Fw: [Winona] WOD Goals

Sat, 31 May 2003 04:58:10 -0700

Thanks, Roy, for bringing Dr. Schild's apology to our attention. Honestly, Steve, because it was at the very end of a long list of your "defending arguement" --which went a long way to clarify things for me (thank you for your thoughtful response)--the apology part was lost on me.  I wonder if this was the case for others as well?
 
Because of this, I have cut and pasted a quotation (below)from Dr. Schild's response so that it has a chance to stand on it's own rather than sandwiched in with all the other stuff! I hope this is not offensive to anyone.  I only mean to provide the opportunity for his words to be "heard" more clearly now that I have actually "heard" them.
 
"I apologize for the confusion and bad feelings caused by 'the quote.' While I do think that that quote is an important part of the WOD story, I clearly should have presented it differently, and I regret not doing so. It came up at the end of my presentation and was not discussed in the detail it deserves. I regret it not only because it's been the cause of
considerable consternation, but more so because it may have deflected attention from the information at the heart of my study."
 
I really appreciate this acknowledgement and I know it is honest! 
 
(BTW I never intended to imply that Dr. Schild was deceptive.  Clearly he was not.  I was responding to Spencer's statements about how informing subjects about the study before hand will influence the results rendering them meaningless.  This is why deception is allowed in human subjects research. I turned from a discussion of WOD to a discussion of research ethics without signaling!  I am sorry that my response was ambiguous in that way.  I see that it only stirred things up for people--never my goal.  Hopefully my words above clarify my opinion regarding Steve and his research.)
 
I agree with Roy that we should try to find what can be useful from the analysis and continue to improve this forum.
 
Kathy Seifert
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Winona] WOD Goals

I think it is an exageration to assert that "WOD" as a body is defensive. Although I can understand an individual's inferring a defensive stance from the tone of some messages, I believe that most WOD respondents simply appeared to accept the reported findings, adding commentary that they thought to be useful. Studies should elicit commentary
 
The quote out of context is the sort of error that often appears in research and in journalism. As one who has considerable experience in writing and publication as researcher, editor, and reviewer, I find the issue no stranger.  I believe that Steve Kranz's explanation and Steve Schild's apology should be sufficient to erase the problem.
 
I think many WOD members would like to see the entire study. On the basis of the news report and subsequent commentary,  I am convinced the report will be useful. If it elicits more debate, fine.  The subject, involving a mode of citizen participation in policy discussion, is extremely important.
 
I encourage Steve Schild to make the report available, perhaps through email, to those who wish to look at it further.
 
Roy Nasstrom
Winona
 
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 9:41 AM
Subject: [Winona] WOD Goals

I don't feel that Steve is guilty of any deception.  All he did was observe and report his findings which could be used to better this forum if we would accept it for that purpose.  Why are we attacking the message or the messenger?  Why is WOD so defensive?  Take what good you can from it and thank him for the time he put into it.
 
Brenda Terpstra

Reply via email to