Back to Teaching in Higher Education
Home Page
Teaching of Psychology, Vol. 12, No. 4, December, 1985, pp. 220-222.
SomeNorth85.doc
FACULTY FORUM
Some Northerly Thoughts on Undergraduate
Psychology research conferences
John J. Furedy
University of Toronto
R. Cameron McRae
Wilfred Laurier University
Although we agree with Carsrud, Palladino,
Tanke, Aubrecht, and Huber’s (1984) emphasis on the
educational importance of undergraduate psychology
research conferences (UPRCs), and recognize the value
of the information provided by them for prospective
organizers, we question the following assumptions: (a)
that UPRCs are more favored by and more suited to
undergraduate level institutions rather than “larger,
research-oriented universities”; (b) that a senior faculty
speaker is an essential, or even a desirable, component of
a successful UPRC; (c) that speakers should never read
their papers; and (d) that practice sessions should only
have “reasonable questions” posed to the speaker.
In their recent paper, Carsrud et al. (1984) have clearly
indicated the educational importance of undergraduate
psychology research conferences (UPRCs), and have also
provided useful information to those intending to
organize these events. There are, however, some
assumptions made in their paper that deserve critical
commentary.
Our comments are made from the perspective of two
individuals who have been involved with an annual
UPRC that has rotated around universities in Ontario for
15 years. The second author has acted as overall
conference coordinator during this period, each author
has been the thesis coordinator in his respective
department during the same period, and the first author
has a special interest in the teaching of undergraduate
thesis research (e.g., Furedy & Furedy, 1977). Although
we recognize that there are important differences between
the United States and Canada, we suggest that it may still
be useful to consider some more northerly criticism of
certain assumptions in the Carsrud et al. (1984) article in
the light of our experience. We now turn to these
assumptions.
1. UPRCs are more favored by and more suited to
undergraduate level institutions than to “larger,
research-oriented universities” (p. 144). In Ontario,
many of the larger schools have experimented with
deemphasis or deletion of the undergraduate thesis
requirement. The rationale, typically, has been that
undergraduate research takes
220
up valuable lab space and faculty time that could be
better made available to graduate students. However, it
turned out that incoming graduate students without
formal undergraduate research were not as well-prepared
as those who had completed a thesis and presented the
results in a conference setting. As a result, not only is
the undergraduate thesis a well-supported endeavor in all
of Ontario’s universities, but host universities for the
conference have ranged from exclusively undergraduate
institutions like Brock and Trent to the research
powerhouses like Toronto and Western. In terms of
support for the conference (space, personnel, funding),
the big schools have put on just as good a “show” as the
smaller institutions.
2. A senior faculty speaker is an essential, or even a
desirable, component of a successful UPRC. At the first
few conferences the Ontario group had such speakers,
but then abandoned the scheme as being inconsistent
with the aim of having undergraduates have their own
conference for the interchange of research findings. Quite
simply, the students are much more interested in
discussing each other’s work (and their respective
schools and programs) than in sitting through one more
lecture, regardless of how eminent and stimulating the
speaker. It’s their day; for once, they are the experts.
Moreover, in our view, the focus on an eminent faculty
speaker at a UPRC follows a politico-religious or
“sophistic” rather than a scientific or “Socratic” model
(Furedy & Furedy, 1982).
3. Speakers should never read their papers, a
“practice that can be excruciatingly boring for the
audience” (p. 145). The absolute ban on reading has
been imposed by other American research associations
like the Psychonomic Society. but in our view the ban is
misguided. When a brief time period is available, and the
arguments are at all complex, it is often more clear (and
hence less boring!) to read a coherent paper than to try to
ad-lib a confusing paper, particularly when the speaker
is distraught with stage fright! Of course, the
presentation would have to be written for oral rather
than journal-style communication and adequately
rehearsed (i.e., not read “cold”).
Teaching of Psychology
4. Practice sessions should be conducted among
“sympathetic peers” who have to ask only “reasonable
questions” (p. 145). Practice sessions should, indeed, be
conducted among “sympathetic peers” but hardly with
restriction to “reasonable questions.” This suggests that
UPRCs are more akin to group therapy sessions than
sessions for the interchange of research findings. In our
experience, more learning takes place and, remarkably,
more anxiety is alleviated when the gloves are off. Most
student presenters are both able and delighted to deal
with “unreasonable” as well as “reasonable” questions.
Indeed, because they are free of the professional statusprotection requirements that make many post-graduate
conferences such uninformative affairs, it appears that
in terms of communication and audience participation,
the UPRC sessions are actually superior to those of
professional conferences.
We recognize that both the assumptions and our opposed positions are matters of informed opinion
rather than empirical generalizations based on data.
However, that informed opinion, along with that of
Carsrud et al., holds that the UPR/UPRC experience is
an important, perhaps essential, pant of undergraduate
education in psychology.
Our main purpose in drawing attention to these issues is
to help further the development of the UPRC “ . . . in such
a way as to maximize the contribution to the
educational process” (Carsrud et al., 1984, p. 141).
REFERENCES
Carsrud, A. L., Palladino, J. J., Tanke, E. D., Aubrecht, L., &
Huber, R. J. (1984). Undergraduate psychology research
conferences: Goals, policies, and procedures. Teaching of
Psychology, 11, 141-145.
Furedy, J. J., & Furedy, C. (1977). Modeling the realities of research experience: Collaboration against common and
merciless foes. Teaching of Psychology, 4, 107-110.
Furedy, J. J., & Furedy, C. (1982). Socratic versus sophistic
strains in the teaching of undergraduate psychology: Implicit
conflicts made explicit. Teaching of Psychology, 9, 14-20.
NOTE
Requests for reprints should be sent to John J. Furedy,
Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada, M5S 1Al
Of Data and Informed Opinion: A Reply
to Furedy and McRae
Alan L. Carsrud
Department of Management
University of Texas at Austin
Joseph J. Palladino
University of Southern Indiana
The stated purpose of the Furedy and McRae article is
to draw attention to certain issues “to help further the
development” of undergraduate psychology research
conferences (UPRCs). They suggest “it may be useful to
consider some more northerly criticism of certain
assumptions in our recent article on URRCs (Carsrud,
Palladino, Tanke, Aubrecht, & Huber, 1984). Their
comments are made from the perspective of individuals
who have been involved with a rotating conference. As
individuals who have been involved collectively with
UPRCs for more than 20 years, we are pleased to hear
about the Ontario conference. We will address the
points offered by Furedy and McRae in order. 1. Furedy
and McRae question the “assumption” that “UPRCs are
more favored by and more suited to undergraduate level
institutions than to ‘larger, research-oriented universities.’” “ Based on our survey data (which
included
Vol. 12, No. 4, December 1985
rotating conferences similar to the Ontario conference),
we wrote “conferences are typically hosted by smallto-medium-size
institutions
that
emphasize
undergraduate education” (p. 143). We also reported that
“surveys of undergraduate psychology research
conferences . . . have consistently indicated that most
of the participants come from small or medium size
institutions” (p. 144). It may be regrettable that larger
institutions typically do not support UPRCs more than
they do, but it is a fact, not an assumption. For example,
the 1985 Calendar of Undergraduate Research
Conferences published in the APA Monitor listed 16
conferences in the United States. Only three of the
sponsoring institutions could be classified as “larger,
research-oriented universities.” Furedy and McRae’s
comments are based on a single rotating conference and
they provide no data on the participation of students
from institutions of
221
various sizes. The parsimonious explanation for differing
views here may be the difference in the sample sizes used as
a basis for generalization and not cultural or educational
differences between the United States and Canada.
2. Furedy and McRae question the “assumption” that
“a senior faculty speaker is an essential . . . component
of a successful UPRC.” Once again, based on our survey
we re ported that all of the responding conferences
invited featured speakers. We did not write that “a
senior faculty speaker” is an essential component of a
conference. Furedy and McRae state that “students are
much more interested in discussing each other’s work”
than listening to a speaker. Certainly, others involved
with undergraduate psychology conferences (e.g.,
Anderson & Rosenfeld, 1983) write favorably about
guest speakers and students’ reactions to them. We do
not accept Furedy and McRae’s characterization of the
involvement of speakers in UPRCs as “politicoreligious” activity. We prefer to think of these speakers
as appropriate professional role models.
3. Furedy and McRae question the “assumption”
that “speakers should never read their papers.” They
argue that it is better “to read a coherent paper than to
try to ad-lib a confusing paper” or read a paper “cold,”
and we whole heartedly agree. We did not suggest
that students ad-lib their presentations, but espoused
“coaching and practice” in preparation. Our advice is
quite similar to the advice given in the Publication Manual
of the American Psychological Asso ciation (1983): “Do not
read your presentation. Reading a paper usually induces
boredom and can make even the best research sound
second-rate. Instead, tell your audience what you
have to say, just as you would in conversation” (p. 193).
4. Finally, Furedy and McRae question the
“assumption” that practice sessions should be
conducted among “sympathetic peers,” who “have to
ask only ‘reasonable questions.’ “ It is important to
note that our full statement was: “Asking several
reasonable questions at the end of the practice session
also helps as this will mimic what typically occurs at
most of these conferences” (p. 145). Furedy and McRae
characterize our portrayal of UPRCs as “more akin to
group therapy sessions than sessions for the interchange
of research findings.” This “assumption” is not
consistent with the data provided in Carsrud (1975)
and Carsrud (1984). Perhaps our description does seem
like “group therapy” compared to the approach that views
research as “collaboration against common and
merciless foes” (Furedy
222
& Furedy, 1977, p. 107). We suggested that conference
organizers try to make students’ participation a good
“first experience” and mentioned a number of ways to
alleviate students’ anxieties. Coaching, preparation,
and practice can all help to achieve our goals for
UPRCs. Perhaps even PhD presentations at regional and
national conventions could benefit from such an
approach.
We hope that this exchange serves to encourage
other faculty members both here and abroad to become
actively involved in UPRCs and in research designed to
characterize their organization and structure and to
evaluate their effects.
REFERENCES
American Psychological Association. (1983). Publication manual
of the American Psychological Association (3rd ed.).
Washington, DC: Author.
Anderson, D., & Rosenfeld, P. (1983). Letting form follow
function: A multipurpose model for undergraduate
psychology conferences. Teaching of Psychology, 10, 204206.
Carsrud, A. L. (1975). Undergraduate psychology conferences:
Is good research nested under Ph.D.s? Teaching of
Psychology, 2, 112-114.
Carsrud, A. L. (1984). Graduate student supervision of undergraduate research: Increasing research opportunities.
Teaching. of Psychology, 11,203-205.
Carsrud, A. L., Palladino, J. J., Tanke, E. D., Aubrecht, L., &
Huber, R. J. (1984). Undergraduate psychology research
conferences: Goals, policies, and procedures. Teaching of
Psychology, 11, 141-145.
Furedy, J. J., & Furedy, C. (1977). Modeling the realities of research experience: Collaboration against common and
merciless foes. Teaching of Psychology, 4, 107-110.
Furedy, J. J., & McRae, R. C. (1985). Some northerly thoughts
on undergraduate psychology research conferences.
Teaching of Psychology, 12(4), 220-221.
NOTES
1. We thank our colleagues for their encouragement in
writing this response.
2. On July 1, 1985, Indiana State University Evansville
became the University of Southern Indiana, an
independent state university.
3. Requests for reprints should be sent to Alan L. Carsrud,
Department of Management, CBA 4.202, The
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712.
Teaching of Psychology