On Thu, 6 May 2004, jim clark wrote: > > IRB members are not in a position to make this kind of judgment, > or at least in this case they did not do a very good job. They > would be better to focus on risk, and ONLY address methodological > questions when the risk is elevated.
I agree. > If we take the example that > stimulated this discussion, using a measure that lacks indices of > reliability and validity (note that is not the same as saying > that the instrument is not reliable and not valid) will itself > provide evidence on these questions. Correlations with other > variables, internal consistency, and the like will move the > research area along by documenting the benefits of the new > measure. Lack of such positive results would similar indicate to > future researchers that more basic (i.e., measurement, > conceptualization issues) work is needed. New knowledge is new > knowledge and always of benefit (to somone). I don't disagree here either; all I am saying is I understood where their IRB was coming from. Something about the proposal must have raised a red flag. We are all discussing this out of context! We do not have the whole proposal in front of us. > > Given this negative attitude about the benefits of participating > in actual studies, Actually, I have a very positive attitude about it; but I teach intro psych and I hear lots of complaints from students....as well as their valid complaints.....but I also constantly reinforce for my students the value. And I believe in it. However, not all profs do that. And, I do think there is some genteel coercion--even if,as you said, it is something that we know will ultimately be good for the students. > Failing students is overly > harsh. Our students lose one letter grade for failing to meet > the research requirement (6 for day students, 3 for evening > students), but they are never failed because of this (i.e., D > students remain a D). Be that as it may, it is our policy.......:-( > > If I can paraphrase, in order > to keep garbage research from being conducted we need to sanction > inocuous research with (allegedly) minor flaws that have no > harmful consequences for participants (barring perhaps the not > universally accepted "wasting their time" argument). > No, I think you missed my point in paraphrasing. In fact, sorry, I can't follow your logic here at all relative to anything I was thinking :-( So I can't respond to this. > > The job of the IRB is to make more ethical research, not to make > better research. I agree 100% but making it more ethical often makes it better! These are not necessarily mutually exclusive and often do go hand in hand. > I'm sure there are numerous examples of > researchers having to "water down" their research (i.e., > compromise it) in order to meet ethical guidelines. Now to me THAT is a strong statement! > With respect > to the last point, it would be interesting to see if > participating in bad studies harms or helps students' > understanding of science. Good study idea! Annette > > Best wishes > Jim > > ============================================================================ > James M. Clark (204) 786-9757 > Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax > University of Winnipeg 4L05D > Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark > ============================================================================ > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Annette Taylor, Ph. D. Department of Psychology E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of San Diego Voice: (619) 260-4006 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 "Education is one of the few things a person is willing to pay for and not get." -- W. L. Bryan One student's signature line (reproduced with permission): "I am paying for your education, so you had better get it." -- My mom. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
