Embed from Getty Images
—
Patricia Coburn is a friend and colleague, who works with me in the Lifespan Cognition Lab. Here we talk about undergraduate education, work prior to psychology, work with Dr. Bernstein, and controversial research topics, part 1.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Where did you acquire your undergraduate education? Where do you conduct your graduate studies?
Patricia Coburn: I graduated with a BA Honours in Psychology from Kwantlen Polytechnic University. I recently began my Masters in the Forensic Psychology Program.
Jacobsen: Where did you work prior to researching in Psychology?
Coburn: I had various jobs. I was a farmer, a sign-maker: my most recent job was at a Casino.
Jacobsen: You worked in a cognition lab with Dr. Daniel Bernstein. How did you become part of his lab?
Coburn: There were two reasons. Mainly, I was interested in going to graduate school, but I felt unsure of how to get there. As well, I received good advice from the current Chair of Psychology at Kwantlen, Dr. Wayne Podrouzek. He suggested if I wanted to go to graduate school, I should acquire some research experience. I had taken memory with Danny and really learned a lot while enjoying the experience. I thought he was a friendly and approachable person.
Jacobsen: How would you describe your experience working in a Psychology Lab? What positive and negative parts come with managing a lab?
Coburn: I would describe the experience almost entirely positive: necessary to go to graduate school, and probably a big component of my education. I have recently realized that a lot of my education that is relevant did not come from the classroom alone, even though I really enjoyed my classes, learned a lot, and appreciated the instructors. However, there comes a point where you are so proficient at learning material in a textbook that you need a new experience, such as a lab setting with all concomitant experience. It brought me out of my comfort zone. It gave me all of the skills that I needed for graduate school. I can only recommend it for anyone wanting to go to graduate school specifically in Psychology. Additionally, I think it prepares people for graduate school in general because of the workload. Managing a lab of 12 people really took a large amount of time: scheduling the studies, trying to get rooms for the studies, keeping track of everyone for their studies, overseeing data entry, ethics applications, and contacts with people in the research office. Even though, it was challenging and time-consuming at times, it probably, in terms of graduate school, was the most valuable experience I had at the undergraduate level.
Jacobsen: What kinds of research have you conducted up to the present? For your graduate studies, what research do you conduct?
Coburn: Up until I graduated from Kwantlen, my research mainly focused on perspective taking, different cognitive biases, theory of mind, theory of mind deficits, individual differences in perspective taking, and a lifespan approach to theory of mind. As well, I did a bunch of hindsight bias research with Danny and worked on one of his false memory studies. I acquired a fairly well rounded experience, in terms of research, but most of it looked at perspective taking. My research now looks at perceptions of child witness credibility. In particular, I look at how adolescents are perceived in legal settings. I try to incorporate what I learned at the undergraduate level. I look at the way certain biases and stereotypes influence decisions, when people are dealing with children and adolescents. Although, my undergraduate research has influenced or transferred to some degree I have taken a slightly different path.
Jacobsen: With your expertise, what topic(s) seem most controversial to you? How do you examine these topic(s)?
Coburn: Maybe not controversial, but in my area because Judges do not like to talk about the way their decisions are determined and jurors are prohibited from talking about the deliberation process, my research is limited. It could be considered controversial because it is different from the American system. Jurors are allowed to discuss the process, making the system more transparent in a sense. Although, I understand the reasons for why jurors are prohibited from discussing the deliberation process in Canada, it makes my research difficult. I end up having to do many mock juror designs, which could be criticized. Many people might question the ecological validity of that type of research. However, I use university participants, as many of us do. I try to argue that certain cognitive processes are inherent to all human beings. So, we can look at university participants and how they make a decision in a certain area, or if presented with a certain scenario. Some of that will transfer to a juror or even a judge. I believe that judges are better trained than the average person is, but some of these biases will be inherent to the fact that they are human.
Jacobsen: How would you describe the evolution of your philosophical framework?
Coburn: My philosophical framework, I would say that my philosophical framework has evolved even since I entered graduate school. I am still a strong believer in things that can be measured empirically. I subscribe to the empirical model, especially that model of acquiring knowledge. Taking Law courses and looking at the operation of the legal system, I have begun to understand certain questions cannot be understood in the lab. I am beginning to gain a broad perspective on how to best answer questions in different areas. I have acquired a better appreciation for other approaches to knowledge. I have gained some practical experience in court and feel there are some questions we simply do not have the answers for, and we cannot necessarily find them using measurement and experimental design. From this, I have gained an appreciation for people that simply spend a great deal of time thinking and debating the hard questions.
There are certain things where we never know what ground truth is. However, even though I have an appreciation for debate or discourse that attempts to get at questions that do not, or appear to not, have an answer, it does not mean we cannot move closer to the truth through replication and good methodology. We can move towards the direction where we become more confident with those results. Of course, we have to be open to the fact that we could have been wrong. Having good methodology and replicating studies will increase our confidence in those questions that seem difficult to answer. Sometimes it is really more of a philosophical question such as “What is a natural human right? What are human rights?” these sorts of question can only be debated and not measured, as far as I am concerned. However, so many questions can be measured. It is about getting the right study, asking the right questions, gathering the information and bit by bit we get closer to learning the answers.
—
Original publication on www.in-sightjournal.com.
—
—
Image Credit: Getty Images.