trishrhymes
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,158
One thing I can't get my head around at all.
I've never done a PhD, but this is what I understand happens:
A PhD student starts by doing a literature review of the subject they are studying, in this case ME/CFS. They then make a summary of their findings and develop their hypothesis to be tested out of that knowledge.
So where's the author's knowledge base on ME/CFS? Where's the in depth understanding of biological findings? Where's the questioning of the BPS model? Where's the consideration of alternative interpretations of the data? Where's the idea that, given the equivocal results of this experiment with six patients, perhaps the initial (BPS) premise was wrong?
A serious student would never make the crass assumptions about false illness beliefs etc. if they had done their basic reading.
I'm not entirely blaming this particular student. It's the fault of the supervisor who presumably directed them only to psychological studies. But surely a student with any intellectual integrity would dig deeper?
I wonder how many do dig deeper, challenge their supervisors, are told to stick to the BPS model, and drop out as a result. We will never know.
Caution - I may be barking up the wrong tree about this particular study - I haven't read the PhD thesis. My reaction is more based on my reading over the last few months of many extremely poor quality small studies that just try to prop up the BPS model with tiny findings. I think I'm suffering from a severe case of BPS indigestion.
I've never done a PhD, but this is what I understand happens:
A PhD student starts by doing a literature review of the subject they are studying, in this case ME/CFS. They then make a summary of their findings and develop their hypothesis to be tested out of that knowledge.
So where's the author's knowledge base on ME/CFS? Where's the in depth understanding of biological findings? Where's the questioning of the BPS model? Where's the consideration of alternative interpretations of the data? Where's the idea that, given the equivocal results of this experiment with six patients, perhaps the initial (BPS) premise was wrong?
A serious student would never make the crass assumptions about false illness beliefs etc. if they had done their basic reading.
I'm not entirely blaming this particular student. It's the fault of the supervisor who presumably directed them only to psychological studies. But surely a student with any intellectual integrity would dig deeper?
I wonder how many do dig deeper, challenge their supervisors, are told to stick to the BPS model, and drop out as a result. We will never know.
Caution - I may be barking up the wrong tree about this particular study - I haven't read the PhD thesis. My reaction is more based on my reading over the last few months of many extremely poor quality small studies that just try to prop up the BPS model with tiny findings. I think I'm suffering from a severe case of BPS indigestion.