[deleted]

originally posted by VLM: FWIW, I believe that proper surveys beat the shit out of focus groups. Focus group stuff is just tea-leaf reading bullshit.
Click to expand...

Focus groups are one type of laboratory experiment and laboratory experiments are neither better nor worse than surveys. I don't see how you can argue otherwise because each tool address different types of questions.

But with all the data you've compiled on me over the years, I bet that response was pretty easy to predict!
 
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by VLM: FWIW, I believe that proper surveys beat the shit out of focus groups. Focus group stuff is just tea-leaf reading bullshit.
Click to expand...

Focus groups are one type of laboratory experiment and laboratory experiments are neither better nor worse than surveys. I don't see how you can argue otherwise because each tool address different types of questions.

But with all the data you've compiled on me over the years, I bet that response was pretty easy to predict!
Click to expand...

Qualitative "data analysis". Really?
 
originally posted by VLM:
Qualitative "data analysis". Really?
Click to expand...

Let's not get bogged down into qualitative vs. quantitative debates.

But clearly one can get some very useful information from focus groups. Not necessarily a focus group where 5 idiots blabber on about their opinions concerning a new brand of toothpaste or a new political candidate. But focus groups where you have control vs. treatment groups, clearly defined hypotheses, good measures for the responses, etc.
 
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by VLM:
Qualitative "data analysis". Really?
Click to expand...

Let's not get bogged down into qualitative vs. quantitative debates.

But clearly one can get some very useful information from focus groups. Not necessarily a focus group where 5 idiots blabber on about their opinions concerning a new brand of toothpaste or a new political candidate. But focus groups where you have control vs. treatment groups, clearly defined hypotheses, good measures for the responses, etc.
Click to expand...

What you describe is an experiment, not a focus group.

There is no such thing as qualitative analysis.
 
originally posted by VLM:

What you describe is an experiment, not a focus group.
Click to expand...

I fear a quick descent into semantic misery, but 'experiments' cover a wide range of practical tactics and the concept can be incorporated into the focus group interview approach.

I agree that many focus groups are much more open ended and less structured. For better or worse. I guess you would say mainly for the worse.

Anyway, where's the wine..
 
I thought Courtney was a dude. Hell, Eden's a dude. Kay's a dude, right? My neighbor's boy is named Madison. Why not Courtney? So it's too bad he left.
 
originally posted by Courtney Hays:
Courtney is a she... I deleted the post because above mentioned "drama".
Click to expand...

Actually, I gave you very good advice and I'm not even on your committee.

And I dated a Courtney once.

Which reminds me, why don't biologists (or bench scientists in general) have to learn experimental design?
 
originally posted by Courtney Hays:
I wasn't referring to your advice or any of your posts, the advice and recommendations were all very helpful.
Click to expand...

Good, because I just googled you and emailed members of your committee.
 
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Courtney Hays:
Courtney is a she... I deleted the post because above mentioned "drama".
Click to expand...

Actually, I gave you very good advice and I'm not even on your committee.

And I dated a Courtney once.

Which reminds me, why don't biologists (or bench scientists in general) have to learn experimental design?
Click to expand...
Chemists don't learn it because with ten to the 24th items in your sample you don't give a shit about statistics.

Biologists often have problems with precision of measurement that would satisfy you, but these are mostly associated with their physical methods.

But yeah, that Richard Axel, he really coulda been a contender if only he'd had a good statistician on the team.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Courtney Hays:
Courtney is a she... I deleted the post because above mentioned "drama".
Click to expand...

Actually, I gave you very good advice and I'm not even on your committee.

And I dated a Courtney once.

Which reminds me, why don't biologists (or bench scientists in general) have to learn experimental design?
Click to expand...
Chemists don't learn it because with ten to the 24th items in your sample you don't give a shit about statistics.

Biologists often have problems with precision of measurement that would satisfy you, but these are mostly associated with their physical methods.

But yeah, that Richard Axel, he really coulda been a contender if only he'd had a good statistician on the team.
Click to expand...

Geez, defensive.

What I'm talking about is experimental design such that you have data that corresponds to a testable null. You'd be surprised at how often that's absent.

No one will win a Nobel (medicine/bio) without a statistician anymore.

BTW, I cited Buck & Axel (1991) in my masters thesis. When I ran in olfactory circles I used to run into them at conferences. I was a mere spec then.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Courtney Hays:
Courtney is a she... I deleted the post because above mentioned "drama".
Click to expand...

Actually, I gave you very good advice and I'm not even on your committee.

And I dated a Courtney once.

Which reminds me, why don't biologists (or bench scientists in general) have to learn experimental design?
Click to expand...
Chemists don't learn it because with ten to the 24th items in your sample you don't give a shit about statistics.

Biologists often have problems with precision of measurement that would satisfy you, but these are mostly associated with their physical methods.

But yeah, that Richard Axel, he really coulda been a contender if only he'd had a good statistician on the team.
Click to expand...

How do you combine structural biology with a quasi-epidemiological study?

I guess that's a quasi-rhetorical question.

Bleh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top