Bad judgment/risky absolutely. Not sure how to otherwise accomplish the goal.
-
-
Replying to @PsychPLockwood @chrisontwatter2 and
You can use deception in research but it must be vetted. It would still be questionably ethical to waste all these people’s time with bullshit you made up as a “study” because you don’t like what they study. Human subjects probably should never be used for ax-grinding.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @chrisontwatter2 and
I agree mostly. I'm still lost, how do we expose systems if said systems are biased. If they have a bias against your sham study on philosophical grounds (which your study is trying to attack) how else to prove the point? I'm not intending to be dense or disagreeable.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PsychPLockwood @chrisontwatter2 and
Go through the IRB, create an ethical framework, involve the subjects post hoc in the critique so they could possibly benefit, reimburse their time, apologize even. Also don’t ridicule peer reviewers. It’s unpaid labor, and isn’t designed for fraud detection.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @chrisontwatter2 and
Ridicule is problematic, calling attention to lack of quality is different.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PsychPLockwood @chrisontwatter2 and
Ah yes. But what does it say about exposing lack of quality in research while not following *basic rules of human subjects research*. I mean, I contact the IRB (at least for waivers) even for registry research. To actually contact/identify human subjects without IRB? Wow.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @PsychPLockwood and
Exactly. I keep trying to explain it, and people keep failing to get it: RESEARCHERS DON'T GET TO CHOOSE whether their research is IRB exempt. Only the IRB can make that determination, using the rules specified to define what research doesn't require IRB oversight.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @MarkHoofnagle and
All fair/accurate points. I'm hearing you both. I still wonder what we could do if the IRB has become corrupt. Ideological biases are everywhere. I'm not typically an alarmist. It just seems like many facets of academia are becoming corrupt. Could be wrong, happy to be wrong.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @PsychPLockwood @gorskon and
It is not corrupt, it is a pain in the ass because it is so averse to corruption. We dread it, like the IRS or a colonoscopy, but it is necessary.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @PsychPLockwood and
Yup. One can argue whether for some sorts of studies IRBs are too strict or not, but corrupt IRBs? Not university IRBs, that's for sure. (Private, for profit IRBs used by private industry can be another matter.) A university IRB is almost certainly going to be squeaky clean.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Of course, those private IRBs aren't corrupt in the way implied, namely ideologically biased against someone like Boghossian. Rather, they tend to go the other way and be too lax.
-
-
Replying to @gorskon @MarkHoofnagle and
I believe you about private IRBs.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.