He shouldn't have added my name to complaint

[Auntieobem]

Without at least letting me proof read it?? DP has submitted a complaint re some research conducted at dd's school. I was annoyed about the issue too, but he didn't tell me he'd submitted a formal complaint until after he'd put it in. Despite having a work colleague proof read it the letter he's submitted is full of grammatical mistakes and just reads like a rant.

He says he added my name because colleague told him it was better if it came from both of us. He doesn't think he's been unreasonable at all.

So

YABU - DP was just going what he thought was right

YANBU - DP shouldn't have sent it without checking with me first

Umm… I literally asked you what your advice for the OP was in my last post.

you’ve added nothing to this thread except name calling . I’m not really sure why you’re here 🤷‍♀️

I'm here because, like you, I can be. There you go again with your arrogance. I don't really care what your work experience is, but your attitude stinks.

Also, not sure why you needed to use the word literally; it's very misplaced, these days and certainly not needed in the context in which you used it. Ooh, I could be like you and list in which establishments I've worked. Nah, I prefer to be more low key.

OP, at least your other half put his money where his mouth was, and did something about it. Hope you get the outcome you're seeking.

Ok. So nothing constructive to offer the thread/OP then. Well thanks so much for your input.

I assume you just saw this thread in active and popped in for some personal attacking?
Everyone needs a hobby I guess.

Have a lovely day 😊

Nice afterthought.
Really insightful 😂😂

Sorry, I don't believe that post was addressed to you. As I said, barging your way through the thread.

I don't believe you've offered anything constructive. All you have done is brag about your own career. Have a fabulous evening.

You don’t seem to understand how MN works.

Don’t worry I’m sure if you practice lots and concentrate hard you’ll figure it out. Good luck!

And you say you RTFT?

so you missed all the sources I provided on ethical guidance for use of children in research and possible GDPR conflicts?

deary me! It seems my earlier advice about reading comprehension might be helpful for you too!

Fur, I don't know whether you really are an expert or whether you've just done a lot of googling, but quite a lot of what you have said is not relevant in this case.

For example, if the university's ethics committee approved the research methods, and the Head gave consent in loco parentis, and the questionnaires were anonymised, and the children were told - say in assembly - that this was optional. then we may yet find that there were no protocol breaches.

Even op doesn't know the details yet. I will be genuinely interested in the outcome and, if errors were made, and they might have been, how they attempt to put it right.

But it is certainly possible for us all to disagree without any patronising, passive aggression, cry-laughing at posters and so on.

Have a delightful evening. Warmest regards.

Which parts are not relevant?

what you say may true but it’s certainly not good research practice. If you read the documents provided you’ll see it’s pretty clear that the recommendation is that consent should be sought from parents/guardians especially for projects where children are not Gillick competent to give consent - this is the recommendation from NSPCC and UKRI.

for personal data, only children over the age of 13 can consent to giving this data (anonymised or not) and as OP has said some of these children are under 12 this is also problematic and a potential GDPR breach.

The fact that OP is not aware of what health and well-being data is being collected from her underage child, how it is stored or how consent may be withdrawn from the study is problematic and poor research practice, and it’s entirely reasonable that she and her DH should complain.

Other posters may disagree w approach but seem unable to do so without personally attacking her as ‘ridiculous’ and ‘that parent’. I think it would be nice to have had this discussion without all of the personal attacks myself and the Op have received but it seems some folk really don’t want to engage in reasonable discussion, they just see a thread in Active and pop over to put the boot in. I’m afraid I’ve no interest in attempting to politely engage with the equivalent of playground bullies who start with aggressive name-calling posts when they’ve clearly not even bothered to read the thread 🤷‍♀️

Honestly, it is hard to take the moral high ground when you are saying things like this :

"thank goodness we have @SkimmyWins here to berate us and correct us based on her personal opinion 😁"

"you REALLY don’t understand how research ethics work to safeguard vulnerable populations do you? 😂"

"Yep give it a thorough read - especially as you seem to struggle with comprehension 😆"

And that was a very quick skim of a couple of pages. And you were berating pp about informed consent when actually the Head can provide this or parents may have given blanket support for educational research when accepting their place at the school. And at least one person you were arguing with appeared to be trying to make that point.

I suppose it's nice that you are leaping to op's defence but I doubt she needs it. Being called 'ridiculous' and 'that parent' by one or two posters on an entire AIBU thread is quite good going. She seems smart and competent enough to defend herself to me. And actually most criticism has been about jumping in with a ranty complaint without being crystal clear on the facts (unless there's a big drip coming).

Best wishes.

It’s a MN thread - not sure there’s much moral high ground involved!

very flattering (though a bit creepy) that you’ve traveled the thread to point out the error of my ways (I’d suggest patronising too as I’m perfectly aware of what I’ve written thanks, but pointing that out would likely cause offence 🤷‍♀️) . I also like your passive-aggressive ‘best wishes’ it’s a nice touch, if a bit hypocritical.

i won’t go over the informed consent issue again. I think I explained it clearly in my last post and the guidance from multiple sources is on the thread. In short Headteacher consent alone is not good practice.

I agree that the OP seems smart and competent. Which is why unlike you I’ve not assumed that she’s forgotten that she’s given the head in loco parents consent for research (and even if she had it’s still not good practice and doesn’t address the concerns I’ve already outlined).

best wishes!

Fur, Indeed. Good day to you.

@FurAndFeathers I've also read the whole thread and just want to say that you’ve held your own rather marvellously. And provided lots of helpful info that I personally didn’t know, so thank you.

Thank you, that’s very kind of you. I know I haven’t always been ‘polite’ in my delivery but then neither have several others (though they’ve not been berated for it).

Research ethics is something that is incredibly important - especially when it comes to vulnerable populations such as children. We aren’t as far removed as we might sometimes think, from the atrocities of the past.

😅

👏

Lol OPs DH was “chair an ethics” committee and writes ranty grammatically incorrect letter. Did he declare “I used to be chair an ethics committee, don’t you know” in the letter? 🤣