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