My qualms also have to do with a kind of single-mindedness and oversimplification in the framing of questionnaires which, yes, are necessary to control for too large a spread of possible factors producing the noted results. ( Simplification in the articulation of questions and factors to be surveyed being necessary to control for too lar…
My qualms also have to do with a kind of single-mindedness and oversimplification in the framing of questionnaires which, yes, are necessary to control for too large a spread of possible factors producing the noted results. ( Simplification in the articulation of questions and factors to be surveyed being necessary to control for too large a spread of possible causative factors and hence mud in the water for the clinical interpreter.) BUT and this is a large but : I find the stream-lined questions sometimes 1. too simplistic and limited with the result that nuances are lost - I guess a necessary and calculated loss, simply accepted as unavoidable by current scientific practice. and 2. the nodes addressed in the rather linearly formatted question-nexus build a kind of density and rapport which can influence people after the fact. They have their own kind of critical mass and exert gravitational influence, to use a metaphor. A series of rather too pointed and oversimplified questions will build a halo or horizon of interpretive value for the responder of the questions, encouraging negative views on phenomena and engagements that ought NEVER, categorically NEVER be framed in this manner - for ethical reasons! Because of the failure to point out during the questionnaire that the questions are limited, partial in their descriptive purpose and hence have a tendency to cast light and shadow on the terrain of probing in different ways and in skewed ways than reality itself does - the upshot is that people can and often do walk away with a skewed image of the significance and meaning of the phenomena under survey. "Parents have a right to be unhappy about fractious moments in their engagements with their children. " - that`s an easy take-away after filling out a questionnaire that focuses too exclusively on the immediate short-term signs of frustration, unhappiness, etc. in the parenting experience. These are critical intervention moments by authorized, respected agents and authorities which leave a lasting imprint in people`s minds - an not always for the good. It is time that these dynamics are uncovered and rectified. We are entering an era of fracturing of common purpose and communal sharing of civic responsibilities, we have never experienced before to this alarming degree. Everything plays its part, from consumerism run rampant to .... yes, to this kind of practice. And yet science and its tools are a beacon of progress. Let`s refine the tools and use them with greater care and circumspection ! Thank you all for your comments, by the way. All very interesting contributions!
These comments have no bearing on the right of and importance for individuals to determine their own unique paths - either with or without children - their interest in or commitment to parenting BEFORE the fait accompli. It`s wonderful to hear so many steering their lives and destinies with open eyes and rejecting a course that many simply fall into unthinkingly or with skewed expectations. But my comments DO bear on protocols within the scientific community and the need for awareness of fall-out and inadvertent feed-back on serious life issues by and from tools not yet sufficiently fine-tuned. I suggest that survey tools be refined to preclude these kinds of negative repercussions. Science is an important and substantial pillar of cultural and civic progress, there`s no doubt about it. But advances are slow and steady and there`s always room for improvement. This study throws, I feel, a glaring light on some of the potential problems that have been overlooked. It remains, then, to work out the glitches and smooth out the wrinkles where problems still remain. ... an ongoing process. There`s no shame in this. it is, after all, the life-blood and raison d'être of science. There is only shame in refusing to recognize the possible repercussions of insufficiently reviewed and fine-tuned tools. I believe in progress and in collaborative input from many. This is a wonderful forum within which to explore possible avenues of improvement. Thank you for providing it!!!!
My qualms also have to do with a kind of single-mindedness and oversimplification in the framing of questionnaires which, yes, are necessary to control for too large a spread of possible factors producing the noted results. ( Simplification in the articulation of questions and factors to be surveyed being necessary to control for too large a spread of possible causative factors and hence mud in the water for the clinical interpreter.) BUT and this is a large but : I find the stream-lined questions sometimes 1. too simplistic and limited with the result that nuances are lost - I guess a necessary and calculated loss, simply accepted as unavoidable by current scientific practice. and 2. the nodes addressed in the rather linearly formatted question-nexus build a kind of density and rapport which can influence people after the fact. They have their own kind of critical mass and exert gravitational influence, to use a metaphor. A series of rather too pointed and oversimplified questions will build a halo or horizon of interpretive value for the responder of the questions, encouraging negative views on phenomena and engagements that ought NEVER, categorically NEVER be framed in this manner - for ethical reasons! Because of the failure to point out during the questionnaire that the questions are limited, partial in their descriptive purpose and hence have a tendency to cast light and shadow on the terrain of probing in different ways and in skewed ways than reality itself does - the upshot is that people can and often do walk away with a skewed image of the significance and meaning of the phenomena under survey. "Parents have a right to be unhappy about fractious moments in their engagements with their children. " - that`s an easy take-away after filling out a questionnaire that focuses too exclusively on the immediate short-term signs of frustration, unhappiness, etc. in the parenting experience. These are critical intervention moments by authorized, respected agents and authorities which leave a lasting imprint in people`s minds - an not always for the good. It is time that these dynamics are uncovered and rectified. We are entering an era of fracturing of common purpose and communal sharing of civic responsibilities, we have never experienced before to this alarming degree. Everything plays its part, from consumerism run rampant to .... yes, to this kind of practice. And yet science and its tools are a beacon of progress. Let`s refine the tools and use them with greater care and circumspection ! Thank you all for your comments, by the way. All very interesting contributions!
These comments have no bearing on the right of and importance for individuals to determine their own unique paths - either with or without children - their interest in or commitment to parenting BEFORE the fait accompli. It`s wonderful to hear so many steering their lives and destinies with open eyes and rejecting a course that many simply fall into unthinkingly or with skewed expectations. But my comments DO bear on protocols within the scientific community and the need for awareness of fall-out and inadvertent feed-back on serious life issues by and from tools not yet sufficiently fine-tuned. I suggest that survey tools be refined to preclude these kinds of negative repercussions. Science is an important and substantial pillar of cultural and civic progress, there`s no doubt about it. But advances are slow and steady and there`s always room for improvement. This study throws, I feel, a glaring light on some of the potential problems that have been overlooked. It remains, then, to work out the glitches and smooth out the wrinkles where problems still remain. ... an ongoing process. There`s no shame in this. it is, after all, the life-blood and raison d'être of science. There is only shame in refusing to recognize the possible repercussions of insufficiently reviewed and fine-tuned tools. I believe in progress and in collaborative input from many. This is a wonderful forum within which to explore possible avenues of improvement. Thank you for providing it!!!!