OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether eligibility criteria that exclude the elderly, persons with psychiatric disease, and persons with substance abuse problems from participation in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are subjective and hence a source of variability in enrolment decisions and investigator uncertainty. DESIGN: Survey questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: Cancer investigators from the United States and Canada. INTERVENTIONS: Investigators were presented with clinical vignettes from 3 patient categories--eligible, ineligible and uncertain--for each of 5 eligibility criteria--3 subjective and 2 objective--and were asked whether they would (...) enrol the patient in a trial and how sure they were of this decision. Demographic characteristics of the investigators were also collected. OUTCOME MEASURES: The difference in enrolment decisions between subjective and objective criteria, and the difference in the certainty associated with these decisions. RESULTS: Of 365 questionnaires sent out, 224 usable ones were returned. Compared with the objective criteria, the subjective criteria were associated with more variable enrolment decisions (p = 0.07 for the "eligible" scenario and p = 0.0001 for the "ineligible" and "uncertain" scenarios), and investigators were less sure about the decisions they made (p = 0.0001 for all scenarios). Demographic characteristics of the investigators failed to explain the observed differences. CONCLUSIONS: Subjective eligibility criteria may interfere with the conduct and interpretation of RCTs and, therefore, their use ought to be justified explicitly in the study protocol. RCT designers, funding agencies and research ethics boards have an important role in reviewing eligibility criteria for their necessity. (shrink)

(2010). AESA 2009 Presidential Address Cultivating Hope and Building Community: Reflections on Social Justice Activism in Educational Studies. Educational Studies: Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 151-167.

(2008). 2007 AESA Presidential Address Conflict of the Faculties: Democratic Progressivism in the Age of “No Child Left Behind”. Educational Studies: Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 94-113.

(1987). An Ethnography of AESA: A Collective Insider's Perspective on the Organization (AESA Presidential Address--1986) Educational Studies: Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 359-373.

_2020 Critics' Choice Book Award, American Educational Studies Association (AESA) In _Race on Campus_, Julie J. Park argues that there are surprisingly pervasive and stubborn myths about diversity on college and university campuses, and that these myths obscure the notable significance and admirable effects that diversity has had on campus life. _ Based on her analysis of extensive research and data about contemporary students and campuses, Park counters these myths and explores their problematic origins. Among the major myths that she (...) addresses are charges of pervasive self-segregation, arguments that affirmative action in college admissions has run its course and become counterproductive, related arguments that Asian Americans are poorly served by affirmative action policies, and suggestions that programs and policies meant to promote diversity have failed to address class-based disadvantages. In the course of responding to these myths, Park presents a far more positive and nuanced portrait of diversity and its place on American college campuses. At a time when diversity has become a central theme and goal of colleges and universities throughout the United States, _Race on Campus _offers a contemporary, research-based exploration of racial dynamics on today’s college campuses. (shrink)