Hi all,
I hear what you are saying Calum but supposing you found (in an ideal world!!) a prefectly representable sample of society, wouldn't each participant have something in common?, that they have all agreed to act as a participant in a study and would'nt this technically speaking, make them a group? What about all those other people who have no interest in participating in research but are still viable members of society? Isn't this another group? The point I'm trying to make is that although we all strive to find the best, most representable sample for our studies, there is no avoiding classification, bias etc and we must acknowledge these limitations in current research whilst continuing to look for that perfect sample. The idea of a participant registry is a simple concept of bringing people from all walks of life who would be willing to take part in a study together, which is, after all what we do anyway, wouldn't this simply help to avoid the frustration and time / effort !
con
straints in finding these people ourselves?
cheers sara
--
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:12:09
Calum Crosthwaite 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
>
_____________________________________________________________
Get 25MB, POP3, Spam Filtering with LYCOS MAIL PLUS for $19.95/year.
http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus&ref=lmtplus
|