Academic surveys

[thirdcrank]

Some years ago now, we had quite a lot of what I'll term "academic surveys." IIRC, these were a component of NVQs. One regular problem involved forum members who were much keener to criticise the format of a survey than to complete it.

I thought graham had formulated some rules, although I cannot find them now.

The main point was that applications to conduct such surveys had to include evidence of genuine academic origin to be personally approved by graham and once he had done so he created a thread with a link to the survey which he then locked. While this must have created work for graham it removed such surveys from the need for any further moderation.

If it's not obvious, I've been motivated to post this by a current thread inviting contributions to just such a survey, which has needed moderator invention.

viewtopic.php?p=1835107#p1835107

[Jdsk]

Here's the etiquette that we came up with in another forum:

• Say who you are, and the host institution
• State the (name of discipline) problem that it seeks to address
• Identify research ethics approval if appropriate
• Publish the results (or a link to the results) on the same Topic thread, using tabular and graphical representations where feasible and appropriate
• if this is not possible then state clearly why and who will have access to the results
• Tell the participants roughly how long it will take to complete
NOTE: anyone not conforming to the above basic standards / polite etiquette will have their questionnaire removed or blocked with public feedback as to why this has been done in order to support future improvements.

Jonathan

PS: Once upon a time I taught postgraduates about survey methods. The basics are pretty simple and, not surprisingly, the learning curve is greatly accelerated by running a real survey.

[Psamathe]

Without commenting on the current survey (which I have completed), sometimes the survey designer appears not to be a cyclist and doesn't understand aspects of cycling. This comes out in the questions, revealing questions based on "cycling stereotypes" and not being relevant to groups of cyclists.

Questions can become all but impossible to answer if you are not in the inadvertently selected target group ("inadvertently " because of the cycle stereotypes the researcher considers). This can prompt reply postings about the researcher's (lack of) understanding.

Less of an issue where the research is stated as eg regular city cycle commuters.

Ian

[thirdcrank]

Unfortunately, my attempts to be concise seem to have led to misunderstanding.

I was trying to say that all the "etiquette" should be entirely the responsibility of the relevant academic institution. Then, if somebody wants to invite participation in a survey be that for a PhD or modern apprenticeship (if that's what they do now) then a suitably qualified member of the relevant institution should verify their genuineness. (Off the cuff I cannot think of another way of saying bona fides.) I'm not talking about grandmother's maiden name stuff but confirmation that the request is genuine

This isn't about those wanting to conduct genuine surveys. On the contrary, it's about deterring those forum members who would disrupt them, intentionally or otherwise
======================================
PS Psamathe posted while I was slowly scribing and I can only add

Anybody who thinks the survey might have been done differently can add their comments to the survey itself when they will have less motivation to parade their expertise in surveys.

====================================================

PPS Unfortunately, I cannot remember where I read graham's post about this. I don't think I'm hallucinating so this may be buried in the moderators' section of the forum, where I would have read it in my long-gone spambuster role. After all, there's no reason for the forum membership as a whole to be concerned about it

[gaz]

.

[thirdcrank]

gaz

Thanks for that but it's not what I had in mind but it's time to let go

[Jdsk]

...
This isn't about those wanting to conduct genuine surveys. On the contrary, it's about deterring those forum members who would disrupt them, intentionally or otherwise
======================================
PS Psamathe posted while I was slowly scribing and I can only add

Anybody who thinks the survey might have been done differently can add their comments to the survey itself when they will have less motivation to parade their expertise in surveys.
...

Putting aside the posts which led to the ban the hair went up on the back of my neck as the responses to the thread started appearing. They raised the risk of interference between respondents before they completed the survey, and that can be undesirable.

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

I see a difference between the type of "poll" attached by the original poster of a thread and the type of academic survey I'm referring to.

I think the comment from graham helpfully linked above by gaz was referring to the former, the point being that a new forum member needs approval for their first post to try to ensure they are genuine but inclusion of a poll may point to spamming. For example, asking posters to rank anything and give comments in support is a warning sign.

I think genuine academic surveys are quite different although it's possible that a would-be spammer might try to disguise their motive.

This is the rationale for what I'm suggesting, based on my memory of graham's rule. Then, if somebody produced an arguably poor survey respondents would be replying only to the survey and could still offer their supplementary (?) advice directly to the creator of the survey and with no motivation to parade their knowledge to the entire forum.

My memory is that in the days of NVQs (?) surveys were typically a part of the work required to gain the relevant qualification and we did seem to get quite a lot. I think we should help and encourage academic research at any level but that help should be limited to pointing forum members towards the online link for such surveys.

I presume that most people conducting academic research which includes "cycling" in its terms does not want that to be mired in people displaying their "expertise" in conducting surveys.