Dear all: There are many ways of collecting evidence and I completely agree that anecdotal evidence collected from clinical experience should GROUND the basis of everything we do. I know the ins and outs of epidemiology, but it is useless if the questions asked are not GROUNDED in plausible connections based on observations. Naturalistic inquiry which but one of many qualitative research techniques is based on a different epistemological basis than epidemiology is every bit as useful for gathering evidence and in some cases even more useful. This is the reason why I NEVER EVER read the abstracts until I've read the methods section of a quantitative study. Very often the more important information is not in the numbers but in how the study was done. Ditto for qualitative studies --- you can do really lousy focus groups that are meaningless --- or very important in depth analyses that reveal fantastic new insights depending on how well you conduct the study. Best, Susan Burger *********************************************** Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html To reach list owners: [log in to unmask] Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask] COMMANDS: 1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail 2. To start it again: set lactnet mail 3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet 4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome