I was in a professional development session today. Out of about 50 people attending, I was one of 3 males. The presenter was female. She was supposed to have been presenting ideas on how to be an academic coach when helping with teachers in need of assistance. I was taken back at what was said at a professional development. It just goes to show what happens when people are not truly educated as to what information they are holding in their hands.
The female presenter first stereotyped males as wanting to give advice when asked a question. I have heard this said before by people outside the counseling profession, but scholars in the communication field know that relying on context rules out stereotyping. So, if a professional counselor or communication scholar were to make the same statement, it would not be generalized information, but specific information to a client or scholarly audience. But, I kept listening instead of tuning out immediately on the stereotyping comment.
Then, the presenter wanted to go into embedding phrases in statements that change how people perceive what is being said. It was pure manipulation doctrine. While it is true that how something is said can make a difference, rerouting a person's thinking to a reduced list of phrases to say a different way misses the point. Then, unbelievably, she crossed the line. She started saying how embedding certain phrasing was getting her husband to act a certain way and that sometimes her husband didn't respond to her pet embedded phrases. She crossed two lines, actually. She brought something personal into a professional setting. That alone is so-o-o unethical.
But then, she crossed into an area she apparently had very little knowledge of (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing [Alexander Pope]). She went from giving tips for communication in a quasi-counseling session to applying those tips to private and casual, even intimate, conversation. That is over the line, over the top, out of bounds, taboo, and otherwise academically sloppy. What is good for counseling sessions should never be applied to natural, casual conversation. The analyses of natural conversation is the subject of a whole body of scholarly work. She probably doesn't know that. But, too late. I was gone.
I left the session and did not return. At my age I don't have to attend a professional development session presented by someone who doesn't even know the tip of the iceberg about ethics or her subject matter. I guess I could chalk this up to a gender difference. But, that is a whole other matter with a body of literature all its own.
The female presenter first stereotyped males as wanting to give advice when asked a question. I have heard this said before by people outside the counseling profession, but scholars in the communication field know that relying on context rules out stereotyping. So, if a professional counselor or communication scholar were to make the same statement, it would not be generalized information, but specific information to a client or scholarly audience. But, I kept listening instead of tuning out immediately on the stereotyping comment.
Then, the presenter wanted to go into embedding phrases in statements that change how people perceive what is being said. It was pure manipulation doctrine. While it is true that how something is said can make a difference, rerouting a person's thinking to a reduced list of phrases to say a different way misses the point. Then, unbelievably, she crossed the line. She started saying how embedding certain phrasing was getting her husband to act a certain way and that sometimes her husband didn't respond to her pet embedded phrases. She crossed two lines, actually. She brought something personal into a professional setting. That alone is so-o-o unethical.
But then, she crossed into an area she apparently had very little knowledge of (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing [Alexander Pope]). She went from giving tips for communication in a quasi-counseling session to applying those tips to private and casual, even intimate, conversation. That is over the line, over the top, out of bounds, taboo, and otherwise academically sloppy. What is good for counseling sessions should never be applied to natural, casual conversation. The analyses of natural conversation is the subject of a whole body of scholarly work. She probably doesn't know that. But, too late. I was gone.
I left the session and did not return. At my age I don't have to attend a professional development session presented by someone who doesn't even know the tip of the iceberg about ethics or her subject matter. I guess I could chalk this up to a gender difference. But, that is a whole other matter with a body of literature all its own.
No comments:
Post a Comment