26-04-2003, 12:30 PM
|
|
|
Researching GM
(Charles Hawtrey) wrote in message ...
In reply to the following posting:
Surely you do not propose that a Usenet survey could possibly be
interpreted as a statistically valid sample of the general population,
or of experts in the field, or even of those with interest in the
issue of GM. Perhaps some important details of your methodology have
been left unsaid.
In some respects, you are correct and some apsects of the methodology
were left unsaid, but perhaps not in the way you were thinking. I
would only be interested in gathering a 'statistically valid sample'
if I were interested in the distribution of 'opinion' or 'attitude' or
something like that acoss a given target population. This however is
not the aim. This, rather, is to elucidate the manifold ways in which
'GM' is represented (not so much linked to individuals, but to the
language they use). The opinion statements that are sorted in the Q
sort have been gathered from a very wide range of 'real life' sources
and these are, hopefully, representative (in a roughly statistical
sense) of the ideas etc. that abound about GM. Participants are
selected according to theoretical principles - this discussion list is
one of many selected groups with the hope that certain views of GM
will be expressed. GM trial farmers, activists, scientists,
philosphers, vicars etc. have all taken part as well as 'ordinary
folk'. There are not an infinite number of ways people talk about GM,
and the point is to reveal the limited number of patternings employed.
I hope this goes some way to explanation, and that I have not put off
any potential or current participants who have approached me from this
list! Thanks, Matthew
|