Yes participants will be self-selecting and yes, that  does create
some methodological problems  are regards the external validity of the
study.

Although for a qualitative study its quite normal to use non-random
sampling, as long as thought is then given to the structuring of
sample groups and the limitations of the study and discussed. Usually
what qualitative studies aim to do is draw out the experiences of
participants, in order to try and make tentative analytic
generalisations, rather than statistical ones. they look at different
issues to quant studies - whys and hows, rather than whats, if you
like.

 And yes, this is only one of the avenues I'm looking at for
participants. Anyone genuinely wanting to enquire in detail  about the
methodology used is really very welcome to do so by following the
instructions laid out earlier. I'd welcome constructive criticism!

But if you just want to have a pop - well fine... I'm big enough and
ugly enough to take it!  I worked on Today under Rod Liddle so.. you'd
really have to try pretty hard to make me feel rubbish about myself.
Although thanks to my very courteous defender! Much appreciated :)

Journalismlecturer wrote:
> Yes participants will be self-selecting and yes, that  does create
> some methodological problems  are regards the external validity of the
> study.

You seem to be lost.

Turn left at the end of the corridor then right after you go through the 
doors, then it's straight on. You can't miss it

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:483f2216$1$907$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> Journalismlecturer wrote:
>> Yes participants will be self-selecting and yes, that  does create
>> some methodological problems  are regards the external validity of the
>> study.
>
> You seem to be lost.
>
> Turn left at the end of the corridor then right after you go through the 
> doors, then it's straight on. You can't miss it
Yay! Diss the newbie!

Apologies, Kate, for the expat's half-cocked response.
I too couldn't work out what this postvwas about. But then I had a look at 
the other recent threads, had a little think, and all was clear.

Can't help feeling though, that in these surroundings your posting name is a 
bit of a hostage to fortune. Please send me a message if you'd like to use 
me in your study.

John of Aix goes:

>Journalismlecturer wrote:
>> Yes participants will be self-selecting and yes, that  does create
>> some methodological problems  are regards the external validity of the
>> study.

>You seem to be lost.

>Turn left at the end of the corridor then right after you go through the 
>doors, then it's straight on. You can't miss it 

She's like, yes there are problems with the methodology and the
validity of the study, which is what my original question was about,
and then she's like, thanks to my brave defender. 

After she admits it's all fucked-up, she disses the bloke who pointed
out that it was fucked-up. What's with that? 



-- 
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

Alan Hope wrote:
> 
> John of Aix goes:
> 
> >Journalismlecturer wrote:
> >> Yes participants will be self-selecting and yes, that  does create
> >> some methodological problems  are regards the external validity of the
> >> study.
> 
> >You seem to be lost.
> 
> >Turn left at the end of the corridor then right after you go through the
> >doors, then it's straight on. You can't miss it
> 
> She's like, yes there are problems with the methodology and the
> validity of the study, which is what my original question was about,
> and then she's like, thanks to my brave defender.
> 
> After she admits it's all fucked-up, she disses the bloke who pointed
> out that it was fucked-up. What's with that?

If your going to say "she's like", I think you have to say "puhleeze"--I
don't know what it means, but I think you have to say it.

-- 
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.

Frederick Williams goes:

>Alan Hope wrote:
>> 
>> John of Aix goes:
>> 
>> >Journalismlecturer wrote:
>> >> Yes participants will be self-selecting and yes, that  does create
>> >> some methodological problems  are regards the external validity of the
>> >> study.
>> 
>> >You seem to be lost.
>> 
>> >Turn left at the end of the corridor then right after you go through the
>> >doors, then it's straight on. You can't miss it
>> 
>> She's like, yes there are problems with the methodology and the
>> validity of the study, which is what my original question was about,
>> and then she's like, thanks to my brave defender.
>> 
>> After she admits it's all fucked-up, she disses the bloke who pointed
>> out that it was fucked-up. What's with that?
>
>If your going to say "she's like", I think you have to say "puhleeze"--I
>don't know what it means, but I think you have to say it.

Yeah well I so don't live by anyone else's rules. 


-- 
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com