Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RollerBall)
    Maybe in soft, social sciences but you'd never get that past an ethical board for research with a purpose.

    Not that it detracts from the fact its bad science.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    As you as you don't claim otherwise, why would that be problematic?

    You can see that as useless or that they suggest little (but they can lead to further studies or could just make the point that it might be worthwhile to put more money into this thing/field), but if they didn't say 'this bunch of psychology students I had in my class proves that people all of history blah blah blah' it's not necessarily 'bad science'.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    As you as you don't claim otherwise, why would that be problematic?

    You can see that as useless or that they suggest little (but they can lead to further studies or could just make the point that it might be worthwhile to put more money into this thing/field), but if they didn't say 'this bunch of psychology students I had in my class proves that people all of history blah blah blah' it's not necessarily 'bad science'.
    It is terrible methodology. You're paying people to do an anonymous survey. What do you think that will do to the results, especially in a young population known to enjoy "****ing about"?

    The survey will not be taken seriously by some, and used for monetary gain only. It's different when someone volunteers on the basis of interest than when someone volunteers for monetary gain.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MJK91)
    It is terrible methodology. You're paying people to do an anonymous survey. What do you think that will do to the results, especially in a young population known to enjoy "****ing about"?

    The survey will not be taken seriously by some, and used for monetary gain only. It's different when someone volunteers on the basis of interest than when someone volunteers for monetary gain.
    You do realise most research recruit participants by paying them to do it anonymously?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    You do realise most research recruit participants by paying them to do it anonymously?
    Define most research. Besides, do you think that is a good thing that has no impact on study results?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MJK91)
    Define most research. Besides, do you think that is a good thing that has no impact on study results?
    Most empirical research studies I've read or come across in proper journals (with a decent relative impact factor world-wide) as a postgraduate at the top research university and the department with a disproportional amount of world-leading research output.

    In fact, colleges and departments give us grants to offer money to recruit participants, and there are many going on at the university at various levels. This includes medical research, from testing of vaccines and medication to more theoretical studies.

    This is the same in all three countries (Hong Kong, Australia, and England) I've studied in.

    ---

    Using cash to recruit participants is a lot better than using credits or forcing students on your course to participate in your study, which some researchers (many Americans, and in the field of psychology all over the world) do do. Here in my university, psychology students are required to do a certain number of hours of research participation in order to graduate.

    Outside of academia, this is the standard practice, too. Market research, focus groups for brands and products, and even ratings for television.

    You know what studies don't pay their participants? Undergraduate dissertations, The Guardian's testimonial entries, polls on TSR and The Tab, as well as the People's Choice Award.

    Paying participants is only reasonable because you do need time and effort from the participants when it's very unlikely for them to have actual personal gains from the participation. We also happen to live in a free society where people are driven by capitalism, and have human rights. Even a corpus cannot just collect texts everywhere without clearing for copyrights and such.

    Paying participants do not in itself create problems for the study. It depends how you recruit them. You should need to make sure it's a large enough sample size, all participants are in your target group (no gay-for-pay etc), and that you recruit them openly with a diverse background (not just your family, friends, classmates, or people in your college or department).
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    In fact, colleges and departments give us grants to offer money to recruit participants, and there are many going on at the university at various levels. This includes medical research, from testing of vaccines and medication to more theoretical studies.
    Testing of vaccines and medication aren't anonymous endeavours—you can't go to test a new drug at a medicines evaluation unit and then lie about your heart rate. You can't even non-comply in this instance unless you withdraw entirely. Also in medical research the payment is strongly outweighed by the consequences of not reporting negative effects of a drug. Let's say you're being tested on a new beta-blocker and you develop palpitations: the fear of side effects being serious outweighs any reason to lie about not having them. You're getting paid either way anyway.

    Using cash to recruit participants is a lot better than using credits or forcing students on your course to participate in your study, which some researchers (many Americans, and in the field of psychology all over the world) do do. Here in my university, psychology students are required to do a certain number of hours of research participation in order to graduate.
    I wouldn't say it's a lot better at all. I'd say these are equally bad practices with the ability to coerce participants and affect results.

    You know what studies don't pay their participants? Undergraduate dissertations, The Guardian's testimonial entries, polls on TSR and The Tab, as well as the People's Choice Award.
    An appeal to ridicule, nice. You know what other studies don't pay participants? Medical case studies. Surveys to patients who volunteer. Just because you can think of some poor examples of people volunteering their opinions for free doesn't mean everyone doing it for free is a bad idea.

    Outside of academia, this is the standard practice, too. Market research, focus groups for brands and products, and even ratings for television.

    Paying participants is only reasonable because you do need time and effort from the participants when it's very unlikely for them to have actual personal gains from the participation. We also happen to live in a free society where people are driven by capitalism, and have human rights. Even a corpus cannot just collect texts everywhere without clearing for copyrights and such.
    Ultimately what we're getting at is that you have to pay participants in a lot of psychological research. You wouldn't get any study participants without the incentive in a lot of fields. That should tell you a lot about people's motivations for entering the research altogether.

    Paying participants do not in itself create problems for the study.
    There is substantial evidence that paying participants can affect results. In general the more you pay, the more influential the effect becomes.

    It depends how you recruit them. You should need to make sure it's a large enough sample size, all participants are in your target group (no gay-for-pay etc), and that you recruit them openly with a diverse background (not just your family, friends, classmates, or people in your college or department).
    Yes, this is also important. Unfortunately this study does not have a large enough sample size and draws inappropriate conclusions from poorly-analysed data.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    lol 2015. doing surveys....................yeah. ......................
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MJK91)
    Testing of vaccines and medication aren't anonymous endeavours—you can't go to test a new drug at a medicines evaluation unit and then lie about your heart rate. You can't even non-comply in this instance unless you withdraw entirely. Also in medical research the payment is strongly outweighed by the consequences of not reporting negative effects of a drug. Let's say you're being tested on a new beta-blocker and you develop palpitations: the fear of side effects being serious outweighs any reason to lie about not having them. You're getting paid either way anyway.
    The point is it is standard practice to pay participants. What you were saying was that that alone discredits studies. And now you've retracted that and said it's not necessarily bad.

    (Original post by MJK91)
    Ultimately what we're getting at is that you have to pay participants in a lot of psychological research. You wouldn't get any study participants without the incentive in a lot of fields. That should tell you a lot about people's motivations for entering the research altogether.
    It's not just psychology. It's basically all of social sciences, humanities, and much of medicine. Generally anything to do with humans. Not to mention you can very well argued that giving free medication to participants is a form a compensation. There's a reason why in the statement given to participants, you need to include the session on benefits for the participants.

    (Original post by MJK91)
    There is substantial evidence that paying participants can affect results. In general the more you pay, the more influential the effect becomes.
    Where is the evidence? Do they say it applies to all research everywhere?

    Monetary incentives for completion obviously encourages completion, so if you're testing if people will complete a task, the money will influence the outcome; but how would that necessarily influence the outcome of a task asking people to tell you whether they know a word, especially when you could screen people based on their background? You can say that people in this study in particular might just want the credit and thus play around with the questions; but the same can be said to anyone with any form of motivation - they may be 'interested' in something, but it doesn't mean when they get to do the task, they like it, or that they didn't come from the get-go to have fun. There also are, as a result, check questions in surveys to make sure that the participants did not just complete it randomly (eg asking the same question twice, spread out and in different wordings).

    ---

    Regardless, all of these are irrelevant. What you claimed was that by paying participants, 'the survey will not be taken seriously by some'. The 'by some' part is obviously almost always correct, but I was just telling you it is standard practice in academia, in your field and other fields, that people pay their participants, and that those studies are treated seriously.

    The evidence for my claim are that those studies are published on good journals, they are cited by many, many world-class academics build up their careers on them, and universities give even graduates grants to pay their participants.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Just to mention that if you have bipolar disorder or borderline personality disorder or if you don't, Oxford will pay expenses for your time (in most of the world we call reimbursing someone for the use of their time "wages") in participating in a a research project.

    Here is the advert in this week's edition of Oxford's official Gazette.

    http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/2014-201...ements/#192513
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    X
    For somebody who likes to toot their own horn, you don't have a very good background understanding of the research base.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8740519
    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...8#.VLqMiS6aWno
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7661653

    There are countless studies that show that those who are given extra credit or payment for services rendered when completing sexual research were more likely to be sexual experienced, have sexual attitudes outside of the norm, and have greater propensity for seeking sexual experiences. Just put your critical thinking hat on, it's pretty obvious why conclusions and it's easy to understand why. These are all findings that are focusing on research to sexual attitudes, pretty relevant to the study at hand, dontcha think?

    I can't believe I'm having to explain to somebody, who apparently has done and read lots of research at a large institution, why having a study population of almost exclusively caucasian university students, whom are participating for extra credit limits the external validity of the study.

    Extra credit is worse than financial incentives, and this is reflected in the evidence base. There are also specific flaws (there are lots of other studies if you want to google) when you are looking at sexuality research. I mean come on, surely if you're so heavily involved in research as you say, you should know that this sort of thing is quite strictly looked at at ethical boards and should be limited to compensation/reimbursement for essentially travel and time from work (hence payment is usually calculated using the local areas average hourly wage, if it's offered at all).

    If I offered people £500 quid to participate in my current study, I'd get people who need the money (and all the socio-economic factors associated with that), are likely to lie about inclusion/exclusion criteria, and you're more open to appeasement bias (in my case, effort expended during study and in questionaires, what they think researchers want to hear). Again, this is all strongly grounded in research and common sense, to be perfectly honest.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambio wechsel)
    'steal', perhaps. But I feel confident that it isn't, or isn't solely, the law that is keeping me or most from raping and murdering. Never felt tempted.
    I don't know man, people get crazy when no one is watching. We don't see much of it in the developed west but there are some savage lands out there where life is cheap.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RollerBall)
    For somebody who likes to toot their own horn, you don't have a very good background understanding of the research base.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8740519
    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...8#.VLqMiS6aWno
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7661653

    There are countless studies that show that those who are given extra credit or payment for services rendered when completing sexual research were more likely to be sexual experienced, have sexual attitudes outside of the norm, and have greater propensity for seeking sexual experiences. These are all findings that are focusing on research to sexual attitudes, pretty relevant to the study at hand, dontcha think?

    I can't believe I'm having to explain to somebody, who apparently has done and read lots of research at a large institution, why having a study population of almost exclusively caucasian university students, whom are participating for extra credit limits the external validity of the study.

    Extra credit is worse than financial incentives, and this is reflected in the evidence base. There are also specific flaws (there are lots of other studies if you want to google) when you are looking at sexuality research. I mean come on, surely if you're so heavily involved in research as you say, you should know that this sort of thing is quite strictly looked at at ethical boards and should be limited to compensation/reimbursement for essentially travel and time from work (hence payment is usually calculated using the local areas average hourly wage, if it's offered at all).

    If I offered people £500 quid to participate in my current study, I'd get people who need the money (and all the socio-economic factors associated with that), are likely to lie about inclusion/exclusion criteria, and you're more open to appeasement bias (in my case, effort expended during study and in questionaires, what they think researchers want to hear). Again, this is all strongly grounded in research and common sense, to be perfectly honest.
    Did I say this particular research is not problematic? No.

    Did I say paying participants is the best thing ever for the research? No.

    Did I say there are no issues whatsoever for any research in any discipline in any way under any circumstances? No.

    So what did I actually say?

    I said paying participants in itself does not discredit a study.

    I said it is standard practice in academia, in many fields, to pay their participants.

    I said many research studies which had their participants paid have been published on well-regarded journals and cited widely.

    I said many world-class academics have careers built on putting out research that involve paying participants.

    ---

    So now, tell me: Which claim I have made above is untrue?

    I was responding to a blanket statement that says paying participants would make a survey not being treated seriously; what you have said is irrelevant when I said it depends on the study itself.

    Perhaps there's a reason why you couldn't quote specific sections of my posts to respond to - you're not responding to my posts at all.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Just to mention that if you have bipolar disorder or borderline personality disorder or if you don't, Oxford will pay expenses for your time (in most of the world we call reimbursing someone for the use of their time "wages") in participating in a a research project.

    Here is the advert in this week's edition of Oxford's official Gazette.

    http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/2014-201...ements/#192513
    Oh my god this survey is so not gonna be taken seriously.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RollerBall)
    There are countless studies that show that those who are given extra credit or payment for services rendered when completing sexual research were more likely to be sexual experienced, have sexual attitudes outside of the norm, and have greater propensity for seeking sexual experiences. Just put your critical thinking hat on, it's pretty obvious why conclusions and it's easy to understand why. These are all findings that are focusing on research to sexual attitudes, pretty relevant to the study at hand, dontcha think?
    I have just re-read your previous posts and nowhere have you suggested that your criticisms were limited to sexual studies. The clear implication from your previous posts were that your criticisms were in respect of any payment for any research.

    It did occur to me facetiously that there could be a Nobel Prize in proving that the efficacy of cancer drugs was increased by the size of an accompanying payment made to patients.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    said paying participants in itself does not discredit a study.
    No ****. Paying participants AND skewing the results CAN discredit a study. No one's claiming it's universally true.

    I said it is standard practice in academia, in many fields, to pay their participants.
    Wrongly, unless it's expenses. It will skew results. It may or may not be statistically skewed, but it's bad practice because you're risking inviting people who have no interest in giving real results. He's already provided you sources, there are plenty more. Just go do a simple Google search for "financial incentives in research participants".

    I said many research studies which had their participants paid have been published on well-regarded journals and cited widely.

    I said many world-class academics have careers built on putting out research that involve paying participants.
    This is an argument from authority and means **** all. It is bad practice to simply rely on expertise of authors and assume their methods are flawless.

    Honestly, if you don't understand how financial incentives invite people with only a financial gain to a study, and the negative consequences of that, then I don't know where to go from here.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Is this really a credible university study? Some of those questions are hideously loaded.

    It's obvious that the researchers went into this wanting a certain outcome, did everything they could to get it, and are now parading the results round as proof of their existing beliefs and prejudices.

    Biased feminists are gonna interpret things to suit their own agenda. That doesn't worry me, we all do it.

    What worries me is that universities - so desperate to come across as "liberal" and "safe", are now presenting such shoddy research as gospel.

    You wouldn't get away with such lazy methods in STEM research, so why are they getting away with it in the social sciences?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MJK91)
    No ****. Paying participants AND skewing the results CAN discredit a study. No one's claiming it's universally true.



    Wrongly, unless it's expenses. It will skew results. It may or may not be statistically skewed, but it's bad practice because you're risking inviting people who have no interest in giving real results. He's already provided you sources, there are plenty more. Just go do a simple Google search for "financial incentives in research participants".



    This is an argument from authority and means **** all. It is bad practice to simply rely on expertise of authors and assume their methods are flawless.

    Honestly, if you don't understand how financial incentives invite people with only a financial gain to a study, and the negative consequences of that, then I don't know where to go from here.
    Don't bother mate, it's like arguing with a religious person.

    If somebody has an absence of critical thinking, a debate about good scientific practice is going to be very drawn out, especially since apparently everything is gospel that comes from this ego. I mean, come on, this is research 101 - ethics, recruitment and bias.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.