About that survey of a few priests
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,500
    I spent a year or so during the last decade working for the influential Dr. Dean Hoge at the Catholic University of America's Life Cycle Institute. We were working on a major project for 5 Protestant denominations on why pastors leave local church ministry. (The project became this book; my name is in it somewhere.) I learned a lot, but not being a credentialed sociologist, my contributions would always be at the level of Research Assistant, and I was lucky to get that. It was fun. I learned a lot about ecclesiology, which has always been an interest. But there was no way that I would have been allowed to implement a survey, or analyze the data, or evaluate and publish its results. Everything I did was tightly scrutinized. The project was directed by a professor of sociology, considered an expert, with many published books indicating his research qualifications, and co-directed by a graduate student who was in the writing phase of her doctorate in sociology. The rest of us just did what we were told.

    So imagine my surprise when a study purporting to be major is undertaken by students in the Liturgy Department of the College of St. Benedict/ St. John's University, with a Social Psychologist from the CSB/SJU faculty as their Professional Consultant, and the hardly-disinterested Rev. Anthony Ruff, OSB, as their advisor. More info here.

    Here are the credentials of the Project Manager, according to the PrayTell website:

    Chase M. Becker is a Nebraska native and current editorial assistant for Pray Tell. Chase holds a B.A. in Philosophy from Saint Gregory the Great Seminary in Seward, Nebraska and is currently pursuing an M.A. in Liturgical Studies from Saint John's School of Theology•Seminary in Collegeville, Minnesota. Chase currently serves as a Liturgical Designer and Consultant and has earned awards in historic preservation from Heritage Nebraska and Preservation North Dakota.


    The sympathetic-leaning PrayTell commentariat have already weighed in on the likelihood of sampling errors, particularly considering the enormous amount of self-selection that occurred. Self-selecting dioceses participated. Self-selecting clergy from these dioceses participated. And as Jeffrey mentions below, we are given very little of the data.

    Before we take this survey with any seriousness, why don't we stop and ask for a little transparency.
    What did the surveys look like? Did they indicate Collegeville as their source or destination, thus influencing participation? Which dioceses were involved and why? Where there any outside scientists involved in the process? Was any outside social scientist consulted for independent evaluation of the procedures?

    What degree of professionally credible skill was involved in producing this survey? How involved was the in-house scientific consultant? Did she design the survey? Did she evaluate the results or train the liturgy students to a high level of analytical skill before they processed the results? What corrections were made to the raw data?

    (cross-posted at Chant Cafe)
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,388
    So, Kathy, if you - like me - have not been trained to implement a sociological survey, or analyze the data, or evaluate and publish its results, what credentials do you have to determine that the survey under discussion was done incorrectly and that its results are bogus?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    Does one need credentials to ask the questions Kathy presents, or to state the acknowledged facts she states?
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,388
    Chonak, are you pulling my leg? I don't know your style yet, but you are jesting, no?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    I'm on the level.

    Your question about Kathy's credentials was this:
    what credentials do you have to determine that the survey under discussion was done incorrectly and that its results are bogus?

    This did not correspond to what Kathy wrote. She didn't claim to have determined that the survey under discussion had been done incorrectly or that its results were bogus. Also, she openly professed her non-expert status.

    Instead of declaring conclusions, she posed questions.

    She stated some facts -- facts that are stated by the researchers themselves: facts that suggest potential methodological limitations in the study. For example, if you're not familiar with the concept of self-selection bias, let me point you to a little article that explains it. Since only 32 of the invited dioceses chose to participate, they are a "self-selected" group of respondents; therefore they are not a random sample of all US dioceses. Therefore their responses to the survey may possibly be unrepresentative of the views of the broad population of US priests.

    For what it's worth, I'm not a statistician; but I did earn a Master's in applied math in 1980, so I gained a modest acquaintance with the field along the way.
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,388
    Chonak, thank you for setting me straight. I am relieved to know that Kathy's comments are based entirely upon her misunderstanding of the concepts of "self-selection" and "random sampling." When I first read her comments at 1:00 AM, my thoughts were, "My, she really has it in for Fr. Ruff. I wonder what he did to anger her so?" I'm glad to know I was wrong.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    Kathy's comments are based entirely upon her misunderstanding of the concepts of "self-selection" and "random sampling.


    Nope.

    She is saying that she has at least enough experience to know what the problems are in this sort of thing, and that she knows enough to realize how much she doesn't know. Based on that, she is speculating that the survey's methods are flawed.

    Honestly- you don't have to have a PhD in a Temporal Mechanics to realize that Time Cube is totally insane. An elementary education in physics and geography would suffice, even if such an education is not enough to give a person the ability to make major contributions to the field.

    It is the responsibility of all people to "test everything," and to have enough of a general understanding of how the world works that we cannot be hoodwinked by people with letters after their name. The idea that only specialists are capable of examining the veracity and methods of claims made by specialists is (like Time Cube) completely nuts.
  • Scott_WScott_W
    Posts: 468
    Exactly Adam. It would be difficult for anyone to get through a core curriculum in college and not have some exposure to statistics and sampling. You don't need a doctorate in waste management to know the garbage smells bad. Much like the odor wafting off this survey. As I mentioned at the cafe blog, the good news is that whatever faults the new translation has, the old chummy version isn't coming back and keeping up the argument is a recipe for bitterness.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,500
    Thanks for the backup, guys. I appreciate it. Plus, you're right. I was near enough to the process to be aware of the expertise that is involved, and to know that years of training go into it.

    Fr. Krisman, you are completely mistaken. I do not consider Fr. Ruff an enemy. He was my first chant teacher and that's not the sort of debt you ever repay; I will always be grateful.

    As for his blindness in these translation matters, I would imagine that the reasons are many and complex. I wish he wouldn't sort his problems out in public in such a way that requires response, but since he did, I responded with very fair questions.

    It's up to Fr. Ruff whether the answers to these questions are ever made public.
  • Blaise
    Posts: 439
    Something I would like to know more is: what of the priests so surveyed? Whose generation did they grow up and study in? (Pope JP II, Benedict XVI, etc.) Do these priests have a contemporary, modernist vision of the liturgy? Of the Church? These things are important in trying to establish the relevance of a study. (For those of us who have taken basic college statistics, we know that it is important to control for as many variables as possible.)
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    Going by the survey web site and by the 24-page "full report", it doesn't appear that the respondents were asked demographic questions. If the survey didn't include those questions, then it makes the whole project look like an amateur effort.

    Insightful interpretation of survey data requires examining how the respondents differ from the population at large, and you can use demographic data (among others) for that purpose. If you find that some segment of the whole population is under-represented in your respondents, then you can weight the responses accordingly, in an effort to provide a more correct projection of what the whole population thinks.
    Thanked by 3Adam Wood CHGiffen IanW