the following quote is found in a ph.d. dissertation that purports to have secured permission from the congregational overseer to conduct interviews and focus groups with congregation members.
this research was conducted in the usa.
this never would have happened in any of the halls i attended.
Can you post the whole dissertation? Would be interesting. I don't think a doctoral dissertation would in any way resemble a puff piece.
S4
You are correct that it is, in fact, a scholarly work. If you are interested in the dissertation, please PM me and we can make arrangements. It is in PDF and is 9.5 MB.
the following quote is found in a ph.d. dissertation that purports to have secured permission from the congregational overseer to conduct interviews and focus groups with congregation members.
this research was conducted in the usa.
this never would have happened in any of the halls i attended.
RunningMan wrote: The whole thing looks like he is being set up by the congregation to write a puff piece about them.
The data collection definitely looks fishy. It is not a "puff piece" really...it is a scholarly work...I just was intrigued by the data collection methods, which as I wrote, didn't match my experience.
Also the naiveté of someone to use 'I was invited to the Memorial' as a sign of acceptance.
the following quote is found in a ph.d. dissertation that purports to have secured permission from the congregational overseer to conduct interviews and focus groups with congregation members.
this research was conducted in the usa.
this never would have happened in any of the halls i attended.
Thank you for posting this.
The dissertation was in 1995 so these directives were after that date. However, the directives certainly mirror what was my individual experience in the different congregations I attended and Bethel.
Do you think the claim 'the fact that they invited me to the Memorial shows I was accepted' has much merit?
We often invited any interested or marginally interested individuals.
the following quote is found in a ph.d. dissertation that purports to have secured permission from the congregational overseer to conduct interviews and focus groups with congregation members.
this research was conducted in the usa.
this never would have happened in any of the halls i attended.
Wasn't there a directive against that?
Thanks for the idea.
I will check the BOE letters to see if this was ever addressed. I know Czatt was called an 'agent of Satan' or something for trying to secure surveys in the 1930s or so.
the following quote is found in a ph.d. dissertation that purports to have secured permission from the congregational overseer to conduct interviews and focus groups with congregation members.
this research was conducted in the usa.
this never would have happened in any of the halls i attended.
He could have saved himself a lot of trouble by checking here first to find out the meaning of "theocratic warfare."
I agree. I saw a presentation about ethnographic research done with the Masai (Maasai) people of Eastern Africa. After the presentation a lady from Ghana explained (in a nutshell) that one of the problems with the study was that the Masai will tell you what they think you want to hear.
If, in fact, the JWs allowed taped interviews in the back of the Hall, then it was to indoctrinate the researcher.
And the whole piece about 'I was invited to the Memorial so I know they accepted me' defies my experience as a JW.
the following quote is found in a ph.d. dissertation that purports to have secured permission from the congregational overseer to conduct interviews and focus groups with congregation members.
this research was conducted in the usa.
this never would have happened in any of the halls i attended.
I don't call that an established relationship at all.
I agree. The fact that the author is not aware that nearly everyone who has any interest in the JWs is invited to the Memorial is suspicious.
Would your congregation have allowed over 40 taped interviews and focus groups? He reports that they were convened in the private rooms in the back of the Hall.
the following quote is found in a ph.d. dissertation that purports to have secured permission from the congregational overseer to conduct interviews and focus groups with congregation members.
this research was conducted in the usa.
this never would have happened in any of the halls i attended.
The following quote is found in a Ph.D. dissertation that purports to have secured permission from the congregational overseer to conduct interviews and focus groups with congregation members.
This research was conducted in the USA. This never would have happened in any of the Halls I attended.
Also notice what is given to support the claim that he was accepted (below).
Any dissenting or corroborating comments welcome.
”The interviewees…were Jehovah’s Witnesses…I took steps to establish a good relationship with the congregation members. I attended weekly theocratic meetings and a District Convention of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I was forthright with members before and during interviews as to my purpose for attending meetings and taping interview sessions. An indication of the level of established relationship was an invitation to their Memorial Dinner – the only (emphasis in original) day celebrated by Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
flyinghighnow wrote:
so there was no fighting before the bush administration?
ahem, tell us, what were gas prices before the bush admin?
kid-A,
This thread is on gas prices.
On the occasions that I have read your posts, it seems (not a scientifically significant sample has been collected) that you rarely post insightful, documented observations or conclusions. You seem to have emotionally-laden reactions to authority figures. You seem to be emotionally stunted. I am sorry that your experience on this planet has caused you to be so damaged in this regard.
Your post above seems to be typical of your approach in general. I’m not trying to be rude but, rather, supply helpful constructive criticism.
You attack others in an awkward and amateurish manner ("pal?").
You seem peevish and petulant and …I hope children are not present in your life yet (and my guess is that they are not)….but if they do arrive….you will find detaching yourself as your largest hurdle to parenting (read self-absorbed).
Sincere best wishes for a speedy and complete recovery !!
flyinghighnow wrote:
so there was no fighting before the bush administration?
ahem, tell us, what were gas prices before the bush admin?
FlyingHighNow wrote:
So there was no fighting before the Bush administration?Ahem, tell us, what were gas prices before the Bush Admin? Your point is that there was fighting before GW took office. Notice the gas prices were well under $2 per gallon then. Perhaps it's Bush and his big oil cabinet that are responsible for the ridiculous rise in gas prices since Bush hit the White House. The war is just a way for Haliburton Cheney and Big Oil Bush to make mega money from defense contracts and try to fool gullible Americans into believing gas prices are supposed to be this high.
Other than the obvious reasoning fallacy (Post hoc ergo Propter Hoc), this type of analysis is superficial and deeply flawed.
Gas prices today are cheaper, when used as a numerator over many and varied denominators, than in years past. For example, measure inflation, wages, CPI, etc. This is only the beginning of any meaningful analysis of gas prices over time.
Here is an easy to use primer on how to compare prices over time: "The Consumer Price Index: Measuring the Changing Value of Money" at http://qrc.depaul.edu/djabon/cpi.htm
It is a bit trickier than 'gas was X price before Bush and Y price after Bush so it is more expensive because of Bush.'
Unfortunately, it is also less amusing to read facts than rants.
[1] http://www.ucla.edu.
http://del.icio.us/post?url=http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/political-all.
http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/politi.
And a recent scan of dubya's brain:
Kid-A,
I realize this is not a political board, and that you are not trained in Political Science, and that much of the time you are seriously joking but.... ad hominem attacks rarely do little more than make the attacker feel better.
When I read comments like yours above, I rarely take any subsequent points seriously. Comments like yours above indicate to me that you may be emotionally involved with the topic.
This is a low-level type of involvement in a topic of this type.
My guess is that the Bush administration reminds you of the Governing Body and that transference is occurring, albeit on a subconscious level.
May you experience a speedy recovery!!
