I am not panicked by or opposed to the research findings. However, I stand my ground that when two known pro life researchers release results of a piece of research, they should conform to the best academic ethics standards, not those of the commercially based market research organisation. My research is often questioned because of my public political commitments so I am always open about what I have done and how. I expect the same from others.

I find the research published interesting and in the spirit of good will I rang to find out further details and was refused access to these. However, my interpretations of the data are also different. Their claims that attitudes are 'soft' and presumably ambivalent, means that the writers don't understand how voters can cope with the clear difference between their moral stances and legislative action. There are things I find ethically inappropriate but would not support their being banned. People can differentiate between personal morality and legality. The survey result shows how many respondents understand the difference between their viewpoints and what they think should be legally imposed on others.

I want to see how the actual questions were worded and what was included and excluded; what words were used, as many are emotionally laden eg abortion or termination; and if some questions imply open slather on any stage abortions, as this is not the case and would bias responses.

How much you were funded and by whom may well be important in understanding your motivations. Funders do not have to actively involve themselves in a project to influence its directions and intentions. Are you prepared to come clean on this and the purposes of your other stages of this project?

eva cox

John, I wonder how flexible your research approach is and whether it is possible that feedback at this stage on the questions that you asked might not help to refine questions that you ask at a later stage.

I note what Eva has said about the types of words that might have been used. I also note frequently that what people self-report to a stranger asking them questions for a survey isn't necessarily what they really believe, particularly on very emotionally and morally laden issue.

While it doesn't cure the self-reporting problem, it would also have been interesting to have had some questions asking your respondents what they might personally do in certain circumstances. I'd bet they would be more likely to favour abortion than when discussing it in the abstract.

I have to agree with Eva that there is a fundamental difference between a personal viewpoint on abortion and the legislation to enforce that viewpoint on another person. This can be seen across the broad spectrum of legislation, not just reproductive rights issues, the main difference being that people seem to think that personal views are more important in this debate than in others.

Leslie Cannold has also pointed out the need for greater scrutiny of studies purporting to be academic in nature (on any topic) and funding of these projects remains an issue.

Would we expect the findings of, for example, research by the Egg Growers Board in pursuit of a greater government subsidy to farmers to be that people hate eggs and think that the industry should be shut down? Maybe - but we'd expect the research report to be slanted in a way that emphasised the positives for the industry, in the same way that this research can be seen as "market research" for a particular viewpoint.

Surely public scrutiny of academic research is a vital part of societal debate - something to be welcomed. Further, if we can't expect to replicate the findings of research (and you can't do that without the research tool) or critique the methodology, why not just pull the figures out of the air?

If the issue is possible bias in a research survey, then there are innumerable research surveys to choose from.

So why abortion, or why the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute? It seems that both have been targeted in some way by Eva, which indicates prejudice from her.

But from my understanding, the abortion rates in Australia are higher than in some other countries, and this has more to do with factors such as a lower rate of implant contraception use in Australia than in those other countries, which is much more of a medical issue than a moral or social issue.

However facts about abortion seem scarce, and without those facts even the medical issues relating to abortion will not be adequately solved.

It seems Eva Cox has spent a great deal of effort trying to discredit this research. So now she has engineered a debate over the research methods rather than on the important practical question of how to help women steer clear of having abortions. Does anyone question that there is a huge majority (87%) of Australians who want to see fewer abortions? What are we going to do to improve support for women to avoid abortion?

Well I wasn't too interested in this topic before John and Selena's post but now I am. I'm with Eva on this one as the more I read about what John and Selena have to say the more I want to know about the questions that were asked during their survey. Not all questions are good questions and the way that they're asked bears meaning on the results. The question you've provided us:

“If ways could be found to reduce the number of abortions in Australia but still giving women the right to freely choose an abortion, do you think that would be a good thing or not?”.

.. is double-loaded. It's two questions in one and therefore cannot produce a valid result.

If you're going to make your findings public then you must also provide access to the questions asked and the sample demographics. This lends you integrity (or not) and allows other researchers to build on your work. I agree with your final comments about debate John, but show us the questions!

When I studied through Deakin University to gain my Master of Education, I was taught that the mark of a good researcher is the ability to criticise one's own questions and to publicly acknowledge any flaws in questions. I was also taught that this was a valuable strategy for refining future research questions and related research. In addition, I was taught that a good researcher looks for their own mistakes and owns them. In no way does this detract from the researcher's credibility. On the contrary, it can add to the researcher's credibility.

If, as a result of reading Fleming and Ewing's work, I decided to conduct a research study on abortion, I would like to have access to their questions. I would like to know where they thought they went wrong. And as a result, what recommendations they would make for further research on the topic.

Did Deakin University get it wrong? Or did I get it wrong?

A lot about nothing really. For the umpteenth time, all questions will be published in due course. Just be patient. We want to complete the whole research project for methodological reasons before we give away everything. Then Ms Cox can go her hardest, and it will be hard because of the hostility she has already shown to anyone's work that she thinks must be biased because of who they are.
And why is evryone so threatened? The research shows a picture of Australians as a a 'broad church' of ideas that do not simply fit into my categories nor those of Ms Cox.

The idea that a reputable research companies are not reputable because they are commercial is simply laughable. We chose companies well experienced and expert in this research to put as much distance as we could between ourselves and those carrying out the research. And given that the funders are completely unknown to the research companies, the idea that they would be influenced by the views of the funders is simply ridiculous.
Cheers
Dr JI Fleming

Dr Fleming - thank you for the clarification. I can now see where you are coming from. My apologies for being such a dumbo.

The good Reverend Doctor wrote -
They [meaning ALL Australians?)want more debate and they want men in the debate as well as women, but they do not want more bitter debate.

In other words, let’s agree to disagree as long as we end up agreeing with our research methodology and its integrity. What piffle.

Eva Cox has merely questioned and asked for disclosure of what many in 'research world' would consider acceptable. She simply wants to see the questions that were used.

When critical inspection of any research method is denied the results of this same research can easily be accused of being propaganda. Knowing full well that these kinds of questions would be asked, their defense implies there is something to hide.

Don't you just love it when Rainier, with all his academic pretensions and candid admissions of academic malfeasance resorts to "in other words" to misrepresent. So much for his or her academic rigour. Be patient. All will be revealed when we are ready and when we can be certain that we have not in any muddied our own waters by a premature revealing of questions in stage one. I am certainly not working according to other people's timetable the reasons for which will be come obvious when the entire project is complete. To the fair minded I say thank you for being willing to be open minded. To Rainier and his ilk, I am indifferent to the kind of "academia" that you represent and try to pass over as the only approach any right minded person would adopt.
Dr John I Fleming

There is a great episode of Yes Minister with a debate on gun laws. The minister wants to do a survey which Humphrey scoffs at and promptly goes on to demonstrate that you can make a survey give you whatever result you desire.

The surveys ran along the following lines.

Survey 1: Do you believe there is too much violence in society today?
Yes.
Are guns involved more frequently in violent crime?
Yes
Are guns too easy to obtain?
Yes
Should guns be banned?
Yes

Survey 2: Do you believe there is too much violence in society today?
Yes.
Should people be able to protect themselves against violence?
Yes
Would owning a gun help you protect yourself?
Yes
Should guns be made more easily available?
Yes.

I,for one, am happy to wait for the questions, and reserve comment till then.

John methinks you protest too much on this issue. It's fairly simple that I can see - it's all well and good to defend yourself by saying "the questions will be revealed in due course" and that thereafter we're all a bunch of nasty, witch-hunting academics kicking up a fuss over nothing, BUT you simply can't release results into the public domain and then refuse to show the method. Well .. you can .. but don't expect anyone to take you or the results seriously. What kind of academic does that make you? More like a hired goon really. I don't understand why the results couldn't wait until the project was complete but the method could? Is there something wrong with the method? What good reason for early disclosure of results can you give us?

Dear oh dear John, Keep your collar on mate! ... How about making a deal with me? I'll let you Christianise and Civilise me (btw, my mob know this caper all too well) but only if you show me your questions! (and I do mean your questions)

I am enjoying this debate and agree in full with Rainier and Audrey. Fleming is being just a little too coy. Sounds like buying time to tinker with the evidence.

John Fleming it is a very simple question - why release results early and then with hold on to the modus operandi?

I know at uni I would've been challenged for such an approach. So don't be so surprised when people challenge you.

What separates political-activist-academics from academics is that the former are happy to grind their axe willy-nilly while the later offer the whole of their endeavour to peer review.

‘Independent research companies’ are just as capable of doing academically sound work as anyone else. But they generally don’t. Generally they do not publish their work in world class journals. Generally they investigate issues of interests to their employer.

The Rev Dr John Fleming’s results, and the conclusions he draws from them, might be sound. From all we’ve been given, there’s no way to tell.

I am though suspicious of any assertion made on the back of undisclosed academic rigour.

Martin, I completely agree with you. Which is why we will publish everything in due course. Naturally I expect reasonable academics to reserve judgment on our work until everything is disclosed. The reason we rolled out early results was to give interested people an idea that abortion attitudes in Australia are much more complex than we, the researchers and other research work had fully appreciated and to suggest that any changes in this area need to be carefully thought through in terms of what the community supports. So, for example, our research finds that there will not be support for 'banning' late term abortions because the research indicates that Australians will want that possibility left open for 'hard cases'. Our 'motive' in an early roll out is to caution interested parties against being too easily persuaded that there are easy answers to difficult questions, and to alert decision makers to community attitudes which our research suggests are complex, ie yes we want the number of abortions reduced, but no we don't want that achieved through coercive means.
Dr John I Fleming

John, I don't doubt that you are genuine, and one thing that argues in favour of that is that the research results don't necessarily help the case that I would have imagined that you favour. But wouldn't it be easier for you if you did release the questions now rather than have the whole project under a cloud until you do? Even when you do release your methodology, there is every chance that people will continue to refer to it as "That survey on abortion where they wouldn't tell anyone what the questions were." I don't think it helps your case in a persuasive way.

On another note, one has to wonder about the professionalism of so-called market research companies. I was just about to fill in a questionnaire designed by AC Nielsen on behalf of the Brisbane City Council and decided to junk it after reading the questions and realising they wouldn't give anyone any reliable information at all. What would Audrey make of a question like this "Ways to keep our quality of life: Option (b) Maintain areas of bushland and open space to make sure there is sufficient habitat for native animals, space to play, and green reas to break up developments" How many options can you have in an option?

So merely having your research carried out by a commercial show is not enough to guarantee that the questions and methodology are sound.

John,

I respect your responsibility. I have difficulty understanding why someone should reserve judgement when you have not reserved verdict.

Ideas are a dime a dozen, especially on topics as personal and emotive as abortion.

In my experience, cautioning someone without foundation is just as pointless as schooling someone without foundation.

Truly though, I see your point but in a secular society rationale rules.

I would have junked it too Graham. All sounds a bit weasel-word to me.

John - I would expect any "reasonable" academic to be nice enough to check my questions out before I did anything with the survey or the results so that I could avoid the torture of having alot of "un-reasonable" academics rip me up into little bits and junk my reputation when I finally released the method. And frankly, if I'd followed the path you so vigorously defend, I'd probably deserve the shredding.

John Fleming
If the funders have had nothing to do with the abortion survey and the Research company who conducted the survey has had no contact with the funders, where does the Bioethics Institute fit in - what has been the bioethics institute role in all this for you to claim the survey as your work.
Also for the record - if the second survey produced conflicting data then you have not validated the first survey

John Fleming wrote:

"Don't you just love it when Rainier, with all his academic pretensions and candid admissions of academic malfeasance resorts to "in other words" to misrepresent."

Is this different from your use of "in other words":

When asked if they supported abortion on demand, 62% said yes. This in principke support softens when particular circumstances are considered. Nearly half the population (45%) are 'moderate' in their attitude to abortion in that they somewhat agree or somewhat disagree or are neutral in their attitude to abortion on demand. Put another way, 63% of Australians either oppose or are not strongly supportive of abortion on demand.

You can't expect people to take your survey seriously if you are so flippant about distorting your own results.

By the way everyone,

Do women love abortion?
No.

Do unborn babies love abortion?
No, they writhe in agony until they die an untimely death. Have you ever wondered what they would do if they could fight back against the doctors of death?

Do uncaring, callous, irresponsible men love abortion?
Yes.

Case closed.

Yes Amanda it is different. If you read the report you will see that this is a perfectly valid way of representing the results. So do read it Amanda.

As I have said many times, the questions will all be published when the entire work is complete. And thn everyone can make up their minds on the basis of all the checks and balances in the research.

And to answer an earlier question (read the Report), the principal researchers briefed Sexton Marketing and Sexton drafted the questions. We wanted to avoid questions which are tendentious and so the subcontracting of Sexton. Where Sweeney was coincerned we had no direct meeting with them allowing them complete freedom to explore the issues according to the brief asd outlined in the Report. Selena and I take complete responsibility for the research, its aims, and the way it was carried out including the scrupulous attempts on our part to minimise subjective bias.

So where can I get a copy of " the report" - the Executive Summary available on-line is insufficient.
In this day and age researchers commonly publish methodology (including survey questions)- prior to undertaking the research - such that all this criticism can be avoided.
I just think its a shame that an opportunity for Australia to understand better women's attitudes to abortion - has been lost - on account of poor management of release of the research findings.

Addit
Which Ethics Committee did you submit your research proposal to John?
It would be very reassuring if it was known that a Human Research Ethics Committee had supported your research

Dear Manz. For the report, go to SCBI website: www.bioethics.org.au and it will tell you how you can pourchase the report. On your second matter, this was not a project that necessitated a visit to a human research ethics committee because we were doing nothing that involved research on human subjects!!

Well there you go. When I last worked at a university, any research involving human "subjects" had to be approved by the relevant research ethics committee. This certainly included surveys, questionnaires etc.

Fleming and Ewing's 'research', apparently conducted on their behalf by commercial pollsters without reference to a human research ethics committee, must be somehow above peer scrutiny.

Unless of course, the 'peers' are spiritual rather than academic in orientation, in which case the Reverend Doctor's investigations have obviously been directly approved by the God.

John,

Your research appears to be well conducted and the results interesting. And assuming it has been well conducted and the results valid, why on earth aren't the questions released--for transparency's sake--so that your critics can be silenced? Surely this would give you and the survey results much more credibility so that we can progress in this fascinating debate,

Regards, Mountebank

I have read the report, John.

I don't agree that your interpretations are valid. You're arguing against a claim that has never been seriously made. It has been claimed time and again that the majority of Australians are pro-choice. Your survey has proved this, yet you have presented it as proof that the majority of Australians are not pro- abortion on demand. There was never a question of that.

I guess it wouldn't have been such exciting news if you'd just come out and said: "Majority of Australians want more choice for women, not less".

John I Fleming - I mean ... are you kidding? You honestly believed you didn't need ethics approval? Only consultants don't go through ethics approval when involving human subjects. I believe you'll find that the ARC requires beneficence in all research involving humans:

"the obligation to maximise possible benefits and minimise possible harms. Harm, in this context, extends beyond physical harm to a wide range of psychological or emotional distress, discomfort... Researchers exercise beneficence in assessing the risks of harm and potential benefits to participants, in being sensitive to the rights and interests of people involved in their research and in reflecting on the social and cultural implications of their work."

ie, any research involving human subjects. Especially work which requires a human subject to fill out a survey on a topic that may offend or upset, such as abortion.

NB.
In John's defence, survey's performed by market research companies do not have go before a human research ethics committee (HREC). Strange or no, they are not considered human research and don't come under the auspices of the National Health and Medical Research Council. And another thing; where did the bill for this research get sent to? Anonymity is hardly possible, and although this might not bias research in any way, it certainly is a long bow to draw. I do wonder if this whole episode has done more to cloud the whole issue; the opposite of what John was apparently intending. Without some remedial action it might be uphill from here. Give Eva a call, mate!

Mountbank is right. No ethical approval needed. I am always amused by the fashionable left liberal 'intelligentsia' though. We have seen it all in this little debate. Don't like results - attack the messenger. Attack his religion. Cast doubts on any commercial company - after all anti-capitalism sentiment requires a prejudice against anything done in free enterprise. Indulge the need to have a conspiracy - provision of money means that the provider must be like my critics, the left liberal intelligentsia, and corruptly influence outcomes. Hey guys, I said I will reveal questions and I will. I have said that the provider of funds is unknown to the 2 companies, and that is the truth. Yes, I am a Catholic priest, but that doesn't mean I am more likely to be biased than secularists and atheists. It seems to be the case that anti-Catholicism is the anti-Semitism of today's secular 'intellectuals'. And one of the reasons that I am taking my time over all this is because I accurately forecast the pretentious and bigotted nonsense that has come from people who are not used to having their own opinions questioned. The other and more important reasons are the ones I have given.

John
You repeatedly refer to your work as research
and I have read the report - yes it is a piece of research -

Given the context of abortion (a medical procedure) and proposed implications for Medicare, The NHMRC Statement for Ethical Conduct in Research involving Humans applies.
This research proposal should have been presented to a Human Research Ethics Committee - particularly as there was clear risk of harm
There must have been risk of harm to participants otherwise why did you not tell them up-front that the telephone survey was about abortion.
Quite frankly -if it was found that I had not submitted a like proposal to an ethics committee it would be the end of my career as a researcher - such is the seriousness of such an offense in my profession.
Also in reference to the Code of Professional Behaviour from the Market Research Society of Australia - if you refer to Rules then C Professional Responsibilities of Researchers pt 14. - clearly states that " Researchers must always be prepared to make available the technical information necessary to assess the validity of any published findings" - key word being "always" .

So is Sexton Marketing not acting within its professional code and advising you to with-hold questionnaire details, or perhaps with-holding of the information is your idea although it would contradict usual standards of ethical prectice in both Marketing Research and Medical / Social Science research fields.

Dear Manz, I hope your career as a researcher ends now you seem to know so little! Of course people were told the subject and were given opportunity not to be involved. Which some did. If we were going to ask questions about people's personal lives then ethics clearance would have been sought. Actually, I wouldn't do it anyway for a range of ethical reasons even if a committee agreed. People's opinions were sought and in line with standard ethical requirements. There was no requirement to go through NHMRC procedures, nor was it necessary. Again, Manz, you and your mates are simply engaging in personal attacks on the old three C basis, Catholic, Capitalist, and therfore Corrupt.

I thought I was critiquing your research methodology - You shouldnt take things so personally
It is still clear to me that your conduct is not in keeping with NHMRC guidelines nor in keeping with Market Research Code of Ethics.

How many people did you telephone to yield a sample size of 1200 - 3 in the survey?

Dear Manz: :"Professional Responsibilities of Researchers pt 14. - clearly states that " Researchers must always be prepared to make available the technical information necessary to assess the validity of any published findings" - key word being "always"". For the umpteenth time, all of this will be complied with when the research project has been completed. That is, "we are preparedto make available the technical information". So, we are not in breach of any ethical guidelines. This is my last on this for the time being.

I am no academic but the first thing I asked myself, after having read the "key findings", was "what were the questions asked?"

Testing the validity of research results, which I thought included an analysis of the methodology used, as well as the results achieved, entails submitting that research for peer review.

Dr Fleming says the questions will be published later. That's fine! But until the "research" can be effectively peer reviewed the "key findings" have little validity.

Peer review also serves to test the quality of the research reporting. In this respect Dr Fleming's "research" has been found lacking also.

Agreed annacam.

So John Fleming - are we there yet?