Author |
Inviting Partcipants for Research on Climbers |
|
|
14-Oct-2011 7:35:15 AM
|
Perhaps he could try a large hex or tube chock then? The committee won't know what he's on about so it might slip through. I'd blether a lot if someone had me cornered by swinging hexes.
|
14-Oct-2011 7:58:37 AM
|
On 13/10/2011 useful wrote:
>>Yes, that is the only way.
>
>Yeh but getting the use of a gun passed through the university ethics
>board is a bit of a bugger. They get antsy even if you promise to use only
>a pretend gun.
You know how it works, it's OK if you euthanase them humanely afterwards.
|
14-Oct-2011 8:04:17 AM
|
On 12/10/2011 Mindtaker wrote:
>I'm happy to discuss what my research is about if people are interested,
>but it is sometimes difficult coming up with brief explanations that are
>not filled with sociology jargon. The process of trying to explain sociology
>to climbers is often much like trying to explain climbing to sociologists.
Maybe you should try the long explanation full of sociology jargon. I'm down with jargon, I have a degree in politics and women's studies, I can waffle with the best of them.
Seriously though, if you can't explain your ideas intelligibly to a layperson, I'd have to wonder if you actually know what your ideas are. Anyway, give it a go, because I'm still totally unclear as to what you are actually asking about.
If you make it to Nati I could be persuaded to be interviewed in the cafe over beer. This is the carrot not the stick approach. I imagine it's quite effective and the ethics committee will be more likely to approve it. I should warn you though that I hate ice climbing, have decided I don't need to climb any more mountains and tend to crap myself on moderate snowy access to glorious alpine rock. If only the rock wasn't so good, I'd give that up too. Note, I haven't climbed any alpine rock in NZ, because apparently it's decidedly unglorious.
|
14-Oct-2011 8:47:46 AM
|
sp the new plan is to get you drunk to make you talk.
|
14-Oct-2011 8:53:14 AM
|
He needn't mention the rohypnols to the ethics committee.
|
14-Oct-2011 10:01:51 AM
|
On 14/10/2011 Wendy wrote:
>He needn't mention the rohypnols to the ethics committee.
what the ethics committee don't know, won't hurt them ;-)
|
14-Oct-2011 11:51:30 AM
|
On 14/10/2011 Wendy wrote:
>have decided I don't need
>to climb any more mountains and tend to crap myself on moderate snowy access
>to glorious alpine rock. If only the rock wasn't so good, I'd give that
>up too. Note, I haven't climbed any alpine rock in NZ, because apparently
>it's decidedly unglorious.
Apart from the Darrens which is very glorious! (and often wet)
|
14-Oct-2011 1:36:51 PM
|
On 11/10/2011 j.l.d wrote:
>surely this isn't a real question. Nobody would admit to being a sociologist
>on chockstone surely. Then follow that admission by stating an incoherent
>theme for a thesis?
There is nothing incoherent about his theme:
"My research is concerned with looking at the way that climbers learn, maintain and make meaningful the variety of practices involved in being a part of the climbing community."
To dumb it down:
His research is concerned with the way climbers learn (to climb), maintain (climbing practices) and reasons they find (climbing and being part of that community) meaningful to them.
-post edit-
I'll do your survey Matt, and I promise I won't even be a blowhard!
|
14-Oct-2011 2:22:34 PM
|
The thing that is doing my head in with NZ alpine rock at the moment is the uncertainty of it. You look up and the moves look relatively easy then you go to pull/step on it and it can disappear into a pile of lego bricks or make you feel like you are at Araps, and everything in between but mostly like the former...
|
14-Oct-2011 4:22:38 PM
|
On 14/10/2011 Wendy wrote:
> I'd blether a lot if someone had me cornered by swinging hexes.
Some guys will say anything when confronted with an intimidating rack.
|
14-Oct-2011 4:29:27 PM
|
On 14/10/2011 Maxo wrote:
>Some guys will say anything when confronted with an intimidating rack.
Even something like "5 cougars thanks".
|