In 1995 Barbara Held, professor of Psychology , published what is, I think, the first book of its kind - Back to Reality: A Critique of Postmodern Theory in Psychotherapy - a book not about how to do psychotherapy, but about how we should think about doing it. The work engages in a vigorous examination of the recent antirealist trend in psychotherapy and it opens up an important and timelyepistemological debate, but its conclusion - that postmodern (narrative) therapists ought to (...) reject antirealism in favour ofa modest realism - is based on a fundamental misinterpretation of the originary aim behind the adoption of an antirealist epistemology. It is Held’s contention that the narrative therapy movement adopted antirealism as a means of “maximizing individuality” in therapy, a goal which canand should be achieved by way of realism. I suggest here that, to the contrary, the aim of this epistemological shift was the resolution of strictly epistemological problems, and that a return to realism would be antithetical to this aim.En 1995, Barbara Held,professeure de psychologie, a publié ce qui, à mon avis, est un livre inouï: Back to Reality: A Critique of Postmodern Theory in Psychotherapy. L’ouvrage entreprend un examen critique des tendances antiréalistes que l’on retrouve dans la psychothérapie aujourd‘hui et ouvre un débat épistémologique important et opportun. Cependant, sa conclusion, à l’effet que les thérapeutes postmodernes (narratifs) devraient rejeter l’antirealisme au profit d’un réalisme modeste, se fonde sur une interprétation erronée du but premier de l’épistémologie antiréaliste. Held soutient que le mouvement de thérapie narrative a adopté l’antiréalisme afin de “maximiser l’individualité” en thérapie, un but qui peut et devrait être atteint plutôt par le réalisme. Ici, je prétends au contraire que letournant épistémologique a été entrepris dans le but de résoudre des problèmes strictement épistémologiques, et qu’un retour au réalisme serait contraire à ce but. (shrink)
Current assumptions and values with respect to management training for women are examined. A number of suggestions for change are made. The thrust of the changes will move us toward ensuring that education for women does not remain education for frustration, that is, education which gives women the desire for change in a world that remains the same.Many women have paid their dues, even a premium, for a chance at a top position, only to find a glass ceiling between them (...) and their goal. The glass ceiling is not simply a barrier for an individual, based on the person's inability to handle a higher-level job. Rather, the glass ceiling applies to women as a group who are kept from advancing higher because they are women. (Morrison, White and Velsor, 1987, p. 13). (shrink)
Morrison points out many similarities between the roles of simulation models and other sorts of models in science. On the basis of these similarities she claims that running a simulation is epistemologically on a par with doing a traditional experiment and that the output of a simulation therefore counts as a measurement. I agree with her premises but reject the inference. The epistemological payoff of a traditional experiment is greater (or less) confidence in the fit between a model and (...) a target system. The source of this payoff is the existence of a causal interaction with the target system. A computer experiment, which does not go beyond the simulation system itself, lacks any such interaction. So computer experiments cannot confer any additional confidence in the fit (or lack thereof) between the simulation model and the target system. (shrink)
