It appears the word, “broody” is commonplace in the British form of English (and evidently in biological studies of broodiness) but I don’t recall ever having heard it used in the US. At first, before looking it up, I assumed it was another way of saying, “moody”. I wonder if it is partly a cultural difference in that referring to someone as “broody” especially someone who was not, or was no longer, capable of having children, would seem very unPC or maybe even quite rude and, at the least, no one else’s business (especially, possibly “broody” grandparents inquiring about when they might expect a grandchild).
As to the snowball technique, it is quite common in qualitative studies where the “representativeness” of the sample is irrelevant (and it is very difficult to find many participants so you rely on the few you find recruiting their own friends. Qualitative research has no concept of a larger population of which this sample is a representative microcosm. All that matters is that you correctly communicate the experience of those that end up in your sample. Thinking that such a sample could serve as well for the quantitative research, which has entirely different assumptions, seems to indicate that they are really just using the “its just qualitative” fall-back when their quantitative data is questioned. Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences Professor of Psychology Box 3519 John Brown University 2000 W. University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 rfro...@jbu.edu<mailto:rfro...@jbu.edu> (479) 524-7295 http://bit.ly/DrFroman From: Allen Esterson [mailto:allenester...@compuserve.com] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 4:40 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re:[tips] "Childlessness hits men the hardest" (n = 16) Re David Epstein's sceptical post citing the Keele University Press release http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130403071957.htm and subsequent posts: I emailed Robin Hadley, who undertook the reported research, asking for information about his methodology, how the subjects were recruited, and specifically whether they were self-selected. The relevant part of his response is as follows: "In order to examine the issues surrounding the desire for parenthood a sequential mixed-methods quantitative-qualitative approach was selected. This approach allows the verification of results, generation of new areas of interest, and provides generalisabilty of results. An on-line questionnaire was designed to measure the influences, motivations, and reasons that may affect the decision to parent. Included was a unique item attempting to measure the reactions associated with broodiness. Open questions were integrated into the survey to provide detail of the respondent’s life experience and, in addition, aid validity by providing feedback on the survey. Respondents were recruited by a snowball technique and over two hundred completed replies (n=232) were analysed using descriptive, univariate, and bivarite techniques. The profile of the sample data gave a mode of female with the majority of respondents being White-British, degree educated, professional, and heterosexual." Not being a statistician, I could make little sense of this. (Any translations of significant sentences will be welcomed!) In response I asked Hadley what a "snowball technique" is. In his reply he wrote that it is "very popular in qualitative [sic] research as a strategy for accessing hard to reach populations", and may be defined as: "The recruitment method that asks a participant to pass details of the study to his/her interpersonal network to generate further recruits." In reply I wrote that it seems evident that the subjects were self-selected, and that that reduces the reliability of the results of the survey. I also suggested this should have been made clear in the press release. In his response Hadley ignored my point about self-selected subjects, and merely thanked me for my interest (!) while directing my question about the press release to the British Sociological Society person responsible for it. As David's link to the following article shows, Hadley is hardly a disinterested researcher on this issue: "I’m 53 now and I’m not a father. I never will be. I am happily married – to my second wife – and we have no children. It’s not that we didn’t want any; since my mid-thirties, I have been broody, desperate for the kids that I watched my friends and colleagues having over the years." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/fatherhood/9969542/Robin-Hadley-I-know-all-about-broody-men-who-long-to-be-dads.-I-am-one.html So we have here another (and possibly the worst) in a recent tendency towards premature press releases from universities in the UK and the US publicising unreplicated studies without peer-review having, it would seem, as its main purpose the promotion of the name of the university. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com<mailto:allenester...@compuserve.com> http://www.esterson.org<http://www.esterson.org/> --- 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=24849 or send a blank email to leave-24849-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
