Yeah, that raven one, imho, was a little strange. The others, as far as topics go, are no more or less strange or focused on relatively small populations or isolated phenomenon then some dissertations I've seen from more reputable programs. My issue is not so much with the topics, but with the methods and overall purposes of the studies. While it can be fine line, they just seem to be conducted and written in a way that is more sociology than clinical psychology. In particular, the "Experience of Cool" one seem more of an ethnograpy. There is just such a reliance on qualitative methods, without the control (both in subject recruitment and experimental methodology) of what you might typically see in and experimental diss from a clinical ph.d. program. It more of a stretch to apply any of it to the practice of clinical psychology. Kind of curious when you take it in light of the comments on the William James Website where they derogatorily say that clinical psych PhD programs offer a degree in "philosophy" rather than "psychology." This stuff is real heavy on the philosophy side of things.
