I don't particularly know him. But I am familiar with IRB processes, and this is definitely something that would typically fall under research.
-
-
Replying to @besttrousers @ReliefBelief and
Matt Darling 🌐 💸 🌇 Retweeted Don Moynihan
See thread here:https://twitter.com/donmoyn/status/1082697286696779782 …
Matt Darling 🌐 💸 🌇 added,
Don MoynihanVerified account @donmoynThe journal review process runs very much on trust at the publication stage (with high ex-post risk of verification). Otherwise the transaction costs of ex-ante verification would be very high. . So a research project that fabricates data & reduces trust has costs. 1/ https://twitter.com/jasonintrator/status/1082445174645637121 …Show this thread2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @besttrousers @gorskon and
Genuine question: what process do you envision where Peter got approval to take the actions he did, not compromising the results along the way?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ReliefBelief @gorskon and
The obvious solution here would be for him to apply for a waiver of informed consent. ie, permission from the IRB to deceive subjects.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @besttrousers @ReliefBelief and
Provision of such waivers is fairly common.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @besttrousers @gorskon and
(setting aside that I think this is protest and arguably could be considered conduct outside the purview of his ins.) Why do you think he did not apply for this? Pessimistic about chances, ignorant/mistaken about scope applying to these actions? Other?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ReliefBelief @gorskon and
My understanding is was he was entirely ignorant of how human subjects research processes work. I recall he said something to that effect in one of the videos.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @besttrousers @gorskon and
Let's say field Y studies personnel go out and attempt to +HGK by interacting with humans. As I assume actually we all do at some time. This seems like a very low contrast line to me. How is it that you end up excluding all that non controversial behaviour?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ReliefBelief @gorskon and
The question here is whether you are attempting to add to "generalizable human knowledge". In other words, are you testing a hypothesis that will tell you stuff *beyond* the people you interact with?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @besttrousers @ReliefBelief and
It's fairly clear to me that they are doing this - ie, they are not saying "This specific journal has bad management practices", but "There is a problem with 'grievance studies'" generally.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Yup. This wasn't quality improvement (actually, as an aside, having run a medical QI project, I know that in medicine QI programs are considered exempt from IRB oversight). It was testing the hypothesis that "grievance studies" have very lax peer review.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.