-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message has been sent through the MASSOBS discussion list.
Remember, clicking 'reply' sends your message to the list.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good point! I do try to make this clear to users of the material but there
is a very strong tendency to want to see the M-O group as a representative
sample of the population, perhaps because there are 100s of writers. If
there were 20 (as in, say, an oral history project) would researchers be so
preoccupied? On the other hand, researchers probably DO need to know in
what ways the M-O panel DIFFERS demographically from a representative
sample and I suppose is something we at the Archive need to accept.
Thanks Chris.
Dorothy
--On 21 July 2004 19:03 +0100 chris_gilbert <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This message has been sent through the MASSOBS discussion list.
> Remember, clicking 'reply' sends your message to the list.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Dorothy Sheridan" wrote
>
>> And now it's time to go to work so over to you all
>
> My comment would be that all data sets come with caveats.
> They are only reliable as the sample set from which they are
> taken. Suggesting that the data in MOA is somehow defficient
> implies that the critic is looking for information within it that
> the sample set cannot provide.
>
> Chris
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------- To leave this list email [log in to unmask]
> Alternatively, send the following command to [log in to unmask]
>
> leave massobs
> --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To leave this list email [log in to unmask]
Alternatively, send the following command to [log in to unmask]
leave massobs
--
|