Prior studies of candy supremacy have shown that producing a candy hierarchy is properly and obviously the subject of natural science research. It is based on experimental proof, rigorous data analysis, and the metric of repeatability. This is so obvious that we’re not sure why we’re once again mentioning it. Because we’re pretty sure we say this every year. It’s almost as if just cutting and pasting from prior versions of the hierarchy is insufficient. Despite the glory of control-x and –v, by this point we have to stop with the preamble and get on with the bit.
So we’re getting on with it.
Last year we added social science methodology for something to do on Tuesdays. We had research assistants, cousins, neighbors’ relatives, and Kaitlyn. Our research cohort did oral histories, qualitative research, semi-structured interviews, archival investigations; we deployed survey instruments, engaged in participant observation, and watched boatloads of Netflix (we’re back up to Season 3 on 30 Rock; so, so many layers). We did it all to keep up with our patent pending 11-syllable “multivariate quantitative techniques.”
This leaves us here for 2015: more surveys, this time multi-layered.
First, we’re planning on splitting the survey data between those who are actually planning to trick-or-treat and those who are basing their entire set of answers on the rose-tinted memories of childhoods long past.
Second, we’re adding an additional layer of survey questions to gauge the character of survey takers. This will help with, it will help, well, we’re not sure what this does. Yet. Just, would you go along with us here and we’ll come up with some justification post facto? Good.
In any event, with these tools at our disposal, here is our second annual Candy Hierarchy survey and, overall, the preparation for our ninth annual Candy Hierarchy. Please fill out to the best of your ability, and we’ll report back, as always, on Halloween.
