I am aboslutely 100% convinced that you can not convince someone who uses this flawed methodlogy that it is indeed flawed.
In your example, it might also indicate that your sample size was too small, or that the people answering the survey were purposefully scewing the sample.
The controls on this kind of data collection or simply insufficient to even come close to even vaguely being able to call it imperical data.
200 surveys collected over the internet with no more data collected on anyone than standard Age/ Sex date. lol. Yeah that stands any chance at all of being accurate.
Questionnaires are used as a data collection method in a wide variety of studies. How else do you propose to do it? It isn't like you can't "screw teh results" in a hard copy questionnaire or interview. And sample size is adjusted for in statistical analysis.
Secondly, taking basic demographic characteristics and keeping anonynimity for the participants is again absolutely standard.
Emperical* and you clearly don't understand what it means if you don't think that questionnaires are emperical data. Nor would anybody filling out this form be a "control" but I've got no clue what you even meant by that sentence.
While I agree with you here, there is no guarantee of how the results will be used with ANY of these types of "research tests" that come along. We don't know if this guy is working with the Canadian government to gather info for use in the effort to ban online poker. Not saying he IS, but we really don't know. I never do these things because I don't trust most people online. Sure, research is research. But the results can be twisted any way the researchers want.
Sorry for being skeptical, but I've learned to err on the side of caution when dealing with most things online. And I urge all others to use the same caution.
It is the same with any form of research. The strength of a study is based on its methodological soundness, its results, the analysis, etc. It isn't like you can just say "oh we found so and so", and not provide any sort of substance in terms of results and statistical analysis to back up your findings. But it is a good point in that any sort of paper/findings you read should be read very critically (especially the shitty way they spin findings in the newspapers).
To no one in particular: Give the guy a break and either fill out the survey or don't, but stop saying that there is a hidden agenda just coz you didn't like the questions. How do you think he is supposed to examine his research question (if you actually bothered to read it at the end) without data on problem gambling lol?
And as for the banning online gambling coz of problem gambling argument - that is just silly. That aspect is in no way restricted to online gambling and any talks regarding the banning of online gambling have to do with an inability to monitor it/gain any profits from users within its borders, not a moral arguement on whether or not it destroys lives.
