The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The politics of research > Comments

The politics of research : Comments

By Eva Cox, published 20/5/2005

Eva Cox argues that the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute's survey about abortion lacks legitimacy unless research methodology is fully disclosed.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
I steadfastly refuse to be involved in any more Social Science surveys. In one year I was asked to volunteer in 3 surveys through 2 different government funded organisations, but at no time was I actually told who was running the survey, when the results would be made available, how I could see these results etc.

On 2 occasions the person who asked me to fill out the survey form stood behind me and made comments on what I wrote in the survey form. Following this I wrote a letter to the local government member complaining about the situation, and have refused to be involved in any Social Science surveys since.

I think my situation would not be unique, as I know a number of men who are very similar in their attitudes regards Social Science. This then introduces the element of bias into a Social Science survey that is voluntary. If people are entirely suspicious of Social Science and who is often behind it, they do not become involved, and the sample becomes non-representative. Social Science then only has itself to blame for lack of quality control.

In the area of abortion, relevant facts seem very few and far between, and without relevant facts no one can make any informed decisions, or even become involved in any survey. For example:- it appears that a growing number of women in other countries have repeat abortions (EG NZ http://www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/dem-trends-03/dem-trends-2003-part-7-induced-abortions.htm, US http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42526) but I have never seen such statistics compiled or reported on in Australia. It is such statistics that help to define what causes abortion, and what can be done to reduce it.

Then again, I have never heard of a pro-choice person say how much abortion is too much either.
Posted by Timkins, Friday, 20 May 2005 11:04:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Abortion should be illegal in this country, regardless of the so called 'poll numbers' or 'changing attitudes'. During World War II it wouldn't have sufficed if the German authorities ran 'polls' on the legitimacy of concerntration camps. We don't run 'polls' on peoples attitudes towards infanticide. When it comes to universal human rights, like the right to life, the majoritarian opinion cannot be the only arbiter of what goes.

Abortion is a circumstance of black and white, right and wrong. I know Eva has a track record of being completely wrong on this issue, and it is not enough to say 'the majority agree with her misguided views so let's adopt them'. Abortion is inherently evil, and you don't poll or focus group evil, you just ban it.
Posted by mcrwhite, Friday, 20 May 2005 4:01:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eva Cox's affectations of impartiality are disingenuous when she discusses the research over which I presided in relation to public attitudes to abortion. She provides no evidence at all of the ethical standards by which she wishes to bind others except to say that is what she would do.
The fact is that the questions asked to discern public attitudes will be published when the research project as a whole is published. But let me reassure Ms Cox and her friends that this research has been subcontracted to Sexton Marketing and received their approval before the questions were asked. Ms Cox has made the serious and unfounded suggestion that I, and Sexton Marketing, were open to being directed by the donor of the research grant.

Moreover, our research has been externally validated by Newspoll (April 2005) which ran the same questions that we ran, and met their standards for proper questions.

Ms Cox wants to believe the ANU poll which shows 82% support for abortion on demand.

But the Newspoll data shows a much lower support for abortion on demand than that (51%), while we show a support level midway between the two.
And our research, supported by Newspoll finds that 8 out of every 10 (82%) support finding ways to reduce the number of abortions while still giving women the right to freely choose abortion.

Which is really not at all inconsistent with the ANU poll.
What Ms Cox has been clearly told is that the questions will be made available in due course. So why then should she say, in advance, that our results are not to be believed?

John I Flemin
Posted by John I Fleming, Friday, 20 May 2005 4:43:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John Fleming -

If the survey is complete, release the questions. If it is not complete, don't release the results until it is complete. Otherwise it looks like a publicity stunt rather than sound research. The same would be true if the research was about bacteria or backgammon.

You say the survey was validated by Newspoll. Can Ms Cox get the questions from Newspoll? Newspoll is not the independent arbiter of fair testing. Put the research methods out to the public and let anyone who wants to, decide if the conclusions are fair.

I agree, though, that Ms Cox has flubbed the entire argument by saying that she does not believe the results. Maybe she assumed that the questions were never coming. I wish she would have said "I won't believe the results, until I see the questions."

Eric Claus
Posted by ericc, Saturday, 21 May 2005 6:59:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eva does raise legitimate questions about disclosure that I do not think have been addressed in responses in this discussion.
Moreover it appears the university and the ethics committee that are sponsoring and have given clearance to this research are not accounted for in these responses.

Pasted below is a section from the NHMRC human research ethics handbook which can be found at

http://www7.health.gov.au/nhmrc/hrecbook/02_ethics/07.htm

In summary, conflicts of interest arise in many ways in relation to research involving humans, and both HRECs and researchers should be sensitive to the potential impact these may have. Rigorous disclosure of opposing interests will help avoid problems, or facilitate their resolution if they should arise. Specific questions, however, need to be considered within the contexts of particular types of research.

Points to consider

*What parties have interests in the specific research setting and exactly what are their interests?

*Is the primary purpose of the research project a commercial or a scientific one?

*Does a researcher face a conflict of interest with regard to the obligations of, or pressures involved in, having more than one professional role in relation to a specific research project?

*Is sponsorship from industry likely to limit scientific communication in order to protect proprietary information?

*Have researchers fully disclosed any financial interests relating to the research project? Is any payment to researchers fair and not excessive?
Posted by Rainier, Saturday, 21 May 2005 9:50:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eva Cox has said that she is biased, when teaching students in her classes

“I teach this to my research methods students and in my lectures jokingly state that I keep an image of Fred Nile in my head to ensure that my questions are not leading or designed to get particular answers I want.”

To my knowledge the Reverend Fred Nile has not broken any laws and is not a criminal. However it appears that Eva Cox has been attempting to denigrate or stereotype the Reverend in front of her class of University students.

While all people have a right to their individual opinions, University lecturers or teachers should be acting in an impartial or neutral manner during their classes, and should not be attempting to denigrate, malign or stereotype another person to their students.

I am uncertain as to the general codes or standards that Eva Cox should be operating within while teaching at the University of Technology Sydney, but she would not be operating within the Australian Public Service’s Code of Conduct and Set of Values, which emphasise such things as “honesty”, “integrity” and treating other people with “respect and courtesy”.

If she teaches her students in a biased way, one can only assume that her research would be similar.

No wonder entering the words ““Social Science” + bias” into my search engine yields 1.5 million results.
Posted by Timkins, Sunday, 22 May 2005 2:04:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy