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. 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
C’mon Timkins, tell us how it’s done! (Unbiased teaching and research that is) I and thousands of university teachers and researchers await your response with anticipation.
I for one am tired of telling my students how immoral and fundamentalist John Howard Kim Beazley and Fred Nile are. I need a fresh unbiased and non-Leftist approach to telling them the same thing, but in a completely unbiased way. I’m sure Eva Cox wants to know as well. Pray tell Timkins
Posted by Rainier, Sunday, 22 May 2005 3:26:42 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
Rainier
I don’t see why the Rev Fred Nile has to be mentioned. This may be getting off the topic, but in Australia we now have a problem with “personality politics”. This is often newsworthy (Eg John Howard vs Peter Costello), but we should be working towards a society that is run by the people, and not by individuals. Personality politics often confusses the issues.

The area of abortion has become very politicised and confused. Abortion should be treated as a health problem, where relevant data is first collected and then decisions made accordingly. However abortion has become very politicised and relevant data is now so confused and conflicting, it becomes very difficult to make informed and accurate decisions. The best data I have seen on abortion is in the NZ report in the link I previously provided, (http://www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/dem-trends-03/dem-trends-2003-part-7-induced-abortions.htmbut) but I have not seen such data collated in Australia.

I also think the public is losing much confidence in Social Science, as it does seem to be a science that is too biased, too politicised, (particularly with gender politics), and Social Science can hardly reach consensus regards any issue. That can’t be blamed on the public, but if there is a Social Scientist who is operating within the Australian Public Service, they should be mindful at all times of the APS Code of Conduct and Set of Values.
Posted by Timkins, Sunday, 22 May 2005 5:35:45 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 needs to note that not releasing the data collection instrument and details of funding is in breach of the code of researcher ethics endorsed by the NHMRC and AVCC, available on the former's website. This states clearly that once results are published, even on an incomplete basis, the standards for access to and availability of data, sources of funding and questions asked need to be publicly available. If I had access to the questions, I could assess the validity of the interpretation of the answers given. I am not quibbling with the answers but without the questions I do not know what options of responses the respondents had. Were they given precoded responses? Were the questions open ended and post coded? What was the wording used in question and answer? Without these pieces of information, I cannot assess the legitimacy or otherwise of the reporting. So such partial release is poor research practice that breaches public academic standards. This is not 'commercial in confidence' but attitude opinion polling!

timkins, please learn to read properly, you have an astounding capacity to misread material. My mention of Fred Nile was not mockery, but designed to illustrate the same point I am making. If I were to do a survey and release the marterial, I would expect those with different views to mine to look at what I had done. Were Fred to scrutinise a survey of mine, I would do him the courtesy of giving letting him have access to my methodology so he could satisfy himself whether the data was appropriately collected, even if we might disagree on its interpretation. This is what I expected from John Fleming in the current case and was refused. It is not a discourtesy to mention Fred, nor biased teaching, just an objective example of how open research should be handled.

eva
Posted by eva cox, Sunday, 22 May 2005 7:13:22 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
I agree with Eva in that releasing the questions is probably the correct thing to do. However I think that Eva’s knickers wouldn’t be anywhere near as twisted if the results were more in line with her way of thinking.

You can’t really pull one question (or what you think one of the questions could be) out of a survey and judge the whole upon it. A question such as “Do you think women should have the right to choose abortion?” is a soft question and is pretty much useless on its own. I for one think that abortion should be an option for women, but I disagree vehemently with late-term abortions. All the questions need to be known before the worth of the survey can be debated.

At least Eva admits that - like all of us - she is biased. She also tells us that she does her best to not let that bias cloud her professionalism, and that is all anyone can ask of any of us. Bravo to her.

Rainier – as a university teacher isn’t your job to teach students how to work these things out for themselves? No one is much interested in your personal preferences or prejudices, no matter how fashionable or clever you think they may be.
Posted by bozzie, Monday, 23 May 2005 12:01:29 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
BOZZIE asked "as a university teacher isn’t your job to teach students how to work these things out for themselves? No one is much interested in your personal preferences or prejudices, no matter how fashionable or clever you think they may be.

Since you've asked me a question I'll answer it.
Actually students are very interested in my standpoint. What I teach lends itself to having a position so my teaching style must be postional but not dogmatic or aggressive as I'd soon loose their interest. I've taught students from all political persuasions and they appreciate my openess to debate and critical inquiry.
Yes my job is to make them think and come up with their own perspectives and standpoints. Gee, with some extra effort,I reckon I could even teach you a thing or two!
Posted by Rainier, Monday, 23 May 2005 7:36:23 AM
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
Thanks to Eva for her article. Similar points were made in one I published in The Age Education section last Monday 16 May regarding the questionable practice of refusing to release research questions.

However, I did add in an additional point which goes to the question of the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute's claim to be an "independent, non-sectarian, autonomous institution" (see http://www.bioethics.org.au/#aboutus).

Eva speculates on the lack of independence of SCBI based on her awareness of Reverend Fleming well-known anti-choice views. However, journalist Kate Mannix in Online Catholic published last week did some more digging and came up with the information that the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute is an initiative of Southern Cross Care (SA) Inc. Mannix says that while the institute asserts that it is an independent organisation, "the contributor list is a who's who of conservative Catholic thinkers".

Further, Southern Cross Care is itself, according to Mannix, "a product of the Knights of the Southern Cross", who describe themselves as "an Order of Catholic men committed to promoting the Christian way of life throughout Australia"
Posted by Leslie Cannold, Monday, 23 May 2005 8:49:43 AM
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
Participants in this discussion might be interested in the discussion taking place on this issue at the Catallaxy blog. The link is:

http://www.badanalysis.com/catallaxy/?p=895#comment-17417
Posted by Dr Paul, Monday, 23 May 2005 12:37:05 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
It seems that there are now a number of people (eg Eva, Leslie, Kate Mannix ) who appear to be inferring that data from organisations such as the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, Southern Cross Care, or Knights of the Southern Cross etc cannot be relied upon, as it is biased in some way.

This must lead to the question:- exactly which organisations in Australia can be relied upon for accurate, unbiased, and relevant data?

If there are no organisations that can be relied upon for data on abortion, then that can be stated too.

But to my knowledge it has never been stated by pro-choice supporters, how much abortion in society becomes too much. (eg. is it 2 out of 5 pregnancies, 3 out of 5, 4 out of 5, or 5 out of 5). This lack of disclosure of what would constitute too much abortion does seem to indicate an unwillingness by pro-choice supporters to fully investigate the reasons why abortion occurs, and that would have to introduce considerable bias into their own surveys.
Posted by Timkins, Monday, 23 May 2005 2:06:21 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
Timkins asks whether pro-choice advocates have a position on "how much abortion is too much".

Speaking for myself, ideally there would be no unwanted pregnancies and therefore no need for abortion. It should therefore be possible for pro-choice and pro-life people to agree on practical measures which would minimise unwanted pregnancies in the real world.

Unfortunately it seems that some of the most ardent pro-lifers are unwilling to come to the party. For example, one of the Southern Cross Institute's contributors, Melinda Tankard-Reist, is an impassioned writer on the alleged harm which abortion causes to women who terminate pregnancies. Yet she also has an article on the Southern Cross web site which must be interpreted as hostile to the distribution and use of RU-486 (the "morning after pill").

Of course this combination of positions is entirely reasonable if one believes that preventing the implantation of a newly conceived zygote is morally equivalent to terminating a 36-week foetus. With all due respect, one would have to be a seriously unbalanced fanatic to sincerely believe this after a careful consideration of the issues.
Posted by Dr Paul, Monday, 23 May 2005 3:30:09 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
Dr Paul
I would accept that there are divisions between the various pro-life and pro-choice groups. I also tend to think that there are financial interests involved, (such as abortion clinics), and gender feminism is also involved.

However I tend to discount the results of public opinion polls into abortion at present, (no matter who arranges those polls), because I think the public does not have sufficient information about abortion to be able to provide informed opinions, and the public does not have that information because it is not being collected.

Perhaps government legislation does not require information to be collected and collated into standard reports that are then made available to the public, but if this is the case, then perhaps the medical profession should take more control of the situation, and be doing so regardless. The information collected by the NZ government can be an example of what type of information becomes necessary to define the reasons for abortion, so that solutions to the problem can be eventually established. http://www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/dem-trends-03/dem-trends-2003-part-7-induced-abortions.htm

I personally think that the present abortion rate in Australia is too high. Other countries have lower rates, but to reduce out current rate will take effort from the medical profession and from the public, and it may take a number of years. To delay waiting for government to change legislation is to risk the chance that our current abortion rate will increase even further.
Posted by Timkins, Monday, 23 May 2005 8:22:07 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
"I personally think that the present abortion rate in Australia is too high." I can only imagine that pro-life and pro-choice individuals would have to both agree on this point, it is a horrible injustice and gross inequality, that women are subjected to "the most common surgical procedure in Australia", to quote from the Preterm Foundation website. This encompasses the usual consequent surgical and anaesthetic risks, this is regardless of the other costs deemed to result from the procedure.
I respect highly those who hold firm their convictions, what concerns me is the apathy of the 90% who do not know, or care, what to think. It would be academically naive to expect to find truly impartial/disinterested research. The forum responses to this latest 'survey query' illustrate this well. I agree, access to the questions would help discern the legitimacy of the findings. However, the questions, whether 'soft or hard' are only sifting the knowledge of the gaggle, and a great majority of Australians do not have adequate information to make any sort of knowledgeable response. Balanced public education forum's need to be held, so that such survey’s findings are deemed adequately legitimate
Posted by Dr Mac, Monday, 23 May 2005 11:48:49 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
Southern Cross Care is a legitimate charitable and government funded organisation whose day to day business revolves entirely around the provision of aged care services in nursing homes, hostels and in the community.
Why Southern Cross Care is involved in funding the activities of the Bioethics Institute is historical and not in keeping with Southern Cross Care's current core business.

What John Fleming has failed to acknowledge of course is that the institute also receives funding from the Society for Protection of Unborn Children.
John Fleming should refer to an opinion piece from one of his colleagues Dr Gregory Pike "Serving Mammon: Conflicts of Interests in the Professions" posted on the SCBI website - the same issues are relevant between any researcher and a funding body.

I have also been told that the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute has never presented their research proposals to a Human Research Ethics Committee
Posted by Manz, Friday, 27 May 2005 10:50:04 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
Perhaps the underlying question we are all talking around is - 'is public policy developed on the back of research and to what extent we can truly rely on research to map public opinion.

The protagonists for this research have argued that this research will contribute to better public debate.

But one can't help but feel that that the premature broadcast [without disclosure of methodology] of the outcomes of this research is guided by other latent and hidden priorities. Besides creating citable research, its intentions appear to be quite focused in defining a designated "receptor" within government.

If public policy is developed from this research there needs to be transparency and backward accountability beyond the data collection to the how this data was collected. Revealing outcomes incrementally throughout the life of a research project is acceptable if not desirable for building momentum and public interest.

For policy makers using research it should also mean they will use other types of information besides the citable research that this research will generate.

But again, my suspicion is that this research will be used not to inform good policy but to guide public debate about policy towards certain ends. Crudely defined, it’s Spin doctored research for public policy Spin doctors. Reverend Doctor John Fleming will no doubt tell us that its ethical clearance has been rubber stamped by God. And he, better than we infidels, would know this to be the case now wouldn't he. Amen
Posted by Rainier, Saturday, 28 May 2005 11:22:16 AM
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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