Hi calum -I agree that there are no short cuts -I was
responding more to the straight objection to a
register [without recognising the unrepresentative
nature of research groups anyway].The sentence you
want me to clarify refers to the nature of research
and to what extent it is generalisable anyway.
For example sexual health research [an interest of
mine]is often framed in terms of absence/presence of
infection or of risk infection-this excludes lesbian
women as generally speaking lesbian women show low
rates of infection and are therefore regarded as low
risk[this is of course contreversial anyway] but the
nature of lesbian womens sexual health concerns [which
relate more to emotional well being ]are then ignored
.This in turn has funding implication and so on. So to
present research as representative in that way simply
misses lesbian concerns as the 'right'questions are
not asked.
Additionally [paradoxically] health issues for
lesbians are often linked to sexual health via H.i.v.
and also to gay men.My own research with service
providers suggests that lesbian needs [I looked at
psychosexual support for lesbian women}are viewed
through gay mens needs[the funding for research is
tied to Hiv. and round the houses we go
again.....!].Another issue in that, is that the way in
which lesbians are oppressed is then reflected in
service provision and in the research(and funding)
attracted- that is to do with invisibility .
Another example ,I recently completed a questionaire
that was hetero sexually framed and I therefore
adjusted my replies to fit what I thought I was being
asked but some of my answers were inconsistent as I
simply do not fit within the assumptions underpinning
the questions-so whilst not excluded per se the
answers elicited are not going to give a clear notion
of 'lesbian' responses.
This I think will be true for other minoritised groups
,presumably manifested in different ways and perhaps
around different issues.
I hope that clarifies what I was on about! regards sue
--- Calum Crosthwaite <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Sorry, I'm not too bright Sue. Could you explain the
> following sentence:
>
> "The idea that a registry would be
> unrepresentative where other groups are is nonsense
> and perpetuates the universalising ethos that simply
> glides over the missing voices that it does not
> represent."
>
> Could you also confirm if you are suggesting that
> because students or others
> used in (badly done) research are not
> representative, then creating another
> unrepresentative population is a good idea? If so,
> don't you think it would
> be a better idea to improve the standard of research
> by actively recruiting
> a representative sample than doing bad research with
> an unrepresentative
> sample?
>
> I'm afraid I feel that there is no shortcut in well
> done research. You just
> have to get out there and recruit as representative
> a sample as possible and
> this is time consuming. A Participant's Registry
> would not help researchers
> to achieve good research.
>
> Calum
>
>
> > From: sue morrison <[log in to unmask]>
> > Reply-To: "Mailing list that supports the research
> of postgraduate
> > psychologists." <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 02:46:37 -0800
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Participants' Registry
> >
> > Hi -I am not a seasoned researcher but from my
> small
> > experience am pretty clear that research builds in
> all
> > kinds of bias-especially toward those groups who
> are
> > aready minorotised.The idea that a registry
> would be
> > unrepresentative where other groups are is
> nonsense
> > and perpetuates the universalising ethos that
> simply
> > glides over the missing voices that it does not
> > represent. Sue--- sara chambers <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >> As before I can see your point and obviously
> there
> >> are limitations with it that need to be addressed
> >> but the idea is at its earliest stage in
> recognition
> >> of the frustration in finding participants. It is
> >> the wording of the idea being "Participants
> >> registry" that screams unrepresentative group
> >> however, as I mentioned before there isnt a study
> >> out there that can be seen as completely
> unbiased,
> >> what about the usage of students? surely they are
> an
> >> unrepresentative group, more so than a
> participant
> >> registry as they tend to have many more things in
> >> common as a group. Perhaps if participants were
> >> asked at the onset of a study if they would mind
> >> their name being supplied to a third party for
> >> further research purposes, (with all ethical
> issues
> >> considered)it could work? Many researchers do use
> >> previous participants again, isn't this
> >> unrepresentative? I think this idea's
> unconventional
> >> and people are concerned about the idea of using
> a
> >> group per se but when the issues are dealt with,
> i!
> >> s i
> >> t really that different to using say, students or
> >> previous participants?
> >> sara
> >> --
> >>
> >> On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:46:14
> >> Diana Rofail wrote:
> >>> Dear all,
> >>>
> >>> My views are definitely in agreement with Bruce.
> >>>
> >>> I certainly see the convenience of a
> participants
> >> registry BUT I think that
> >>> there would be far too much bias with such data.
> >>>
> >>> Use of a participant registry might be helpful
> in
> >> the very early stages of
> >>> designing a project i.e. to liase with people
> about
> >> meanings of questions
> >>> for designing an instrument to be used in a
> pilot
> >> study. At these very early
> >>> stages, most people do not want to discuss
> >> representativeness and
> >>> generalisation. However, I would aim to target
> >> people who would use the
> >>> instrument. In addition, I would rather target
> >> people who are unfamiliar
> >>> with research design and implementation so as to
> >> avoid bias. Furthermore,
> >>> the sheer fact that some people may join a
> >> participant registry instantly
> >>> suggests that such people are in some way
> different
> >> from those who do not
> >>> belong or wish to join the registry.
> >>>
> >>> Therefore, use of a participant registry raises
> too
> >> many controversial
> >>> issues. Perhaps, a good idea in the initial
> stages
> >> of designing a project.
> >>>
> >>> Kind regards,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Diana Rofail, MSc
> >>> Researcher
> >>> Health Services Research Department
> >>> Institute of Psychiatry
> >>> London
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
_____________________________________________________________
> >> Get 25MB, POP3, Spam Filtering with LYCOS MAIL
> PLUS
> >> for $19.95/year.
> >>
> >
>
http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus&ref=lmtplus
> >
> >
> > =====
> > Sue Morrison M.A., Dip.Couns., R.M.N., E.G.N.
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business
> online
> > http://webhosting.yahoo.com
=====
Sue Morrison M.A., Dip.Couns., R.M.N., E.G.N.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
|