This is what passes for science among hillbillies now? Why did we give you Home Rule again?
Will you be hanging the witches again, or burning them this time, like in the old country?
What fool committee gave you degrees???
Just how tiny are your penises anyway?
Do you see your self as more of a charlatan or more of a quack?
Do you expect to have a good career as a pseudo-scientific, fly-by-night academic crackpot, or is being a know-nothing reactionary crank more of a religious vocation with you?
We'd prefer not to draw special attention to the question for fear of influencing individuals' responses (for example, by including a warning above the question itself). Perhaps we should present some general warning at the very beginning of the survey? We were reluctant to do that, too, since that also might influence the attitude towards questions. But please help us figure out a better way to manage this question.
which shows they have no idea of how to do human subjects research. A standard 'risks' statement would look something like "There are no risks to the subject except those that may come from reading potentially troubling questions. An example of the kinds of questions that might be most upsetting would be questions concerning [X, Y, or Z]" and anyone who does research with people could generate that in the 2 seconds it took me to.
Good luck to the person contacting BU's IRB about this, wow.
{Actually, stuff like this is part of WHY IRBs get tighter and tighter with the rest of us who are doing good research, b/c more and more regulations and guidelines get encouraged to manage people who don't have good intuition or sense. Didn't they talk about this project with ANYONE with experience?)
A standard 'risks' statement would look something like "There are no risks to the subject except those that may come from reading potentially troubling questions. An example of the kinds of questions that might be most upsetting would be questions concerning [X, Y, or Z]" and anyone who does research with people could generate that in the 2 seconds it took me to.
Word. I actually happened to take a survey in person last week, which included a statement pretty much exactly like the one you just came up with. The survey itself had nothing more 'risky' in it than a standard article from a newspaper about a murder, but it's seriously not hard to come up with a warning, and does not 'influence response', if it's done right. The more I hear about this survey, the worse it gets.
Thanks for the heads-up, as I actually hadn't seen this (a lot of general fandom issues of concern like this never cross the gap between western media fandom and Asian media/video games from both sides of the Pacific fandom).
no subject
Date: 2009-08-31 09:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-31 09:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-31 09:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-31 09:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-31 09:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-01 12:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-01 11:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-31 09:40 pm (UTC)Things that I ...Must... Not...Say...
Date: 2009-08-31 10:34 pm (UTC)Why did we give you Home Rule again?
Will you be hanging the witches again, or burning them this time, like in the old country?
What fool committee gave you degrees???
Just how tiny are your penises anyway?
Do you see your self as more of a charlatan or more of a quack?
Do you expect to have a good career as a pseudo-scientific, fly-by-night academic crackpot, or is being a know-nothing reactionary crank more of a religious vocation with you?
Re: Things that I ...Must... Not...Say...
Date: 2009-09-01 07:43 am (UTC)Re: Things that I ...Must... Not...Say...
Date: 2009-09-01 03:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-31 11:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-01 01:27 am (UTC)We'd prefer not to draw special attention to the question for fear of influencing individuals' responses (for example, by including a warning above the question itself). Perhaps we should present some general warning at the very beginning of the survey? We were reluctant to do that, too, since that also might influence the attitude towards questions. But please help us figure out a better way to manage this question.
which shows they have no idea of how to do human subjects research. A standard 'risks' statement would look something like "There are no risks to the subject except those that may come from reading potentially troubling questions. An example of the kinds of questions that might be most upsetting would be questions concerning [X, Y, or Z]" and anyone who does research with people could generate that in the 2 seconds it took me to.
Good luck to the person contacting BU's IRB about this, wow.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-01 01:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-01 01:42 am (UTC)Word. I actually happened to take a survey in person last week, which included a statement pretty much exactly like the one you just came up with. The survey itself had nothing more 'risky' in it than a standard article from a newspaper about a murder, but it's seriously not hard to come up with a warning, and does not 'influence response', if it's done right. The more I hear about this survey, the worse it gets.
no subject
no subject
Date: 2009-09-01 06:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-03 11:50 pm (UTC)Yep. That was what made me decide to post. I actually like having a foot in both sides of fandom- it means I get to hear all the scandal. ;)