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 But they generally don’t. Generally they do not publish their work in world class journals.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.