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 PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 11:13 AM Subject: Re: Subject, No Participant, Yes! > 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 animals in > >scientific experiments, and there is certainly no doubt about > >that meaning in psychology. The fact that it also means national > >subjects of some ruler is incidental, just as is the fact that it > >can mean a school subject (and just as we should not ban use of > >the word "ruler" because it can mean something to measure with). > > Words acquire their meaning through their use. > If one simply substitutes the word 'participant' for the word > 'subject' it will soon acquire the same meaning. > > When sentences have participants and objects I'll change my language > (deliberate ambiguity). > -- > * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * > * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University * > * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * > * http://www.mnsu.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html * > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
