Page 39 - NovDec16.FTM

A second personal favorite is on the topic of the person of the therapist, by Aponte and Kissil (2014). Too few authors today write about the person of the therapist. Yet, who can deny that our own personal issues affect the therapy we provide? The authors do a fine job of extending Aponte’s important body of work in describing the person-of-the- therapist supervision model used at Drexel University in enough detail for others to use, as well.
abbreviations...
Of course, if an article is poorly written or has research flaws, it will not be accepted no matter how important
the topic is. Examples of
this are as follows: typos on every page, ponderously long, passive sentences, and applying parametric statistics to nominal data. I also have
a few quirks that I should mention. One involves abbreviations. Commonly known ones, such as ADHD or PTSD, are fine after the formal terms are written out once. However, research articles that continue page after
page to refer to an alphabet soup of instruments, often pages after the proper name appeared, lose the reader. Here is a somewhat revised paragraph I wrote to an author that captures both the issue and my concern (with the initials of the instruments changed to protect the author’s identity):
When I keep seeing abbreviations, such as
AX couples, PO couples, D-couples, TRRKS, TKS, WOPS, RCASS, SAR, PIR, and combinations of the above (e.g., TRRKS-AX, TRRKS-PO, RCASSpos), reading your paper becomes a tough slog. And that is a shame
because you generally write clearly. Perhaps you could consider descriptors instead of abbreviations throughout, or better yet, the proper names of the instruments.
Or perhaps, in each section, the first time you mention an instrument or couple type, you could use the entire descriptor, and only after that, abbreviate.
RESEARCH ARTICLES THAT CONTINUE PAGE AFTER PAGE TO REFER TO AN ALPHABET SOUP OF INSTRUMENTS, OFTEN PAGES AFTER THE PROPER NAME APPEARED, LOSE THE READER.
When an author uses too many abbreviations, I also usually share this, from the sixth edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2010):
“Consider whether the space saved by abbreviations ... justifies the time necessary to master the meaning” (p.106).
“In general, use an abbreviation only a) if it
is conventional and if the reader is more familiar
with the abbreviation
than with the complete form or b) if considerable space can be saved and cumbersome repetition avoided. In short, use only those abbreviations that will help you communicate with your readers. Remember, they have not had the
same experience with your abbreviations as you have” (p. 107).
9 A capital idea! Another idiosyncrasy I have relates to my tendency not to capitalize words such
as psychologist, marriage and family therapist,
or social worker. After
all, would we capitalize “plumber” or “politician,”
or “exterminator?” The
same goes for such terms
as marriage and family therapy, attachment theory, cognitive behavioral therapy, social exchange theory, person of the therapist,
and so on. When authors capitalize such words, they are demonstrating a “tell” (to use a gambling expression), a sign that the author is probably a student or inexperienced writer.
10
to the author instead of sending it out for review. For more on developing good, publishable research ideas, see Miller and Pfeifer (2014).
One final thought: when
an article appears to not address clinical implications at all, I often send it back
to the author instead of sending it out for review. For more on developing good, publishable research ideas, see Miller and Pfeifer (2014).
Remember, aspiring athletes study accomplished athletes to get better. Similarly, to publish in JMFT, I suggest that you become familiar with the articles we publish. The lessons therein will serve you well!
To read Dr. Piercy’s
full commentary for prospective authors,
see “A Few Suggestions
for Prospective Authors: Learning From Recent JMFT Articles” in JMFT, Vol. 40, #4, October 2014, pages 407–411.
References
American Psychological Association (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th edn). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Aponte, H. J., & Kissil, K. (2014). “If I can grapple with this I can truly be of use in the therapy room”: Using the therapist’s own emotional struggles to facilitate effective therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 40(2), 152–164. doi: 10.1111/ jmft.12011
Fife, S. T., Whiting, J. B., Bradford, K., & Davis, S. (2014). The therapeutic pyramid: A common factors synthesis of techniques, alliance, and way of being. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 40, 20–33. doi: 10.1111/jmft.12041
Johnson, S., & Greenman, P. (2013). Commentary: Of course it is all about attachment! Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 39, 421–423. doi:10.1111/ jmft.12035
Miller, R., & Pfeifer, L. (2014). Developing
a good research idea. In R. Miller & L. Johnson (Eds.), Advanced methods in family therapy research. New York: Routledge.
ON THE WEB >>
Visit JMFT online at www.aamft.org/JMFT.
8
About those excessive
Anthropomorphizing
One final personal quirk involves anthropomorphizing—writing as if a thing, a theory, or a body of knowledge is doing something. It is rampant in the social sciences, but easy to fix, and the alternative
is so much more clean and accurate. After all, people do things, not theories, fields, or articles. To see what I mean, consider these anthropomorphic phrases and my alternative:
• “Structural theory does not believe...” (My edit: “Structural theorists do not believe...”)
• “Feminism theorizes...” (My edit: “Feminist scholars theorize...”)
• “This article explores... (My edit: “In this article, we explore...”)
One final thought: when
an article appears to not address clinical implications at all, I often send it back
NOVEMBER / DECEMBER 2016 37