I heard the APA wants to retire the term "subjects"
Is this a good move, or are they just being silly?
Jim Guinee, Ph.D.
Director of Training & Adjunct Professor
I've not used the term "subject" for years. Whereas I think it is silly to
think of research participants as "partners" (another term that was under
consideration), subject ("subjected to") seems unduly feudal.
Tricia Keith-Spiegel, PhD
- Original Message -
From: "James Guinee" <[EMAIL
I don't think this is a new idea. See Roddy Roediger's Presidential
Column in the April '04 issue of the APS Observer. Funny stuff.
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=1549
Patrick
__
Patrick O. Dolan, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Psychology
Drew University
More on the odd request for a letter stating that this student could be
accepted into a Master's program. I found the personnel director at that
school and called her and that person said that this student NEEDS to be in
a Master's program (and has 3 years after being hired to get one). A letter
Hi
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, James Guinee wrote:
> I heard the APA wants to retire the term "subjects"
>
> Is this a good move, or are they just being silly?
They are being silly. Subjects is listed in at least one
dictionary I found on-line as meaning humans or animals in
scientific experiments, a
At 10:50 AM -0500 6/17/04, jim clark wrote:
Hi
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, James Guinee wrote:
I heard the APA wants to retire the term "subjects"
Is this a good move, or are they just being silly?
They are being silly. Subjects is listed in at least one
dictionary I found on-line as meaning humans or
I don't mind using "participant," "respondent," or a similar term when my
subjects (that is, experimental units) are humans, but I resist referring to
rats or jellyfish polyps or mice or computers or trash cans (all of which
have served as experimental units in my research) as "participants." I
co
As Tim mentioned, and I had believed, I didn't think this was anything new.
In fact, I thought that this change had been in place for sometime now.
As a Master's student I was under the impression that the APA was now
telling us to replace "subjects" with "participants," in our manuscripts,
whic
And what about the "subjects" who are not the real
subjects in a study; those working with the researcher(s)?
Do we call them confederates, accomplices, stooges?
Mike Lee
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Brandon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" <[EMAIL PR
As a member of the Americans for Jellyfish Education, Research, and
Knowledge (A-JERK), I'm offended by your insensitivity to
jellyfish-Americans by calling them subjects and not participants. I
recommend immediate sensitivity training. Please start by going to
Blockbuster and renting Finding Nemo.
I was under the impression that the word "participant" was to be used for human use
and the word "subject" was to be used for non-human animal use. Has anyone else heard
of this?
Nina
-Original Message-
From: jim clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 6/17/2
In a message dated 6/17/2004 10:37:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do we
call them confederates, accomplices, stooges?Mike
Lee
If if there are three of them, you can nickname them Larry, Moe and Curly
(I think all of these can be used for male or female stooges wit
12 matches
Mail list logo