Comments | shaula82: Leaps, bounds and setbacks in research

shaula82

Leaps, bounds and setbacks in research

Nov 10, 2005 15:30

From a book I picked up for a workmate from the hospital's medical library ( Read more... )

cs, research, science

Comments 8

whirlygig November 9 2005, 21:19:50 UTC

I think I could weep!

Are you seeing the sex/gender distinction as a good or a bad thing, here?

shaula82 November 9 2005, 21:25:48 UTC

A VERY good thing! Lol. Maybe I should make that more clear in my post.

(The comment has been removed)

shaula82 November 9 2005, 21:43:39 UTC

Oops, I meant continua, since they are separate!

neva9257 November 9 2005, 23:30:05 UTC

what other fields?

shaula82 November 10 2005, 15:55:31 UTC

Such as speech therapy. Or do you mean apart from speech therapy? I was specifically talking to my friend about this field because she's a speechie.

I personally do think that RCT have a place - but they shouldn't be the God of Research. They could maybe be used as a starting point, or in conjunction with more individual accounts.

neva9257 November 10 2005, 17:40:31 UTC

the only problem i have with individual accounts is precisely the problem i don't have with more rigid accounts, in that there is a certain standard. of course, any given standard is never ideal, but individualising, in my mind, creates as many boundaries in research as it breaks. you need some common ground in order to compare and contrasts. i think they are both nessecary, but both have to be done with caution, is both have fundamental flaws

on a side note, it's why i love physics. it's a -1 blind study. the subjects (atoms) know what they are doing. the researchers don't.

neva9257 November 10 2005, 17:43:34 UTC

that said, in human sciences, and I make the distinction because psychology, medicine, OT, physio, speech, all of them are *not* in the same realm as physics/chem etc, and this i think is a very good thing, should stop trying so hard to be quite so 'scientific.' atoms are atoms, peoples are peoples, and occasionally, soylent green is peoples. trying to apply scientific method to such an unpredictable -cosm can be rewarding, but has to be taken with a grain of salt.

fire_fly November 10 2005, 16:10:39 UTC

Thanks for that comment on Randomised Controlled Trials. It's really hard for social science, too, because people expect "scientific" standards to apply to any experimental design, and don't understand that scientific standards are supposed to exist so you get useful results! But I had no idea that they actively suppressed criticism of the RCT model. Someone needs to be hit over the head with Kuhn...