Fourth Saturday's Loneliest Liberal: Research methodology

...not hopeless

By James Knudsen

Have I mentioned that I was never a good math student? I think I have. Grandson of a physicist, took Algebra One three times, still don’t get it...any of this ring a bell? I think it’s the final refutation of spirits from the beyond. If they existed, Dr. Vern O. Knudsen, PhD., would have materialized long ago to voice his displeasure or whisper the answers in my ear during the mid-term. Higher math, no. Basic logic, research methodology...not hopeless.

Recently my siblings have been learning about our departed kin via DNA analysis. So as to get the whole picture, I was urged as well to submit genetic material for analysis. “Great,” I thought, “it’ll finally go to some higher purpose.” Alas, they only asked for saliva spit into a plastic test tube. I dutifully requested my test kit via the internet and when it arrived I went through the process. Spitting into the test tube is the easiest part. Far more involved is the online registration of the kit, entering the barcode number and answering questions about your ancestry, to the best of your knowledge. On this I’m in pretty good shape. Our late mother, Ernestine, researched her father’s family quite extensively back in the 1980’s. And Dad took my sister and me to Utah when we were young to learn more about the Knudsen/Telford side. So, I was able to answer the questions posed with little trouble. But that’s not all they wanted to know.

They are collecting DNA. The possibilities for exploring the myriad medical conditions are limitless. It’s the ideal synergistic model – ordinary people get to learn more about their genetic make-up, and researchers get a vast pool of subjects to ask questions about various ailments and then compare those answers to the specific DNA to see if there’s any link. And who doesn’t want to help science? Not me.
    I forget how many surveys I got through before the sandman arrived to collect me. But, there are still several more I have yet to complete. It appears as though they’re covering a lot of medical and mental conditions. But someone needs to give these folks a little schooling on research.
    Now, the defect I observed in their methodology would not have occurred to me had I not read a recent article regarding traffic accidents involving pedestrians. Apparently the United States has a higher rate of incidents than all of Europe. And Sweden – my great-grandmother on my paternal grandfather’s side was Swedish, you know – Sweden has made great strides in reducing these accidents. You see, it’s all about how you approach the problem. Here we design streets, intersections, and the like with the assumption that people will do everything right. That’s not how they do it in Sweden. There they start from the position that people will make mistakes.
    The example given in the article was elevators. You would never design an elevator system that depends on people doing things correctly every time. I just take it for granted that if I stick my arm between two closing doors they will, 1, STOP; 2, reverse direction; and, 3, the elevator is not going to start moving up OR down and rip my arm off. It is safe to assume that feature DID come about via accident.
    But the point is, you try to control for the unexpected. And likewise, when doing research, you try to account for variables and screen your sample group for respondents that will skew the results or not add meaningful data to the study. If you’re trying to determine the efficacy of a treatment for morning sickness, you would want to target women in general because they get pregnant, and pregnant women specifically because they are the women most likely to experience morning sickness. You would try to exclude men in general because they don’t get pregnant, and men with ties to organized crime specifically, because they don’t like people askin’ a lot a questions.

It was thus armed – at least until I encountered a poorly maintained elevator – that I began taking another survey. This particular survey was concerned with facial conditions – roseacea, broken blood vessels, visible veins, blotchiness, and the like. And as I made my way through the questions I became aware of a problem with the survey. It was asking me questions about my appearance and yet at no point had it asked me a very simple, yet very important question: Are you an actor?
    Make no mistake, being truthful, genuine, and in the moment is the goal of any self-respecting actor – ONSTAGE. Offstage is another realm, a parallel universe if you will. And someone collecting, analyzing, and doing whatever comes after those steps will want assurances that said data – obtained from questions about one’s face, one’s personal appearance, one’s money-maker – will be answered by persons who do not refer to their face as their money-maker.
    To help avoid this, researchers could ask questions like – Do you have old 8x10 photos of your face?

Does said collection date back to the Reagan Administration? Do you have jpeg files of yourself looking too serious? Too happy? Too sexy for your shirt? Do these jpeg files number in the hundreds? Do you find it difficult to pass a mirror without stopping to look in it? How about a store window? A pool of water after a good rain? Or they could just ask, Are you, perchance an actor, thespian, meat-puppet?
    I suppose it is to my credit that I was immediately aware of the fact that I was not going to admit to a visual defect, even anonymously. But fault must be ascribed to the researchers or his who, 1, asked such personal questions; 2, did not inquire as to whether I am seeking representation; and, 3, did not even bother to ask for a head shot and resume. Is there anything else?
    Oh, 4, did I think extra about sticking my arm between closing elevator doors?
_______________
Copyright © 2014 by James Knudsen

Comment box is located below