Lawson, I answered your question in my post and the link to my article.
Please read them for the answers you seek from me. I will add that Doug Heckathorne of Cornell has reworked "snowball sampling" as "respondent driven sampling." He claims, and has the math to back it up, that RDS -- even web surveys based on RDS -- can approach the validity of random sampling. http://www.respondentdrivensampling.org/ J. --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "John M. Knapp, LMSW" <jmknapp53@> > wrote: > > > > Geez, Lawson, > > > > Why not ask me yourself? > > > > I know more about scientific research than I did when I posted the "German > > Study" 13 > > years ago. > > > > But I still believe it has value. Its "snowball sample" methodology and its > > small sample > size > > certainly don't make it statistically valid. It's really a collection of > > anecdotal reports, in > > essence. > > > > That doesn't mean it's without value. Qualitative research, even anecdotal > > reports, have > an > > honored place in medical, psychological, and social research. > > > > Many, if not most, research questions have their origins in anecdotal > > reports. > > > > If you care to know my current take on anecdotal research, with > > observations on the > > "German Study," I devote a fair number of words to the subjects in an > > article I wrote > some > > time ago: http://knappfamilycounseling.com/tmdangers.html . There's a drop > > down > menu > > about a third of the way down that discusses the value of anecdotal > > research. > > > > And please, feel free to address your questions directly to me when you've > > got > something > > to ask. > > > ALright, what do YOU think of "snowball" research? > > Do you REALLY think the German "TM Study" has validity as statistics, rather > than as a > guide for controlled research? How is it any different than finding a bunch > of TMers who > claim that everything in their life is hunky-dory? > > Lawson >
