How did you come up with it?

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

I am trying to get ready for my undergraduate symposium early and I just wanted to know, how did those of you who already did this come up with your research idea? I know my interests but not how to convert that into a viable study.

Read the existing literature in your area and look for gaps, find a real world problem or issue that could be addressed experimentally, talk to your professors for ideas, etc.

I'd recommend a research methods course. It can be hard to think scientifically when you haven't had exposure to basic science research concepts.

I won't be taking the research classes till next year. I just wanted to get an idea early on, I'm the type of person that likes to prepare ahead of time. Maybe give me something to do over the summer while I wait for my fall classes. (cognitive processes, abnormal psych, neuropsych, and history of psych). My main interest is psychotherapy, and honestly Im really dying for the class where my professor will explain why so many psychologists disagree with freud. I think there was some method to some of that madness. I don't think its so preposterous that our behaviors are linked to childhood events, sex, and aggression.

Oh, I'd also definitely wait if you haven't taken research methods yet.

No comment on the Freud thing.

Originally Posted by cara susanna

Oh, I'd also definitely wait if you haven't taken research methods yet.

No comment on the Freud thing.

No please do comment!!! lol, my neuro prof's reaction was "aww thats cute" and she told me to read a few things. But it hasn't dissuaded me yet. Nova Southeastern has a specialization in psychodynamic psych (my current school for undergrad) and I said "I'm not the only crazy one Doc!" But she thinks I still am lol.

Originally Posted by Jonq1102

No please do comment!!! lol, my neuro prof's reaction was "aww thats cute" and she told me to read a few things. But it hasn't dissuaded me yet. Nova Southeastern has a specialization in psychodynamic psych (my current school for undergrad) and I said "I'm not the only crazy one Doc!" But she thinks I still am lol.

I don't know that people would say they disagree with everything Freud ever hypothesized and touted. Also, disagreeing with some of Freud's methods and ideas isn't the same as saying that current behavior isn't shaped by past (including childhood) experiences, and that sex and aggression aren't involved in motivation.

Keep in mind that psychodynamic principles have advanced and changed a decent amount since Freud's time. Other posters on the board more-versed in its theory and practice than me can feel free to chime in and add more.

Originally Posted by acronymallergy

i don't know that people would say they disagree with everything freud ever hypothesized and touted. Also, disagreeing with some of freud's methods and ideas isn't the same as saying that current behavior isn't shaped by past (including childhood) experiences, and that sex and aggression aren't involved in motivation.

Keep in mind that psychodynamic principles have advanced and changed a decent amount since freud's time. Other posters on the board more-versed in its theory and practice than me can feel free to chime in and add more.

+1

The issue is that Freud overemphasized the role of sex, past experiences, and aggression. Every psychological theory pays some respect to those, they just call it different things. Behaviorists would call past experiences learning, for instance.

I think that you need to keep in mind the time in which Freud lived. It was a highly repressive society, one that doesn't resemble our own that closely.

Originally Posted by cara susanna

The issue is that Freud overemphasized the role of sex, past experiences, and aggression. Every psychological theory pays some respect to those, they just call it different things. Behaviorists would call past experiences learning, for instance.

I think that you need to keep in mind the time in which Freud lived. It was a highly repressive society, one that doesn't resemble our own that closely.

Noted, but let me ask you something. How does modern psychodynamic psychology explain my brother: everything out of his mouth is either violent, jokes, or sexual statements. It seems to be all he thinks about lol. We call him Freud Boy lol.

I'm not the best person equipped to answer that question because I am not psychodynamic.

Originally Posted by Jonq1102

I won't be taking the research classes till next year. I just wanted to get an idea early on, I'm the type of person that likes to prepare ahead of time. Maybe give me something to do over the summer while I wait for my fall classes. (cognitive processes, abnormal psych, neuropsych, and history of psych). My main interest is psychotherapy, and honestly Im really dying for the class where my professor will explain why so many psychologists disagree with freud. I think there was some method to some of that madness. I don't think its so preposterous that our behaviors are linked to childhood events, sex, and aggression.

there should be a plethora of articles and books on this subject.

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

there should be a plethora of articles and books on this subject.

I know but I'm an auditory learner, I have ADHD so it's really hard for me to sit down and just read. I find more success when I can discuss the topic with someone.

Originally Posted by jonq1987

I know but I'm an auditory learner, I have ADHD so it's really hard for me to sit down and just read. I find more success when I can discuss the topic with someone.

Some of the objections come from the fact that a lot of his theorieswork involve post-hoc rationalizations, some things we now know he was just flat out incorrect about (like any field...knowledge develops over time). There is still minimal evidence that a lot of the central and/or most popular topics of his work have any actual clinical utility. However, as others have suggested, that doesn't mean that none of it holds up.

Also - not to minimize your problems, but you will desperately need to get past this whole "Auditory learner" issue if you want to attend graduate school. You can certainly use software to have articles read out loud, but there is no possible way to get everything you need to know from discussions. That doesn't mean someone with ADHD can't be successful (in fact, we just had a thread on the board about it), but I am perfectly comfortable saying someone who can't/won't learn by sitting down and reading has precisely zero chance of making it through graduate school. Since this is a topic you are interested in, this might be a good opportunity to figure out strategies for reading.

Originally Posted by Ollie123

Some of the objections come from the fact that a lot of his theories are post-hoc rationalizations, some things we now know he was just flat out incorrect about (like any field...knowledge develops over time). There is still minimal evidence that a lot of the central and/or most popular topics of his work have any actual clinical utility. However, as others have suggested, that doesn't mean that none of it holds up.

Also - not to minimize your problems, but you will desperately need to get past this whole "Auditory learner" issue if you want to attend graduate school. You can certainly use software to have articles read out loud, but there is no possible way to get everything you need to know from discussions. That doesn't mean someone with ADHD can't be successful (in fact, we just had a thread on the board about it), but I am perfectly comfortable saying someone who can't/won't learn by sitting down and reading has precisely zero chance of making it through graduate school. Since this is a topic you are interested in, this might be a good opportunity to figure out strategies for reading.

I can do it, it is just a lot harder for me is all. But I understand what you're saying and I will make it happen. Nothing's gonna stop me from my goals!

Going back to your initial question, where cara mentioned looking for gaps in existing research you can really go one step further: most articles explicitly give general "future directions" which is a great place to start. Look for papers in an area that interests you and then operationalize how you would implement one of those "Future studies should look at..." statements. Ideally this would be done in the context of knowing the wider literature in that topic and fitting your idea into a gap as was mentioned.

Originally Posted by roubs

Going back to your initial question, where cara mentioned looking for gaps in existing research you can really go one step further: most articles explicitly give general "future directions" which is a great place to start. Look for papers in an area that interests you and then operationalize how you would implement one of those "Future studies should look at..." statements. Ideally this would be done in the context of knowing the wider literature in that topic and fitting your idea into a gap as was mentioned.

thanks that's very helpful! I'll look into that asap

I think having a mentor that is studying your field of interest would really help. Also, after you find out what you're interested in, become a RA.

A research methods course helps of course, but there's nothing like actually being involved in research that allows you to learn and conceptualize things.

Originally Posted by tkuhug

I think having a mentor that is studying your field of interest would really help. Also, after you find out what you're interested in, become a RA.

A research methods course helps of course, but there's nothing like actually being involved in research that allows you to learn and conceptualize things.

I agree with research experience, but I doubt that experience would be very useful without proper educational context. Most labs want people who have taken pre-reqs, anyways. It certainly wouldn't hurt to dive in and volunteer, but you'd probably get more out of the experience with some basic concept mastery under your belt.