This is extremely helpful since
it permits a minority to publicize their viewpoint under the same conditions as
a majority.
Cultural consensus theory assumes that we have no _a priori_ knowledge about
referees, that is, they have no reputations. This is extremely valuable when a
new topic comes up or when there are violation of assumptions required for
calculations concerning a current article based upon previous information
(Stodolsky, 1984b). Given that reputations have developed and assumptions are
satisfied, however, the theory requires elaboration to be applied most
effectively. Cultural consensus theory provides, in effect, a cross sectional
estimation of competence. That is, given a sample of responses at a given
moment, relative competence is estimated. On the other hand, given a
performance history, Bayesian estimation can be used to assess
the relative importance of different persons' judgments. That is, there are
reputations that give information about relative competence independent of the
current responses.
This assumes stationarity, that is, that the same area of competence is
required for correct response, and that responses are generated in the same
manner (e. g., respondents continue to give honest answers). Both methods are
based upon likelihood estimation, therefore, a combined theory should be
achievable. The combined sources of information would likely make achieving
an implicit consensus more frequent.
The mediator issues an invitation report showing submitted judgments, the degree
of consensus achieved, the number of consensus positions identified, degree of
knowledge of each referee, and so on. If consensus has been reached, invited
referees are expected to submit articles.
Negotiation must proceed explicitly if no consensus can be identified (Figure
2). In that case, referees may look at the judgments submitted and decide if
their positions have sufficient support. If not, they could reconsider their
review judgments, and either revise them or withdraw from the review process.
The author of an article might, on the basis of these judgments, cancel an
article, thus avoiding potential reputation damaging criticism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------ R: Review ------- M: Invitation -------
| Read |----------->| Calc. |--------------->| Write |----------->
------ ------- ------- R: Article
~ | |
R: Review | | M: No consensus | R: Renege
| | |
| V V
----------- R: Withdrawal
| Reconsider|-------------->
-----------
|
| A: Cancelation
|
V
Key
A = Author
M = Mediator Calc. = Calculate consensus
R = Referee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Figure 2. Cycle of operation for a consensus journal
(A referee becomes an author only after a submitted article has been published
by the mediator [not shown in figure]).
Assuming that the article was not cancelled, the combined effects of withdrawal
by referees with most deviant judgments and reconsideration by others would
likely lead to consensus, particularly if the requirements for consensus were
successively relaxed.
This assumes that revision of judgments would be in the direction of dominant
view points, a common finding. The result would be an invitation issued by the
mediator to selected referees. Subsequent submission of an articles by selected
referees and their publication by the mediator would complete the cycle of
operation.
The invitation report can guide negotiation when a consensus can not be
identified. Individual invitation staging could proceed along with a relaxation
of requirements for consensus. For instance, if the first round of reviews did
not generate a consensus, referees could issue invitations to others (Table 1).
If the second round of reviews did not generate a consensus, referees could
issue self invitations (these would be acceptances for those who had received
invitations), or perhaps, direct the invitations they had already received to
others. Failure on the third round would permit these previously issued
invitations to serve as a coordination mechanism. That is, certain referees
would have indicated a readiness to respond and others would have rejected
the option of authorship unsupported by a consensus. Thus, duplication of
effort could be avoided by examining the ranking of persons in terms of the
invitations received and accepted, and responding accordingly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message Level and (Receiver):
Public Private
(Readers) (Mediator)
Stage of Process:
Publication Article
Refereeing Review(1)
Invitation Report
Reconsideration Review(2), Withdraw, Cancel, Invite
Invitation Report
Reconsideration Review(3), Withdraw, Cancel, Self
invitation
Invitation Report
Submit Article
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1. Message level, receiver, and type, by stage of processing
(assumes no consensus reached during negotiation)
New articles are requested either by the mediator or by referees, if an author
and referees follow negotiations to completion. New articles must be submitted
before a deadline. At the deadline, the new articles received are published.
This makes them available to the readership and completes the cycle of
operation for a consensus journal.
Thus in the simplest case, articles are read, reviews are transmitted,
invitations are issued, and new articles are submitted in a timely manner. In
the extended cycle, at least a single reconsideration or negotiation stage
occurs during which a target article can be cancelled by its author and during
which referees can withdraw. A failure to achieve consensus leads to explicit
negotiation and options such as nonconsensus invitation. The extended
negotiation option makes the consensus journal more similar
to a conventional journal, because there is explicit negotiation prior to the
writing of an article.
The quality of a consensus journal can be assessed by the degree of consensus
achieved. Readers might select only those articles resulting from a
consensus-based invitation, thereby controlling the quality of articles they
see.
Rules of dialogue
The rules of operation of a consensus journal can be thought of as specifying an
action system, or language game, where the actions relate to the placement of
articles in a network of interconnected nodes. Participants in the game try to
maximize their influence. Reputation is a crucial resource in scientific
argumentation (Smolensky, Fox, King, Lewis, 1988). Participants are expected
to maximize this resource. While there may be other payoffs available within a
given system, such as royalty payments, this discussion assumes only reputation
maximization as an individual objective.
here are several opportunities for reputation enhancement in the cycle of
operation. Selection as an author is a major opportunity for reputation
enhancement. However, refereeing also offers significant opportunities that are
not available with conventional journals. Referees can commit themselves to
delivering a rebuttal to an article and thereby improve their reputation
(assuming they make good on their commitment given an opportunity). If an
author examines the reviews an article receives and decides to cancel it before
a rebuttal is written, the referees offering rebuttals would
have their reputations enhanced, without any further risk or effort.
With a consensus journal, the review message can be thought of as an offer to
deliver a certain type of article before the deadline. Obviously, a review
message that claims a target article is erroneous, and thereby offers to
deliver a rebuttal, plays a different structural role in a debate than one
that criticizes an article for not being original. Thus, reviews can have a
great deal of structural impact and can express a level of commitment, which
would not be relevant in an environment that limits referees to a gatekeeping
role.
Structural Aspects
With electronically published documents, it is very desirable to structure
interconnections so that retrieval is facilitated and the relevance of
statements becomes clear (Smolensky, Fox, King, Lewis, 1988). Thus, review
messages can deal not only with the quality of an article, but also its
relationship to its target article.
Explicit relationships among articles becomes more necessary as the size of
articles decrease and number of articles increases.
With conventional journals, reviews are used to determine whether or not an
article should be published. The publication decision is not dominant with
electronic media, however, since distribution constraints are greatly relaxed
(Quarterman, 1990, p. 259; Stodolsky, in press). Because of this, the period
during which an article remains on-line assumes importance, because storage is
limited. It is in this connection that the reviews of articles and the
relations between articles becomes critical. In the simplest case, an article
that is found incorrect by an overwhelming consensus is
cancelled by its author. Failure to cancel an the article results in a
continuing devaluation of the author's reputation as more and more readers come
to agree with the majority. In the case of conflicting consensus positions, a
rebuttal claiming that a target article is flawed is explicitly linked to the
target. Failure to rebut that claim in turn has much the same effect as an
overwhelming consensus that the target article is incorrect. Most interactions,
therefore, take place at the knowledge frontier, as various positions are
argued. These interactions generate very "bushy" argument trees, that require
sophisticated navigation strategies, if large amounts of effort are not
to be expended unnecessarily (Stodolsky, 1984a). The trees are thinned in the
process of argumentation. Positions that are sustained remain on-line until
they are thoroughly integrated into summaries or overarching theories.
Decentralization
A central mediator has been assumed in this description to simplify explanation.
There is no reason why the calculations necessary to select new authors could
not be performed decentrally. In fact, this would be necessary if readers
preferred different methods of calculation for author selection. Then
coordination in the selection of new authors would be shifted from consensus
calculation to collection of invitations. Various types of voting rules could
be applied. Authors receiving the most invitations would then be expected to
submit articles. Thus, decentralization leads to an integration of the two
types of invitations (consensus and individual) already discussed.
The task of protecting review judgments until the deadline is reached is another
required function. It is necessary, for example, because analysis of earlier
submitted judgments could permit a referee submitting at the last moment to
simulate a competence that did not exist, thus violating assumptions of the
model. Protection can, however, be achieved decentrally using cryptography,
assuming a "beacon" that emits enciphering and deciphering keys at fixed
intervals (Rabin, 1983). Use of cryptography would be necessary, in any case,
to ensure the authenticity of messages.
Summary
A consensus journal requires mechanisms for both coordination and protection. In
the simplest case, a mediator can provide these. This assumes protected
channels of communication and a trusted mediator. Coordination is necessary to
identify consensus positions and avoid duplication of effort. Protection of
reviews is necessary to ensure that assumptions of models for evaluating
expertise are not violated. This protection allows valid reputation
development by both authors and referees. Such reputations can then be used to
ensure effective allocation of expertise. The extension of
review opportunities to the entire readership vastly extends the available
field of expertise. This, combined with the effective allocation of expertise
and coordination that eliminates duplication of effort, provide consensus
journals with a significant advantage over current mechanisms for enhancement
of message quality.
References
Batchelder, W. H. & Romney, A. K. (1988). Test theory without an answer key.
_Psychometrika_, _53_(1), 71-92.
D'Andrade, R. G. (1987). Modal response and cultural expertise. _American
Behavioral Scientist_, _31_(2), 194-202.
Quarterman, J. S. (1990). _The matrix: Computer networks and conferencing
systems worldwide_. Bedford, MA: Digital Press.
Rabin, M. (1983). Transaction protection by beacons. _Journal of Computer and
Systems Science_, _27_(2), 256-267.
Romney, A. K. , Weller, S. C., & Batchelder, W. H. (1986). Culture as consensus:
A theory of culture and informant accuracy. _American Anthropologist_, _88_(2),
313-338.
Romney, A. K. , Weller, S. C., & Batchelder, W. H. (1987). Recent applications
of cultural consensus Theory. _American Behavioral Scientist_, _31_(2),
163-177.
Smolensky, P., Fox, B., King, R., & Lewis, C. (1988). Computer-aided reasoned
discourse or, how to argue with a computer. In R. Guindon (Ed.), _Cognitive
science and its applications for human-computer interaction_. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stodolsky, D. (1984a). Commonalities amoung [sic] conferencing systems and their
implication for marketing strategy. _Organisatoriske Fragmenter 1984_, _12_,
43-58.
Stodolsky, D. (1984b, December). _Self-management of criticism in dialog:
Dynamic regulation through automatic mediation_. Paper presented at the
symposium Communicating and Contracts between people in the Computerized
Society, Gothenburg University, Sweden.
Stodolsky, D. S. (1990). Protecting expression in teleconferencing:
Pseudonym-based peer review journals. _Canadian Journal of Educational
Communication_, 19, 41-51. ([1989, May 9]. _Communication Research and Theory
Network [CRTNET]_, No. 175 [Semi-final
draft available by electronic mail from LISTSERV@PSUVM.BITNET at University
Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, Department of Speech Communication
and COMSERVE@Vm.ecs.rpi.edu at Troy, NY: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,
Department of Language,
Literature, and Communication])
Stodolsky, D. S. (in press). Archiving secure interactions [Letter].
_Psychological Science_. ([1990, May 25]. Comments on Gardner's Electronic
Archive by Stodolsky. _Psycoloquy_, _1_[8].)
David S. Stodolsky Office: + 45 46 75 77 11 x 21 38
Department of Computer Science Home: + 45 31 55 53 50
Bldg. 20.2, Roskilde University Center Internet: david@ruc.dk
Post Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark Fax: + 45 46 75 74 01
------------------------------
PSYCOLOQUY
is sponsored by
the Science Directorate of
the American Psychological Association
(202) 955-7653
Co-Editors:
(scientific discussion) (professional/clinical discussion)
Stevan Harnad Perry London, Dean, Cary Cherniss (Assoc Ed.)
Psychology Department Graduate School of Applied Graduate School of Applied
Princeton University and Professional Psychology and Professional Psychology
Rutgers University Rutgers University
Assistant Editors:
Malcolm Bauer John Pizutelli
Psychology Department Psychology Department
Princeton University Rutgers University
End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest
******************************harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) (11/21/90)
PSYCOLOQUY Tue, 20 Nov 90 Volume 1 : Issue 15
Computer Surveys
Reference Manager for LAN
Request for Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rosenfel%nprdc.navy.mil@pucc (Paul Rosenfeld)
Subject: Computer Surveys
Our research group at the Navy Personnel R&D Center in San Diego has been
looking at response differences between computer and pencil&paper surveys.
The literature seems quite inconsistent-- sometimes more "honest" responding
on computer, sometimes no differences, sometimes more impression management
on computer (recent JAP article).
The obvious-- computer creates anonymity which leads to more "honest"
responding-- doesn't seem so obvious anymore. As there are many
cognitive oriented psychologists who contribute to this group, I was
wondering what other reasons there might be for response differences
between computer and P&P. Please speculate, hypothesize or just plain
guess. Thanks
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Personnel Research Psychologist
------------------------------
From: Joe Danks <@ksuvxa.kent.edu:JDANKS%KENTVM.BITNET@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU>
Subject: Reference Manager for LAN
Reference Manager for a LAN: A request for information
We have been investigating the possibility of including a reference
manager on the department's LAN. However, commercial software vendors
have typically responded that they do not have a network version nor
do they intend to develop one in the near future. Have we missed a
potential vendor? Have other departments developed their own solutions
for data base management of references? Any information that can be
provided would be greatly appreciated. Please reply to JDANKS@KENTVM.
BITNET. Thanks.
------------------------------
From: hui%psych.toronto.edu@pucc
Subject: Request for Data
My colleague and I are doing some simulation studies on the
effects of response sets on factor analytic results. To extend
the generality of our findings, we would like to use some
existing data that have been collected recently. If you have a
data set that meets the following requirements, and are willing
to share the information with us, please email me at
hui@psych.toronto.edu. Your contribution will, of course, be
duly acknowledged.
- used a reasonably well-known personality instrument that has
been demonstrated to be multidimensional;
- your analysis of the data set also confirmed the existence of
the various factors;
- most respondents did not miss any items; and
- the number of respondents is at least 10 times of that of items
in the instrument.
End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest
******************************harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) (11/21/90)
PSYCOLOQUY Tue, 20 Nov 90 Volume 1 : Issue 15
Assistant Professor, Univ. of Pennsylvania
CNS Program at Boston University Hiring 2 Assistant Professors
Correction
CVNet- Two vision jobs
graduate fellowships in cognitive science
Tenure Track, Univ. of Nevada
Assistant Professor, Yale University
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sparks@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (David Sparks)
Subject: Assistant Professor, Univ. of Pennsylvania
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA. The Department of Psychology intends
to make an appointment at the assistant professor level in one of
the following areas: neuroethology, animal behavior, animal
learning, or biopsychology of motivation or learning. Individuals
whose research combines more than one of these areas would be
especially attractive. We seek candidates with demonstrated
excellence in research and teaching. They should submit a vita,
reprints and preprints, and a statement of research interests and
teaching competence; they should also arrrange for 3 letters of
recommendation to be sent. All materials should be sent by
December 3, 1990 to Search Committee A, Department of Psychology,
University of Pennsylvania, 3815 Walnut St., Philadelphia, PA
l9l04-6196. The University of Pennsylvania is an Equal
Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer.
------------------------------
From: mike@park.bu.edu
Subject: CNS Program at Boston University Hiring 2 Assistant Professors
Boston University seeks two tenure track assistant or associate
professors starting in Fall, 1991 for its M.A. and Ph.D. Program
in Cognitive and Neural Systems. This program offers an
intergrated curriculum offering the full range of psychological,
neurobiological, and computational concepts, models, and methods
in the broad field variously called neural networks,
connectionism, parallel distributed processing, and biological
information processing, in which Boston University is a leader.
Candidates should have extensive analytic or computational
research experience in modelling a broad range of nonlinear
neural networks, especially in one or more of the areas: vision
and image processing, speech and language processing, adaptive
pattern recognition, cognitive information processing, and
adaptive sensory-motor control Candidates for associate
professor should have an international reputation in neural
network modelling. Send a complete curriculum vitae and three
letters of recommendation to Search Committee, Cognitive and
Neural Systems Program, Room 240, 111 Cummington Street, Boston
University, Boston, MA 02215, preferably by November 15, 1990 but
no later than January 1, 1991. Boston University is an Equal
Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer.
Boston University (617-353-7857) Email: mike@bucasb.bu.edu
Smail: Michael Cohen 111 Cummington Street, RM 242
Center for Adaptive Systems Boston, Mass 02215
Boston University
------------------------------
From: D N ROBINSON <GU31%GUVM@pucc>
Subject: Correction
The assistant professorship available in the Department of Psychology,
Georgetown University, becomes available as of Fall 1991, not Fall 1992.
------------------------------
From: Color and Vision Network <CVNET%YORKVM1@pucc>
Subject: CVNet- Two vision jobs
Cognitive Science/HCI Initiative 2 POST-DOCTORAL RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS
Department of Psychology University of St Andrews and
Centre for Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience University of Stirling
Scotland, UK
This is a collaborative project between the Department of Psychology,
St Andrews and the CCCN, Stirling to develop a new computational model of
visual word recognition.
Post 1 (3 years, based at Department of Psychology,
St Andrews University) will involve developing fresh perspectives on the
neural modelling of visual word recognition from human experimentation.
The data from these experiments will form the basis for the
computational modelling in the project. Applicants should have
experience in human experimentation in cognitive science or perceptual
research, be well acquainted with the use of computers in
experimentation, and have some knowledge of neural network research.
Post 2 (2 years, based at Centre for Cognitive and
Computational Neuroscience, Stirling University) will involve setting up
and developing a new computational model of visual word recognition
which combines the findings from St Andrews with fresh perspectives on
neurocomputational processing. Applicants should have experience or
interest in neural computation/connectionism and have a background in
one or more of the following: computing science, psychology,
mathematics, physics.
Starting salary for each post will be on the 1A scale for research staff
(up to UK pounds 18165 pa). Both posts are scheduled to start as soon as
possible in 1991. Application forms and further particulars for both
posts can be obtained from The Director of Personnel Services, College
Gate, St Andrews University, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 9AJ,,UK to whom
completed applications forms together with a CV should be submitted to
arrive no later than November 30th 1990.
Further information can be obtained informally from:
(Post 1) Dr Tim Jordan at St Andrews (tel.(44) 0334 76161, ext 7234)
psstj@uk.ac.st-andrews
(Post 2) Dr Leslie Smith at Stirling (tel. (44) 0786 67435, direct line)
lss@uk.ac.stir.cs
Previous applicants for these posts need not re-apply.
------------------------------
From: "KRUSCHKE,JOHN,PSY" <kruschke%ucs.indiana.edu@pucc>
Subject: graduate fellowships in cognitive science
GRADUATE FELLOWSHIPS AND ASSISTANTSHIPS ARE AVAILABLE FROM THE
INDIANA UNIVERSITY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
This program offers joint PhDs (and minors associated with PhDs) in combination
with a PhD from a home department (such as psychology, computer science,
philosophy, linguistics, or any other PhD granting unit). Students must be
admitted to, and be members of, some home department. The Cognitive Science
Program at Indiana University has a core faculty of 45 professors, supports
research activities in numerous areas, publishes a research report series,
sponsors a colloquium series, and offers fellowships and assistantships to
qualified applicants. A brochure describing the program and admission
procedures is available from, and inquiries and requests for information may be
directed to,
Richard M. Shiffrin, Director
Cognitive Science Program
Psychology Department
Indiana University
Bloomington, IN 47405 E-mail: IUCOGSCI@UCS.INDIANA.EDU
(Please don't use your e-mail "reply" command, but instead direct inquiries
directly to the addresses above.)
------------------------------
From: gpg@unssun.nevada.edu (G. P. Ginsburg)
Subject: Tenure Track, Univ. of Nevada
10/19/90
POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT: Univ. of Nevada, Reno, Psychology Department has
an anticipated tenure track opening in non-surgical PERCEPTION. We are
particularly interested in applicants with long range research plans and
good grant potential, who also will be stimulating teachers at the
doctoral and undergraduate levels. The Psychology Department offers the PhD in
3 areas--general experimental, clinical, and social--and provides additional
specialization in animal behavior and in behavior analysis. Salaries are
competitive, lab start-up funds are available, teaching load is moderate
(typically 1 graduate seminar and 1 undergrad course per semester, possibly
less in first year), the Department is small (15) and congenial, and has been
offering the PhD for 25 years. UNR is the land grant university of the
State, has 11,000 students, is actively investing in expansion of its
doctoral training and research functions, and encourages interdisciplinary
initiatives. The University is located in Reno, at an altitude of
4,800 ft, surrounded by mountains, with ample opportunities for
outside activities (skiing is 45 min. away, a trout stream runs
through town, hiking and camping are readily available in mountains
or high desert), and San Francisco is a 4-hr drive by freeway or a
45 min. flight. Interested parties should send application materials
to Dr W P Wallace, Chair, Search Committee, Dept of Psychology, Univ
of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557; application materials should include a
statement of research plans and teaching interests, CV, reprints,
and names of 4 references (with addresses and telephone numbers). I'm
also happy to answer questions by email.
G P Ginsburg, Chair
------------------------------
From: michael tarr <tarr-michael@CS.YALE.EDU>
Subject: Assistant Professor, Yale University
Assistant Professor, Cognitive Psychology: The Department of Psychology
at Yale University expects to make an appointment at the rank of
Assistant Professor in the area of cognitive psychology effective July
1, 1991. Outstanding candidates in any subspeciality of this area are
encouraged to apply. All applicants are expected to provide high-
quality teaching at the undergraduate level and in a graduate cognitive
psychology program, and to have exhibited (or shown very clear promise
of) excellence in research. Applicants should send a letter of
application, a resume, and papers or reprints, and should arrange for
three letters of recommendation to be sent to: Chair, Cognitive
Psychology Search Committee, Department of Psychology, Yale University,
Box 11A Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520-7447. Deadline for completed
applications: February 1, 1991. Yale is an Equal Opportunity/
Affirmative Action employer, and applications from women and minority
group members are especially encouraged.
Michael Tarr
Assistant Professor
Department of Psychology
Yale University
End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest
******************************harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) (11/21/90)
PSYCOLOQUY Tue, 20 Nov 90 Volume 1 : Issue 15
Psycoloquy Call For Submissions: abstracts, summaries, squibs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad>
Subject: Psyoloquy Call For Submissions
Psycoloquy invites researchers in psychology, cognitive science,
neuroscience and related disciplines to submit material on which you
wish to elicit international and interdisciplinary discussion from the
psychological community. A submission can be the abstract or summary of
a recent or forthcoming article, or a synopsis of current findings or
ideas on which you wish to solicit peer feedback. The submissions
should be self-contained, but not too lengthy. All contributions
will be refereed by members of Psycoloquy's Editorial Board for the
submission's content area.
This fall of Psycoloquy's first full year under APA sponsorship is a
particularly good time to begin exploring the potential of this
powerful new medium of scholarly interaction in advancing scientific
research in our field. Other disciplines will be watching this
experiment, so let's provide them with a strong first model of
the capabilities of the net.
Stevan Harnad
Perry London
Co-Editors
End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest
******************************harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) (11/21/90)
PSYCOLOQUY Tue, 20 Nov 90 Volume 1 : Issue 15
Earli Conference
SSAISB Information
XXVth International Congress of Psychology
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Research Center for Infor.Tech.and Educ."
Subject: Earli Conference
CALL FOR PAPERS
FOURTH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE FOR RESEARCH ON LEARNING AND INSTRUCTION
UNIVERSITY OF TURKU
Turku, FINLAND, August 24-28, 1991
(Organized by: EARLI,
European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction)
The main theme of the conference will be learning and instruction
which will be related, in particular, to the following topics:
- cultural and social aspects
- learning in natural settings
- interactions of social, motivational, and cognitive factors
- knowledge acquisition, problem solving and metacognition
- developmental processes
- learning disabilities
- teaching process and teacher thinking
- classroom interactions and learning processes
- industrial and professional training
- new media and information technologies
- text comprehension and text production
- domain-specific skilled performance (e.g. sports, music)
- learning and teaching in specific subject areas, including foreign
languages
Programme committee
Dr Erno Lehtinen, Chair (Finland)
Dr Heinz Mandl, Vice-chair (West Germany)
Dr Ren` Amigues (France)
Dr Pietro Boscolo (Italy)
Dr Mario Carretero (Spain)
Dr Maureen Pope (Britain)
Dr Jan Prucha (Czechoslovakia)
Dr Robert Jan Simons (The Netherlands)
Conference Program
The conference will comprese the following forms of presentation:
- Invited addresses
- Symposia
- Paper sessions
- Poster sessions
- Demonstrations
The official language of the conference will be English.
Dates to note:
Second circular with registration form will be mailed October 1990
Deadline for proposals incl. abstracts and summaries November 30,
1990
Acceptance of proposals February 1991
Outline of the program will be mailed March 1991
Registration and lodging
Registration fee until after
April 30, 1991 May 1, 1991
EARLI-members 400 FM 650 FM
non-members 650 FM 900 FM
Students 20 % discount of the above fees
Mailing address for further information
4th EARLI Conference
Conference Secretariat
P.O.Box 114
SF-20520 Turku, Finland
Telefax: +358-21-633 5090;
e-mail: LEHTINEN@FINUJO (Bitnet)
VAURAS@KONTU.UTU.FI
Telephones:
+358-21-633 8598 (Marja Vauras, Secretary General)
+358-73-151 2378 (Erno Lehtinen, Chair)
------------------------------
From: Aaron Sloman <aarons@syma.sussex.ac.uk>
Subject: SSAISB Information
I have been asked to post this announcement. Please don't use REPLY: there
is an email address for responses below.
**** SSAISB ****
THE SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND
THE SIMULATION OF BEHAVIOUR
AISB is the major UK society serving the AI and Cognitive Science
community. Membership is about 1000 drawn from both industry and
academia. AISB helps keep its members informed of progress in AI
research through:
* The AISB Quarterly Newsletter, which includes feature articles on AI
and Cognitive Science, reviews, conference reports, announcements, etc.
Members also receive AICommunications (the European Journal on
Artificial Intelligence) free of charge.
* Schools and Tutorials for newcomers to AI
* Organising and sponsoring workshops on issues relevant to AI research
and development.
* A bi-annual Conference. AISB91 to be held at the University of Leeds
16th-19th April 1991.
* AISB produces an Email directory including addresses from the European
AI Community in general. Members will receive this free of charge.
Membership fees (in sterling) are:
UK Europe Overseas
Regular 17.00 20.00 25.00
Student 10.00 12.00 14.00
For further details and information on how to join contact
Ms. Judith Dennison,
Cognitive & Computing Sciences
University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QH
Tel: 0273 678379
Email: judithd@uk.ac.sussex.cogs
------------------------------
From: "G. d'Ydewalle" <gery%BLEKUL11@pucc>
Subject: XXVth International Congress of Psychology
XXVth International Congress of Psychology
19-24 July 1992, Brussels
Belgium
The scientific program will include the following main activities:
KEYNOTE ADDRESSES AND STATE OF THE ART LECTURES
Ten of the most eminent contemporary psychologists will be
invited to deliver a keynote address on a subject of their
choice.
Twenty experts have been asked to prepare a tutorial describing
the state of the art in their field of excellence, in a way
accessible to non-specialists.
SYMPOSIA
Twelve symposia in parallel each morning and each afternoon.
Each symposium will last three hours: two hours presentation
and one hour discussion. Each involves one (or two) conveners,
one chairman and four to six speakers. Themes will cover most
fields of psychological science.
SUBMITTED CONTRIBUTIONS
Individual submissions for two forms of presentation will be
invited:
Thematic sessions: oral presentation, 20 min. (15 presentation
and 5 discussion); presentations will be grouped according to
theme.
Interactive sessions: poster presentation; discussion of posters
with common theme will be coordinated by eminent specialists.
Thematic sessions and poster presentations in parallel with symposia,
discussion part of interactive sessions at end of morning and
afternoon sessions. Interactive sessions to be considered as equal
in status to thematic sessions.
Time schedule of the several calls:
APRIL 1991 - distribution of final call, including registration form
and invitation for individual submissions
JUNE 1991 - first deadline for individual submissions; for abstracts
submitted before that deadline, decisions will be announced in
November 1991
NOVEMBER 1991 - final deadline for individual submissions, with
decisions announced in February 1992
FEBRUARY 1992 - deadline of early bird registrations
All correspondences on the Congress: Brussels International Conference Centre,
Parc des Expositions, Place de Belgique, B-1020 Brussels, Belgium
Phone: 32-2-478.48.60
Fax: 32-2-478.80.23
E-mail: gery@blekul11.bitnet
Telex: 23.643 foireb
Gery d`Ydewalle
University of Leuven
Department of Psychology
End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest
******************************harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) (11/21/90)
PSYCOLOQUY Tue, 20 Nov 90 Volume 1 : Issue 15
APA Division 28 (Psychopharmacology) Newsletter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 90 10:24 EST
Original_From: MVAX::WOOD(Ron Wood)
From: General Delivery <POSTMASTER@NYUMED.BITNET>
Subject: Please announce discussion group DIV28@gwuvm
Behavioral and psychopharmacologists now can subscribe to a an electronic
discussion group/ bulletin board. This is effort by the Division of
Psychopharmacology and Substance Abuse and by the Science Directorate of
the American Psychological Association to provide an easy means of rapid
communication within the division and among behavioral and
psychopharmacologists.
You may enroll by sending a note via bitnet to
LISTSERV@GWUVM that says: sub div28 firstname lastname.
If you are an internetter or need further help,
ask Cheri Fullerton of the science directorate for help: apasdcf@gwuvm.
Ron Wood is maintaining a directory of email, phone and fax numbers
for the division. He will add new listings to the directory, and
forward a request to subscribe to the listserver, if members send their
information to him at wood@nyumed or wood@mvax.med.nyu.edu. Please note
that the list and directory is open (not limited to APA members).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Ronald Wood, Env Med, NYU Med Ctr, Longmeadow Road, Tuxedo, NY 10987 |
| Phone: (914) 351-4249 or (212) 340-7300 x5264 FAX: (914) 351-4825 |
| E-Mail: Wood@NYUMED (Bitnet), Wood@MVAX.MED.NYU.EDU (Internet) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Charlotte_Olson@ub.cc.umich.edu
Subject: Div. 28 Newsletter
This is the text of the APA Div. 28 Newsletter, Fall 1990
Volume 23, #3
PRESIDENT'S LETTER
Klaus Miczek
President, Division 28
Psychopharmacologists live a paradoxical life. Like other
scientists who study perplexing phenomena, they are readily
intrigued by novel methodologies, technological advances and bold
ideas, but as soon as an unorthodox explanation is advanced,
skepticism prevails. Psychopharmacologists eagerly seek opportu-
nities that may yield new insights; we admire innovative concepts
and methods. And yet, any serious researcher sports a healthy
dose of criticism towards his own and his colleagues' work.
Momentary titillation with some far-flung way of defining the
drug action on behavior and on brain often yields to a disci-
plined approach providing solid information through well-estab-
lished methods.
The lay public views scientists alternatingly as
reckless--and sometimes ruthless--adventurers without limit or
respect for the sacrosanct, and then again as saviors shedding
light into the frightful darkness of the unknown. Admiration for
the detailed understanding of complicated actions of drugs on
behavior alternates with confusion when too much detail is given.
Scientists are expected to be experts with a great deal of in-
depth information and thought of highly when they focus on a
specific set of problems; and yet, there is the image of the
renaissance-scientist who excels in many areas, who intelligently
approaches a broad range of issues and problems. Most scientists
fight a life-long battle between being a disciplined, narrowly
focused specialist without becoming oblivious to the rest of the
real world, and being a broadly educated intellectual with inter-
ests and knowledge in many fields of human enterprise without
becoming a dilettante.
To this picture of contradictions and paradoxes, psychophar-
macologists add new dimensions that are unique to
them. They combine concepts and methods from psychology, biology
and pharmacology, but too often none of these parent disciplines
view a psychopharmacologist as a fully legitimate offspring.
Here is the world of clinical problems and the various treatment
options, and there is the world of molecular analysis of drug
receptors. It is a common pitfall to solve complex behavioral
problems by reducing them to a molecular problem, only to discov-
er that psychopharmacology usually deals with dynamic multideter-
minant interacting systems.
The essential psychopharmacological paradox is, of course,
the drug-behavior interaction itself. Whenever an exciting, new,
therapeutically-promising substance arrives, its undesirable
side-effects, abuse liability or risk for neurotoxicity are
uncovered without much delay. The recent episode with MDMA
illustrates this point. While much of psychopharmacological
research attempts to develop and improve much-needed therapeutic
agents and delineate the benefits of drugs, equally strong ef-
forts are expended to deal with the horrifying and ruinous side
of drugs, the diabolic cycle of violence and futility surrounding
addictive substances. The September riots in the USSR after the
supply of cigarettes ran out demonstrate the personal and social
trauma of withdrawal from such a "non-drug" as tobacco. Of
course, my paradoxical comments are flavored by living during the
last decade near the "hub of the solar system", where people come
to expect only the best but are most stingy when it comes to
providing the adequate resources. Which reminds me of the Epicu-
rean paradox: "Give us the luxuries of life, and we will dis-
pense with its necessaries."
CUNNINGHAM, HOWELL RECEIVE YOUNG PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGIST AWARD, 1990
Larry D. Byrd
Committee on Nominations
The Young Psychopharmacologist Award for 1990 was shared by
Dr. Kathryn A. Cunningham of the University of Texas and Dr.
Leonard L. Howell of Emory University. The award, sponsored by
the Burroughs Wellcome Fund and the Division of Psychopharmacolo-
gy, was presented at the annual meeting of the American Psycho-
logical Association in Boston. Each awardee received a check for
$500.00, an engraved plaque, and reimbursement of expenses to
attend the meeting and to deliver an address.
Dr. Cunningham, an Assistant Professor in the Department of
Pharmacology at the University of Texas in
Galveston, presented an address entitled "Central Seroto
nin Function and the Neuropsychopharmacology of Cocaine." She
received undergraduate training at the University of Houston in
psychology, mathematics and philosophy, and received two years of
graduate training in chemistry and biology at the University of
Houston. Her graduate training continued with Dr. James Appel in
psychology at the University of South Carolina, and she was
awarded the Ph.D. degree in 1985. During her tenure with Dr.
Appel, she conducted experiments on the mechanisms of action
underlying the discriminative-stimulus properties of cocaine, and
phencyclidine, and initiated studies with opiates and ergot
alkaloids that led to her dissertation research. She studied and
correlated the efficacy of several serotonin antagonists to
inhibit the binding of labeled LSD with the abilities of those
antagonists to block the discriminable effects of the same doses
of the drug. The research combined new analytic techniques from
widely different but equally important disciplines including
biochemistry, pharmacology and psychology, and provided in vivo
confirmation of what had been observed in vitro. Her more recent
research at the University of Texas is particularly relevant to
cocaine abuse and the neuropharmacology of cocaine. In these
studies, Dr. Cunningham used electrophysiological procedures to
analyze the effects of cocaine and related substances on seroto-
nergic systems. The work demonstrates Dr. Cunningham's ability
to learn additional techniques and confirms her continuing inter-
est in solving persistent scientific problems.
Dr. Howell, a native of Georgia, received his undergraduate
training in chemistry at Emory University prior to entering
graduate studies in psychology, biochemistry and physiology at
the Georgia Institute of Technology. Dr. Howell's research for
his graduate degrees was conducted with squirrel monkeys at the
Yerkes Research Center of Emory University in the laboratory of
Dr. Larry Byrd. The experiments investigated the behavioral
effects of drugs and a comparison of the effects of cocaine and
non-pharmacological, environmental stimuli on schedule-controlled
performance. His Master's thesis earned him recognition and the
Sigma Xi Research Award for the year at the Georgia Institute of
Technology in recognition of the outstanding quality of his
research. Upon completion of the Ph.D. requirement in 1985, he
moved to Harvard Medical School where he studied with Dr. William
Morse for approximately two years. During his tenure at Harvard,
he devised and developed a plethysmographic system for measuring
respiratory function in rhesus monkeys in order to study the
effects of opioids, methylxanthines and other drugs on respirato-
ry parameters. His address to the APA convention, entitled
"Behavioral and Respiratory Effects of Methylxanthines in Mon-
keys," focused primarily on the behavioral and respiratory ef-
fects of caffeine and related methylxanthines in this prepara-
tion. His research has investigated the role of adenosine in
mediating caffeine's effects and the specific role of different
adenosine-receptor subtypes in this system. Dr. Howell is
presently an Associate Scientist at the Yerkes Research Center of
Emory University where his research on the respiratory effects of
drugs is funded through a First Award of 5 years' duration.
* * * ACTION ALERT * * *
CAST ALL YOUR APPORTIONMENT VOTES
FOR DIVISION 28!
The American Psychological Association's legislative body is
the Council of Representatives. In order for a division, state
association, or coalition to have a seat on Council, it must
receive no less than 0.50% of the total apportionment votes cast.
In early November, you will receive the annual apportionment
ballot from APA. This ballot provides each member with ten
votes, which can either be allocated totally to one division or
distributed among several divisions. Individuals who cast all
ten of their votes for a single division can have a large impact;
as Figure 1 illustrates, the number of members casting all ten
votes for Division 28 was very highly correlated with the total
votes cast for Division 28.
(1st graph in printed version placed here)
Fig. 1. Correlation of 10-point votes with total votes cast for
Division 28, 1983-90.
The number of ten-point votes was less highly correlated,
however, with the percent of total apportionment votes cast (see
Figure 2). Together, these results suggest that representation
depends substantially on both the number of ten-point votes cast
and the number of members in each entity seeking representation.
In the 1990 apportionment balloting, Division 28's percent of
total APA votes was 0.63%--a value clearly above the 0.50%
threshold; but the 1990 figure dropped from 0.74% in the previous
year. Another decline of this size in the upcoming balloting
would place us dangerously close to losing our Council Represen-
tative. Ergo, please cast all ten of your votes for Division 28,
and encourage colleagues to vote likewise.
(2nd graph in printed version placed here)
Fig. 2. Correlation of 10-point votes with % of total APA votes,
1983-90.
CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION
Herbert Barry
Centennial Liaison Officer
The Division 28 Centennial Liaison, Herb Barry, encourages
members to plan programs and presentations pertaining to the APA
centennial celebration. This celebration begins with the 1991
meeting in San Francisco and climaxes at the 1992 meeting in
Washington, DC. Division 28 will soon begin obtaining oral
histories from a few members who have been leading participants
in the founding of the Division in 1966 and its history since
then. We plan to prepare printed publications that summarize the
historical information obtained from these interviews and other
sources. Their value will be increased by oral or written recol-
lections of any interesting aspect of Division 28 history by any
members. We encourage all members to make this contribution to
the project.
MINUTES, DIVISION 28 ANNUAL BUSINESS
MEETING, AUGUST 13, 1990
Stephen T. Higgins
Secretary, Division 28
1. President Bob Balster convened the meeting at 2:05 p.m.,
with approximately 18 Division members attending. Minutes of the
August, 1989 Business Meeting as published in the Fall 1989
Newsletter were approved.
2. President Balster announced the results of the 1990 election
of Division officers:
President-elect: Ron Wood
Member at Large: Marilyn Carroll
Council Representative: Steve Fowler
3. President Balster noted that the Division is exploring the
possibility of a new APA journal in psychopharmacology. A Divi-
sion Publications Committee has been established to look into
this matter and will report to the Division Executive Committee
in May, 1991.
4. President Balster commented on the Division's continued
involvement with the APA Central Office, mentioning recent dis-
cussions with Lew Lipsitt and colleagues of the APA Science
Directorate. It was noted that Dr. Lipsitt and colleagues met
with the Division Executive Committee on 8/9/90. The importance
of developing good relations with the new officers in the APA
Central Office was emphasized.
5. Alice Young, for Jack Henningfield, reported that Division
28 remains in good financial status with a balance of $12,614.25
as of December 31, 1989. Please forward to Jack Henningfield the
names of any contact persons in pharmaceutical companies or other
industries who may support the Division's requests for corporate
donations.
6. Steve Fowler reported on matters relating to Division mem-
bership: (1) He noted approval by the APA Membership Committee
of the following five new Division 28 Fellows: Brenna Bry, Linda
Hernandez, Mary Jeanne Kallman, Henry Marcucella, and Timothy
Schallert. (2) The decision to initiate a $5.00 annual dues for
Division membership appears to have decreased membership by
perhaps 100 members, but that effect appears to be ending. Steve
projects an increase of approximately 100 new members in the next
year. (3) We now have 28 Newsletter Affiliate members; those who
are eligible to become full members of the Division should be
encouraged to do so. (4) Steve noted that to ensure that the
Division maintains a representative on the APA Council, members
need to allocate 10-point votes to the Division. (5) Members
are encouraged to nominate new Fellows. Names should be forward-
ed to Steve Fowler.
7. Larry Byrd reported on Division Nominations. (1) Kathryn A.
Cunningham and Leonard L. Howell shared this year's Division 28
Young Psychopharmacologist Award. (2) Larry encouraged Division
members to continue nominating deserving Division members for APA
and Division 28 Awards. Deadlines for nominations are about the
same as for paper submissions for the APA meeting. (3) Dr. Lou
Harris has been nominated for Distinguished Affiliate Status in
Division 28. Dr. Harris was nominated by Larry; the nomination
was seconded by Steve Fowler and unanimously approved. The
Division will try to nominate a Distinguished Affiliate annually.
Nominees should be outstanding scientists from other disciplines
or countries. (4) The Division nominated C.R. Schuster for the
APA Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award, Travis Thompson
for the APA Distinguished Teaching of Psychology Award, and
Warren Bickel for the APA Distinguished Contributions by a Young
Psychologist Award. (4) The Division wants to continue nominat-
ing members for APA Boards and Committees. Please forward names
of nominees to Larry.
8. President Bob Balster proposed a change in the Division
bylaws in order to change the Division name from the Division of
Psychopharmacology to the Division of Psychopharmacology and Sub-
stance Abuse. A change in Article 1 of the bylaws permits such a
name change. After some discussion of the merits of this propos-
al, it was approved by a vote of 14 in favor and 4 against,
thereby meeting the 2/3rds mandatory number of positive votes.
9. President-elect Klaus Miczek read the list of nominees for
Division Officers for the 1991 election. Lewis Seiden and Maxine
Stitzer will run for President, and Alice Young and John Grabow-
ski for Member-at-Large. The slate of officers was approved.
10. President Balster thanked Warren Bickel for his fine job as
Division 28 Program Chair for the 1990 meeting; Dave Penetar and
Nancy Ator will serve as Program Chairs for the 1991 and 1992
meetings, respectively.
11. President Bob Balster noted that the Division 28 Committee
on Curricula Development for Training Psychologists in Psycho-
pharmacology is continuing to meet as are the Neurobehavior and
Toxicology Committee and the Centennial Committee. With regard
to the latter committee, H. Barry is in the process of conducting
an oral history of Division 28 for the Centennial.
12. President Balster was given a warm round of applause in
appreciation for his efforts on behalf of Division 28 during his
tenure as president.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
APA COUNCIL MEETING: AUGUST, 1990
John Grabowski
Division 28 Representative to Council
The APA Council of Representatives met on August 9 and 12
during the Annual APA Meeting in Boston. This brief report will
summarize the meeting agenda and the preliminary 1991 budget.
The Council approved a number of items concerning structure
and function of new boards and committees, including those relat-
ed to the new Education Directorate. (This rounds out the com-
plement of Directorates). Items were passed to improve systems
for processing of students, members, and fellows. There was
discussion about increasing member participation in Divisions.
It was noted once again that of the more than 70,000 members,
only about 40% belong to divisions. Active participation by
members of Division 28 can have an effect, and it is important.
The benefits of APA's activity generally, and Division membership
in particular, are numerous; some of these are reflected in the
directives of the Council of Representatives. These include the
strong lobbying efforts to assure the best environment for both
scientists and clinicians. The APA has been particularly effec-
tive in assuring continued and stable funding for research funds
for ADAMHA, on one hand, and assuring equity for clinicians (vis-
a-vis physicians and others), on the other hand.
The Council voted unanimously to support opposition to the
concept of "English Only" laws, efforts to improve the lot of the
homeless, and provision of care for those with chronic mental
illness. The Council also voted to support the development of
Behavioral and Social Sciences Directorate within the NSF. In
February, 1990, the APA Council voted unanimous support for
organizations that protect science, scientists, and the conduct
of research with animals; at the August meeting, the Council
voted unanimously to support APA endorsement of the 1990 AAAS
resolution on the Use of Animals in Research, Testing, and Educa-
tion. The APA is unquestionably among the largest and most
formidable organizations lobbying on behalf of continued research
with animals.
An issue of particular importance to Division 28 is that of
"prescription privileges" for psychologists. Division 28's
position has been that psychologists generally, and clinical
psychologists in particular, would do well to have at least
rudimentary understanding of behavioral pharmacology/psychophar-
macology. This is true independent of the specific issue of
prescribing privileges. In this vein, the Division has supported
an effort to develop educational programs. Your representative
stated this position clearly in the Council meeting in support of
a Proposal for an APA Task Force on Psychopharmacology. It was
noted in particular that the Task Force should be heavily loaded
with Division 28 members familiar with the issues and science.
This item, which was sponsored by Patrick DeLeon, passed.
Issues concerning fees and finances were discussed at
length. The most distressing item was that basic dues will
increase for the coming year--to $155 for a regular membership.
Divisional fees are additional. This increase is part of a grand
plan for increments over time to accommodate inflation, new
programs, and growth. Your representative argued strongly that
not all growth is good growth; golden oratory not withstanding,
the dues increase passed! A provision was included, however,
specifying that the increase would be offset with a credit for
those who order APA journals. Special assessments such as those
levied on clinicians and some clinical researchers by the Prac-
tice Directorate also will increase.
Parenthetically, it should be noted that some "science
members" (treatment researchers who are nonclinicians) of Divi-
sion 28 pay the extra fees. It must be emphasized on behalf of
the Director and staff members of the Practice Directorate that
they have shown a strong allegiance to the science of psychology
and application of science in practice; thus, these funds are
not wasted. Ironically, the Practice Directorate now calls on
our Division for advice as often as, or more often than, does the
Science Directorate. The Science Directorate has done more, and
can do more, for behavioral scientists, psychological scientists,
and behavioral neuroscientists than most other organizations in
which they hold membership. The APA is numerically and finan-
cially powerful; the Council and APA central offices generally
take the "right positions" on issues of importance to Division 28
members. This is more likely to occur if you are active in the
Division and make known your interests and needs, which can then
be conveyed to the Council and APA staff members.
The proposed budget for the coming year is approximately $39
million and includes neither surplus nor deficit. For copies of
the budget materials, please write to John Grabowski, Ph.D. Dept.
of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Univ. of Texas Health
Science Center, 1300 Moursund, Rm. 341, Houston, TX 77030.
The February, 1991 meeting will be my last as your Council
representative, and I will provide a summary of observations in
the spring issue. Steve Fowler has been elected as the new
Council Representative and will take up the Division 28 banner in
August of 1991.
A NEW JOURNAL: BRIEF REPORT
John Grabowski
Council Representative
Dr. Gary Vandenbos, APA Director of Publications, initiated
discussions in February (APA Council Meeting) with John Grabow-
ski, Division 28, on development of an APA-based psychopharmacol-
ogy journal. This issue was discussed at the Executive Committee
meeting in May. Cautious forward movement was encouraged.
Grabowski submitted a proposal to Dr. Bruce Overmeir, member of
the APA Publications Board, which was received enthusiastically.
Grabowski agreed at the August Executive Committee meeting to
------------------------------
PSYCOLOQUY
is sponsored by
the Science Directorate of
the American Psychological Association
(202) 955-7653
Co-Editors:
(scientific discussion) (professional/clinical discussion)
Stevan Harnad Perry London, Dean, Cary Cherniss (Assoc Ed.)
Psychology Department Graduate School of Applied Graduate School of Applied
Princeton University and Professional Psychology and Professional Psychology
Rutgers University Rutgers University
Assistant Editors:
Malcolm Bauer John Pizutelli
Psychology Department Psychology Department
Princeton University Rutgers University
End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest
******************************