http://soc260casestudy.blogspot.com
Serpent Handlers of Jolo, West Virginia
14 years ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Churches: Serpent Handling
Case Studies
-
Case Studies14 years ago
Lexington Legends
-
Jose Altuve14 years ago
-
Legends Docs14 years ago
The overwhelming fad of college students using ADHD drugs such as Adderoll and Ritalin to be able to study longer and complete term papers is of no surprise to me, however I work in UK Psychiatry where we recently ended a double blind study on medications to help with ADHD, I received an alarming amount of college students wishing to sign up for the study to get the study medication I now presume, however we did a test for ADHD and a lot of students were denied. So in my opinion it depends on where you are seen and what type, if any test are involved in diagnosing ADHD that will enable prescriptions being obtained
ReplyDeleteDesigning a case study to surrounding the non-prescription use of ADHD drugs at BCTC would be difficult. The study could take several forms including observation, volunteer survey, and personal interview techniques to gather information. However objective results would be nearly impossible to obtain because of the biased nature of either users or non-users and literally dozens if not hundreds of other factors that would influence a person’s willingness to participate at certain levels.
ReplyDeleteFirst, what would be a person’s interest or incentive to participate in any type of direct study? Would the person be influenced already by any type of personal attachment to the subject material? If so then that would skew the person’s responses based on their interpretation of the issue. Some people who have direct involvement might not consider the use of stimulants mentioned as being widespread or a problem while others who have little knowledge of its presence might have an exaggerated opinion of the reality of things – or vice-versa.
Second, on what scale are we to measure any type of involvement at any level or situation? Wouldn’t every instance be solely relevant to the participant in its effects and benefits. And the reason for use cannot be held to any type of standard either. A person’s ethical and moral obligations and their relation to society and family will always be factored into play as well regardless of whether they would agree or disagree with use. Hence, the level of desire an individual might have cannot reliably measure their opinions on the subject especially since any “level” of involvement would have to be held to a standard that would have difference in importance and meaning between each individual.
Third, approaching the topic in any fashion would definitely evoke a certain type of response from the public in any type of setting based on our current value system in society. Just bringing the topic into public view seems to take on an invasive demeanor although the study itself may have no invasive characteristics or parts to it. That would affect the quality of any conclusions that could be drawn from a participants evaluation. It would do no justice to the study to try to make inferences based on indirect observation because it is not a publicly discussed issue that can be accurately identified without direct involvement at specific levels. And again, each situation would differ in intensity, purpose, relativity, understanding, and outcome. Therefore, no conclusions can be made.
The single best way to discover the true nature of the progression of the use of prescription amphetamines would be to become a direct participant so as to become directly involved. From a direct participant advantage, first person accounts could be made so as not to skew the conclusion of the results, but the case study would in effect have to be developed before becoming a participant in your own study so as not to draw bias from the results. What I mean is that a format would have to be created, and planning for steps during stages of participation would have to be rigorously followed in order to maintain focus on identifying what is definite for at least one person or group at every predetermined level.
The problem with this approach is that it is also subjec to any person’s interpretation of information and how that person would decide to approach each stage of interaction even if closely following a plan that specifies what action to take for each opportunity. Then it could also be determined to be invalid information because the researcher coerced the incident thereby either preventing, limiting, encouraging, or forcing whatever instances information was supposed to be derived from.
I believe a volunteer survey would also be ineffective. However if I were to create a survey for students to take, I might consider asking the following questions –
ReplyDelete1. Do you know anyone who takes the drug? (This is a poor question because some people might make assumptions about another based on what they’ve heard or think)
2. Do you know anyone who is addicted to the drug? (This question opens the door to interpretation as well)
3. Do you have direct access to the drug? (Again, this question allows for a variety of interpretations and gets into whether a person is being honest in the survey and to themselves)
4. Do you support use of the drug for the purpose of studying? (While the question might be pretty straightforward, the participant might not comprehend the direct nature of the question and give an answer that is biased on their opinion of another types of use or effects)
5. Are you aware of problems associated with taking the drug? (What constitutes a problem to the participant may vary – the participant may know a stupid person that makes bad decisions taking the drug but attribute their deficiency in character to taking the drug)
6. Are you aware of benefits associated with taking the drug? (Same concept as Q.#5 but opposite character would be assumed for person participant knows)
Gaining volunteers for the survey would also be difficult. There would have to be some way to evaluate the population over time so as to gain as much information from as many people as possible. Maybe include a mandatory survey to every student that must be completed within the semester. The survey would need to include a variety of questions most of which are not relevant to the particular study so as to conceal the purpose slightly and not evoke a particular response from any of the participants. I believe any other type of survey would not be able to draw enough equal distribution of participants from each or any class even if a significant total number of participants were able to be gathered.
Personal interview techniques could be used to draw another set of hypotheses about the identity and composition of the study and how to interpret its findings. This might be the most effective way to proceed considering the absurdly extravagant measures that would need to be taken to produce the very dubious sets of data other methods would yield. While there would be fewer participants, the accuracy and depth of information that could be disclosed (depending on faith in confidentiality of the interviewer) might reveal other evidence not considered in determining what is important relative to the original objective of the study.
One measure that could be taken to stimulate discussion and awareness on campus before instituting any of the methods of research would be to have a public lecture or distribution of information campaign to get people thinking about it and become “aware” enough to evoke effective responses during a survey or interview. I have no other ideas at this time.
Methods of evaluation -
ReplyDeletePersonally, I would choose direct participation method because it would be the most direct and reliable way of identifying what factors are involved in how this issue presents itself to the observable portion of society that is not directly involved. Remaining objective could only be achieved by measuring effects and conditions against those previously considered from a completely non-informed person. Even that can be considered something that cannot be reliably achieved given societal norms and expectations that are ingrained in our culture and ourselves.
Direct observation cannot be achieved because of the secretive nature regarding the distribution of pharmaceuticals, and it would not only be too time consuming but highly impractical to attempt to observe any of the participants in a natural setting because of the pace in which our situation changes to accommodate everyday life in general. Studying one person or group would not yield substantial results because the focus would be too narrow. Studying any population or portion of society would be even less effective because no general inferences could be held to be true to an entire faction of people, and even if they could it would be highly unlikely to obtain similar results from another study group. Supposing another study group were identified then a different set of observers would have to have come to that exact same conclusion on their own without knowledge of or communication between the two groups of observers or it might suggest that the outcome was as a result of influenced expectations rather than a natural observation. If full disclosure was available to researchers for every person in any community of people, then accurate statistics could be gathered to draw a hypotheses with. But that is purely science fiction to have that type of capability.