"Although deception is practiced in some institutions in order to prevent or control participant reactivity, it is forbidden at Northern Caribbean University.

So, basically they designed a "study" that included the exact opposite of the university's rules? Kiss your grade/grant/degree goodbye, jackasses.

One time when we were on vacation we went to the Improv...I used the men's...he made dudes get out, it was kind of awful. I think we would have done better if he didn't try so hard to be "proactive" about it. (I was already grown, so it wasn't "OMG...Dick Trauma!"(at least not for me)

There is little like my baby sister on an outraged rampage.

As she rightfully should be. That's some MIGHTY serious bullshit.

Do you have a suggestion? Just curious.

I'd have to spend more time on it, but in a brainstorming session on the topic I'd try and work out something more inclusive, so that your participation in the month raises the profile's issue in your environment without touching as blatantly on "I'm going to pee now" which is pretty much verboten in number of circumstances in which you might want to raise visibility.

I'd also go with something that's more accessible for people with less commitment, since this is the audience whose points of view need to be shifted the most. So if it's an exercise that involves documenting the incidences, rather than trying to commit to something more than likely to fail (since associating failure with the effort is probably not a good idea right up front--I'd like to work out something that *seems* possible, and then turns out frustrating, since that's a teachable moment, rather than something that seems impossible before you even get started, or something you can actually accomplish, though with privation or difficulty on your part--I think both scenarios are more constructive than the one suggested), that would be educational. If it's an exercise in something whose topic is easier to discuss before you introduce the topic of a rigid gender binary, I think it's more likely to engender discourse in arenas with a larger audience than something so intimately related to a topic excluded by much etiquette.

Tying it to something biologically required is a good idea, because that makes the imperative nature completely apparent, but I think there are other things to take into consideration with an awareness-raising effort of this sort.

what does your sister teach? Do you know how they selected who they were going to "study"?

She teaches anthropology, but not at this university. The email was sent to another UWI lecturer as well, so she's reaching out to her to see what her experience was. I don't know what area the other teacher is in.

An alternative procedure or strategy should be used to prevent participant reactivity

That's pretty damned succinct. And, you know, *sensible*.

Holy fuck, that's INSANE. No way could that study and any IRB possibly be within three parallel universes of each other. May your sister tear every single person involved in this study into bite-sized strips.

Thanks, meara. I've forwarded that link to her. She's rotating through a bunch of reactions right now, and, seriously, she was so much nicer than she needed to be, which makes this all the more horrifying. If it had been me, it would have just been "Professor ita ! was as much of a bitch as her reputation would suggest. I'm never having sex as a result of her encounter, since everything hurts forever."

Not the "she made every excuse for me possible and tried to make me as comfortable as possible while I recorded our conversation and pretended to be distraught" that she actually *got*.

And now we reach the lawsuit portion of ita's sister's career. Or equivalent,"This fuckery will not stand," reaction.

Also, these people are currently listed on their website as part of the "Research and Grants" office (where the IRB policy I found was). I would contact them to find out who the chair of the IRB is, and if this proposal crossed either of their desks.

You are now viewing information for Reaearch and Grants Name: Ruth Edwards | Location: Reaearch and Grants Internal: 7416 Straight Line: 1-876-963-7416 Name: Felix Omoruyi | Location: Reaearch and Grants Internal: 7417 Straight Line: 1-876-963-7417

(As someone who does research, even if not humanities-type, and knows how slippery slopes can be and how suspicious people can be about research and supposedly shady practices, and who hates having to yell at the TV on Law and Order about things that just don't HAPPEN in the industry...this pisses me off a lot)

Now "Straight Line" makes me laugh, even though I realize it's got to be the regional version of what I would say as "Direct Line."

The study is designed to test whether staff members at tertiary institutions across Jamaica engage in heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual relationships with students.

Wow, that's just... WHAT? That's entrapment into career-ending situations. WTF.

Reminds me of the two neuroscientists a few years ago who caused a stir in fandom with a bullshit online survey--when a bunch of people called the BU IRB, the two guys got cast adrift. Didn't stop them from selling the book they wrote about the so-called "results" they got, though...