Quote
feldsparI posted this link to a research paper several months ago. I would be interested in your take on the quality of the research and conclusions if you have time to read it
[
72.14.203.104]
Actually, I did take the time to skim the entire dissertation, and like others who posted on this dissertation, his research is questionable at best. And let me qualify this opinion by admitting that I have been to dissertation writing classes, have been accredited by my Research I university as having been trained on ethical research/study methodologies, and am currently in the middle of writing my own dissertation (not on the mkp, though--albeit another diss on this would be a great idea).
Let me explain my position:
The author . . .
*is a member of mkp (which constitutes a conflict of interest). How can he be objective in his study? He even dedicates his dissertation to mkp and thanks the men there for all they have done for them. Sure, thanking research participants is common for any diss that studies a certain group, but his rhetoric suggests that they helped him with more than just his research: "to the men of the ManKind Project. You have been a joy, a source of growth, and a salvation. I am deeply grateful for all you have shared with me, and your presence and passion has changed me forever." As soon is this comment is made in his dedication section, his credibility is shot, as readers should question his objectivity in the outcomes of his study.
*does not recognize the roots of the mkp beyond Tosi, Kauth, and Hering. In any research, credibility is built by knowing the intellectual history of your research subject, and better understanding the links the mkp has to Sterling and his institute (and some may even argue to Hubbard and Scientology) is required of him to do anything more than a superficial treatment of his research.
*focuses solely on the benefits of the group. His dissertation reads more like a summary report on the mkp, not the answer to a debatable research question. He only includes the point of view of pro-mkp'ers. And though he cites a 55.7% dropout rate of the Washington DC group he studied, he does not follow up with ex-mkp'ers to see why they left the group. Instead, he simply states: "This level of retention and satisfaction, despite over half of the men no longer participating in an I-group, is considerably higher than has been reported for some other kinds of mutual support groups, and given that it encompasses all groups in an eight year period, may be considered a relatively positive indicator of effectiveness (cf. Luke, Roberts, & Rappaport, 1993)." What other groups is he comparing the I-group to? Perhaps some stats for those would make his argument more convincing. Thus, no balanced discussion has taken place in his dissertation. He's doing more "speechifying" (as one member here puts it) than conversing (monlogue vs. dialogue). And there's no mention of the ties to LGAT, which is agreed upon by pro- and anti-mkp'ers alike. Even those who think that LGATs can be productive groups recognize the downsides to them.
*cites sources primarily written by mkp'ers, so of course his research is going to discuss the mkp in only a positive light (this is also tied to credibility issues).
I take issue with other aspects of this dissertation (not to mention its poor grammar and over reliance on just inserting handouts from the MKP and not analyzing the slippery rhetoric therein), but I don't really want to spend more time on this dissertation than the author, Prof. Burke, did. ;-)
I think Prof. Burke's dissertation can be helpful for those wanting to learn more about the objectives of this particular mkp chapter and I-group, as he summarizes a great deal of the mkp literature for this chapter, but he offers very little more than what the mkp website for the chapter does--and certainly does not provide his readers with a well-balanced discussion of the origins, controversies, and outcomes of the mkp.
Thanks for your interest in my opinion, feldspar. Let me know if you want a more specific response to any given part of the diss.