3 ms·
> This is fairly off topic, but I noticed that the paper thanks Dynata. I'm not sure about your anecdote, nor do I know who Dynata is, but you give the impress
by part1of2 6y ago
> This is fairly off topic, but I noticed that the paper thanks Dynata.
I'm not sure about your anecdote, nor do I know who Dynata is, but you give the impression that this paper is only thanking one org. The entire section thanks a much broader base than you seem to portray:
> We thank Dynata for assistance with data collection and incorporating civil liberties concerns into their surveys. We thank participants at Harvard Public Seminar, Harvard COVID Seminar, the Healthand Pandemics Seminar, London School of Economics, Princeton and NBER SI Development. Funding provided by Harvard Kennedy School and Harvard Economics Department. The authors have no conflicts to disclose. The study is approved by IRB at Harvard University (IRB-20-0495 and IRB20-0467),and registered at AEA-RCT registry (AEARCTR-0005609). The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.
NOTE: Formatting issues from the PDF copy
- roflc0ptic 6y agoI don't mean to give that impression at all. Looking through this paper it looks like quite legitimate, thoughtful research, and the fact that they used Dynata certainly doesn't impugn their motivations. As I was able to glean, Dynata is a polling firm. Their willingness to do push polling reflects badly on their ethics, but it's orthogonal to their ability to perform effective polling.