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.