I am conducting non-profit sociological research into a potential link between participation in adventure recreation and risky behaviour in other arenas of life. This research has not been done before and the hope is that the results can better inform governing bodies and educators on the value of training in heuristics and decision-making in the outdoors.
Failed at the first multiple choice question. None of the options applied to me.
I tried ticking something at random and getting on to the next page, but none of these options applied to me either. So I gave up.
Doogleman, have you fully explored the assumptions upon which your survey is based? For example, the one multiple choice question I could answer - what age I am - seems to have a lot of granularity for the under 30's, but then a final category of 30+
Are you assuming that the differences between someone aged 31 and someone aged 81 are less than the differences between someone aged 24 and someone aged 27?
In reply to Oceanrower: Haha! Well, after a pretty in-depth review of current academic research on the subjects of both risk behaviour and adventure recreation I've found that although there has been significant research into the role of risk as a motivator and trait propensities for risk-taking, no-one has thus far theorised on a fundamental connection between risk-taking in adventure rec and risk-taking in other areas. Hopefully this will reveal whether a significant relationship exists.
In reply to almost sane: Hi Almost Sane. Thanks for your comments.
The reason for this categorisation being more focused on the younger demographics is two-fold. Firstly, current sociological research suggests that wider risk-taking behaviour is strongly associated with adolescence and tends to decrease with a move into middle-age (this may in part be to do with natural hormonal forcing in younger people but equally is associated with the sociology of aging, starting a family and so forth).
Secondly, many of my primary respondents are college students and for ease of data analysis I cannot provide the full spectrum of age options. I have chosen to explore the change between adolescence and middle-age in order to provide some direction and focus.
I'm sorry to hear that you didn't feel any options applied to you, but for the purposes of this research I need respondents to select the options that they feel are most applicable to them. I have solid reasons for the use of predetermined options, but their weaknesses will be taken into consideration when the discussion is written up.
In reply to Oceanrower: Please don't feel that you can't complete the question because the predetermined options don't fit you exactly. By their nature they will be somewhat inaccurate, but by choosing the one that most closely fits you I can plot this response against your other answers and other respondents to see if a trend exists. Thanks
I also didn't get far into the survey before I gave up. For the main activity (please be specific) I wrote Sport Climbing and then got really stuck.
The answers didn't fit. I'm not sure what Personal Safety Equipment you are talking about. If it is a rope then I would put it to you that climbing without a rope isn't Sport Climbing. If it is a helmet, then there isn't an option for something like, "I use safety equipment when I feel the situation warrants it.
Should I have been less specific in defining my adventure recreational activity?
In reply to abseil: Thanks for your interest. The Kerr article has been fundamental to my research so far and one of my questions is actually derived from their questionnaire! I don't believe I've come across the Serdar article so thanks for that- my research so far into trait and risky sports has been very interesting.
In reply to TonyB: Thanks for you comments. You're right that 'sport' climbing by nature requires a rope which I have defined as 'PSE'. This requires a little interpretation to relate to your activity, and for the purpose of this research I would define sport climbing under 'summer climbing'. The answers imply that 'PSE' is to some extent optional, and would say therefore that if a rope is essential then it refers more to use of a helmet and perhaps carrying of emergency equipment. I will consider better defining this question.
In reply to Toreador: Okay, perhaps an over-stretch of the term 'middle-age'. 'The move out of adolescence' better defines my point, but I hope that you can understand my justification of the age brackets in relation to what I am trying to find out.
Without looking at your profile, I knew you had to be young if you're lumping the world together after 30 .
Thing is, I know people who have had kids in their 30s and 40s and who then became risk averse in climbing because of their new responsibilities.
I didn't complete because I wasn't comfortable with some of the questions but was sufficiently interested to put any old answer so that I could see the rest of the questions. One question that definitely needs another answer is that related to smoking. I used to smoke 20+ a day but have now stopped. Where does that fit?
But then I'm too old to be of concern to your survey anyway ;-)
In reply to Ava Adore: Ava, thanks for your comments. Please understand that the reason for the age demographics is that part of my research is concerned with a risk-taking transition between adolescence and adulthood, not because I don't appreciate the sociological differences between a 30 year old and and 50 year old. Nevertheless, you are relevant to this research regardless of age.
The question regarding smoking is seeking to establish an individual's natural response to long-term health risks. I understand your difficulty answering this as a former smoker, but the purpose is to establish whether you are the type of person who would smoke despite the known risks, and to what extent. The fact that you no longer smoke is irrelevant from this standpoint (although well done for quitting!)
I appreciate the point and will adjust the question guidelines to suit this better.
> (In reply to almost sane) Hi Almost Sane. Thanks for your comments.
> The reason for this categorisation being more focused on the younger demographics is two-fold. Firstly, current sociological research suggests that wider risk-taking behaviour is strongly associated with adolescence and tends to decrease with a move into middle-age (this may in part be to do with natural hormonal forcing in younger people but equally is associated with the sociology of aging, starting a family and so forth).
You are a lot more sure of what "current sociological research" says than I am.
I suggest that what you call "middle age" is complex and not as homogenous as you imply, and that changes to participating in risky behaviour are more complex than biological age and hormones. My observation is that risk taking behaviour reduces upon marriage (or the equivalent) and that it reduces a lot on becoming a parent. Risk taking behaviour then increases again once the children have left home, the marriage ends, or both. I also perceive differences in risk taking behaviour associated with differences in employment, for example long-term unemployed people can build up expertise and get inured to risk through repeated exposure.
There is some interesting work on this whole area published in the Journal of Liesure Research. Have you searched there?
> (In reply to Oceanrower) Haha! Well, after a pretty in-depth review of current academic research on the subjects of both risk behaviour and adventure recreation I've found that although there has been significant research into the role of risk as a motivator and trait propensities for risk-taking, no-one has thus far theorised on a fundamental connection between risk-taking in adventure rec and risk-taking in other areas. Hopefully this will reveal whether a significant relationship exists.
I think you need to hang around on these forums a for a while. This is about the 6th survey just this year collecting research for such a study. I too gave up after question 3. The answers are random to say the least and there is no "none of the above" option.
I have completed the survey to the best of my - admittedly limited and aged - ability.
However I found the PSE definition - "non-essential ‘personal safety equipment’ (ropes, helmet..." - confusing.
Even more confusing was the syntax, particularly the use of tenses, in the penultimate question. 'I have had different partners...'; I have had sex only...'; 'I have regularly changed...' would seem to me to have been more effective wording.
In reply to almost sane: That's an interesting point and I suspect you're correct. I have chosen to look specifically at the transition from adolescence as it suits much of my demographic and there is a good quantity of research available on this topic. The age question is also a side issue to my main inquiry, which looks at whether participants of adventure rec are generally risk-takers, or whether the risk is seen as more acceptable within this context.
In reply to EeeByGum: Okay, interesting. Apparently a few folk are after this information too then. Perhaps we'll see some direct research published soon, as no such academic study has been yet.
Sorry to hear you gave up. The answers may appear random but are in fact written on scales of behavioural severity from 1-6 in accordance with the info I'm after. They have been randomised for delivery so that more attention is paid to the content of the answers and not where they fit in the scale.
Thanks for trying it out
In reply to BPT@work: Cheers for your input. I've given the PSE definition a fair bit of thought and have struggled to find a better wording.
In regard to penultimate question, unfortunately now that I've gone live I cannot alter the wording of answers without sacrificing my current responses. I hope this question is at least understandable. Thanks for participating
In reply to almost sane: For my main inquiry you are as relevant as anyone else and your responses equally useful. The subject of age is a secondary inquiry that I hope to extract additional info on. Apologies if I've caused offence in the use of 30+ as an age bracket. I would change it now, but unfortunately can't without invalidating my data. Cheers
In reply to Doogleman:
Unlike my brother above I did at least complete the survey, though now we know we probably don´t even fall into `middle aged´any more!
I´m an engineer and we research subjects objectively (or factually) and while I can understand that in some fields this isn´t so easy its pretty clear from doing a lot of this kind of survey why sociologist and there brethren have a fairly soft reputation. Allowing (or forcing by default) us to make our own judgement on what´s risky is ridiculous. I can look at a struggling beginner frightened out of his wits on an easy route or I can look at a basejumper, both are at risk but it is all relative and I´m somewhere in the middle.
The subject of perceived risk and actual risk is something that you haven´t defined for the respondents. This is a major problem through all of the `adventure´sport studies since risk control is generally a major element as it is in the rest of life. Industry spends millions encouraging the concept of risk for participants (to provide opportunities to extract money from potential customers) and millions again to reduce the real risk to an absolute minimum which means our conception of risk has already been distorted.
Instead of asking us what our risk attitude is you should test it, the miliary have long experience in this field.
In reply to jimtitt: Hi Jimtitt. I appreciate your thoughts. I'm assuming that you are referring to the questions of 'how has your attitude to risk changed?' and 'do you consider yourself a risk taker?' as these are the only ones asking the respondents for their opinion on their behaviour. The first is present to identify whether negative experiences have had an effect on perceptions or reactions to risk, whilst the second is to establish whether the individual's behaviour is in accordance with their perceptions of their behaviour.
I understand completely the subjective nature of risk and have designed most questions with this in mind, attempting to eliminate personal opinion by providing answers relating to actual behaviour rather than perceived behaviour. If these questions are answered honestly then behavioural trends should be easy to identify. I cannot completely remove my personal perspective on what is risky, but in order to provide a fixed point of reference for risk-taking I've focused on highly researched behavioural markers (drug-use/smoking/drinking/driving/unprotected sex)where the risks are widely recognised and socially understood. I hope this goes to demonstrate a degree of methodological solidity within this study.
I did it but dread what misinformation is going to come from the responses. You do realise 30+yr olds used to be adolescents? Most of the other questions fail to differentiate between current experience/attitude vs back when respondents were adolescents. You should throw the adolescent vs 30+yr old comparisons out the window.
In general your questions are meaningless. 'Do you consider yourself to be a risk-taker?' is nonsense without giving any reference point for comparison, everybody takes risks, sitting at home not doing anything is a risk. Climbers generally take pride in minimising risks so you're tool is woefully unsophisticated to analyse it. What is a near-miss? a controlled fall onto a bolt? What is 'non-essential' PPE? a rope? What is a serious accident? I broke my heel once in hundreds of climbing days out, does this mean I am a risk-taker and don't know it? Start again and design it with input from a group of climbers to help make it meaningful(and participants in whichever other sports you consider 'adventure'). Then pilot it a few times to iron out all the oversights.
A pretty bad survey - I just ticked random things for most of it. Things such as I used to smoke a lot but now no longer do weren't an option. I have witnessed and been involved in near misses but was only allowed to choose one option. I drink a couple of glasses of wine a week, and feel a bit tiddly after this wasn't an option. And the age range is very...... well reflective of your current age.
In reply to trouserburp: Hi trouserburp. The question 'Do you consider yourself to be a risk-taker?' is not part of the core data set. It is purely there to assess whether the individual perceives themselves as a risk-taker, and whether this perception has implications for their behaviour. 'Near miss' is defined in the questionnaire and is a term widely used in health and safety. A controlled fall onto a bolt is controlled, whereas a near miss is characterised by a loss of control that could have resulted in serious injury (i.e. a fall onto a bolt with a back-clipped quickdraw). 'Serious injury' in-turn would be defined as something resulting in either a rescue situation, hospitalisation, or both. I think this is fairly self-explanatory.
You are totally right about the question of age demographics. It is likely to fall by the wayside as it is fundamentally flawed due to the wording of some questions. Fortunately this isn't an issue for the main inquiry. Thanks for pointing that out though. Please read my reply to Jimtitt for more detail on methodology.
In reply to tlm: Hi there. I'm sorry you thought so, but would appreciate it if you would read the questions and guidelines thoroughly before making this kind of comment. The smoking question asked that former smokers reply in reference to their former habit. Your answers regarding accidents and near-misses would be equally relevant to the research so either is fine. And I cannot provide an infinite number of personalised answers, so ticking the one which most closely describes your drinking behaviour is adequate.
To tick random things is to provide completely false data and goes against the declaration of participation. Please abstain rather than doing this.
> (In reply to trouserburp) 'Near miss' is defined in the questionnaire and is a term widely used in health and safety. A controlled fall onto a bolt is controlled, whereas a near miss is characterised by a loss of control that could have resulted in serious injury (i.e. a fall onto a bolt with a back-clipped quickdraw).
> (In reply to Doogleman)
> This is a gold mine.
> At the end of it you should have a list of email addresses of young ladies who climb and like sex with strangers.
> Pure Genius.
He could make a fortune by selling those email addresses!
By the way I completed the survey and although some questions are a bit difficult to fit to myself I still managed it. It certainly wasn't as impossible as some people have made out and certainly the comments about risk versus perceived risk not being addressed are unjustified. It was clear to me that risk meant what I perceived as being risky, not if others thought I was doing something risky.
> (In reply to winhill)
> By the way I completed the survey and although some questions are a bit difficult to fit to myself I still managed it. It certainly wasn't as impossible as some people have made out
I wonder if it's people who only sport climb who had a harder time getting decent matches? I struggled on some of the non-climbing related stuff but there was always an answer that kind of reflected my attitude, if not my actual, current behaviour.
> To tick random things is to provide completely false data and goes against the declaration of participation. Please abstain rather than doing this.
I wanted to abstain from those questions, but didn't have an option
For example, you asked about habits with regards to sleeping with people, but I wasn't sure if you meant my current behaviour, my past behaviour or what I expect to do in the future... They are quite different things for us old folk over 30.
I just thought that you wanted some data but that you weren't too worried about the quality of it (going by what your standards for quality in the questionnaire.) I know how hard it can be to collect a decent response. I did try to pick something vaguely rightish, but at times it was pretty difficult!
As to the smoking. I smoked for 4 years before I started climbing. I haven't smoked at all for over 25 years. So I put myself as a none-smoker, rather than as a 20 a day smoker - was this the wrong answer then?
In reply to Doogleman: Thanks to everyone who has participated so far. Great to see this generating some interest. Keep it coming!
And just to clarify, responses are 100% anonymous unless you choose to submit your email at the end of the questionnaire. Even IP addresses are untraceable ;-)
In reply to tlm: Thanks for the input. I am going to adjust the heading for that section to solve the problem of long term behaviour change. For this research I need to establish an individual's most natural pattern of behaviour, so I guess answers need to refer to the behaviour that has dominated the individual's life. If you were a smoker for just 4 years out of 30 I would say you answered correctly. Cheers
> (In reply to Jon Stewart) Sport climbers don't understand risk. Why else would they take repeated falls onto gear of unknown provenance and stability that may have been left out in the rain for years?
Because there's a few bolts below the one they're lobbing on to?
Sorry, had a go but couldn't progress beyond a few questions. Got stuck at the one about what you do if the situation turns out to be more potentially dangerous than anticipated. There is no one answer that fits any better than any of the others - I have done all of those things at different times, probably in roughly equal amounts.
> (In reply to Doogleman)
> Do all your peers spend their lives getting pissed/stoned/driving badly and shagging around?
Hi Andy. No, my peers present quite diverse behaviours. However, university-age individuals (18-25) generally score highly in these areas so it will be interesting to find out whether their behaviour in adventure rec reflects a stronger tendency for or complacency to risk-taking.
> (In reply to Doogleman)
> I had to stop the questionnaire early on as the option "Why did you do it" didn't cover any of my motives and didn't allow for individual input. I think you need to reconsider your questionnaire.
Hi Heike. Sorry to hear that, and I am aware that the questionnaire is not perfect. However, if you are referring to the question 'What would you say is the nature of the pleasure you derive from this activity?' and it's ten options, then I'm quite surprised.
This question was not written by me, but is being used in this questionnaire to compare with results from its original study by Apter & Batler (1997). The study and its original findings have been cited in various papers and books, the most recent being by Kerr & Mackenzie (2012). I cannot believe that you fail to experience any of the said options when participating in your activity (in fact I'm sure that you experience many of them from time to time), and would recommend further reflection on the semantics of the answers in relation to your personal experience.
> (In reply to TonyB) for the purpose of this research I would define sport climbing under 'summer climbing'.
I'm sorry to say this but I think that one problem with the survey (and possibly the reason that so many people can't answer questions) is that your definitions simply don't fit with terminology commonly used in climbing. If you want people to come up with "summer climbing" then you would do a lot better to give them some options to choose from.
Have you done much rock climbing? The term "summer climbing" is pretty meaningless.
This is a pretty poor survey even by the usual standards presented here. I understand the point (rank adventure risk perceptions against everyday risk perceptions) but the design is very poor - lots of the questions were impossible to answer within the parameter:
"I declare that all answers I give in this questionnaire are honest and accurate within the given options."
For instance the smoking question - where does a former smoker answer? because there are one or two around you know. Many of the questions are similarly flawed.
I also like the age categories "over 30", what do you think the average age on UKC is?
In reply to Doogleman: Well I completed it, as much to see the rest of the difficult to answer questions as anything else which will add some 'noise' to your results. Even the first substantive question (What would you say is the nature of the pleasure you derive from this activity? ) is difficult - where's 'enjoyment' (not really the same as 'Immediate fun') or for the pleasure of being in a particular environment (e.g. beautiful mountains with no one else around). I'm sure I'm not alone in climbing for the situations/surroundings more than any perceived 'thrill' or other reasons you list.
As for your comments to Heike, just because it comes from a cited paper, doesn't mean its good (maybe all the citations were making negative comments?)
In reply to Doogleman: Done the questionaire. I always love seeing questionaires get slated by keyboard warriors, Personally Im not overly bothered about the flaws, im sure a lot of the questionaires and studies that have been done in the past contained questionable questions and answers, good luck with it.
> Sex one was the same, 30 a day but none for a while!
Yeah - that question was pretty impossible to answer! I'm happily married now, but have had my wild times in the past and who knows what the future might hold!!! I think it was written from the perspective of a young person who has yet to experience this change in behaviours over time...
In reply to tlm: You'd be right there mate. I'm 23, and although I've already experienced changes in behaviour in my own life I didn't consider the extent to which this would affect answers for older participants. This questionnaire was originally designed with a narrower set of respondents in mind (university students actually) and the decision to open it up to UKC was a last minute one. Evidently this has caused potentially inaccurate responses in the higher age range due to a lack to relevance to them. I will need to spend some time filtering responses and deliberating over how to maximise accuracy in the analysis stage.
In reply to Doogleman:
Well done! Putting a survey on a UKC forum is pretty risky business itself. I wouldn't have too much faith in the data, but good effort in defending it! Perhaps you could analyse it twice - once including data up to when you posted it on UKC and once with all the data... that might be more interesting!
In reply to Doogleman: OK about using what you understand is risk taking behaviour and sociological research but there's a maasive assumption going on here that folk over 30 will be as ready and willing to participate in surveys as perhaps those younger than 30 might be. It is also too glib to write 'sociological research' because different cultures throw-up different results and most of this so-called research is based on poor definitions & often biased assumptions for which there is uttelry no basis. I think your second reason exemplifies just my point: you've fallen for the obvious trap and when you get to be interviewed for your MSc /MA about your thesis or whatever this sort of purile assumption-making will have you slaughtered!
With one small example, just remember, that according to Emergency Care statistics one of the growing goups self-inflciting alcohol-induced injury and illness is the 30+ age group because they frequently binge at home with whatever they fancy. If that's not risk taking', perhaps definitions need to be agreed first.
....and seeing as we're on a climbing website: what's risk the difference between 1) two middle-aged, experienced climbers taking a quick punt on a full traverse of The Briethorn (when the forecast is extremely dodgey, Guides are not heading out and recent unsettled weather has mitigated against relaible weather yet the pair read the Meteo and saw a definite hint of a short window of good weather) and 2) a pair of young-guns who are really just athletic inexperienced numptees but attempt some totally over-graded but nevertheless hard sport route on which they both mess-up and achieve monstrous falls and then post that 'they've had an epic day', 'they've really pushed it out, man' and then get slaughtered on a few bottles of the expensive beers whilst lauded by their mates who see them as heros?
Clearly, my question invites loads of humour(please....!) but the risk taking of the midlle-aged pair, in my mind, far out weighs the brashness of the younger folk. So, from our sport, please don't rely on any aged-based assumptions because age in our sport has little bearing. I know the adage, "there's old climbers and there's bold climbers but nowt bold and old!" but just think of the numerous 30+yrs Sponsored guys and gals out there excelling around the world's mountains and you'll agree that your stats. are based on totally flawed and useless assumptions.
You quote " I have solid reasons for the use of predetermined options, but their weaknesses will be taken into consideration when the discussion is written up." Predetermined options lead towards predetermined opinions/conclusions?
Anyway, good on you for returning here regularly and responding to each query/comment. Many survey setters don't. That was the only reason I went to do the survey.
The survey was fine with the glaring exception of the smoking question which, if I was the research assistant on this questionnaire, would have to be left out of the dataset. I chose to tick heavy smoker which I was for many years, but I don't smoke at all now. Given the structure of the other drug use question, which asked for historical drug use, I decided that my previous long-term tobacco use was of interest. But it's really not a valid question without the previous use/zero current use option.
In reply to Doogleman:
Filled out, questions were very superficial in some cases. Also a few did not give the full range.
The alcohol one inparticular.
I ended up ticking the one about drinking very little, however I do occasionally get pissed.
> (In reply to Doogleman)
> What does driving in dangerous conditions mean, and who sticks to he speed limit? No one round here does, that for sure.
> What no none essential personal safety equipment need. Please explain the non essential qualifier.
'What no none essential personal safety equipment need'. Please explain this sentence.
In reply to Andy Cloquet: Andy, I appreciate your comments and am trying to understand what you're getting at (though I think there is misunderstanding obout this project's aims). I'm learning, but in my defense:
Firstly, the only way I can research this topic is by making assumptions based on previous research and conceptualisation on risk, otherwise I would have to do a much wider-spanning project involving numerous surveys and interviews before I even began to broach this topic.
Secondly, I am not making an absolute assumption that young people take more risks, nor am I trying to find this out. But due to the ease of finding younger respondents through my uni and the wealth of research available on adolescent risk behaviour, I designed the project to focus on the lower age-range. If I find interesting patterns unique to age then I may pursue this but it is somewhat irrelevant to the main purpose.
Risk is of course subjective, but some assumption is required in order to formulate research. This will be a weakness and will be considered fully when analysing results, but given a high respondent rate I do think clear trends will be present. Only one way to find out
Hi Cavey. Yes, the industry terminology is 'PPE' referring to 'Personal Protective Equipment'. I used some creative license to change this for the survey as I felt 'Personal Safety Equipment' better covers the range of equipment used to keep an individual safe (both preventative and emergency-based as well as 'protective'). Hopefully the definition I included isn't too hard to decifer.
> (In reply to Beat me to it!)
> 'What no none essential personal safety equipment need'. Please explain this sentence.
'Personal safety equipment' refers to any equipment designed to keep an individual safe, be it preventative (compass/map), personally protective (helmet; harness etc) or emergency (emergency shelter; first aid kit; buoyancy aid etc).
This requires some interpretation depending on your activity, but 'non-essential' means just that- anything that the activity can be conducted without.
In rock or winter climbing for example, if you generally solo easy graded routes then to you a rope would be non-essential, however if a rope is required for your grade and you wouldn't usually climb without one then it is. I hope this makes sense.
In reply to Doogleman:
"I designed the project to focus on the lower age-range"
You would have avoided much of the criticism if you had clearly restricted the survey to a younger age class (maybe 15-25 ?)and I suspect you would have got a dataset which would have been more meaningful.
Are you interested in studying people's doing of risky things, or people's doing things they perceive to be risky.
For example, there was a time I preferred winter climbing to rock climbing because winter climbing felt safer to me.
There is a lot of work on normalisation of risk, where a community of practitioners stop seeing their usual behaviour as being at all risky.
> (In reply to Andy Say)
> 'Personal safety equipment' refers to any equipment designed to keep an individual safe, be it preventative (compass/map), personally protective (helmet; harness etc) or emergency (emergency shelter; first aid kit; buoyancy aid etc).
> This requires some interpretation depending on your activity, but 'non-essential' means just that- anything that the activity can be conducted without.
> In rock or winter climbing for example, if you generally solo easy graded routes then to you a rope would be non-essential, however if a rope is required for your grade and you wouldn't usually climb without one then it is. I hope this makes sense.
I wasn't querying the term used within your question; which was actually written in English. I was querying the sentence in the post by 'Beat me to it', which wasn't.
Did the survey - not a 'perfect fit' for me but I managed.
> (In reply to Doogleman)
> What does driving in dangerous conditions mean, and who sticks to he speed limit? No one round here does, that for sure.
That was another one - I generally stick to the speed limit in towns, but regularly drive at 80 on the motorway, as does every other car on there. Police cars don't even stop you for doing 80. However, on the M42, I stick religiously to the variable speed limits!
As a scientist, it's really frustrating to see lay-people's responses to what looks to be a good survey on an interesting topic. When and where will the results be published? I would be interested in reading them, if they become available.
> (In reply to Doogleman)
> As a scientist, it's really frustrating to see lay-people's responses to what looks to be a good survey on an interesting topic. When and where will the results be published? I would be interested in reading them, if they become available.
The responses seem quite measured and critical in a constructive way though and the OP has taken everything on board in good-humour.
And to be fair, he did ask lay-people to responsd to the survey.
As another scientist I am always dismayed at poorly thought out surveys that funnel the respondents and fail to capture the facts because of poor design or preconceptions...
As an academic this looks like a poorly designed undergraduate survey. The intention of the design is interesting but the execution is poor - what is refreshing is that the OP has taken the criticism (as it is generally intended) in good faith and appears to have learnt a fair bit about his/her subject.
I find it pretty astounding that valid criticism about the design could be rejected by a "scientist" because the criticism comes from "lay-people" - astonishing arrogance.
> (In reply to Ly-Cilph)
> I find it pretty astounding that valid criticism about the design could be rejected by a "scientist" because the criticism comes from "lay-people" - astonishing arrogance.
I was going to say just that, but wasn't sure how the comment would be received - me being a lay-person and all...
No option for "I do not, but have done in the past".
Otherwise, compared with most of the hundreds of surveys we all get to complete on here, it's not bad. Still massively over-simplistic to the point of missing any meaning.
e.g. Is someone who solos a mod a greater risk taker than someone who leads an E9? Of course not, however according to this survey they would be climbing without Personal Safety Equipment and hence out there on the fringes of risk taking, whereas actually its the E9 leader who is out there on the fringes, Personal Safety Equipment or not.
In reply to ThunderCat: Yes, I completely agree. The vast majority of contributions on the forum have been in some way constructive, and by considering these and attempting to justify the decisions I've made I'm learning a considerable amount. If this project progresses to a 2nd stage it will be much more solid all round due to this input.
Thank you again to all who have been constructive in their comments.
Aside from echoing what everyone else above said...
I think the last question was the hardest. Are you a risk taker is a bit more nuanced than "yes" and "no". Anyone who commutes to work on the roads and ties up retirement savings in the value of their house, pension etc (which are influenced by arbitrary market trends) is a risk taker. We all take risks whether we know it or not, the difference is in who is conscious of the process.
So I answered yes, but wouldn't want to be pigeon holed as an adrenaline junkie or anything because I believe the risks I take are rational.
Anyway, please do post up the results, in a different thread!