Possible selves are traditionally defined as conceptions of our selves in future states. The author discusses the way the theory is used in the literature and argues that there is a need for a clearer definition, because there appear to be a number of common misinterpretations regarding possible selves. Important features of possible selves are discussed, in particular their nature as experienced meaning, their relation with the rest of the self-concept, and their social and cultural nature. It is suggested that agency is an important aspect of possible selves and that they can be seen as narratives. The clearer definition suggested is that possible selves are conceptions of our selves in the future, including, at least to some degree, an experience of being an agent in a future situation. Possible selves get vital parts of their meaning in interplay with the self-concept, which they in turn moderate, as well as from their social and cultural context.
In this study, we explicate citing behavior in the writing of scientific papers by presenting a taxonomy of motives to cite. The suggested taxonomy consists of four main categories, which are purely descriptive: Argumentation, Social Alignment, Mercantile Alignment, and Data. These categories are divided into a suggested set of subcategories. We argue that the complexities of citing practice show how little can be assumed about actual citing behavior when studying a finished paper. The discussion supports the claim that it might be misleading to treat all citations as equal in quantitative citation analysis.
The notion of critical thinking and its theoretical complexity are used as a case for an epistemological critique of the model of intended learning outcomes. The conclusion is that three problems of learning outcomes, previously discussed in the literature, become even more challenging when seen in the light of critical thinking. The first problem concerns interpretations, as the use of learning outcomes is dependent on advanced but implicit interpretative frameworks. The second is the problem of educational goals that cannot be expressed through learning outcomes, and the third is the risk that learning outcomes may establish a ceiling for student ambitions. It is argued that the example of critical thinking shows the seriousness of the epistemological critique of learning outcomes and how the use of learning outcomes can divert teachers' and students' attention away from important goals.
Adopting the construct of possible selves, which are conceptions of our selves in future situations, the objective of this study was to investigate how anorexia patients differ from a non-clinical control group in their conceptions of the future on qualitative content, and the four quantitative dimensions positive and negative emotional valence, and beliefs about probability and controllability. The Possible Selves Statements Test was employed. Participants presented 14 possible selves by completing the question "I can see myself …" and rating each possible self on the 4 dimensions. The patients reported a larger number of negative possible selves, with higher negative valence, often seeing future everyday situations as negative, whereas the control group saw similar situations as positive. The anorexia patients also reported negative possible selves with high controllability and high probability in relation to such situations and in some cases rated recovery from anorexia with a negative valence. Clinical implications are discussed.
The right to teach at university: A Humboldtian perspectiveThe right to teach at university is a distinctive philosophical and legal conundrum but a largely unexplored question. Drawing on Humboltdian principles, the legitimacy of the university teacher stems from their continuing engagement in research rather than possession of academic and teaching qualifications alone. This means that the right to teach needs to be understood as a privilege and implies that it is always provisional, requiring an ongoing commitment to research. Yet massification of higher education (HE) systems internationally has led to the disaggregation of the academic profession with teaching-only positions now increasingly common. University teachers employed to both teach and research face a narrowing set of performative expectations with respect to how 'research-active' is defined. This paper challenges these contemporary understandings and, drawing on historical evidence, argues that a broader definition of research and scholarship needs to underpin the basis of the right to teach.
It is a challenge for psychology education to teach students about the possibilities and limitations of psychological theories. In the present article, we attempt to meet this challenge by employing the metaphorical expression “theories-are-maps” as a didactic tool for exploring the dynamics between psychology as a scientific project and the nature of the phenomena observed. Using mental illness as an example, we use the map metaphor to discuss the various difficulties involved in teaching theories in psychology, in such terms as the risk of confusing maps and terrain. While using theories-are-maps as a tool does add complexity to psychology education, it also helps illustrate how the relationship between theory and the “reality” that theoretical devices are describing can be envisaged. We see this as a contribution to the discussion on critical thinking in psychology, particularly in the teaching of psychology.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.