<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Research, what research?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.pauravshukla.com/research-what-research/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.pauravshukla.com/research-what-research?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=research-what-research</link>
	<description>Marketing, Research, International marketing, Luxury marketing and more...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:13:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dr. Paurav Shukla</title>
		<link>http://www.pauravshukla.com/research-what-research/comment-page-1#comment-3</link>
		<dc:creator>Dr. Paurav Shukla</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ps.blogging.sitefrost.com/research-what-research#comment-3</guid>
		<description>I somehow disagree Carole. First, because the relevant sample here is 46 people only (on which the actual conclusion is based). Second, the brain wiring suggestion is beyond the remit of the study and an able researcher would always avoid making comments beyond the scope of the research. Guessing is good but not when publishing findings. I would approach findings of such kind with extreme caution. These are the kinds of study which then get corrected every year. Don&#039;t we get those &#039;tea is healthy&#039; one year and &#039;tea is unhealthy&#039; another year studies. Why not carry out a proper study with a strong focus on validity and reliability rather than half-baked research?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I somehow disagree Carole. First, because the relevant sample here is 46 people only (on which the actual conclusion is based). Second, the brain wiring suggestion is beyond the remit of the study and an able researcher would always avoid making comments beyond the scope of the research. Guessing is good but not when publishing findings. I would approach findings of such kind with extreme caution. These are the kinds of study which then get corrected every year. Don&#8217;t we get those &#8216;tea is healthy&#8217; one year and &#8216;tea is unhealthy&#8217; another year studies. Why not carry out a proper study with a strong focus on validity and reliability rather than half-baked research?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carole Seawert</title>
		<link>http://www.pauravshukla.com/research-what-research/comment-page-1#comment-2</link>
		<dc:creator>Carole Seawert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ps.blogging.sitefrost.com/research-what-research#comment-2</guid>
		<description>Surely 112 people isn&#039;t a large enough sample? But the research did show that left handers are avid list writers and colur code things. That&#039;s me a to a T!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Surely 112 people isn&#8217;t a large enough sample? But the research did show that left handers are avid list writers and colur code things. That&#8217;s me a to a T!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

