Should psychology be written for the layman or should science be exclusively for scientists?

     Psychology as a whole can and is considered to be for the benefit of everyone. Psychology looks at human behaviour as well as cause and effect relationships. And so because it is for everyones benefit everyone should be able to understand what it is about.

     Obviously I am coming from the view that it should 'be written for the laymen' although I wouldn't use that turn of phrase. The idea that writing in scientific lexis for the sake of it appears to be unfair. Yes, to be scientific is all well and good (psychology being a science) but it shouldn't be used to separate scientists from none scientists.

     In A level Sociology there was the concept of the 'elaborate code' and the 'restricted code' in language. The elaborate code mainly associated with the upper class made use of a wider range of words and grammar whereas the restricted code, which was associated with the working class, was limited to the more basic. Furthermore it was suggested that the elaborate code was used to keep the upper class, upper.

     Now I personally don't agree with this for the fact that, anyone can pick up a dictionary. But using scientific language, that to many is difficult to understand for no reason other than because it is scientific is uncalled for.

     If it doesn't benefit the study, don't use it. Well thats what I think anyway!

Anyone else have an opinion on the subject? 

Is it ethically okay to use internet sources as data for qualitative studies?

     Whether or not it is acceptable or ethical to use internet sources as data for qualitative studies could easily be a topic with very good potential for debate... So here it goes.

     To be ethical in psychology there is an extensive set of guidelines that must be followed, but for arguments sake, lets funnel down and define 'ethical' as being morally correct or intrinsic, which in this case means 'good of itself', being used for information and informations sake only. And we too will define 'qualitative' as information that isn't collected in numerical form, such as opinions, open ended question/ answers or anything that can generate a varied response.

     First off, if there does happen to be someone out there, psychologist or not who does not use the internet... Where have you been!? The internet is the teacher of our generation! Where would we be without wikipedia seriously!? 

     For the fact that connectivity is so intrenched in everything we do, I would have to disagree with the idea that using the internet as a source of data for qualitative studies is unethical. 

Of course it's ethical! 

     An example being that if we wanted to find out why people disagreed with SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) we could easily type 'SOPA disagree' or something similar into any blogging site and there is your answer (for that particular site anyway) and then go on to find out why they disagree.

     Further more I don't see any ethical breach in using the internet as a means of data because as long as the source of your information is credited, their opinion remains their own and is also respected by your need as a psychologist to reference anything contributed by others.

     It would appear that this moral questioning is more an issue of 'why is the data gatherer being so lazy?' rather than 'why are they breaching ethical boundaries?'

     Due to the need to reference sources and the dependence on the internet as a means of communication, information and entertainment the ethics of using the internet as a source for any type of study should no longer be in question. After all it is the quickest way to get your voice heard, especially when you're trying to cover as much ground as possible.

     But what do you think? ethical or unethical.