Dear Jeff Evans,
Thanks very much,
I'll look into this tomorrow.
Yours sincerely,
John Barker
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Evans" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: What is the explanation for the difference/
> Dear John Barker et al.,
> You could also look at Cathy Marsh's (1982) The Survey Method, and Roger
> Sapsford's (1999) Survey Research.
> Regards,
> Jeff Evans
>
> *****
>
> Dr. Jeff Evans
> Reader in Adults' Mathematical Learning
> Mathematics & Statistics Group
> Middlesex University Business School
> London NW4 4BT, UK
> Tel.: +44 (0)20 8411 5490
> Fax: +44 (0)20 8202 1539
> Website: http://mubs.mdx.ac.uk/staff/
>
> *****
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email list for Radical Statistics [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Culbert, John
> Sent: 12 February 2007 20:25
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: What is the explanation for the difference/
>
>
> John Barker asked:
>
>> Now some members of Radstats are no doubt thoroughly familiar with the
> evidence on the value of questionnaires. However, some may not be, and I
> certainly am not.
>
>>So could Professor Kornbrot kindly give me and others a reference or
> two so
> we can explore this issue?
> And of course in any other members can supply evidence, that would be
> useful.
>
> In the absence of Prof Kornbrot clarifying what she had in mind - I
> imagine this is an allusion to the view about the possible inconsistency
> of attitude and behaviour that goes back to the classic (1934) work of
> La Piere re attitudes and behaviour expressed by hoteliers to a Chinese
> couple. Not being well versed in the literature on this a Google search
> led me to the following JSTOR article reviewing the issue -
>
> Attitudes and Behavior
>
> Howard Schuman; Michael P. Johnson
>
> Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 2. (1976), pp. 161-207.
>
> Stable URL:
> http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=03600572%281976%292%3C161%3AAAB%3E2.0.C
> O%3B2-K
>
> This might be of interest?
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email list for Radical Statistics [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of John Barker
> Sent: 12 February 2007 09:28
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: What is the explanation for the difference/
>
> I do not seem to have received any response to my e-mail of 28th
> January (copied below). I would be very grateful for some response now.
>
> John Barker
>
> ------
>
> Dear all,
>
> This thread started when on 20th December I drew attention to an
> apparent discrepancy in evidence about Indian fertility in the UK.
> However, a subsequent posting has shown that there is another apparent
> disrepancy, this time between two quite clear claims, one specific, one
> more general. In the paper by Penn and Lambert to which I originally
> referred, we
> read:
> "It is generally accepted that attitudes towards ideal family size
> closely correlate with actual patterns of fertility". But Professor
> Kornbrot, in her posting of 30th December stated: "Psychological
> research has consistently show that the correlation between attitudes
> expressed in questionniares is, at best, very loosely correlated with
> behaviour.
>
> Now Penn and Lambert give references for their claim, although I find
> that one reference has the wrong provenance. But Professor Kornbrot does
> not give references.
>
> Now some members of Radstats are no doubt thoroughly familiar with the
> evidence on the value of questionnaires. However, some may not be, and I
> certainly am not.
>
> So could Professor Kornbrot kindly give me and others a reference or two
> so we can explore this issue? And of course in any other members can
> supply evidence, that would be useful.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> John Barker
>
> ******************************************************
> Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
> message will go only to the sender of this message.
> If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's 'Reply-to-All'
> button to send your message automatically to [log in to unmask]
> Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender
> and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by
> subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about
> Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past
> issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site
> www.radstats.org.uk.
> *******************************************************
>
> Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email
> management service - www.altman.co.uk/emailsystems
>
> ******************************************************
> Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
> message will go only to the sender of this message.
> If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's 'Reply-to-All'
> button to send your message automatically to [log in to unmask]
> Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender
> and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by
> subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about
> Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past
> issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site
> www.radstats.org.uk.
> *******************************************************
>
> ******************************************************
> Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
> message will go only to the sender of this message.
> If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
> 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
> to [log in to unmask]
> Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and
> cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by
> subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about
> Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past
> issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site
> www.radstats.org.uk.
> *******************************************************
>
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
|