Goldsmiths ASD Diagnosis Project

The request for violunteers should tell you when the outcomes should be published, also what will be done with the data afterwards, regarding confidentiality. I'm a little concerned this research wasn't as ethically set out as it should be.

The web link appears to be to a real project within one of their research areas. Sometimes funding drops out or staff leave and a project fizzles out. This one claims to have first stage results available end of 2012; that date being past no updated timeline has been given. Naughty Goldsmiths. They must, in all fairness to respondents, put up to date information up, or come clean if the project is falling behind or no longer funded.

The project does give the names of the people engaged on it, including a lead researcher, whose email address is provided, and all participants have a right to contact her and ask about it. In fact they do invite you to contact her, or email a general address for the project.

This is a situation where all those who contributed have a perfect right to ask what is going on, given you gave your time to it.

The length of questionnaires is decided by the design and the issues surrounding getting an undistorted response. So there could be many questions in such a survey and forty five minutes is not untypical. They shouldn't mislead you by suggesting it would be less - another black mark Goldsmiths.

At least it seems to be a proper survey, if a bit misleading. We get too many postgrads and undergrads trying to short-cut good practice by advertising on here for respondents, which is poor ethics and gives serious research a bad name. On the whole Goldsmiths seem to be doing things right, well nearly.....

The request for violunteers should tell you when the outcomes should be published, also what will be done with the data afterwards, regarding confidentiality. I'm a little concerned this research wasn't as ethically set out as it should be.

The web link appears to be to a real project within one of their research areas. Sometimes funding drops out or staff leave and a project fizzles out. This one claims to have first stage results available end of 2012; that date being past no updated timeline has been given. Naughty Goldsmiths. They must, in all fairness to respondents, put up to date information up, or come clean if the project is falling behind or no longer funded.

The project does give the names of the people engaged on it, including a lead researcher, whose email address is provided, and all participants have a right to contact her and ask about it. In fact they do invite you to contact her, or email a general address for the project.

This is a situation where all those who contributed have a perfect right to ask what is going on, given you gave your time to it.

The length of questionnaires is decided by the design and the issues surrounding getting an undistorted response. So there could be many questions in such a survey and forty five minutes is not untypical. They shouldn't mislead you by suggesting it would be less - another black mark Goldsmiths.

At least it seems to be a proper survey, if a bit misleading. We get too many postgrads and undergrads trying to short-cut good practice by advertising on here for respondents, which is poor ethics and gives serious research a bad name. On the whole Goldsmiths seem to be doing things right, well nearly.....