3 ms·

The authors tacked on a mini-survey to DX's regular survey offering, limiting participants to people who work at orgs willing to pay for DX's survey offering.

by flurie 3y ago

The authors tacked on a mini-survey to DX's regular survey offering, limiting participants to people who work at orgs willing to pay for DX's survey offering. It was not extraordinarily expensive, but the fact that they as recently as a month ago had public pricing and no longer do suggests it's probably more than it was at something like $15 PUPM. I'm a bit pessimistic that much of this research is being driven by large orgs in collaboration with researchers who aren't sufficiently independent. That's not to say that this sort of work isn't valuable, or that the research is fraudulent, but many people who work on software don't work for these sorts of orgs, and it's not clear to me how those people will be able to participate in research going forward. Much of this work also feels like it's becoming the industry equivalent of something like the Social Determinants of Health[1]. People with greater job satisfaction and more uninterrupted time are more productive? Is that the best we can do? [1] https://health.gov/healthypeople/priority-areas/social-determinants-health https://health.gov/healthypeople/priority-areas/social-deter...

geekjock 3y ago
"I'm a bit pessimistic that much of this research is being driven by large orgs in collaboration with researchers who aren't sufficiently independent." I'm one of the co-authors of the study. I think your sentiment is valid but what you describe is true for most fields of research: conflicts of interest can be a problem. I can attest to the fact that the researchers behind this study have extensive backgrounds in academic research and hold themselves to high standards. If nothing else, not doing so risks putting individual reputations on the line.
- flurie 3y ago
  Thank you for the response! Though I think in taking the rest of the context of my criticism away you've avoided the main point of it, which isn't conflict of interest, but whom your research serves to benefit. For example, it would be a shame if cancer research were carried out only on rich or educated participants. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't work with the population you have access to, but perhaps you should give some thought to how you can broaden participation.

by flurie 3y ago

geekjock 3y ago

"I'm a bit pessimistic that much of this research is being driven by large orgs in collaboration with researchers who aren't sufficiently independent." I'm one of the co-authors of the study. I think your sentiment is valid but what you describe is true for most fields of research: conflicts of interest can be a problem. I can attest to the fact that the researchers behind this study have extensive backgrounds in academic research and hold themselves to high standards. If nothing else, not doing so risks putting individual reputations on the line.

flurie 3y ago
Thank you for the response! Though I think in taking the rest of the context of my criticism away you've avoided the main point of it, which isn't conflict of interest, but whom your research serves to benefit. For example, it would be a shame if cancer research were carried out only on rich or educated participants. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't work with the population you have access to, but perhaps you should give some thought to how you can broaden participation.