text:
Search for:
Member Login
How to Access Our New Online Portal
My Profile
Renew Your Membership
AAPORnet Listserv
Membership Directory
Retrieve Password
The leading association
of public opinion and
survey research professionals
American Association for Public Opinion Research
My AAPOR
How to Access Our New Online Portal
My Profile
Renew Your Membership
AAPORnet Listserv
Membership Directory
Retrieve Password
Join AAPOR
Membership Options
Online Dues Renewal
Online Member Application
Midwest (MAPOR)
New England (NEAAPOR)
New York (NYAAPOR)
Pacific (PAPOR)
Pennsylvania-New Jersey (PANJAAPOR)
Southern (SAPOR)
Washington, DC (DC-AAPOR)
Affinity Groups
AAPI Research & Affinity Group
Cross-cultural and multilingual research affinity group
Establishment Survey Researcher Affinity (ESRA) Group
Survey Research Teaching Affinity and Interest Group
Membership Directory
For Students
Graduate Degree Programs
Sudman Student Paper Competition
Membership Research
AAPOR Publications
Public Opinion Quarterly
Survey Practice
Standard Definitions
AAPOR Newsletter
Newsletter Archives
AAPOR Press Releases
Archived Press Releases
AAPOR Statements
Use of AAPOR Logo
View Calendar
COVID-19 Workshop Series
Annual Conference
Call for Abstracts
AAPOR Swag Shop
Exhibitor and Sponsor Prospectus
Upcoming Conferences
Past Conferences
2022 Annual Conference Recap
AAPOR Awards
2022 Award Winners
2021 Award Winners
AAPOR Award
Book Award
Inclusive Voices Award
Warren J. Mitofsky Innovators Award
Policy Impact Award
Public Service Award
Seymour Sudman Student Paper Competition
Roper Fellow Award
Student Conference Award
AAPOR Returning Member Travel Award
Student Poster Award
The Student-Faculty Diversity Pipeline Award
Monroe G. Sirken Award
Harkness Student Paper Competition
AAPOR Code of Professional Ethics and Practices
Disclosure Standards
Survey Disclosure Checklist
Schedule of Procedures for Code Violations
Transparency Initiative
What is the TI?
How to Join the TI
Frequently Asked Questions
How does the TI help the public evaluate and understand survey-based and other research findings?
Educational Materials
Contact the TICC
Institutional Review Boards
AAPOR Guidance for IRBs and Survey Researchers
IRB FAQs for Survey Researchers
Additional IRB Resources
Standard Definitions
Response Rate Calculator
Condemned Survey Practices
RDD Phone Survey Introduction
Best Practices for Survey Research
Report an AAPOR Code Violation
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
Election Polling Resources
Online Education/Webinars
My Webinars
Purchase Recordings
AAPOR Webinar Package FAQs
AAPOR Webinar Kits
Institutional Subscriptions
Webinars FAQ
Insights Professional Certification
AAPOR-JPSM Citation Program
AAPOR-JPSM Citation Registration
Career Center
For Researchers
For Media
Response Rate Calculator
About Us
Executive Council
Committees and Taskforces
Executive Council Meeting Minutes
Past Presidents
Annual Reports
Heritage Interviews
A Meeting Place and More
"Back in the Olden Days"
Presidential Addresses
AAPOR Archives Highlights
AAPOR Interactive Timeline sponsored by NORC
T-Shirt Contest Winners
Who We Are
Mission & Goals
Bylaws (as amended October 21, 2020)
Strategic Plan
AAPOR Conduct Policy
Donate/Gifts to AAPOR
Planned Giving
Become an AAPOR Sponsor
Conference Exhibits and Sponsorships
Year-round AAPOR Sponsorship Opportunities
Sustaining Sponsorship Program
Career Center
In Memoriam
Staff/Contact Us
Privacy Policy
Terms and Conditions of Use
Procedures for Requesting Removal of Infringing Material
About Us
Presidential Addresses
2017 Presidential Address
2017 Presidential Address
2017 Presidential Address from the 72nd Annual Conference
It's you, Survey and Polling Industry, you that I love
by Roger Tourangeau
Thank you very much. It is great honor to be speaking with you today!
I'd like to begin with a quotation from a poem by Frank O'Hara. It is the opening passage from his poem, "To the Film Industry in Crisis":
Not you, lean quarterlies and swarthy periodicals
… nor you, promenading Grand Opera,
obvious as an ear (though you are close to my heart), but you,
Motion Picture Industry, it's you I love!
In times of crisis, we must all decide again and again whom we love.
It seems obvious as an ear that the survey and polling business is in crisis. Apart from the recent "failure"— more apparent than real — to predict the outcome of the Presidential election, our industry is faced with two long-term trends that have made doing surveys and polls increasingly difficult. First, response rates have been falling for more than 30 years. As recently as the late 1970s, the University of Michigan's monthly telephone Survey of Consumer Attitudes was getting a response rate in the 70s. Even high quality face-to-face surveys rarely reach a 70 percent response rate these days. In addition, data collection costs have skyrocketed, reflecting the ever-larger number of contact attempts — whether by mail, telephone, or face-to-face — that are now needed to get someone to complete an interview. And many researchers have abandoned the traditional modes of data collection in favor of much cheaper methods that essentially give up on representativeness — doing robopolls with abysmal response rates or web surveys that are based on non-probability samples. And these problems are not just U.S. problems; the trend is the same everywhere across the developed world. It is such a relief to be nearing retirement age!
My talk is an attempt to examine what has happened and whether it matters. It addresses three questions or paradoxes:
Why are response rates so weakly related to nonresponse bias?
Why aren't alternative indicators of the risk of nonresponse bias much better?
Why can't we solve our problems through responsive and adaptive design?
Let me start with the first of the paradoxes. The mathematics of nonresponse bias is straightforward. The bias in an unadjusted mean or proportion is determined by the average response propensity — that is, the average probability that a sample member will respond to the survey — and the covariation between the response propensities and values on the variable of interest.
Although the bias will vary from one variable to the next, depending the variable's correlation with the response propensities, it should be inversely related to the overall response rate. As an empirical matter, though, a number of studies come to a different conclusion. Consider the study by Merkle and Edelman (2002), which looked at the correlation between the response rate to an exit poll at a precinct and the poll's error in the vote share. Their study examined both signed and unsigned errors in the projected vote share. Across four elections, the largest correlation they report (in absolute terms) is -.13.
Here is the scatterplot from one of the elections they examined.
In case you were wondering what a zero correlation looks like, here it is. Results don't get any nuller than this!
Overall, the situation reminds me of the saying, sometimes attributed to the New York Yankee catcher and epistemologist Yogi Berra, that, in theory, theory and practice don't differ, but in practice they do.
The most influential of these studies is the meta-analysis done by Groves and Peytcheva (2008), which examined 959 bias estimates from 59 studies. The studies used several methods for estimating nonresponse bias — for example, some used frame data and compared the frame data for the full initial sample with the data for just the respondents. They report "If a naïve OLS regression line were fit [to the 959 estimates] …, the R
would be 0.04," which implies a correlation between nonresponse bias and nonresponse rate of around 0.20, roughly the same magnitude that Merkle and Edelman found. Here is the key result from Groves and Peytcheva.
Each column of dots represents a single study and each dot a single bias estimate. There are some very large biases in this figure. As a public service, I've circled two estimates in red that seem to be off by nearly 100 percent!
My colleague Mike Brick and I recently reexamined these data to see whether there might be a study-level component to the nonresponse bias, as predicted by the equation I showed earlier. (Our thanks to Bob and Emilia for letting us have at their data!!) Even though there is a high level of within-study variation in the bias estimates, that does not rule out a substantial between-study component of variation as well. Like Groves and Peytcheva, Brick and I examined the absolute difference between the respondent estimate and the full sample estimate expressed as a percentage of the "truth" (that is, the full sample estimate).
Looking at all 959 bias estimates we find a weak overall correlation between the bias estimates and the response rate — the correlation is -.200, confirming one of the key findings from Groves and Peytcheva. Replication is a beautiful thing!
We looked at the data a couple of different ways, using methods that are standard in the meta-analytic literature. For example, we took an average of the bias estimates from each study and weighted each study by the average sample size on which its bias estimates were based. When we did this, we found correlations closer to .5 than to .2. This figure is a bubble plot showing the relationship between the study's response rate and the average bias in the study's estimates; the size of each bubble reflects the study's average sample size. The correlation is .49.
So there
a substantial study-level component to nonresponse bias. Other analyses we did showed that variation across studies accounts for about a quarter of the variation in the bias estimates (Brick and Tourangeau, in press). This strongly suggests that nonresponse bias is partly a function of study-level characteristics; and the results in the figure show that one of those study-level characteristics is the response rate.
The figure makes it clear that there
a relationship between response rates and nonresponse bias, but it isn't as strong or as clear as we might have expected. There must be something about the response propensities that helps explain why the relationship isn't stronger. Brick and I proposed four response propensity models that provide possible explanations for these weak relationships.
According to the first model, the
random propensities
model, most of the variation in response propensities is due to a large number of largely transient influences (whether the person happens to be sick at the time of the initial contact, his or her mood on that day, how busy he or she is at work, who in the household answers the door or the telephone, his or her travel schedule, whether the person reads the advance letter or throws it away, whether he or she happens to hit it off with the interviewer, whether the television is on when the telephone rings, and so on). As a result, whether someone takes part in a study may, in effect, be the outcome of a kind of multidimensional coin flip. A theological interpretation of this model is that God loves survey researchers and has made nonresponse a completely random phenomenon!
If this model holds, nonresponse is unlikely to produce many estimates with large nonresponse biases, and the average bias should be small, close to zero. That is because the response propensities are unlikely to be related to
stable respondent characteristics.
The second model, which we call the
model, says that most of the variation in response propensities is driven by study-level design features that are largely unrelated to the characteristics of the sample members. A federal survey that features repeated callbacks and offers people multiple ways to respond is likely to produce a high response rate with relatively limited variation in propensities across different sample members. In such a survey, nearly everyone is likely to respond eventually. The high response rate does not prevent some estimates from having substantial biases, but it would be very unlikely that the biases would be large on average. Similarly, a telephone survey conducted over a very short time period, say two or three days, with no advance letter or incentive is unlikely to produce a high response rate. It is unlikely that
has a very high response propensity for such a study or that the response propensities vary much across people. Still, there may be subgroups, such as retired people (and aspiring retired people), who are more likely to be respondents. Thus, some estimates might have relatively large biases and the average of the biases will be greater than if the response rate were higher. But, if response propensities are mostly driven by features of the data collection protocol rather than by characteristics of the sample members, then on average the estimates are likely to have small nonresponse biases. This model may help explain why many low response rate telephone surveys still seem to have relatively modest biases.
Proponents of responsive and adaptive design implicitly subscribe to some version of the design-driven propensities model, using changes in mode, incentive, and contact protocols in an attempt to raise or lower response propensities. We'll look at studies using these designs in a bit.
A third possibility is that propensities are determined, at least in part, by household or person-level characteristics, but the characteristics most strongly related to response propensities are only weakly related to the bulk of survey variables. In general, in the U.S. at least, older people are more likely to respond than younger people (thank you, senior citizens!), women more likely to respond than men (thank you, women!), residents of suburban and rural areas more likely to respond than city dwellers (thank you, exurbanites), well-educated persons more likely to respond than less-educated persons (thank you, brainiacs!), home owners more likely to respond than renters (we'll get you, recalcitrant renters, eventually!), people with listed telephone numbers more likely to respond than people without listed numbers, and so on. We refer to this as the
demographic-driven propensities
model. Again, when this model holds, we expect most estimates to have relatively low levels of nonresponse bias because most survey variables are only weakly related to these demographic characteristics. The estimates based on the few variables that are highly correlated with these household or person-level demographic characteristics are likely to have large biases, but on average the bias would be low. And, because there are good population benchmarks available for many of these demographic variables (thank you, Census Bureau!), weighting schemes can compensate for many of the likely imbalances in the respondent pool.
The fourth model is that response propensities vary both with survey design features and with characteristics of the sample members. This model — the
correlated propensities
model — implies that some groups are consistently overrepresented among the respondents. Biases for survey variables highly correlated with these characteristics can be large. This may be true regardless of the overall response rate, if the survey protocol results in large overrepresentation of specific groups among the respondents. An example might be the overrepresentation of highly educated respondents in many state election polls; Courtney Kennedy and her election polling task force colleagues argued this was an important contributor to the errors in some of the state polls they examined.
In the Groves and Peytcheva data, the percentage estimates are off by about 2 percent on average (this is the mean absolute error in the 804 percentage estimates), suggesting that in general one of the first three models hold. As Bob Groves put it in a recent interview, "We're sort of lucky."
Because estimates with a large average nonresponse bias are most likely to occur when the correlated response propensities model holds, the question is when this arises in practice. A number of studies show that a cluster of variables related to a sense of civic obligation (variables like volunteering, altruism, and voting) are related both to survey participation and to estimates based on these variables. As a result, surveys estimating levels of voting or levels of participation in civic activities, are at risk for large average biases. For example, I did a study with Bob Groves and Cleo Redline (Tourangeau, Groves, and Redline, 2010) and we found very high levels of nonresponse bias in a survey of adults registered to vote in Maryland. The voters were strongly overrepresented among the survey respondents and the nonvoters were strongly underrepresented; these imbalances produced large overestimates of the level of participation in past elections, biases that were apparent whether we did a mail or a telephone survey.
Bias Estimates from Tourangeau et al. (2010), Overall and By Mode of Data Collection
Entire Sample (Frame Data)
(Frame Data)
(Survey Reports)
43.7 (2689)
57.0 (904)
76.0 (895)
43.2 (1020)
43.9 (1669)
57.4 (350)
56.7 (554)
79.4 (345)
73.8 (550)
This shows that you can still get very large biases if well-known survey methodologists put their backs into it!! Fans of measurement error will note that the measurement errors are even larger than the errors due to nonresponse. So there's plenty of work for all of us to go around!
So, let me summarize a bit. We've been lucky so far. Substantial nonresponse biases seem relatively rare. As I noted, the percentage estimates in Groves and Peytcheva are off by about two percentage points on average. Things are generally even better when we weight the data to correct for noticeable imbalances. But, unfortunately, sometimes we are way off or, in the case of the election, off just enough in a few places to make us look really bad!
If the nonresponse rate is at best a weak indicator of the risk of nonresponse bias, are there alternatives that we should be using instead? Two recent proposals have been made. Both of them reflect the key insight that it is not just the mean response propensity but the
in the propensities across individuals or subgroups that is critical to the risk of nonresponse bias. If the response propensities do not vary, the risk of bias is zero; the propensities cannot covary with the survey variables unless they vary themselves.
Schouten and his Dutch colleagues have proposed the R-indicator as an alternative to the response rate. The R-indicator is a simple function of the standard deviation of the estimated response propensities. In addition, Särndal has proposed imbalance indicators, which measure the distance of the responding sample from a set of population benchmarks; this distance presumably reflects differences in nonresponse (and, in some cases, differences in coverage) rates across different subgroups of the sample.
Both of these alternatives have appealing features. If the propensities are constant (and non-zero), then the threat of bias is eliminated (for all variables). Thus, in principle, the standard deviation of the propensities should be a good indicator of the overall risk of nonresponse bias. The imbalance indicator is, conceptually, a proxy measure for bias; it is based on the observed deviation of the responding sample from the population targets for a set of variables, typically demographic variables.
But both measures have their limitations as well. There are no whole things in life! The weakness of the R-indicator is that it is based on modeled propensities. If the model isn't very good, the fitted propensities won't vary very much, giving a falsely reassuring picture of the risk for nonresponse bias. Unfortunately, the auxiliary variables available for modelling response propensities are often not very predictive of survey nonresponse. Imbalance indicators have a similar weakness. Being close on the demographics doesn't guarantee being close on the survey variables of interest. And both indicators have the problem that they are study-level indicators, and, as Groves and Peytcheva's data make clear, most of the variation in nonresponse bias is within-study.
Still, both indicators add information to the nonresponse rate and both are worth monitoring. It is not surprising that both were proposed by researchers in countries with population registries — that is, with much richer auxiliary data that is typically available to survey researchers in the U.S. Clearly, we should all move to Sweden or the Netherlands, where the auxiliary data are decent!
Can we raise response rates, reduce the risk of bias, or lower data collection costs by using responsive or adaptive designs? Responsive designs consist of multiple phases, with different data collection protocols in each phase; one goal is to achieve a less biased, more representative sample. Adaptive designs either tailor their data collection protocols for different subgroups from the outset or adapt them continuously throughout the field period via case prioritization. A recent review by my colleagues and me finds that such designs can help, though they are hardly a panacea (Tourangeau, Brick, Lohr, and Li, 2017).
To illustrate these designs, I'll briefly describe an experiment done in the Netherlands. Luiten and Schouten (2013) carried out a design that featured both two phases and tailoring of the protocol to different subgroups. They classified sample members into quartiles based on their propensity to cooperate (in the first phase) or their likelihood of being contacted by telephone (in the second). In Phase 1, sample members in the highest cooperation quartile were asked to complete a web survey; those in the lowest cooperation quartile were asked to complete a mail survey; and those in the middle were given a choice between the two. In the second phase, interviewers attempted to contact and interview the phase 1 nonrespondents by telephone. The timing of contact attempts depended on the sample members' contact propensities; in addition, the harder-to-contact cases were assigned to the best interviewers and the easiest-to-contact to the worst. The goal in both phases was to equalize rates across the different propensity groups.
Here are the key results from the study. (The control group is the main production sample for the study, which was subject to the normal data collection protocol.) The sample members who underwent the experimental protocol showed less variation across propensity quartiles in both phases of data collection than the members of the control group. Accordingly, the R-indicator for the experimental group was significantly higher than that for the control group.
Cooperation and Contact Rates, by Propensity Quartile and Experimental Group
Cooperation Propensity Quartile
Cooperation Rates
Lowest Cooperation Propensity
Second Lowest Cooperation Propensity
Second Highest Cooperation Propensity
Highest Cooperation Propensity
Contact Propensity Quartile
Contact Rates
Lowest Contact Propensity
Second Lowest Contact Propensity
Second Highest Contact Propensity
Highest Contact Propensity
: Adapted from Tourangeau et al. (2017). Data from Luiten and Schouten (2013).
Adaptive designs target cases at both ends of the response propensity continuum, but for different reasons. They may use low-cost data collection methods with the easy cases to reduce their propensities, save money, or both. They may put a cap on effort on the most difficult cases to save money or they may increase the effort for these cases in an effort to raise their propensities.
Several things limit the effectiveness of these designs. The main problem is that we often don't know how to raise the response propensities of the hard cases. In the U.S., three moves are common — shift to a higher propensity mode (for example, from mail to face-to-face), offer larger incentives, or shorten the questionnaire. But there are drawbacks to all three. The higher propensity modes are also more expensive. Incentives show a strong pattern of diminishing returns; the bigger the incentive, the less bang for the buck. And shortening the questionnaire means less data and higher variances for estimates involving the variables dropped from the questionnaire. Often it is easier to lower the response propensities of the high propensity cases by limiting effort on these cases, who are otherwise likely to be overrepresented among the respondents. We do know how to lower propensities—stop trying to reach the case! This almost always works! Unfortunately, giving up on the relatively easy cases may be hard to sell to clients who want the largest possible sample. What is wrong with these clients and their endless demands for more cases!
So here are some conclusions. The response rate
a useful indicator; our analysis shows that there is a significant relationship between nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias. Still, the response rate only reflects the
of the response propensities. The R-indicator and balance indicators are useful additions that also reflect the
in the response propensities. Both the mean and the variation in the response propensities play important roles in nonresponse bias. The average level of nonresponse bias is related to study-level characteristics, including the response rate. But there is lots of within-study variability in the biases so that
study-level indicator of the risk will always be imperfect at best.
Brick and I outlined four possible models relating response propensities to bias and three of them suggest that bias will, in most cases, be low on average. In any given study, though, all four models are likely to be partially true, suggesting that some estimates may be at risk of larger biases. This conjecture is consistent with Groves and Peytcheva's results.
In the current environment, we often don't know how to raise response propensities substantially, especially for the most difficult cases. That means that the best strategy for reducing the risk of nonresponse bias may be to adjust the field work to reduce variation in overall propensities. This is what many adaptive and responsive designs attempt to do.
Let me end by saying that we are faced with a world-wide social and cultural phenomenon that we are only just beginning to understand. Given the long time period over which our problem has developed and its international scope, our usual methods may not be adequate to diagnosing the ailment. That is unfortunate since it is much harder to fix a problem when we don't really know what the problem is. We need to redouble our efforts to understand why people don't want to do surveys any more. Surveys and polls are just for too valuable to let them die. It is worth noting that Frank O'Hara died in 1966 and the motion picture industry is still with us. I suspect 50 years from now, there will still be polls and surveys.
In times of crisis, we must all decide again and again whom we love. In my case, it's you, Survey and Polling Industry, you that I love.
Thank you.
My AAPOR
About Us
Executive Council
Committees and Taskforces
Executive Council Meeting Minutes
Past Presidents
Annual Reports
Heritage Interviews
A Meeting Place and More
"Back in the Olden Days"
Presidential Addresses
AAPOR Archives Highlights
AAPOR Interactive Timeline sponsored by NORC
T-Shirt Contest Winners
Who We Are
Mission & Goals
Bylaws (as amended October 21, 2020)
Strategic Plan
AAPOR Conduct Policy
Donate/Gifts to AAPOR
Planned Giving
Become an AAPOR Sponsor
Conference Exhibits and Sponsorships
Year-round AAPOR Sponsorship Opportunities
Sustaining Sponsorship Program
Career Center
In Memoriam
Staff/Contact Us
Privacy Policy
Terms and Conditions of Use
Procedures for Requesting Removal of Infringing Material
Member Login
Join AAPOR


text:
Vancouver Canucks
- 800 Griffiths Way
Vancouver, B.C. V6B 6G1
- (604) 899-4600
- http://www.canucks.com
Historical Moments:
Hits: 393
1970/71: Vancouver's hockey roots go deep, one of the strongest teams in the old Pacific Coast Hockey Association was the Vancouver Millionaires who the Stanley Cup in 1915 and lost in the finals to the NHL Champions four other times before the PCHA disbanded. With the NHL's westward expansion, it was inevitable that Vancouver would get a team. After failing to land one of the first expansion slots in 1967, Vancouver was awarded an NHL team in 1970. The Canucks would play their first game on October 9th losing to the Los Angeles Kings at the Pacific Coliseum 3-1 in a National Televised game. The Canucks would beat the Toronto Maple Leafs two nights later for their first win. The Canucks would go on to finish their first season which they played in the Eastern Division by finishing in sixth place with a typical expansion like record of 24-46-8.
1971/72: The Canucks continue to struggle in their second season as they finish dead last with an NHL worst record of 20-58-8. Leading the second year Canucks in scoring is Andre Boudrias for the second year in a row as he notches 27 goals and 34 assists.
1972/73: Bobby Schmautz and Andre Boudrias each top 70-points providing a 1-2 scoring punch. However, the Canucks continue to struggle finishing in seventh place in the Eastern Division, with an awful record of 22-47-9.
1973/74: The Canucks continue to struggle in the Eastern Division finishing in seventh place again with a horrid record of 24-43-11.
1974/75: The NHL would finally rectify the problem of the Canucks playing in the Eastern Division by realigning into four divisions, which would be named after the founding fathers of the NHL. Playing in the Smythe Division the Canucks would finally get a taste of success winning the division title with a solid record of 38-32-10 to edge the St. Louis Blues out by two points. However, in the playoffs the Canucks would be overwhelmed by the Montreal Canadiens in five games.
1975/76: Despite a mediocre record of 33-32-15 the Canucks battle all season for the Smythe Division title falling just one point short. The Canucks would still make the playoffs, but once again they would make a quick exit, as they are swept in two straight games by the New York Islanders in the preliminary round.
1976/77: After two straight trips to the playoffs the Canucks would take a step backward finishing in third place with a disappointing record of 25-42-13, missing the final playoff spot by a tiebreaker.
1977/78: The Canucks continue to struggle missing the playoffs for the second straight season with an awful record of 20-43-17, as nobody on the Canucks even manages to score 30 goals.
1978/79: Ron Sedlbauer becomes the first Canuck to notch 40 goals, as the team ends a two-year playoff drought by grabbing the final playoff spot with a record of 25-42-13. In the playoffs the Canucks would throw a scare into the Philadelphia Flyers by taking Game 1 on the road. However, the Flyers would rebound to take the next two games and win the preliminary round series in three games.
1979/80: Stan Smyl has a breakout season scoring a team best 31 goals while adding 47 assists as the Canucks make the playoffs for the second straight season despite a less than stellar record of 27-37-16. In the playoffs the Canucks would be one and done again as they are beaten by the Buffalo Sabres in four games.
1980/81: The Canucks would make the playoffs by finishing in third place with a record of 28-32-10. Along the way Tiger Williams in his first full season with the Canucks becomes a fan favorite by notching a team high 35 goals. However, in the playoffs the Canucks would fall in the first round again as they are swept in three straight games by the Buffalo Sabres.
1981/82: The Canucks were playing mediocre hockey again, however, by sitting in second place in the Smythe Division they were heading for their fourth straight playoff appearance, when their season took a strange turn on March 20th. Facing the Quebec Nordiques on the road Canucks Coach Harry Neale gets involved in an ugly brawl with Nordiques fans behind the bench. The NHL would suspend Neale for the playoffs forcing assistant Coach Roger Neilson to take over. Under Neilson the Canucks would suddenly play their best hockey of the season as they swept the Calgary Flames in three straight games for their first ever playoffs series victory. In the Smythe Division Finals the Canucks would stay hot as they beat the Los Angeles Kings in five games to reach the Campbell Conference Finals. The Canucks magic rider under Roger Neilson would continue as they knocked off the Chicago Black Hawks in five games. Facing the two-time defending Champion New York Islanders, the Canucks had a chance to steal Game 1 on the road, as they went into overtime tied 5-5. However, just a little over a left minute in the first overtime the clock struck midnight on the Canucks Cinderella season, as Mike Bossy scored to give the Islanders a 6-5 win. The Islanders would go on to sweep the series in four games to win their third straight Stanley Cup.
1982/83: Roger Nielson is named head coach, as the Canucks hoped they could carry over the momentum of their stunning run to the Stanley Cup Finals. However, the Canucks would continue to play below .500 hockey as they finished in third place with a mediocre record of 30-35-15. In the playoffs the Canucks would bow out quickly as they are scorched by the Calgary Flames in 4 games.
1983/84: Harry Neale who was suspended two years earlier, before the Canucks magical run to the finals returns to the bench replacing Neilson in the middle of the season as the Canucks continue to play mediocre hockey finishing in third place. In the playoffs the Canucks would make another quick exit as they are beaten in four games.
1984/85: The Canucks struggle all season as their run of five straight playoff appearances comes to an end as they finish in last place with a horrible record of 25-46-9, as Tony Tanti is the only Canucks to score more than 30 goals.
1985/86: Despite a horrendous record of 23-44-13, the Vancouver Canucks were able to make the playoffs as the beat out the Los Angeles Kings by five points for fourth place in the Smythe Division. In the playoffs the Canucks would naturally be eliminated in the first round, as they are swept by the Edmonton Oilers in three straight games, while being outscored 17-5.
1986/87: The Canucks continue to play miserable hockey as they miss the playoffs for the second time in three years by finishing in last place with an awful record of 29-43-8. Tony Tanti would provide the only bright spot by leading the team with 41 goals.
1987/88: The Canucks would miss the playoffs for the second straight season by finishing in last place with a terrible record of 25-46-9. However, Tony Tanti continues to play solid hockey scoring 40 goals for the second year in a row.
1988/89: The Canucks end a two-year playoff drought ends but the Canucks post their 13th consecutive losing record by finishing in fourth place with a record of 33-39-8. However, in the playoffs the Canucks would give the Calgary Flames all they could handle as they forced overtime in Game 7 against the Flames who had the best record in the NHL all season. However, as the first overtime period wound down Joel Otto would eliminate the Canucks, as the Flames went on to win the Stanley Cup.
1989/90: After the Canucks surprisingly strong playoff performance the Canucks fall back into last place missing the playoffs for the fourth time in six years by posting a horrendous record of 25-41-4. Illustrating the struggles would be Greg Adams, who sores a team high 30 goals.
1990/91: The Canucks continue to play awful hockey as they beat out the Winnipeg Jets for fourth place and a spot in the playoffs by two points despite a wretched record of 28-43-9. In the playoffs the Canucks would be bounced out in the first round again as they are crowned by the Los Angeles Kings in six games. Following the season Stan Smyl, the Canucks all-time leader in games played (896), goals (262), assists (411) and points (673), would announce his retirement.
1991/92: With the retirement of Stan Smyl the Canucks need a young player to attach their hopes to. That player would end up being Russian star Pavel Bure. Nicknamed the Russian Rocket Bure would have a spectacular rookie season scoring 34 goals on the way to winning the Calder Trophy was the Canucks post their first winning season in 15 years by finishing in first place with a solid record of 42-26-12. However, in the playoffs the Canucks would dig themselves a deep hole as they fell behind three games to one in their opening round series against the Winnipeg Jets. However, the Canucks would come roaring back winning the next three games to take the series in seven games. However, in the Smythe Division Finals the Canucks would be beaten by the Edmonton Oilers in six games.
1992/93: In his second season Pavel Bure continues to take the Canucks to new heights as he becomes the first Canucks to score 50 goals and top 100 points in a season scoring 60 goals, while adding 50 assists as the Canucks top 100 points for the first time in franchise history by winning their second straight division title with a record of 46-29-9. Along the way the Canucks are nearly unbeatable at home establishing a franchise record 18-game unbeaten streak at the Pacific Coliseum. In the playoffs the Canucks would knock off the Winnipeg Jets in six games to reach the Division Finals for the second straight season. However, the Canucks would suffer another let down in the Smythe Finals as they are beaten by the Los Angeles Kings in six games.
1993/94: Amidst the cloud of Petr Nedved's season long holdout the Canucks would play mediocre hockey all season. Eventually Nedved would be traded to the St. Louis Blues for Jeff Brown, Martin Gelinas, and Nathan LaFayette at the trade deadline. The Canucks would enter the playoffs as the 7th seed in the Western Conference after finishing second in the newly rechristened Pacific Division with a record of 41-40-43. The Canucks appeared to be heading for another quick exit as they fell behind the Calgary Flames three games to one. However, the Canucks would make a stunning comeback winning the next three games in overtime on goals by Geoff Courtnall, Trevor Linden, and Pavel Bure to extinguish the Flames in seven games. Buoyed by three straight overtime wins the Canucks cruised past the Dallas Stars in five games to reach the Western Conference Finals. In the Conference Finals the Canucks would get off to a shaky start as they dropped Game 1 on the road to the Toronto Maple Leafs in overtime. However, the Canucks would bounce back to take Game 2 on the road before establishing a 3-1 series lead with back-to-back shutouts by Goalie Kirk McLean. Game 5 would also be in Vancouver as the game went into overtime tied 3-3. After a scoreless first overtime the Pacific Coliseum would be thrown into a frenzy 14 seconds into double overtime when Greg Adams beat Leafs goalie Felix Potvin to send the Canucks to the Stanley Cup Finals for the 2nd time in franchise history. In the Stanley Cup Finals, the Canucks were a heavy underdog facing the New York Rangers. However, the Canucks would steal Game 1 on the road by scoring late in the 3rd period to tie the game, and send it to overtime where Kirk McLean would keep the game tied before Greg Adams delivered the game winner with 34 seconds left in the first overtime. After the Rangers rebounded to take Game 2 the Canucks got off to a fast start in front of a loud Pacific Coliseum as Pavel Bure got the Canucks on the board early. However, Bure would take a bad penalty and would be given a game misconduct as the Rangers roared back to win 5-1. The Canucks would rebound to a take and early 2-0 lead in Game 4. After the Rangers got within 2-1 the Canucks continued to control the game, however, they could not get anything else past Rangers goalie Mike Richter, including a failed penalty shot by Bure late in the third period. The Penalty Shot would end up being the turning point as the Rangers tied the game and won 4-2 to take a 3-1 series lead. However, the Canucks would not go down without a fight jumping out to a 3-0 lead in Game 5 in New York. The Rangers would battle back to tie the game 3-3. However, the Canucks would re-establish their three-goal lead by with three quick goals of their own to win 6-3. Back at the Pacific Coliseum for Game 6 the Canucks had all the momentum as the Rangers looked tired. The Canucks would win easily 4-1 to force a seventh game as Vancouver partied like they won the Stanley Cup. Mocking the Rangers as they went home shaken tied at three games apiece. However, back in New York for Game 7 the Rangers would take a 3-1 lead into the 3rd period. Trevor Linden would quickly cut the lead to one with his second goal of the game. For the last 15 minutes the Canucks threw everything they could at Rangers Goalie Mike Richter however, they would be unable to get the tying goal as the Rangers barely hung on to win the Cup with a 3-2 win. Sadly, fans in Vancouver who partied like they won the Cup a few days earlier would riot giving the city an unneeded black eye, and tarnishing a great Canucks run.
1994/95: After falling one game short of the Stanley Cup, the Canucks had to wait four extra months to try and get back to the finals as a lockout wiped out half of the season. When the season began the Canucks only played mediocre hockey finishing in second place with a 18-18-12 record. However, in the playoffs the Canucks would get a slight measure of revenge beating the St. Louis Blues, led by Mike Keenan who had coached the New York Rangers in the finals a year earlier in seven games. However, there would be no return to the conference finals as they were swept by the Chicago Blackhawks in four games, losing three games in overtime, including Game 4 which ended up being the final game at the Pacific Coliseum.
1995/96: Vancouver was all-abuzz as the Canucks acquired another Russian sharpshooter Alexander Mogilny from the Buffalo Sabres. After splitting the first two games of the season against the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim in Tokyo the Canucks had their inaugural game at the state-of-the-art General Motors Place on October 9th spoiled by the Detroit Red Wings 5-3. However, the Canucks season would be ruined early as Pavel Bure suffered a knee injury just 15 games into the season. Without their leading scorer the Canucks would struggle the rest of the way finishing in third place with a record of 32-35-15. In the playoffs the Canucks would be buried by the Colorado Avalanche in six games.
1996/97: Coming off a server knee injury Pavel Bure is limited to just 63 games as he struggles to score just 23 goals. With Bure struggling the Canucks would go on to miss the playoffs for the first time in seven years with a disappointing record of 35-40-
1997/98: Seeking veteran leadership the Canucks would sign free agent Mark Messier away for the New York Rangers. However, it would be clear early that the move would not work out as the Canucks struggled. In hopes of sparking the time to a second half comeback Coach Tom Renney is fired and replaced by Mike Keenan. However, not even a 50-goal season from Pavel Bure would save the Canucks season as they finished in last place with an awful 25-43-14 record.
1998/99: Under realignment the Canucks are placed in the Northwest Division where they would continue to struggle as Pavel Bure held out. Eventually they would be forced to trade Bure to the Florida Panthers along with Bret Hedican for Ed Jovanovski, Dave Gagner, Kevin Weekes and Mike Brown. The Canucks would also change coaches again firing Mike Keenan in the middle of the season. Under his replacement Marc Crawford the Canucks would go on to finish in last place with a record of 23-47-12.
1999/00: The Canucks begin the process of rebuilding by drafting Daniel and Henrick Sedin a pair of twins form Sweden labeled with can't miss potential with the second and third overall picks. The Canucks continued to reshape their team during the season by trading Alexander Mogilny to the New Jersey Devils for Brendan Morrison, Denis Pederson, and Vadim Sharifijanov, as they finished in third place with a record of 30-37-15-8. Following the season, the Canucks would allow Mark Messier to return to the New York Rangers after three disappointing seasons without the playoffs.
2000/01: The youth movement of the Canucks began to pay off as they ended a four-year playoff drought by finishing in third place with a solid 36-28-11-7 record, beating out the Phoenix Coyotes for the final playoff spot. However, in the playoffs the young Canucks would be buried by the Colorado Avalanche in four straight games.
2001/02: The continued to improve as they finished in second place with a 42-30-7-3 record as Markus Naslund and Todd Bertuzzi established themselves a potent 1-2 scoring punch. Facing the heavily favored Detroit Red Wings in the playoffs most expected the Canucks to be swept again. However, the Canucks would stun all experts by taking the first two games in Detroit. However, in Game 3 at GM Place the Canucks would unravel after a Niklas Lidstrom's shot from center ice handcuffed Canucks Goalie Dan Cloutier. The Canucks would not recover losing the series in six games.
2002/03: Markus Naslund and Todd Bertuzzi are among the league leaders in scoring all year as the Canucks enjoy their best season in franchise history with a solid record of 45-23-13-1. However, on the final day of the season Naslund would be passed by Petr Forsberg for the scoring title as his Colorado Avalanche knock the Canucks out of first place after being in the top spot for most of the season. In the playoffs things would look bleak for the Canucks as they fell behind the St. Louis Blues three games to one. However, the Canucks would rally to win the series in seven games. The Canucks would stay hot in the second round as they jumped out to a 3-1 series lead against the Minnesota Wild. However, the Canucks would have the tables turned on them as they lost the next two games by combined score of 12-3. In Game 7 at GM Place the Canucks appeared to have righted their ship as they led 2-0 in the second period. However, the Wild would rally to win 4-2 on four unanswered goals including three goals in the final 12 minutes, to become the first team to rally from a 3-1 deficit twice in the same playoff year.
2003/04: With some of the top scorers in the NHL the Canucks were one of the top teams in the Western Conference all season as they got off to a solid 7-2-2-0 start through the first month. With Marcus Naslund and Todd Bertuzzi leading the way the Canucks were battling the Colorado Avalanche all season for first place in the Northwest Division. The battles with the Avalanche would lead to some bad blood. During a February 16th game in Colorado which the Canucks lost 1-0 Marcus Naslund suffered a concussion on a hit by Steve Moore that would force him to miss 3 games. This prompted calls for revenge and even a bounty on Moore by the Canucks. In their next meeting the Canucks and Avalanche skated to a 5-5 tie without incident. However during the final moments of an ugly 9-2 loss at GM Place on February 16th to the Avalanche Todd Bertuzzi decided to take justice in his own hand and skated up from behind to punch Moore then rode him to the ice, the hit would cause Moore to suffer a serious neck injury and would forever tarnish the image of Bertuzzi who would be suspended the rest of the season, while facing criminal charges for assault. The suspension of Bertuzzi, who had 60 points in 69 games threatened to sink the Canucks. However, with a 7-3-2-1 record down the stretch the Canucks would end up finishing one point ahead of the Avalanche for the division title with a 43-24-10-5 record. In the playoffs the Canucks would face the Calgary Flames, after splitting the first two games at home the Canucks took Game 3 in Calgary 2-1. However, along the way goalie Dan Cloutier suffered a knee injury. After backup goalie Johan Hedberg struggled in a 4-0 loss that evened the series 2-2 the Canucks turned to minor league goalie Alexander Auld for the remainder of the series. After a 2-1 loss at home in Game 5, the Canucks staved off elimination with a 5-4 overtime win in Game 6 after letting an early 4-0 lead go by the boards. In Game 7 at home the Canucks were down again 2-1 in the final seconds as they desperately tried to send the game to overtime. With six seconds left the Canucks found some magic as Matt Cooke tied the game 2-2. However, before the tying goal Ed Jovanovski took a penalty and was in the penalty box as overtime began. The Canucks would not be able to kill the penalty as Martin Gelinas scored the game winner for the Flames just 1:25 into the extra session, as Jovonowski's penalty was just about to expire.
2004/05: Season Cancelled Due to Lock Out
2005/06: Coming off the Lock Out the Canucks were expected to be one of the top teams in the Western Conference as Todd Bertuzzi was allowed to return from his suspension. The Canucks would start the season playing as well as expected as they won eight of their first ten games. However, the Canucks would play just mediocre hockey the rest of the way as Bertuzzi, who was booed on the road struggled with a disappointing 25-goal season. March would see the Canucks go from bad to worse as they won just two of their first eight games following the Olympic break. After ending March with a 40-28-7 record the Canucks needed a strong April just to make the playoffs, instead they played horrible hockey losing six of their last eight games as they missed the playoffs by three points with a record of 42-32-8. The late season crash would lead to massive changes in Vancouver as Coach Marc Crawford was fired and replaced by Alain Vigneault. The Canucks then began to remake the roster trading Todd Bertuzzi along with Bryan Allen and Goalie Alex Auld to the Florida Panthers for Goalie Roberto Luongo, Lukas Krajicek and a draft pick. The Canucks would also let go longtime fan favorites Ed Jovanovski, Jarkko Ruutu and Dan Cloutier.
2006/07: The Canucks began the season after a summer of wholesale changes with new hope, as Goalie Roberto Luongo gave them the reliable backstop they had been looking for. However, goal scoring became an issue as the Canucks struggled at times to put the puck in the net as they were below .500 on Christmas at 17-18-1. After the Holidays the Canucks began to see results from the Luongo acquisition as they won six straight and nine games in a ten games span, many of which were won in overtime or shootouts. In the second half the Canucks were among the best teams in the NHL posting a 21-7-3 record after February 1st. The strong finish enabled the Canucks to win the Northwest Division Title with all-time franchise best record of 49-26-7. A major reason for the Canucks strong season was Goalie Roberto Luongo who was a finalist for both the Vezina and Hart Trophies, with 47 wins, tying the former single season record held by Bernie Parent. While Luongo fell short in his quest for individual awards, he hoped to bring the Stanley Cup to Vancouver, as the Canucks faced the Dallas Stars in the first round. The first game of the series was a battle in of itself as Luongo allowed four goals during regulation as the game went into overtime tied 4-4. In Overtime Luongo would stand on his head, facing a playoff record 76 shots, as the game went into quadruple overtime, before Henrik Sedin ended the sixth longest playoff game in NHL history at 78:06. After losing 2-0 in Game 2 the Canucks won another dramatic overtime thriller 2-1 as Taylor Pyatt netted the game winning goal 7:47 into the first Overtime. The Canucks would take a commanding 3-1 series lead after beating the Dallas Stars 2-1 in Game 4, giving them a chance to close the series in Vancouver. Luongo was strong again in Game 5 not allowing any goals during the game's first 60 minutes, however the Stars were blanked too as the game went to overtime for the third time in the series. This time there would be no heroics for the Canucks as Brendan Morrow scored a power play goal after the Canucks were caught with too many men on the ice. The Canucks would struggle again in Game 6, as the Stars forced a seventh game with a 2-0 win in Dallas. Back in Vancouver for Game 7 the Canucks goal scoring drought continued until late in the second period when Henrik Sedin scored on a power play with a beautiful setup from his twin brother Daniel to tie the score 1-1. The game would remain tied until the seven-minute mark of the 3rd Period when Trevor Linden gave the Canucks a 2-1 lead on the power play. The Canucks would pull away in the final minutes scoring two empty net goals to win the game 4-1 and advance to the second round, where they would face the Anaheim Ducks. Game 1 would see Luongo struggle allowing five goals as the Canucks lost 5-1. However, Luongo and the Canucks would rebound in Game 2 evening the series with a 2-1 win in overtime on a goal by Jeff Cowan. As the series shifted to Vancouver the battle really heated up as the Canucks lost a heartbreaker in Game 3, as Roberto Luongo allowed a power play goal on a screen midway through the 3rd Period. The Canucks got off to fast start in Game 4 leading 2-0 entering the 3rd Period. However, the Ducks would rally to force overtime, where they would win the game and take a 3-1 series lead on a goal by Travis Moen. In Game 5 the Canucks would not go down without a fight as the game was tied 1-1 after four periods. However, they would be no match for the Niedermeyer brothers as Rob Niedermeyer made a big hit to jar the puck loose, which was picked up by Scott, who beat Roberto Luongo to win the game and the series.
2007/08: Coming off a division championship the Canucks entered the season with even higher aspirations. However, key injuries to defensemen Sami Salo, Lukas Krajicek and Kevin Bieksa put the Canucks in an early hole as they posted a 5-7 record in October. The players would return, but the Canucks never really got any momentum as Roberto Luongo had trouble living up to the standards, he set in first year in Vancouver, as Mattias Ohlund dealt with injuries all season. Despite the struggles the Canucks never fell out of the playoff chase. However, by just winning one of their final eight games the Canucks missed the playoffs by three points with a record of 39-33-10. The season would mark the end of an era in Vancouver as Trevor Linden, who spent all but three years of his 20-year career wearing a Canucks sweater announced his retirement. While following the season Captain Marcus Naslund left for a more lucrative contract with the New York Rangers. However, the biggest loss was suffered on May 29th when promising young prospect Luc Bourdon, a defenseman picked tenth overall in the 2005 entry draft, died a motorcycle crash near his hometown of Shippigan, New Brunswick.
2008/09: To replace Marcus Naslund as captain, the Canucks made the unique choice of selecting Goalie Roberto Luongo as Captain. It was the first goalie to be named a captain in the NHL since Bill Durnan of the Montreal Canadiens in 1947. Since goalies are not allowed out of the defensive zone, Luongo would need a proxy when the referee needed him at a center ice discussion. If the Canucks were going to return to the playoffs they were going to rely heavily on their new captain. However, after a solid 12-6-2 start the Canucks would lose Roberto Luongo for nearly two months with a groin injury. Without Luongo the Canucks only managed to play mediocre hockey, as they looked to improve their offense by signing Mats Sundin. However, the Canucks struggled upon Sundin's debut, as they lost eight games in a row. Not even the return of Roberto Luongo could help the Canucks as they entered February in free fall with a record of 22-20-8, with rumors of a coaching change and team shake up flying all over. As bad as January was, February would be a complete opposite, as they won 12 of their next 14 games. The Canucks would continue their strong play in March as they quickly climbed the Northwest Division standings on the way to finishing in first place with a solid 45-27-10 record. In the playoffs the Canucks continued to scorch the ice against the St. Louis Blues, as Roberto Luongo got off to a strong start back stopping the Canucks to a 2-1 win in Game 1, Luongo would be even stronger in Game 2, as he stopped all 30 shots earning his first career postseason shutout 3-0. The Canucks would go on to sweep the series in four games with a pair of 3-2 victories in St. Louis. In the second round against the Chicago Blackhawks, the Canucks jumped out to an early 3-0 lead in Game 1. However, after the Blackhawks scored three third period goals the Canucks needed a Sami Salo goal with 1:13 remaining in the game to save the day, while Ryan Johnson added an empty netter for a 5-3 win. After suffering a 6-3 loss in Game 2, the Canucks appeared to be in great shape as they won 3-1 in Game 3 and led 1-0 in Game 4 late in Chicago. However, a goal by Martin Havlat forced overtime, where the Blackhawks would even the series on a goal by Andrew Ladd. Back in Vancouver for Game 5, the Canucks would suffer more frustration as the Blackhawks scored three unanswered goals to take control of the series with a 4-2 victory. The Blackhawks would go on to win the series in six games, with a 7-5 win in Game 6.
2009/10: Coming off a division championship there was a great deal of anticipation for the new season in Vancouver, as the city was to be host of the winter Olympics, which again would feature hockey's best players playing for their home country. Canucks Goalie Roberto Luongo was naturally a fan favorite as member of Team Canada. In the early part of the season the Canucks struggled, as they dropped their first three games, as they split their first 20 games, as Luongo missed some time with an injury. Once he returned the Canucks were ready to take off as they won 17 of their next 24 games. Highlighting the Canucks surge was the play of the Sedin Twins, especially Henrik Sedin who was on his way to leading the NHL in scoring as the Canucks again were in front of the Northwest Division. As the Olympics drew near, the Canucks would go on the longest road trip in NHL history, a total of 14 games in six weeks with the two Olympic break in the middle as GM Place was made ready for the Winter Games. The Canucks would play winning hockey during the trip, posting a record of 8-5-1, as Luongo helped capture a gold medal for Canada, beating Team USA 3-2 in overtime, with Luongo becoming a fan favorite through the entire tournament. The Canucks would finally come home on March 13 and would beat the Ottawa Senators 5-1, as they closed the season playing solid hockey as they finished atop the Northwest Division with a record of 49-28-5. Henrik Sedin, who had an NHL best 112 points to become the first Canuck to win the Art Ross Trophy, also became the first Canuck to win the Hart Trophy as NHL MVP. In the playoffs the Canucks faced the Los Angeles Kings in the first round. In the opener the Canucks needed overtime for a 3-2 win as Mikael Samuelsson scored twice including the game winner at 8:52. However, the Kings would overcome an early 2-0 Canucks lead to win Game 2 in overtime 3-2. After losing Game 3 in Los Angeles 5-3, the Canucks faced a must win Game 4 on the road. Trailing 3-2 entering the 3rd Period the Canucks turned to the Sedin twins as Daniel had three assists including one to Henrik who scored the game winner as the Canucks scored four goals in the final period for a 6-4 win to even the series. The Canucks would take control of the series with a 7-2 win in Game 5 as they went on to win the series in six games. In the second round the Canucks found themselves in a rematch with the Chicago Blackhawks who ended their season in 2009. Things started well for the Canucks, as they jumped out to a big lead early and took Game 1 on the road 5-1. However, the Blackhawks would rebound from an early 2-0 deficit in Game 2 to win 4-2 with three goals in the 3rd period to even the series. The Blackhawks would scorch the Canucks in Vancouver, winning the next two games by a combined score of 12-6 to take a 3-1 series lead. The Canucks would stay alive with a 4-1 win in Game 5 on the road as Kevin Bieksa scored twice. However, back at GM Place in Game 6, the Blackhawks would eliminate the Canucks for the second straight season with a 5-1 win.
2010/11: As the Canucks celebrated their 40th Anniversary there was a feeling it could be a dream season at the newly renamed Rogers Arena. The Canucks who already were one of the top teams in the Western Conference had a big off-season, landing players like Manny Malhotra a terrific two way forward, and Dan Hamhuis a defenseman aimed at making the Canucks a tougher team. Early on the Canucks got off to a slow start, losing their season opener at home to the Los Angeles Kings in a shootout 2-1, as they posted a mediocre 4-3-2 record in October. With the exception of a four-game losing streak in the middle of the month, the Canucks played better in November, posting a record of 8-4-1. December would be the month the Canucks began to look like the team Vancouver fans had expected to see, as they only lost one game in regulation on the way to an 11-1-2 record, as they entered the New Year in contention for the best record in the West at 23-8-5. The Canucks would continue to be among the top teams in the NHL as they posted winning records in January and February. At the trade deadline, the Canucks would acquire Maxim Lapierre and the recommendation of Coach Alain Vigneault who wanted another enforcer who could spark the team. The move would pay immediate dividends as the Canucks would pull away in the race for the best record in the NHL in March, as they posted a 13-2-0 record, while winning nine straight on the road. The Canucks would go on to finish the season with a record of 54-19-9, the best mark in franchise history as they won the President's Trophy for the best record in the NHL for the first time in franchise history. The Canucks became the first since the 1977/78 Montreal Canadiens to finish the league with the most goals scored and fewest goals against. They also finished the regular season with the top ranked power play and second ranked penalty kill. Leading the way was Daniel Sedin, who won the Art Ross Trophy as the league's top scorer, with 104 points, a year after his brother Henrik won the honor. Ryan Kesler and Daniel Sedin would each score a team high 41 goals, as Kesler won the Selke Trophy for the best defensive forward in the NHL. However, as the playoffs began the Canucks learned they would be without one of their key players, as Manny Malhotra suffered a severe eye injury on March 16th against the Colorado Avalanche.
2011 Playoffs: In the playoffs the Canucks would face an old nemesis in the first round in the defending Stanley Cup Champion Chicago Blackhawks who eliminated the Canucks in the last two seasons. The Canucks would get off to a good start as they won the opener 2-0, with Roberto Luongo stopping 33 shots. In Game 2 it was Daniel Sedin who played the key role, scoring two goals as the Canucks won 4-3. In Chicago, the Canucks continued to roll, winning 3-2 as Mikael Samuelsson third period goal proved to be the difference. However, suddenly things began to turn for the Canucks, as the Blackhawks won the next two games 7-2 and 5-0. In Game 6 things would get even tighter as the Blackhawks won in overtime 4-3 on a goal by Ben Smith. With the specter of blowing a 3-0 series lead hanging over Vancouver, the Canucks and Blackhawks battled into overtime tied 1-1 after Jonathan Toews tied the game on a shorthanded goal with 1:56 left. The Canucks would need to kill off a penalty by Alex Burrows as overtime began, Burrows who missed a penalty shot in the third period would make up for the penalty by scoring the game winner at 5:22 as the entire city of Vancouver let out a big sigh of relief with the Canucks moving on with a 2-1 win. In the second round the Canucks would face the Nashville Predators. Game 1 would be all defense as Roberto Luongo stopped 20 shots as the Canucks won 1-0 on a goal by Christopher Higgins. Luongo looked like he was on his way to another shutout in Game 2, with a 1-0 lead. However, Ryan Suter scored with 1:07 left to force overtime. The game would go to a second overtime before the Predators evened the series on a goal by Matt Halischuk. Game 3 in Nashville would also go to overtime, this time it would Ryan Kesler who would save the day for the Canucks scoring a power play goal to give them a 3-2 win and control of the series. Kesler would have another big day in Game 4 with a goal and an assist to give the Canucks a 4-2 win. However, with a chance to close things out in Vancouver, the Canucks suffered a letdown in Game 5 as the Predators won 4-3. In Game 6 in Nashville, Kesler would set up two first period goals for the Canucks; the Preds would answer with a goal by David Legwand early in the second period. From there it was up to the Canucks defense and Roberto Luongo to preserve the win, as they held on to their 2-1 lead to advance to the Western Conference Finals. In the Conference Finals against the San Jose Sharks, the Canucks would again get off to a fast start winning the first two games by a combined 3-2 and 7-3. As the series shifted to San Jose, the Sharks bit back; winning 4-3 in Game 3, on the strength of three first period goals. In Game 4 it was the Canucks power play that ruled the day as they scored three times with the man advantage, as Henrik Sedin had four assists as the Canucks took a commanding 3-1 series lead with a 4-2 win. Down 2-1 late in Game 5, the Canucks forced overtime on a goal by Ryan Kesler with 14 seconds left in regulation. The game would go to double overtime, when a strange bounce off the boards on a dump in by Alexander Edler came up to Kevin Bieksa whose soft shot barely got passed Antti Niemi and crossed the goal line for the game winner. The 3-2 win nearly blew the roof off Rogers Arena as the Canucks were on the way to the Stanley Cup Finals for the first time in 17 years.
2011 Stanley Cup Finals: In the Finals the Canucks would face the Boston Bruins, a team dedicated to hardnosed defensive play. Game 1 would take the tone of a hardnosed defensive series as the two teams from the start showed they did not like each other as Alex Burrows took a bite out of Patrice Bergeron's finger. The game was chippy and scoreless until late in the third period when Raffi Torres scored with 18.5 seconds left to give the Canucks a 1-0 win. After their series opening win the Canucks received a surprise boost, as Manny Malhotra who was expected to miss the entire postseason, wearing a special shield to protect his injured eye. Game 2 would be much like the opener, with both teams playing physical hockey, as the game went into overtime tied 2-2. Overtime would be over before fans had a chance to even settle back in their seats, as Alex Burrows scored his second goal of the game to give the Canucks a 3-2 win just 11 seconds into sudden death. As the series shifted to Boston, the Bruins got back into the series with an 8-1 win. The Canucks would also struggle in Game 4, as the Bruins evened the series with a 4-0 whitewash. Back in Vancouver for Game 5, the Canucks bounced back behind Roberto Luongo who stopped all 31 shots, as Maxim Lapierre's third period goal was the difference in a 1-0 win as the Canucks with a 3-2 series lead needed just one more win to take the Stanley Cup. However, the Canucks struggled in Boston again, allowing four goals in the first period as the Bruins won 5-2 to send the series to a decisive seventh game. The first six games of the Stanley Cup Finals were all won by the home team. Thanks to winning the President's Trophy this meant Game 7 would be at home for the Canucks. There was an air of anticipation in Vancouver on the night of Game 7 as a win meant the dream come true and a loss meant the ultimate heart break. Things were tight from the start, as the Bruins physical play continued to frustrate the Sedin Twins. The Bruins would strike first on a goal by Patrice Bergeron late in the first period. The Bruins continued to shut down the Canucks in the second period, as Brad Marchand made it 2-0 in favor of Boston. The Canucks needed a spark of life and a power play late in the second period seemed to be the answer, but Bergeron added a shorthanded goal to give the Bruins a 3-0 lead that sucked all the life out of the Canucks. Marchand would add an empty net goal as the Bruins would win the Stanley Cup with a 4-0 win. Making matter worse a riot erupted in the City of Vancouver, adding a black eye to the tear-filled eyes of British Columbia.
2011/12: After the heartbreaking seven game loss in the Stanley Cup Finals the Canucks had to fight off the hangover as the season began with them looking to bring lord Stanley to Vancouver. Before the season opener Vancouver fireman, police and volunteers who helped clean up the city after the riots following the Game 7 loss were honored at Rogers Arena. The Canucks began the season with a frustrating 4-3 overtime loss to the Pittsburgh Penguins, as the home fans began to get on Goalie Roberto Luongo who some blamed for the loss. For much of the first six weeks the Canucks seemed to have a hangover as they played sluggish hockey, posting a 9-9-1 record. However, as November came to an end, they began to find their game, with a five-game winning streak, as they took nine of their next ten games to climb the Northwest Division. During the win streak Roberto Luongo was sidelined with an injury, giving the team a look at back up Cory Schneider who played excellent in goal. Along the way Alain Vigneault became the winningest coach in franchise history. The Canucks would continue their strong play over the next few months, as Schneider began to see regular playing time. By the end of February they were once again the best team in hockey, as they lost just one game in regulation between January 17th through March 1st. Leading the Canucks again were super twins, Henrik and Daniel Sedin, who led the team in scoring with 81 and 67 points respectively. Henrik had an impressive 67 assists, while Daniel led the team with 30 goals. Cory Schneider in 33 games would get 20 wins, with a 1.96 GAA, while Roberto Luongo won 31 games with a 2.41 GAA. Together they helped the Canucks win the President's Trophy for the second straight season, with a record of 51-22-9, despite Daniel Sedin missing the last two weeks with a concussion.
2012 Playoffs: Once the playoffs arrived the spotlight turned to Roberto Luongo as the Canucks faced the Los Angeles Kings in the first round. Right away, the Canucks goalie struggled, allowing seven in the first two games, before Cory Schneider took over, as the Kings won the first two games in Vancouver by twin 4-2 scores. Schneider would get the start in Game 3, and play well, but King Goalie Jonathan Quick kept the Canucks off the board, stopping 41 shots in a 1-0 win that allowed the eighth seed Kings to take a stunning 3-0 series lead. Daniel Sedin would return to the ice for Game 4 and had an assist as the Canucks avoided the sweep with a 3-1 win. However, they would return home and fall in five games, as they lost 2-1 in overtime on a goal by Jarrett Stoll. While stunning and disappointing to lose to the eighth seed Kings, who when adding overtime and regulation losses had a losing record in the regular season seemed embarrassing at first, the sting would be taken out of a bit as the Los Angeles Kings went on to become the first eighth seed to win the Stanley Cup. It marked the third straight season the Canucks were eliminated by the eventual Stanley Cup Champions.
2012/13: After winning the President's Trophy two straight seasons, the Canucks continued to taste bitter disappointment as they were eliminated by the eventual Stanley Cup Champions for the third straight season. With a lockout delaying the start of the season over three months, speculation began that the Canucks would deal Goalie Roberto Luongo and turn to Corey Schneider moving forward. However, when the season finally began it was still Luongo was still on the team, though Schneider was getting most of the starts in goal early in the season. However, after dropping a few games early in the season, Roberto Luongo would get his job back. After posting a 3-2-2 mark in January, the Canucks showed improvement in February, winning seven games. After Luongo had a slump in March, Corey Schneider again took over in goal, and helped the Canucks win five straight games to take over first place in the Northwest Division. The Canucks would go on to win the division for the fifth year in a row, posting a record of 26-15-7. Both Roberto Luongo and Corey Schneider had strong seasons, with Schneider starting 30 games, and posting a 17-9-4 record with a 2.11 GAA and five shutouts. Luongo would post a 9-6-3 mark in 18 starts, posting a 2.56 GAA with two shutouts. On offense once again the Sedin twins led the way, with Henrik leading the team with 45 points, while Daniel had a team high 12 goals in the 48-game season.
2013 Playoffs: In the playoffs the Canucks would face the San Jose Sharks, with Roberto Luongo getting the nod in Game 1. Early on Luongo played well, as Kevin Bierska gave Vancouver a 1-0 lead midway through the second period. However, the Sharks finished the game with three unanswered goals to win the game 3-1. Luongo would also get the start in Game 2, as Ryan Kessler gave the Canucks a 2-1 lead with two goals in the third period. However, the Sharks sent the game to overtime on a goal by Patrick Marleau with 55 seconds left in regulation. In overtime, the Sharks would send fans in Vancouver home unhappy again, as Raffi Torres won the game at the 5:31 mark of overtime. As the series shifted to San Jose, Corey Schneider would take over in goal, and struggle allowing five goals as the Sharks won the game 5-2 to take a commanding 3-0 series lead. With Schneider also starting Game 4, the Sharks would complete the sweep with a 4-3 win in overtime, as Patrick Marleau scored the game winner. Following the Canucks first round elimination, Coach Alain Vigneault would be fired. Vigneault would go on to become coach of the New York Rangers, who fired John Tortorella. Tortorella meanwhile would become the new coach of the Canucks, creating a unique job swab. The Canucks also ended the goaltending controversy, fully committing to Roberto Luongo as Corey Schneider was traded on draft day to the New Jersey Devils for the ninth overall pick used to select Bo Horvat.
2013/14: The John Tortorella era started with a 4-1 loss to the San Jose Sharks. However, in the Canucks home opener things would go much better as they defeated the Edmonton Oilers 6-2 on the way to posting a solid record of 9-5-1 in October. After a rough November, in which they won just four games, the Canucks had a terrific December, winning ten games, while losing just once in regulation as they entered the New Year with a record of 23-11-7. Things would begin to fall apart in January, as Roberto Luongo fell in disfavor with Tortorella as Eddie Lack began to get more starts in goal. The Canucks new coach was also feuding with Ryan Kesler, the Canucks leading goal scorer with 25. Meanwhile the Sedin Twins were in a goal scoring slump, with Henrik Sedin scoring just 11 goals as he led the team with 50 points, as Daniel had 16 goals and 31 assists. Frustrations would boil over in January, as John Tortorella barged into the visiting locker room at Rogers Arena to confront Calgary Flames Coach Bob Hartley during the first intermission of a 3-2 shootout win on January 18th. Tortorella would be handed a 15-day suspension as the Canucks would drop their final seven games before the Olympic Break, as Mike Sullivan ran the team in Tortorella's absence. Returning with the playoffs in doubt at 27-24-9, Tortorella continued to alienate players and the fans, as he benched Goalie Robert Luongo, with Eddie Lack getting the start in the Heritage Classic against the Ottawa Senators at BC Place. A few days later, the Canucks would ship Luongo along with Steven Anthony to the Florida Panthers for Shawn Matthias and Jacob Markstrom. The Canucks also would deal Patrick Mullen to the Senators for Jeff Costello, while Raphael Diaz who was acquired just a month earlier from the Montreal Canadiens for Dale Weise was sent to the New York Rangers for a late round draft pick. After the trades, the Canucks continued to fade, posting a record of 36-35-11 as they missed the playoff s for the first time in six years. The disappointing finish would lead to a complete shake up in Vancouver as General Manager Mike Gillis was fired along with John Tortorella. The Canucks would build a new management structure as Trevor Linden was named president of hockey operations. Jim Benning was hired as the team's new General Manager, while Willie Desjardins was named the 18th head coach of the Canucks. The Canucks also made player changes as Ryan Kesler was traded to the Anaheim Ducks for Nick Bonino, Luca Sbisa and two draft picks. The Canucks would also sign Free Agent Goalie Ryan Miller.
2014/15: Following their disastrous season under John Tortorella the Vancouver Canucks went through a complete house cleaning, as General Manager Mike Gillis was dismissed along with Tortorella. The Canucks would name Trevor Linden as the new team President, with Jim Benning taking over as General Manager. After a two-month search, the Canucks would name Willie Desjardins as the new bench boss. The changes continued after the hiring of a new coach as Ryan Kesler was traded to the Anaheim Ducks Nick Bonino, Luca Sbisa and a two draft picks. The Canucks began piecing things back together by signing All-Star Goalie Ryan Miller. Miller was strong from the start, as the Canucks won their first three games, and seven of ten in October. After a fine November, the Canucks hit a mid-December slump, losing five straight games, but they would things settled down and went into the New Year hold a record of 21-11-3. As the All-Star break approached, Ryan Miller went through one of the best stretches of his career, coming within three minutes of three straight shutouts. Miller had a solid season in his first year in Vancouver, winning 29 games with a 2.53 GAA and a .911 save percentage. Ryan Miller may have even had a better season if not for suffering a knee injury when Jannik Hansen of the New York Islanders crashed into him during 4- win at Nassau Coliseum on February 22nd. Miller would miss all but one of the Canucks final 24 games, but thanks to the play of Eddie Lack the Canucks remained solidly in playoff position. The Canucks would end the year with a record of 48-29-5, good enough for second place in the Pacific Division. The Sedin twins rebounding from a disappointing season once again led the Canucks in scoring, with Daniel Sedin having a team best 76 points, with Henrik posting 73 points. Meanwhile, Radim Vrbata led the Canucks in goals scored with 31.
2015 Playoffs: Facing the Calgary Flames in the first round of the playoffs the Canucks gave Eddie Lack the start in the series opener. Lack played well as the Canucks held a 1-0 lead early in the third period thanks to a goal by Bo Horvat in the second period. After the Flames tied the game on a goal by David Jones, Kris Russell stunned the crowd at Rogers Arena by beating Lack with 30 seconds left to win the game for the Flames 2-1. The Canucks rebounded with a 4-1 win in Game 2, which featured a major fight that resulted in 132 penalty minutes in the game's final minutes. The Flames would double up the Canucks with a 4-2 win in Game 3 as the series shifted to Calgary. Things would not get any better in Game 4, as the Flames scored three fast goals to chase Eddie Lack to the bench. Ryan Miller would finish the game, stopping all 15 shots over the final two periods, but it was not enough as the Flames won the game 3-1 to take a 3-1 series lead. Miller would get the start in Game 5, stopping 20 of 21 shots as the Canucks won the game 2-1. However, despite jumping out to a quick 3-0 lead in Game 6 at the Saddledome, the Canucks season would come to an end with a 7-4 loss. The game was a lot closer than the score would indicate as Flames netted two empty net goals, after Matt Stajan gave them a 5-4 lead with 4:17 left in regulation.
2015/16: After a successful bounce back season, the Vancouver Canucks spent the off-season getting younger, as they traded veteran Defenseman Kevin Bierska to the Anaheim Ducks for a draft pick that was later traded with Nick Bonino and Adam Clendening to get Brandon Sutter from the Pittsburgh Penguins. The Canucks played well early in the season as they got points in their first four games, winning three and losing once in regulation. Struggles in overtime would be a pattern early for the Canucks as they suffered four losses after regulation in October and another three in November. The points left on the table would begin to catch up with the Canucks in December as they found themselves in a hole in the playoff chase. As the New Year began the Canucks played slightly better as they held a record of 14-15-9. January would be the Canucks strongest month as they posted a record of 6-2-2 in their first ten games in the New Year. February would mark a month of missed opportunities as they won just two of eight games at Rogers Arena and began to fade in the chase for the postseason. March would be even worse as the Canucks lost seven of nine at home, and suffered a nine game losing streak. The Canucks would finish the year in sixth place, with the playoffs far out of reach holding a record of 31-38-13. The Sedin twins continued to lead the team, with Henrik posting a team best 61 points, with 28 goals while Daniel led Vancouver with 44 assists.
2016/17: Coming off a disappointing season, the Vancouver Canucks looked to rebound and return to the postseason. However, and older veteran team often look old and tired when playing the younger more talented rivals in the Pacific Division. The Canucks started the season well, winning their first four games, but that start was quickly forgotten about when they lost their next nine. Barely hovering near .500, the Canucks went into the New Year with a record of 17-18-3. January, saw the Canucks play well at home, as they posted a record of 5-0-1 at Rogers Arena, but finding wins on the road often proved difficult for Vancouver. In February, what little playoff hopes the Canucks had left faded away as they managed just three wins, March and April were just as difficult as the Canucks finished the season on an eight-game losing streak, finishing last in the Pacific Division with a record of 30-43-9. The Canucks scored a franchise low 182 goals, with Bo Horvat as the leading scorer with 52 points and a team high 20 goals. Following the season coach Willie Desjardins was fired.
2017/18: It was a season of transition for the Vancouver Canucks. Travis Green took over behind the bench, as Henrik and Daniel Sedin were each in their final seasons. The Sedin Twins were taken in the 1999 Draft with the second and third overall picks by the Canucks. They each made their debuts in 2000 and played their entire careers with the Canucks. Both Sedins recorded over 1000 points, with Henrik Sedin 1,070 points (240 goals 830 assists) and Daniel finishing his career with 1,041 points (393 goals and 648 assists). Which rank 1-2 in team history. Both were still playing at a high level at the end of their careers as they each had 50-point seasons, with Daniel sharing the team lead with 55 points. The player Daniel Sedin shared the scoring lead with was Brock Boeser, a rookie who Canuck fans hope can equal the successes of the Sedin Twins. Boeser had a brilliant rookie season with 29 goals and 26 assists, making the All-Star Game roster, where he would become the first rookie since Mario Lemieux to win All-Star Game MVP, with two goals and two assists. If not for an injury that sidelined him over the last month of the season, Brock Boeser would have likely won the Calder Trophy, as he was a finalist for the award for the NHL's top rookie. Before Boeser went down, the Canucks were on the fringes of playoff contention, but a seven-game losing streak in March would erase any hope of landing a Wild Card spot as Vancouver finished the season at 31-40-11.
2018/19: The Vancouver Canucks youth movement continued. Elias Pettersson, selected with the fifth overall pick, became one of the top players on the team as he was named Rookie of the Month in October, as the Canucks got off to a solid start, winning eight games in the first month of the season. A team with a young core, like the Canucks, is expected to have their growing pains and have their ups and downs. This would be evident in November, as the Canucks went 3-8-3, suffering an eight-game losing streak. Vancouver recovered in December, and went into the New Year, with a record of 19-19-4, as Pettersson again was named Rookie of the Month. Elias Pettersson would go on to represent the Canucks in the All-Star Game, as the Canucks demonstrated that brighter days were ahead in Vancouver. Brighter days would not include a playoff appearance in 2019, as the Canucks missed the playoffs for the fourth straight year, posting a record of 35-36-11. Elias Pettersson would lead Vancouver, in goals with 28, assists with 38 while his 66 points were the best by Vancouver rookie. Pettersson would go on to capture the Calder Trophy as the NHL's Rookie of the Year.
©MMXX Tank Productions. Stats researched by Frank Fleming, all information, and team names are property of the National Hockey League. This site is not affiliated with the Vancouver Canucks or the NHL. This site is maintained for research purposes only. All logos used on this page were from Chris Creamer's Sports Logos Page.
Page created on Page created on May 14, 2003. Last updated on March 3, 2020 at 11:20 pm ET.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Article Text
Objective: To test Goldman's dilemma on a general population sample by asking whether they would take the Faustian bargain of a drug that guaranteed sporting success but would result in their death in 5 years' time. Between 1982 and 1995 a bi-annual survey using this dilemma suggested half of all elite athletes would take the drug.
Design: A random telephone survey of 250 members of the Australian general public, with counterbalanced presentation of success and death.
Main outcome measures: Respondents gave age, gender, sports engagement and response to the dilemma (yes/no).
Results: Only two of a sample of 250 reported they would take the bargain offered by the dilemma.
Conclusions: Athletes differ markedly from the general population in response to the dilemma. This raises significant practical and ethical dilemmas for athlete support personnel. The psychometry of the dilemma needs to be established more comprehensively for general and athlete populations.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Request Permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center's RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Funding The survey was funded by a University of New South Wales new staff start-up grant. The University of New South Wales had no role in the design, analysis or reporting of this study.
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval University of New South Wales ethics approval A-08-22.
Provenance and Peer review Not commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.


text:
Mental Health; the final taboo? Approximately one in four people suffers from depression or anxiety at some point in their lives, many of whom go untreated or struggle through their careers with no real understanding of what it is that affects them. Symptoms are varied and seem to wax and wane but rarely disappear permanently, instead reappearing at times of heightened stress. To make matters worse there are often no visible signs of suffering as are present in better understood illness. Depression and anxiety are only two of a vast range of mental health issues and yet it is one of the only remaining taboo subjects which affects so many. Academia is widely regarded as a highly stressful environment in itself but when considered within the context of our multi-faceted discipline, archaeology stands to gain the most from an open and honest appraisal of this subject matter. Approximately 53 percent of UK academic staff have at some point in their careers suffered from depression and/or anxiety (Kinman 1998: 13) caused by increasing stress levels. (Kinman and Wrail 2013: 3 and Shaw and Ward 2014), though there is a general paucity of data available. Recently two articles were published in the Times Higher Education as to whether or not one should hide mental health conditions in academia. The arguments on both sides are poignant; being open to asking for help from colleagues and superiors to create better understanding and appreciation or to hide the issues that are present to prevent repercussions from colleagues that do not understand the complexity of the conditions. A recent survey published by The Guardian has shown that people who told their superiors had been offered help in various ways (Thomas 2014). Furthermore, the survey reveals that more than half of those surveyed still keep their mental illness hidden from colleagues and even more so from superiors (Thomas 2014). The question arises that if in archaeology the same problems exist as they do elsewhere in society, is understanding mental health issues even more important given the unique challenges of our discipline? From research through to excavation mental health issues can be difficult to deal with both as someone with the conditions as for those working alongside them and no one of these situations come without risk. Many people in academia appear to be understandably afraid of presenting themselves as having mental health problems lest it impact their career, yet with so many people suffering from these conditions we want to examine this critical topic in an open session. We ask: why not rid ourselves of the awkwardness of disassociation with mental health and unite across our disciplines to engender discussion and to further the professions to which we are all responsible? This session seeks to answer some of these questions and discuss if there are possibilities to improve the situation and also to see if there is a general opinion given the experience of people with mental health in archaeology about openness with mental health issues. We invite everyone regardless of personal experience to discuss these and related issues. The discussion panel is planned to include the introductory speaker, a mental health professional with a deeper insight into mental health issues and several member of academic and commercial archaeology staff that represent the professional side of archaeology and the employer's perspective.
Kinman, G. (1998) Pressure points: A survey into the causes and consequences of
occupational stress in UK academic and related staff. (London 1998).
Kinman, G. and Wrail, S. (2013) Higher stress. A survey of stress and well-being among staff in higher education.
Shaw, C. and Ward, L. (2014) Dark thoughts: Why mental illness is on the rise in academia at http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2014/mar/06/mental-healthacademics- growing-problem-pressure-university. Accessed on 22/05/2015, 13.27 GMT.
Thomas, K. (2014) We don't want anyone to know, say depressed academics at
http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2014/may/08/academicsmental- health-suffering-silence-guardian-survey. Accessed on 22/05/2015, 13.43 GMT.
Unknown Author (2015) Mental illness: Shedding light on the darkness" at
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/comment/opinion/mental-illness-shedding-lighton- the-darkness/2018979.article Accessed on 18/05/2015, 15:32GMT.
Unknown Author (2015) "Mental Illness: I keep Mine Hidden" at
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/comment/opinion/mental-illness-i-keep-minehidden/2019639 article Accessed on 19/05/2015, 18:17GMT
Session organisers: Sarah BOCKMEYER and Lewis COLAU
Myth, materiality and mental health
Archaeologists are familiar with the idea of objects with biographies, and the concept that the materiality of things helps in the construction of meaningful assemblages. I would like to take these ideas further and explore how objects, documents and places help to construct the narratives of an individual in the present day. I wish in this paper to explore what an archaeology of the self might consist of and how such an archaeology might help people who have for a number of reasons partial amnesia(s). Memory loss and dysfunction plays an important role in Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). PTSD can be diagnosed for many reasons but it is particularly severe for those who have survived intense life threatening trauma. For people with this illness, while parts of their memory will be bright and vivid other parts may have lacunae; there may be partial amnesia either organic or psychological in nature. I will argue that objects, documents and photos assist the process of therapy in several ways. They can help bridge memory loss either by stimulating the recovery of lost or buried memories, or by filling in details lost to time or to amnesia. Secondly, the process of therapy often involves grounding. Grounding is important within the healing process in two ways firstly it is a means for patients to bring themselves out of the more disturbing aspects of their illness when they occur and secondly in therapy it is a way of returning to normality after revisiting traumatic events. Grounding can take several forms but physical contact with significant objects has an important role to play in this process. This paper is a reflective piece on the role materiality and the archaeology of the self played and continues to play in the treatment of my own PTSD.
Andrew HOAEN (University of Worcester)
Are you OK? An exploration of suffering during archaeological fieldwork
The relations between Archaeology and Health remain a hidden topic which have not received any attention from Academia. This paper seeks to shed light on this problem through the analysis of three issues. The first one is a preliminary exploration of why archaeological reflexivity, which has paid attention to matters of power, class or gender, among others, has ignored the mental and emotional health of researchers. In contrast it is shown how Anthropology has dealt with this problem in a different way, acknowledging it as an important element to consider in the production of ethnographic knowledge. The second issue is the analysis, in an ethnographic key, of various case studies showing the importance of a very frequent phenomenon during archaeological fieldwork: suffering. The third and final one is a short review of a few mechanisms that might prove helpful when coping with suffering during fieldwork, with the intent of fostering an open and interdisciplinary debate regarding how to face this important problem in the production of archaeological knowledge.
Guillermo DIAZ DE LIAŇO DEL VALLE (Brunel University of London)
An out of the box perspective on archaeology and heritage as contributors to dementia care in Europe
Dementia is prevalent among the elderly population of Europe, and cases of dementia are expected to increase rapidly in the coming years. While dementia has severe psychological impact and social consequences for individuals, it has notably been studied from a neuromedical viewpoint. The psycho-social implications of the syndrome and consequences for wellbeing and quality of life are topics that have begun to emerge only in the previous two decades. An involvement of disciplines other than those stemming from the neurological and medical fields can enrich the way dementia and its effects on the wellbeing of individuals are handled. This paper argues that in this light, archaeology can potentially make a valuable contribution to European dementia care. It sets out a theoretical argument that builds on previous initiatives involving archaeology and heritage in a health care context. The argument I present highlights specific characteristics of archaeology that make it suitable for such an involvement. I conclude that engaging in archaeology-based activities could be beneficial for the wellbeing of people with dementia.
Lilla VONK (Universiteit Leiden)
Inclusion and therapy: archaeology and heritage for people with mental health problems and/or autism
Whilst completing a PhD relating to inclusion in heritage I have been working with people diagnosed as autistic and with people experiencing mental health problems. I have worked on projects which use archaeological fieldwork as an occupational therapy for people with mental health problems and/or autism. I am also interested in how the management, presentation and organisation of heritage attractions may serve to exclude these people and what changes might promote inclusion. This paper, therefore explains how Mind Aberystwyth members have experienced opportunities to work on archaeological digs in Wales and what difficulties the focus demographic have found accessing heritage and how these difficulties can be overcome. Having learned of therapeutic archaeology projects including Mind Herefordshire's 'Past in Mind' project and the Defence Archaeology Group's Operation Nightingale, and with the encouragement Fiona Aldred (chief executive of Mind Aberystwyth) I took members on archaeological digs in 2014 and 2015. I shall explain how participants found their experience and the benefits they gained from it. I shall then question how the designers and managers of heritage attractions in the UK have succeeded or failed in the ethical imperative (championed by John Carman, Emma Wateron, Laurajane Smith and others) with regards to those affected by autism and mental health problems. One colleague has told me of problems he experienced taking his autistic daughter to Stonehenge. However I can also point to at least one voluntary organisation in the heritage sector which has demonstrated great success in supporting and encouraging self-esteem and coping strategies for members affected by mental health and autistic spectrum conditions. This paper seeks to show that archaeology and heritage have a valuable role to play in promoting inclusion of and participation by people on the autistic spectrum and affected by poor mental health and to encourage further research in order for this role to be fulfilled.
William RATHOUSE (University of Wales Trinity Saint David)