A qualitative analysis of the congruency of Jungian psychological preferences identified by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the human resource development role of instructor/facilitator

The purpose of this ethnographic study was to describe and explain the congruency of psychological preferences identified by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the human resource development (HRD) role of instructor/facilitator. This investigation was conducted with 23 HRD professionals who worked in the Miami, Florida area as instructors/facilitators with adult learners in job-related contexts.^ The study was conducted using qualitative strategies of data collection and analysis. The research participants were selected through a purposive sampling strategy. Data collection strategies included: (a) administration and scoring of the MBTI, Form G, (b) open-ended and semi-structured interviews, (c) participant observations of the research subjects at their respective work sites and while conducting training sessions, (d) field notes, and (e) contact summary sheets to record field research encounters. Data analysis was conducted with the use of a computer program for qualitative analysis called FolioViews 3.1 for Windows. This included: (a) coding of transcribed interviews and field notes, (b) theme analysis, (c) memoing, and (d) cross-case analysis.^ The three major themes that emerged in relation to the congruency of psychological preferences and the role of instructor/facilitator were: (1) designing and preparing instruction/facilitation, (2) conducting training and managing group process, and (3) interpersonal relations and perspectives among instructors/facilitators.^ The first two themes were analyzed through the combination of the four Jungian personality functions. These combinations are: sensing-thinking (ST), sensing-feeling (SF), intuition-thinking (NT), and intuition-feeling (NF). The third theme was analyzed through the combination of the attitudes or energy focus and the judgment function. These combinations are: extraversion-thinking (ET), extraversion-feeling (EF), introversion-thinking (IT), and introversion-feeling (IF).^ A last area uncovered by this ethnographic study was the influence exerted by a training and development culture on the instructor/facilitator role. This professional culture is described and explained in terms of the shared values and expectations reported by the study respondents. ^

Judging psychology experts: Can judges and attorneys distinguish between clinical and experimental psychologists?

A trial judge serves as gatekeeper in the courtroom to ensure that only reliable expert witness testimony is presented to the jury. Nevertheless, research shows that while judges take seriously their gatekeeper status, legal professionals in general are unable to identify well conducted research and are unable to define falsifiability, error rates, peer review status, and scientific validity (Gatkowski et al., 2001; Kovera & McAuliff, 2000). However, the abilities to identify quality scientific research and define scientific concepts are critical to preventing "junk" science from entering courtrooms. Research thus far has neglected to address that before selecting expert witnesses, judges and attorneys must first evaluate experts' CVs rather than their scientific testimony to determine whether legal standards of admissibility have been met. The quality of expert testimony, therefore, largely depends on the ability to evaluate properly experts' credentials. Theoretical models of decision making suggest that ability/knowledge and motivation are required to process information systematically. Legal professionals (judges and attorneys) were expected to process CVs heuristically when rendering expert witness decisions due to a lack of training in areas of psychology expertise.^ Legal professionals' (N = 150) and undergraduate students' (N = 468) expert witness decisions were examined and compared. Participants were presented with one of two versions of a criminal case calling for the testimony of either a clinical psychology expert or an experimental legal psychology expert. Participants then read one of eight curricula vitae that varied area of expertise (clinical vs. legal psychology), previous expert witness experience (previous experience vs. no previous experience), and scholarly publication record (30 publications vs. no publications) before deciding whether the expert was qualified to testify in the case. Follow-up measures assessed participants' decision making processes.^ Legal professionals were not better than college students at rendering quality psychology expert witness admissibility decisions yet they were significantly more confident in their decisions. Legal professionals rated themselves significantly higher than students in ability, knowledge, and motivation to choose an appropriate psychology expert although their expert witness decisions were equally inadequate. Findings suggest that participants relied on heuristics, such as previous expert witness experience, to render decisions.^