![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 24 of 24. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by JenStar on November 4, 2004, at 9:26:06
hi all,
it seems that very few "regulars" have added their 2 cents to Dr. Bob's research link where we all get a chance to share our thoughts / feelings / experiences with Babble. Is this just because you've been too busy to do it, or because you're reluctant to share personal feelings, or because you're still pondering what to write? Or something else entirely?I was just curious to see what others thought about it. (I put in my long 2 cents in response to the thread, by the way, and I truly hope it doesn't make anyone mad...I was honest but hopefully not brutally so.) At least I didn't bring up the elections. :) (Grin.)
take care, everyone!
JenStar
Posted by Dinah on November 4, 2004, at 9:46:10
In reply to Just Curious...., posted by JenStar on November 4, 2004, at 9:26:06
I can't speak for anyone else.
It's deliberate on my part.
First of all, I'm not sure what they're looking for.
Second, I'm feeling ambivilant about Babble right now and not in a place to reply. I was talking to my therapist yesterday about my fears that I'm emotionally divorcing a place that has meant a lot to me.
And third, and this one might be allayed if I understood more what the researchers were looking for, I'm not sure I want to contribute.
Dr. Bob was his normal (smile) clear self when explaining it, IMHO. Perhaps the other person could drop by and explain it better. I sort of like examples.
Posted by fayeroe on November 4, 2004, at 11:05:52
In reply to Just Curious...., posted by JenStar on November 4, 2004, at 9:26:06
I am unclear what they want and what they will do with it. It's a muddled message to me and I probably won't post there.
Posted by nikkit2 on November 4, 2004, at 11:18:19
In reply to Just Curious...., posted by JenStar on November 4, 2004, at 9:26:06
I'm reluctant to share my personal feelings when they can then be pulled apart by other posters as to whether I used exactly the correct wording or not.
I was really hoping to be able to take part by email, but this is not an option unfortunately.
Nikki
Posted by gardenergirl on November 4, 2004, at 11:28:01
In reply to Re: Just Curious.... » JenStar, posted by nikkit2 on November 4, 2004, at 11:18:19
Interesting...It occurs to me that these posts as part of the study maybe ought to be excluded from review by anyone other than Dr. Bob. Otherwise, I think you will find some artifacts in the study that, though interesting, do not address the research questions.
gg
Posted by TofuEmmy on November 4, 2004, at 12:12:32
In reply to Just Curious...., posted by JenStar on November 4, 2004, at 9:26:06
Some of my reasons for not participating:
There has been insufficient explanation of the research. For instance, why was Babble selected?? Is the author under the false impression that Babble is a typical internet forum. It's is FAR from typical, as most of us know. Writing an article which would give that impression is simply not good research.
I also would never be part of a study which does not allow blocked posters participation. That's blatant bias in the population selection. Is that to keep out negative comments?? How in the world is that a fair representation of this site and it's impact on the lives of it's visitors?
There's more, but I'm too annoyed to continue...
em
Posted by TofuEmmy on November 4, 2004, at 12:22:21
In reply to Just Curious...., posted by JenStar on November 4, 2004, at 9:26:06
Just to clarify....my annoyance is NOT with you JenStar!! or with anyone who wants to participate!!
It's with Bob, for putting people in the position to bare their souls, to this researcher, and potentially, to the readers of this journal, without first answering everyone's questions.
It seems like we should FIRST have been asked, then the issue debated, THEN the thread begun. That would have given a chance for people with little or no experience with academic research to learn a little more prior to posting their stories.
IMHO.
emmy
Posted by pegasus on November 4, 2004, at 12:53:47
In reply to Just Curious...., posted by JenStar on November 4, 2004, at 9:26:06
I started to respond, but then realized that I was excluded because of being pregnant. Which makes no sense to me. I'm not insane, just because I'm pregnant. Actually, I'm feeling more emotionally stable now than I've been in a long time! But, anyway, I didn't have enough interest in the project to bother fighting that silly rule.
pegasus
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2004, at 22:48:23
In reply to Re: Just Curious...., posted by gardenergirl on November 4, 2004, at 11:28:01
> these posts as part of the study maybe ought to be excluded from review by anyone other than Dr. Bob. Otherwise, I think you will find some artifacts in the study that, though interesting, do not address the research questions.
Sorry, only I should review the posts? What kinds of artifacts?
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on November 5, 2004, at 1:56:50
In reply to Re: artifacts, posted by Dr. Bob on November 4, 2004, at 22:48:23
First, as far as whether the posts are civil or not, I do think that is up to you, Dr. Bob.
Not knowing what your study design is or what your research questions are, I can only speculate. But I think if others' commented on the civility of posts, or requested determinations on items in posts as we have seen recently on this board, what you may get is responses to the posts themselves versus posters responding to your research questions.
As we've seen as well, some posters have expressed feelings of harrassment or anger related to having their posts put up for review by others. These feeling may alter the flavor of what they might have posted without feeling perhaps threatened by the possibility of a public civility review. In addition, you may get a number of posts unrelated to what you are looking for. Unless what you are looking for is the group dynamics aspect when there is conflict. That is the artifact that i believe could come from reviews and requests for determination by other posters.
You already have a self-selected sample here. Allowing what has already been shown to lead to conflict and hurt feelings is bound to show up in your results.
But I don't really know what your research questions are, so I'm just speculating here.
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2004, at 13:34:49
In reply to Re: artifacts » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on November 5, 2004, at 1:56:50
> Not knowing what your study design is or what your research questions are, I can only speculate.
Well, we were told that
>Joshua is interested in: the history of Psycho-Babble, my interaction with members, its role in the community of psychiatric patients and psychiatrists, how it might empower you, how able you are to understand research and other mental health information, how long and how frequently you've used the site, how the information here has affected your treatment and your relationships with your treatment providers, some details of your illness and treatment course -- and any anecdotes that illustrate the above.
Doesn't that give you some idea?
>But I think if others' commented on the civility of posts, or requested determinations on items in posts as we have seen recently on this board, what you may get is responses to the posts themselves versus posters responding to your research questions.
I think that it is a shame that people seem to be so caught up in the present conflict that they cannot think about / are unwilling to share about how babble has helped them. Regardless of a few individuals who may have upset others, aren't things pretty good here in general? Isn't that why we stay? Even if we are mad as hell at Dr. B and maybe another poster or two, aren't these the exceptions rather than the general rule?
> You already have a self-selected sample here.
What do you mean?
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on November 5, 2004, at 14:23:17
In reply to Just Curious...., posted by JenStar on November 4, 2004, at 9:26:06
I posted a long response and then submitted and was blocked. I realize it was from not reading the confidentiality clause or something. Anyway, I'm too lazy right now to repost.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 5, 2004, at 15:32:05
In reply to Re: artifacts » Dr. Bob, posted by gardenergirl on November 5, 2004, at 1:56:50
> I am unclear what they want and what they will do with it. It's a muddled message to me and I probably won't post there.
>
> fayeroeWe want your perspectives on online peer support groups and hope to use them in publications for and presentations to health care providers:
> This is a project to inform health care providers about online peer support groups.
>
> I proposed inviting members to post their own perspectives and using that for a column and possibly presentations at professional meetings
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041027/msgs/410198.html> The purpose of this study is to collect feedback from users of Psycho-Babble and to use that feedback to inform health care providers about online peer support groups.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/consent-feedback.htmlNo one is obligated to participate.
--
> why was Babble selected?
It's a "convenience sample".
> Is the author under the false impression that Babble is a typical internet forum. It's is FAR from typical, as most of us know.
Perspectives on the similarities and differences between groups would be fine...
> I also would never be part of a study which does not allow blocked posters participation. That's blatant bias in the population selection. Is that to keep out negative comments??
>
> emIt does introduce some bias. As long as posters aren't blocked, however, both positive and negative perspectives are welcome.
--
> if others' commented on the civility of posts, or requested determinations on items in posts as we have seen recently on this board, what you may get is responses to the posts themselves versus posters responding to your research questions.
It's fine for posters to respond to each other, that might generate additional feedback and provide examples of group interaction.
> some posters have expressed feelings of harrassment or anger related to having their posts put up for review by others. These feeling may alter the flavor of what they might have posted
>
> ggI agree, there are a number of factors that may influence what people do or don't post.
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on November 5, 2004, at 16:42:45
In reply to Re: artifacts » gardenergirl, posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2004, at 13:34:49
> > Not knowing what your study design is or what your research questions are, I can only speculate.
>
> Well, we were told thatI guess I was not as clear as I could have been. I don't know what hypothesis(es) they are studying or the design of the research. It certatinly appears to be a qualitative design, but still, I'm guessing.
>
>>
> I think that it is a shame that people seem to be so caught up in the present conflict that they cannot think about / are unwilling to share about how babble has helped them. Regardless of a few individuals who may have upset others, aren't things pretty good here in general? Isn't that why we stay? Even if we are mad as heck at Dr. B and maybe another poster or two, aren't these the exceptions rather than the general rule?Well, I would like to agree with you. But there appears to be some strong feelings here. And I've noted more than one poster (via actual posts and personal correspondence) who are currently feeling too upset to participate, though for a variety of reasons.
> > You already have a self-selected sample here.
>
> What do you mean?A self-selected sample is a convenience sample who's members choose to participate, versus are chosen randomly. In addition, the members of Babble are self-selected in that we find Babble and choose to post. A self-selected sample does not necessarily represent the entire population being studied. Rather it represents those who for whatever reason decided to participate. Thus, this presents some limitations to the generalizability of results.
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2004, at 17:33:07
In reply to Re: artifacts, posted by gardenergirl on November 5, 2004, at 16:42:45
> I don't know what hypothesis(es) they are studying or the design of the research. It certatinly appears to be a qualitative design, but still, I'm guessing.
Do you think you need to know that to be able to write on the areas of interest? Maybe they are waiting for us to say what our experience is before they decide what to write. I mean, it isn't an experiment, so they don't really need a hypothesis. I guess that I was just thinking that online support seems to currently have a pretty low profile. I doubt that the mental health system that I am in would pay for me to have online group or individual therapy. I doubt that they would pay for my participation in babble (if we had to pay). While this kind of research probably wouldn't impress on them just how much it helps (as they are interested in those nice operationalised measures of improvement) it seems to me that this kind of research can give online support a higher profile which might lead to some experiments with hypotheses and some quantitative measures of improvement.
> Well, I would like to agree with you. But there appears to be some strong feelings here. And I've noted more than one poster (via actual posts and personal correspondence) who are currently feeling too upset to participate, though for a variety of reasons.Yes, I know. And like I have said, I think that is a shame. Once again I want to say that surely we are all getting something out of our participation in this community or we wouldn't be here. Maybe we feel it is in spite of certain people rather than because of them some of the time. But the fact remains: we are still here.
> A self-selected sample is a convenience sample who's members choose to participate, versus are chosen randomly. In addition, the members of Babble are self-selected in that we find Babble and choose to post. A self-selected sample does not necessarily represent the entire population being studied. Rather it represents those who for whatever reason decided to participate. Thus, this presents some limitations to the generalizability of results.Ok. But then it is clear that we are self-selected. The impression I get is that the intention is to raise the profile of online support. It isn't an experiment so we don't need to worry about a control group or random sampling or whatever. I do take your point, though.
Posted by TofuEmmy on November 5, 2004, at 21:24:19
In reply to Re: Just Curious...., posted by Dr. Bob on November 5, 2004, at 15:32:05
> Is the author under the false impression that Babble is a typical internet forum. It's is FAR from typical, as most of us know.
>>>Perspectives on the similarities and differences between groups would be fine...
I don't consider it the participants job to do the research for the author.
Posted by gardenergirl on November 6, 2004, at 1:02:45
In reply to Re: artifacts » gardenergirl, posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2004, at 17:33:07
I suppose, though, I should be worried about my own dissertation rather than Dr. Bob's research, eh?
:(
gg
Posted by Dinah on November 6, 2004, at 8:32:17
In reply to Re: artifacts » gardenergirl, posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2004, at 17:33:07
I don't understand what they *want*. That stops me more than not knowing what they'll use it for.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2004, at 8:58:09
In reply to Re: Just Curious.... » Dr. Bob, posted by TofuEmmy on November 5, 2004, at 21:24:19
> I don't consider it the participants job to do the research for the author.
I don't see how we are being asked to do any research, rather we are being asked to share about our experiences. That then becomes the data for Dr. B to do the research thingie on.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2004, at 9:02:57
In reply to Re: artifacts, posted by gardenergirl on November 6, 2004, at 1:02:45
Yeah, well, mine isn't writing itself either :-(
I just have a lot of sympathy for what I think Dr. Bob is trying to do: to provide a community for us to educate and support each other and then give feedback about such a community to other mental health professionals on the basis of our subjective reports.
I think it is part of the spirit of academia to support other peoples research best you can.
Just my 2 cents worth :-)
Posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2004, at 9:11:30
In reply to Re: artifacts » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on November 6, 2004, at 8:32:17
> I don't understand what they *want*. That stops me more than not knowing what they'll use it for.
I think they want us to share our experiences (both positive and negative) of some or all of the following:
>the history of Psycho-Babble, my [Dr B's] interaction with members, its role in the community of psychiatric patients and psychiatrists, how it might empower you, how able you are to understand research and other mental health information, how long and how frequently you've used the site, how the information here has affected your treatment and your relationships with your treatment providers, some details of your illness and treatment course -- and any anecdotes that illustrate the above.
And as for what they are going to use it for:
>This is a project to inform health care providers about online peer support groups. It started when Joshua Freedman, MD, thought Psycho-Babble might be an interesting topic for the Clinical Computing column that he edits for the Psychiatric Services journal:
http://ps.psychiatryonline.org
so a column and
>possibly presentations at professional meetings
Posted by Dinah on November 6, 2004, at 9:17:06
In reply to Re: artifacts » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2004, at 9:11:30
Well, I did get that. :)
I assume being more explicit would bias results?
Posted by Dinah on November 6, 2004, at 9:17:50
In reply to Re: artifacts » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2004, at 9:11:30
Maybe I'm just dense. I'm not familiar with these academic topics.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2004, at 9:32:26
In reply to Re: artifacts » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on November 6, 2004, at 9:17:50
Why don't you try picking just one bit that you think you could say something on.
Reading what other people have said can help you think about it.
I have yet to say something about conflict... But I am thinking what to say about that.
I think that the idea is for you to say what you think rather than what you think they want to hear.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.