Dear Cathy:

>Are you saying because of this effect (the extent of which is difficult to
measure) we shouldn't undertake this research, or having undertaken the
research, we >cannot accept it as valid, or simply tha t it is important to
acknowledge this effect?

I appreciate your questions and comments. Thanks very much for giving me
the chance to clarify. I am merely saying it's important to acknowledge the
known and potential effects of observation in any research. And that I
think it's important to do research on observational effects, too, if we
can figure out how to do it, so that we have a better idea how they might
affect our results. Of course, research on observational effects will also
be impacted, in turn, by our attempts to observe them, so these kinds of
questions are tricky!

The topic, in general, reminds me of the many challenges of conducting
research on culture. If I try to study culture using a questionnaire, for
example, I cannot assume that my results are valid. I have to look at what
the use of a questionnaire means in the different cultures I'm using it in.
For example, what effect does it have on the results for participants to be
handed a questionnaire by someone from outside their culture versus someone
from within their culture? For them to take the questionnaire alone or in a
group setting? For the participant to answer the questionnaire in my
language (her second language) compared to her taking it in her native
language? And if I translate the questionnaire into her language, how do I
know the meaning of my questions have not been altered in the process of
translation? There are many techniques in cultural research that try to
minimize known effects of observation--such as back translation with
decentering (I translate [or have a bilingual person translate] the
questionnaire into whatever language I need. Then I have a different
bilingual person translate it back into English. The two English versions
are compared to see which meanings were altered in the process of
translation. The questionnaire is revised to try to decenter it from my
culture and language. Then the whole process is repeated until the
back-translated English version is a good match with my original English
version.) Better yet, I should devise my questionnaire by working with
people from all the cultures involved in my research, so that the original
English version is less centered in my own culture to begin with. And,
better still, I should try to investigate my research question in multiple
ways, watching for convergence of results. If the results of different
types of research techniques show similar results, then I can have some
confidence in the validity of the results yielded by the individual
methods. If my questionnaire results show one thing, my naturalistic
observation another, etc., then I know that I don't yet have a good handle
on how my observation is affecting the aspect of culture that I am trying
to study. (Note that there is a great deal of cross-cultural research out
there that has not used such techniques or addressed the issue of
observational effects at all. Note also that obtaining enough funding [and
having enough time] to do these kinds of validity checks and controls is
commonly difficult.)

Culture is my area of expertise. I have intentionally studied the kinds of
observational effects that are known to occur when cross-cultural research
is conducted so that I can acknowledge them and minimize them to the degree
that I am able when I conduct my own research and so that I can better
evaluate the results of cross-cultural research conducted by others. I
don't have a clue how to go about looking for effects in the context of
ultrasound. Yet my research training and experience has taught me that it's
a good idea to watch out for observational effects, in general. So,
regardless of the type of research I'm seeking to understand, I ponder what
type of observational effects might exist. If such research hasn't already
been done, I think it would be beneficial if there were ways to study
observational effects in the context of ultrasound and to take them into
account when analyzing results. As more types of imaging and other
techniques are used to investigate the breast during lactation and
breastfeeding, convergence (or divergence) of results can be better
analyzed.

>There is a significant distinction between therapeutic ultrasound and
diagnostic ultrasound, so I don?t believe this comparison can be used to
>support the premise that diagnostic ultrasound will cause an interaction
between the observer and the observed.

Yes, I would expect there to be a significant distinction. I am merely
wondering what kind of effects might exist at diagnostic levels if we know
that some effects do exist at therapeutic levels. Perhaps nothing
significant. Perhaps something significant.






>As an a priori assumption in undertaking the ultrasound research the
researchers have accepted the assumption that there is no detectable effect
>of diagnostic ultrasound on what they are currently measuring, (ie MER,
duct diameter, presence of glandular tissue, volume taken and response of
the
>infant stomach and infant suckling and oral anatomy) - because to the best
of our knowledge there is nothing in the literature at this place and time
>to support that an interaction between the observer and the observed
exists (in this case).

Interestingly, the a priori assumption made by many cross cultural
researchers, including myself, is that there will be detectable effects of
observation (e.g., a questionnaire) on the cultural variable of interest
(as I described above). In the case of culture, research does exist in the
literature about such effects, but then, people went looking for them. If
they haven't already done so, it would be worthwhile to see what might be
found if investigators were to look at such issues in the context of
ultrasound research--perhaps observational effects would be insignificant,
but perhaps not.

>Consequently, over many observations we are happy with the validity of the
results until such time further research might challenge this underlying
>assumption. All studies in all fields must make assumptions before the
research is undertaken, and of course, make these assumptions known.
>As an example, Woolridge's ultrasound studies of suckling remain currently
valid, indeed much of  what we have based our current attachment and
>positioning practices and suckling knowledge relies on his work in this
area, until such time further research questions its validity (hence my
>comment in a previous post - "the jury is never in").

Yes, assumptions are always made and those assumptions should be made known
(though those assumptions, in reality, are not always recognized and made
known--particularly when they are culturally based and, therefore, tend to
be "invisible" to the researchers themselves). Regardless of whether any
significant observational effects exist, I am sure that ultrasound studies
have yielded and will continue to yield valuable information.

>We must make a start somewhere, and it is my belief that observation by
ultrasound (in this instance) of the living lactating breast is a step up
>from the post mortum examination of excised tissue.

I agree! Thanks very much for your thoughtful and informative response to
my post.

Warmly,

Cynthia

Cynthia Good Mojab, MS clinical psychology, IBCLC, RLC
Ammawell
Email: [log in to unmask]
Web site: http://home.attbi.com/~ammawell

             ***********************************************

To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]

The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html