Posted by Mitchell on January 22, 2003, at 0:53:36
In reply to Re: Research » Mitchell, posted by shar on January 22, 2003, at 0:30:37
> >would probably be more effective if techniques identified in meta-analysis as best practices were not mixed in with techniques for which is available less evidence of efficacy.
> >
> .........I agree with this statement, but believe that it is nearly impossible to accomplish if research is taking place 'in the field.' It is rare that in a basically uncontrolled setting, a researcher will be able to adhere only to an existing set of techniques that may well not cover all the situations that the researcher must handle.
We seem to be on the same page, for the most part. I'm not suggesting this site be hard-wired to be governed by some computer analysis of some vast data set summarizing all related research. In fact, I'm weaving dialogue on two seperate research tracks - research into how on-line groups work is one track; the other is how to identify techniques to offer now for practical learning by members of an on-line self help group.In the second track, I am suggesting that meta-reviews of available research can provide a guideline as to which approaches might best cut to the chase. For example, praying for other members of the group might be a technique some prefer, but it might rank low in meta analysis that qualititively compared the efficacy of prayer for conflict resolution compared to techniques that rely on specific verbal strategies. That's just an example. If research said prayer is the best practice, it should probably be at the top of a guide written for on-line self-help group members about how to best help each other.
poster:Mitchell
thread:8860
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20021128/msgs/8948.html