In short, most of the research is what we researchers call 'cross-sectional' – it only examines players at one particular 'snapshot' in time.
"We researchers are horrified by that stuff," says Kathleen Gerbasi, a social psychologist who has researched the furry community extensively.
"As we researchers like to say, Needs further study".
Despite this clear superiority of the scientific method, we researchers are still fallible humans.
As we researchers often note, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
First I had to establish what we researchers call a control group, by seeing how DogTV was received by actual dogs.
For all the financial uncertainty we suffer, we researchers have an easy ride by comparison.
Instead, realize they're just another set of tools, to which we researchers must eagerly apply the same rigor we have everywhere else.
We researchers -- those of us who stick it out -- are happy to endure the uncertainty and hardship for such a satisfying experience.
The relationship is what we researchers call "statistically significant".
Out of informal ethical considerations, we (researchers within DaCHI) try to avoid to video record patients – and especially patients faces.
