Have Your Say On Greyhounds

[_PL_]

If that is the case, I'd expect questions that had actually been researched (to ensure the answers they got were actually useful).

I'll give you an example here..

What percentage of dogs should end up being adopted as pets when their training or racing career is over?

Is this question asking what percentage of dogs should be assessed for suitability for rehoming? Or which percentage of assessed dogs should be rehomed? Or even which percentage of assessed dogs would we like to see being assessed as rehomable?

I assumed the first question was what was meant. Someone else might assume the second or even third and answer with that interpretation in mind. When you ask questions that suggest a lack of insight into how rehoming works, you're going to end up with unusable answers.

But by all means, continue to assume us simple plebs don't understand how research works :)

Erhmagerd save them all. :laugh: Forget about the fact that they are a dog and not all of them should be rehomed.

I did the survey but it's fairly restricted, the %questions about how many should race etc. Doesn't really take into account the wastage. So if I say eg __% of racing greyhounds bred should be raced, there's no room for me to say; if it was a carefully managed breeding and management program instead of wholesale breeding until you find 'the one' that can compete then throw out the rest then my answer would be very different.

Anyway I guess you can't have too many options for answers if you just want a simple snapshot of where people's heads are at when they heard the words Greyhound Racing. I hope the study yields something and maybe paves the way for a more in depth one.

[WreckitWhippet]

Nahh Maddy not your money, this time it's the GRNSW. I'm pretty sure though it will be a waste, just like the tens of thousands that Dogs NSW handed over to that man.

[Maddy]

Nahh Maddy not your money, this time it's the GRNSW. I'm pretty sure though it will be a waste, just like the tens of thousands that Dogs NSW handed over to that man.

If it was my money (as a member of GRNSW), I guess I'd have a lot more incentive to care about the quality of the survey. Fortunately for me, it's not my membership dues being wasted on questionable research that could impact my future participation in the sport. I wonder how many members are aware of this study?

That aside, it worries me that the results of this survey might be used by other states to form policy or by anti racing groups to back up their claims that the majority of the public would support a ban (and the subsequent extinction of the racing greyhound in Australia).

Bad research (in other areas) has already led to policies that aren't good for dogs. The new regulations for breeders in Victoria are a good example of AR-influenced laws that actually negatively affect animal welfare.

[corvus]

You are missing my point.

That one question is going to yield different answers based on what the person answering thinks the question means. It's not one question, it's several questions. If 40% of people think it means example A, 50% think it means example B and 10% think it means example C, you are going to have three different sets of data for one question with no way of knowing which example the person thought they were answering.

It has nothing to do with the respondent's knowledge of the industry, it's about the knowledge of the people writing the questions. If the people who write the questions haven't bothered to do their research, you're going to end up with bad questions, like the example given.

Edited to add condescending smiley face. :)

It's the nature of surveys, Maddy. We develop them knowing full well that interpretation will vary. There are ways to get around it, like asking about the same thing from several different angles, giving people opportunities to list other options or explain themselves - both strategies employed in this survey, but getting a lot of responses is always going to help. In some cases, the questions are deliberately kept broad and somewhat ambiguous because the way they are answered by the sample population will be more informative than if we tried to spoon feed respondents answers that we think they want to give us. There is an informed process going on with survey development, and usually a fair bit of collaboration and checking. A lot of researchers run pilots before their surveys go live to check if any of the questions were too ambiguous. How they respond to comments in a pilot depends on what their aims for each question is. So, while I'm sure it seems to you and others that researchers are pulling questions out of their butts, it is actually not the case. There is method to the madness, and each question is carefully thought out, discussed, and the wording rolled around and polished until the researchers are satisfied it will be interpreted the way they hope - which could very well mean in several different ways. You can actually look at the distribution of answers and how they relate to other answers and develop a good picture of what kinds of people have what kinds of views. Every question needn't be represented as a sample mean and that's that. You can do lots of exciting things with statistics that get to the heart of how questions have been answered better than we can just by looking at the answers and raw numbers.

I love how I'm insulting greyhound people for suggesting they fill out the survey if they care, but it's totally fine to give a woefully uninformed critique of someone's professional work in the same thread. We don't go to uni for 7+ years to learn how to do something that somebody in their armchair at home with no training can do better. Do the survey or don't, but I suggest you be careful with your condescending smiley faces and assuming you are speaking from a position of superior knowledge. The more you learn, the more you realise you don't know, and there are certainly things I have said on the internet that are still floating around that make me feel a little bad for my past self. Awww, you had no clue, baby corvus.

I'll apologise for apparently being insulting if you do.

[Brandiandwe]

I filled in the survey, and I work in social research. It was really badly designed. And it really did reveal a lack of knowledge and understanding on the part of the researchers about the industry itself. Which contributed to the poor design. I'd be interested in hearing about the response rates from those actually in the industry. The chat I've heard around the traps has been that people start to answer it but are being put off by the very poorly designed questions which are being asked from a position which, as I said above, is from no in-depth understanding of the industry. So they won't bother, which is a shame because many people in the industry are desperate for change and help and support to ensure the best outcomes for their dogs. And it means that the results will be partial at best.

[gapvic]

My link

[mita]

I notice it says now that the survey has been closed. It doesn't give a reason.

[mita]

It has nothing to do with the respondent's knowledge of the industry, it's about the knowledge of the people writing the questions.

That is the bottom-line in designing surveys ... & also tests. You are right, maddy.

Surveys (& tests) have a starting point in some kind of rationale of understanding what is to be surveyed or tested, In fact, when a survey is published, it's introduced with a rationale for the particular understanding. So it is fair comment to critique that understanding. It's often done & the purpose isn't to insult survey authors, but to critique the rationale it's based on. Happens all the time & is quite 'respectable'.

Research design is the means by which the issues drawn from that understanding are probed. And questions are asked in ways corvus has, rightly , explained well. Over which, authors of surveys labour long & hard, for the reasons corvus gave.

So, curiously, both sides are right ... but their points should go together like a horse & cart.

Edited August 9, 2015 by mita

[corvus]

The survey has been closed so the results could be analysed and the report prepared. A review of the major findings and recommendations plus a link to the full report is at the link gapvic posted: http://www.thedogs.com.au/NewsArticle.aspx?NewsId=6716

I suppose I'd be curious to know if it's all as dire as everyone just knew it would be before the results were analysed, but then again, even my curiosity has limits.

[WreckitWhippet]

It is common practice for racing greyhounds to spend a significant period of their

adult life under conditions of individual-animal housing. This is unacceptable from

an animal welfare standpoint.

where has Mr Rolly Eyes gone

and surprise surprise McGreevy needs another 250K

Edited August 9, 2015 by WreckitWhippet

[mita]

The survey has been closed so the results could be analysed and the report prepared. A review of the major findings and recommendations plus a link to the full report is at the link gapvic posted: http://www.thedogs.com.au/NewsArticle.aspx?NewsId=6716

I suppose I'd be curious to know if it's all as dire as everyone just knew it would be before the results were analysed, but then again, even my curiosity has limits.

That link says that the report has been prepared. From summary:

The Review & Assessment of Best Practice Rearing, Socialisation, Education and Training Methods for Greyhounds in a Racing Context was commissioned by GRNSW and developed by Working Dog Alliance Australia (WDA), a registered non-profit organisation that aims to work with industry to improve the welfare of Australia’s working and sporting dogs.

As part of its work, WDA undertook visits of greyhound rearing and training facilities, conducted a literature review and also developed a survey which was distributed to industry participants and members of public.

In the bolded part, there you have both the locations for observation and the understandings from which the authors worked. Obviously, the survey would've probed from the base they'd selected. When people here , questioned that base, it was fair comment, not insult.

Further in that summary, it refers to further research work needing to be done .... which would cover locations and understandings of relevant issues, that the authors now believe the first piece of work doesn't cover.

So the report authors are doing exactly what people have done in this thread ... giving a critique about more understandings needing to be recognized & examined. It would've been good if the survey had contained the kinds of questions which would've allowed people to point to exactly what was not being covered.... in their opinions & based on their experiences. It would also be good if comments are invited on the published report. This is how useful, comprehensive research develops.

Edited August 10, 2015 by mita

[corvus]

So, all opinions are equally valid and worthy of consideration? Regardless of who is expressing them and how they are doing it?

[raineth]

To be fair Mita, ALL research talks about further research to be done and no research covers all bases :)

I agree that it's good to provide space for survey-takers to add comment. I can't remember if the survey did that or not.

[HazyWal]

Hmmmm so it seems Working Dog Alliance is copping a whole lotta hate from the anti racing activists, they must be very busy deleting on their FB page.

[Maddy]

Hmmmm so it seems Working Dog Alliance is copping a whole lotta hate from the anti racing activists, they must be very busy deleting on their FB page.

It's a hard life, being a dog whisperer with a PhD :laugh:

For anyone who missed the story.. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-31/greyhound-racing-nsw-cover-ups-tip-offs-revealed/6736034

[mita]

To be fair Mita, ALL research talks about further research to be done and no research covers all bases :)

I agree that it's good to provide space for survey-takers to add comment. I can't remember if the survey did that or not.

Which is exactly what I said. Published research papers often have in their Discussion section, what further areas for research are relevant. And which is why feedback via both peer review and general audience are important.

And also why I was not fazed in any of my posts that there was both general feedback in this topic (a good thing) .... and indication from the authors ( on the link I made a point of looking up myself) that there were further issues that would be relevant to cover (another good thing).

Edited September 1, 2015 by mita