You're really just restating what I said, Marc, albeit with a somewhat different slant/emphasis. You say, "You don't start sloppy -- you set things up according to what the literature and your hypotheses tell you, and you exercise control as you would with any research." That's really all I was trying to say. i.e., If you get lucky and the parameters are right, you've got yourself a potentially publishable study but plenty of these studies will become pilot studies.
Edward I. Pollak, Ph.D. Department of Psychology West Chester University of Pennsylvania ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Husband, father, grandfather, biopsychologist, & bluegrass fiddler...... in approximate order of importance. Subject: RE: Whatever happened to pilot studies? From: Marc Carter <marc.car...@bakeru.edu> Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 11:42:54 -0500 X-Message-Number: 6 If you know what parameter settings you need in order to show the effect, then, sure, no need to pilot. But I know in attention and depth perception research (the two areas I'm most familiar with), it's rare to run a study without having to play with any parameters. You don't start sloppy -- you set things up according to what the literature and your hypotheses tell you, and you exercise control as you would with any research. I always felt that pilot work wasn't wasted, but taught me about what the source of the effect was. You go in with an idea that something should do something, but you have to play with it a while to figure it out. Calling it "pilot research" sort of demeans it -- it's really empirical research. But I sure never thought of it as a waste. That's how I learned what was doing what. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=2616 or send a blank email to leave-2616-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
