Klarinet Archive - Posting 000278.txt from 1999/02
From: "Steven J Goldman, MD" <gpsc@-----.com>
Subj: RE: [kl] Women and orchestras
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 08:44:30 -0500
OK, I've avoided this mine field like the plague (if I get not trouble
talking about bore oil just thing what would happen here), but I just can't
let this one go by. Aside from the fact that this is really stretching, if
not misrepresenting the definition of a double blind study, it would add
absolutely nothing to the removal of bias. It's a Rube Goldberg setup
(anyone remember what that referred to?). It debases the idea of blind
auditions and makes the attempt to remove bias appear dumb. Think before you
suggest something like this, as it just hurts the cause of truly fair
additions.
Steve
Glenview, IL
sjgoldman@-----.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Arnold Teres [mailto:johnathant@-----.com]
Subject: [kl] Women and orchestras
Sure. A single blind audition would be where the the judges would not know
which players were candidates and which were control players (a control
would be a skilled player who was there to keep experimental bias out of the
audition). A double blind audition would be an audition where the judges
would also have control judges. If you truly wanted an un-biased audition
you would need a double blind cross over. No one would be able to afford one
and I doubt that anyone would put up with the protocol but it would go like
this.
1. select a group of players for the audition and a group of player
controls. A fair control would be a player currently in the orchestra.
2. select a group of judges and a group of judge controls. A judge control
would be a "phoney" judge who only serves to keep the identity of the real
judges hidden.
3. select some audition pieces. All players would play all of the pieces for
all of the judges twice.
4. set up a random audition schedule that assures that each player plays
each piece in front of a group of judges consisting of both real judges and
control judges.
The players would play all of the pieces twice. In each session the players
would not know if they were playing for a real judge or a control (single
blind). The judges would not know if the player was a candidate or a control
(double blind). When hearing each piece the judge would not know which
performance was the candidate and which was the control (cross over).
And there you have it - double blind cross over audition. It would cost a
fortune.
By the way this protocol only eliminates bias in the design of the audition.
It assumes that all of the judges are fair and can not "break the control"
i.e. figure out which player is a control. Nothing can eliminate bias in the
interpretation of the judges.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org
