UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2011 > Dec > Dec 7

Re: Alien Abduction Experiencer Surveys

From: Kathy Marden <Kmarden.nul>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 17:27:34 -0500 (EST)
Archived: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 06:31:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Alien Abduction Experiencer Surveys


>From: Michael Hughes <michaelmhughes.nul>
>To: <post.nul>
>Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 08:43:44 -0500
>Subject: Re: Alien Abduction Experiencer Surveys

>>From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul>
>>To: <post.nul>
>>Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 16:02:16 +0000
>>Subject: Re: Alien Abduction Experiencer Surveys

<snip>

>>It looks to me that I am dealing - on this List - with people
>>who have never done a formal study.

>>BTW, I am one of the people who called out John Mack in his lack
>>of developing a protocol and administering an ICF. He set a bad
>>example as to how a researcher should be interacting with
>>volunteers. Believed me, he did not set a standard that should
>>be replicated. His heart was in the right place, but he ignored
>>having a protocol. He or his institution could have been easily
>>sued by a volunteer who might have suffered adverse side
>>effects.

>>As I said, in my view, UFO researchers are wreckless when
>>interacting with people willing to volunteer details of their
>>experiences.

>Au contraire, Kathy. I've worked with a large number of
>researchers and postdocs who have conducted surveys, gathering
>all sorts of information about everything from food choices to
>attitudes about transgenic laboratory mice. None have required
>the approval of the IRB that governs the studies with volunteers
>which take place at the university, such as the psilocybin
>research I've written about, which required extensive and
>extremely rigorous review.

>But a voluntary information gathering exercise does not require
>some kind of psychological screening or approval of an
>institution to be ethically sound. Anyone who is uncomfortable
>taking a survey can simply choose not to take it.

>I'm puzzled by your insistence on the need for institutional
>review, and I'm guessing that your personal experiences make you
>extra attentive to the needs of experiencers. Nothing wrong with
>that, and I applaud your concern, but surveys are conducted all
>the time about all sorts of potentially sensitive issues -
>without any institutional review. So you are factually
>incorrect.

First, we want to make it clear that the researchers have had
formal training in social research methodology and have issued
questionnaires in the past. Kathy sat in on a medical ethics
committee meetings as a graduate student. Simple surveys that do
not involve interviews or ask for identifying information do not
require a signed consent form, as the participants identities
are not collected by the researchers. Informed consent implies
that more than a simple survey (such as a clinical study), is
being conducted.

KK is building a mountain out of a mole hill by assuming that
the same rules apply to a simple survey as to a complex medical
study where drugs are administered to patients and there is
interaction between the experimental team and the clinical
subjects. The same rules do not apply.

Second, although it is not necessary to issue an informed
consent form in a simple survey, one has been posted at:

www.kathleen-marden.com

However, it should only be signed and returned to the
researchers in the event that a participant wishes to supply
identifying information. No identifying information has been
requested from participants taking the simple survey.

We would like to include this link for anyone who would be
considering a survey of any kind in the future:

http://intghc.oxfordjounals.org/content/15/3/261.full

Third, we find it important to repeat that when an individual
deems it necessary to object to a study, survey, comment, etc.,
and cannot go immediately to the source of that topic, there is
something wrong. They have not done their homework and know
absolutely nothing about the background to begin with. When the
flat out distortion and misrepresentation of information is
disseminated on a public forum, one has to question the writer's
motive or failure to understand the facts.

Any questions pertaining to the simple survey should be sent
directly to those involved, not aired in public as an act of
showmanship. Neither Kathy nor I (Denise) care to continue an
argument with someone who has no idea of the methods we are
using and obviously did not comprehend what our last statement
said - to print that we had the participants attending our
meeting respond orally or that there was a contamination of
information is proof of that.

Objectivity is one of the requirements of scientific research.
Kathy and Denise are very careful in our protocols to prevent
the contamination of information. The interactions between
participants at a self-help group are subjective and designed
for another purpose. Our detractor wasn't there, and by her
statements has demonstrated that she has no earthly idea of what
transpired. She is, in fact, entirely wrong in her assumptions.

If you have a true interest in helping and not hindering anyone
searching for answers to this mystery, why not write us, call
us, or interview either one of us about questions beyond the
scope of what we have already written?

Denise finds that certain personalities tend to enjoy sinking
their teeth into many things in an objectionable manner and
appear to love doing so out in the open. This is just possibly a
way to say "I didn't think of it first", or could there be a
hidden agenda, or do they enjoy a good debate? Perhaps this is
so simple that you just require an audience? Well we will give
you that but won't be a part of it any longer so the final
applause is yours to take, we bow out exiting stage left.

Kathy can see no useful purpose in responding to individuals who
clearly have misinterpreted information and continue to do so,
despite our best efforts to elucidate the facts pertaining to
our simple survey. It is, likewise, perplexing that anyone would
question our right to offer support and understanding to
individuals with whom we empathize, especially with my
background in social work and my extensive knowledge of
abduction and Denise's outstanding background in the UFO and
abduction field.

Anyone who feels that this is an important part of discovering
some small common thread among abductees, hence one small step
forward - please help us out and respond to the survey. If you
don't, please just ignore it. We are here to answer questions if
you have any. Please go directly to the source for the whys and
wherefores.

As Stanton Friedman has said quite a few times in words more
eloquent than ours, who would want to make themselves known to
us if they are from another planet? Those are our thoughts
exactly. We have never learned to treat each other with common
decency. Perhaps when we learn to settle our differences in a
humane and gentle fashion, we will have earned the right to be
introduced to the cosmic kindergarten.


Sincerely,

Kathy Marden and Denise Stoner




Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

At:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/

These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com