Describing procedures

[From Bruce Abbott (2001.04.24.1320 EST)]

Chuck Tucker (2001.0424b.07:52) --

One of the major complaints I have (and have so protested in many forums)
with "social science research" is the lack of any useful description of
procedures in any research. It is impossible to replicate such research for
that very reason. Since PCT uses a different method than is customary in
human research (testing a specimen) it is extremely important that procedures
are describe in great detail. Unfortunately, this is rarely done.

Chuck, could you be more specific? Are you referring to discussions on
forums or to published empirical research? If the latter, I'd be surprised
if sociology were any different from psychology, where every research report
includes a detailed description of the subjects, apparatus, and procedure.

Bruce A.

[From Bruce Nevin (2001.04.24 15:49 EDT)]

>Chuck Tucker (2001.0424b.07:52) --

>One of the major complaints I have (and have so protested in many forums)
>with "social science research" is the lack of any useful description of
>procedures in any research.

Bruce Abbott (2001.04.24.1320 EST)--
>I'd be surprised
>if sociology were any different from psychology, where every research report
>includes a detailed description of the subjects, apparatus, and procedure.

I thought a standard outline for a scientific report is: Introduction, Background, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion.

  Bruce Nevin

[Chuck Tucker (2001.0424.15:48 EDT)}

In a message dated 4/24/2001 2:32:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ABBOTT@IPFW.EDU writes:

<< Are you referring to discussions on forums or to published empirical
research? If the latter, I'd be surprised if sociology were any different
from psychology, where every research report includes a detailed description
of the subjects, apparatus, and procedure. >>

I am referring to all presentations of research reports that I have every
read, published or not published. The descriptions are never detailed enough
for me to replicate the research. One obvious example. I have never seen a
research report that contains the entire questionnaire and instructions for
the questionnaire or what, exactly (with all variations) did the researcher
say to each of the subjects in an experimental study. If you can find a
research report like this, please send me the citation.

Regards,
               Chuck

[Chuck Tucker (2001.0424.16:00)]

In a message dated 4/24/2001 3:54:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
bnevin@CISCO.COM writes:

<< I thought a standard outline for a scientific report is: Introduction,
Background, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion. >>

That is true but the "methods" section in every report that I have read
(including the ones I have written) are a condensed summary of the
procedures used in the research. I have published research where the editor
asked me to reduce the material in the methods section because it was
unnecessarily detailed. Of course, there is little concern for replication
in sociological research in spite of the many claims that the field is
scientific.

Regards,
             Chuck

[From Bruce Abbott (2001.0424.1855 EST)]

Chuck Tucker (2001.0424.15:48 EDT) --

Are you referring to discussions on forums or to published empirical
research? If the latter, I'd be surprised if sociology were any different
from psychology, where every research report includes a detailed description
of the subjects, apparatus, and procedure.

I am referring to all presentations of research reports that I have every
read, published or not published. The descriptions are never detailed enough
for me to replicate the research. One obvious example. I have never seen a
research report that contains the entire questionnaire and instructions for
the questionnaire or what, exactly (with all variations) did the researcher
say to each of the subjects in an experimental study. If you can find a
research report like this, please send me the citation.

The methods section is _supposed_ to provide enough detail that the
researcher could replicate the study in all its essential details. I guess
the key word there is "essential," and I agree with you that often details
are omitted that one would like to have seen presented. It's a judgement
call as to how much detail is sufficient.

As for my own experience, I've conducted a number of replications and
extensions of published research had have had no difficulty in reproducing
the published results in most cases.

Bruce A.