At 02:41 PM 1/17/2003, Robert J. MacG. Dawson wrote:
No, I meant what I wrote.
If a scientific researcher interviews a bunch of subjects, he or she
must prove to an ethics committee that they will not be harmed, that the
benefits outweigh the risks, that the experiment will be competently
performed and produce meaningful data, etc, etc. The burden of proof is
on the researcher - if the presentation to the ethics committee is vague
or incomplete, they won't get approval.
i think it is rather negative to make an assumption that what you are proposing is UNethical ... and you have to prove the converse
if that were the case ... then i think institutions would NOT encourage folks to do "research"
sorry ... i don't agree ... our IRB would not make that assumption if you are talking about a marketing professor who is doing polling ... because they still are using human Ss ... even if the folks they are interviewing are located 100 miles away ... in a different town and have nothing to do with students on campusIf a marketing researcher wants to do the same, they don't have to prove anything: they just pick up the phone & start dialling.
if there is anything that fits into the "generalizability" framework ... it would be polls ... because that is precisely what they are trying to get you to buy ... that their results on a sample reflect the larger population of voters/etc.
and certainly, many would want to publish these findings ... in local papers ... etc.
i don't see where you get the idea that these guys/gals so easily get off the IRB hook?
.
.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the
problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at:
. http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ .
=================================================================
