Thank you. I’m pretty tired of reading people trying to discredit the sample, claiming that we only asked women who had already exp VAWG etc. The study was shared all over UK without my knowledge or control and our sample is excellent. Prevalence is real, not a sample issue.
We did share it initially, but after that, it was shared in universities, by celebrities, on LinkedIn by professionals, by women with their own families and friends.
It’s basic convenience sampling using snowball referral technique where women are asked to share it with others.
All we asked was that you were:
Female
Over 18
Lived in the UK
That’s it
And we asked if any women wanted to share it in their own networks
After our initial posts, it was reshaped and sent out thousands of times.
We have been very lucky that our sample is a great cross section of UK population of women. It is a great spread of ethnicity, religion, education and wealth as per census data. However, it is slightly more weighted towards women with higher income and education.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
To everyone asking why our data is so much higher than all other stats, let me explain:
Good methodology and sophisticated, tested item language always results in more accurate responses.
If you use ambiguous language, you get shit, inaccurate, unreported responses.
Simple.
I am lucky to have been taught by an excellent academic who was an expert to the point of obsession about item construction and language. This skill was passed to me by someone much more knowledgable and I have worked hard to be skilful at creating items and language that works.
Language can ruin a study and you’ll never even know you did it wrong. You’ll think the items were accurate and your data is right, without realising you have made your work inaccessible to huge amounts of people.
I think we would all do ourselves a massive favour by going back to the original position of gender being a set of competing theories which have been debated, tested, deconstructed & challenged since the 60s - with no consensus but complex arguments that need exploration.
I miss the days where we could write papers & teach students about the harms of gender roles, gender stereotyping & the concepts of gender as socially, culturally and historically situated norms which change constantly & geographically without someone claiming it’s in our brain.
So much excellent research and teaching was being done when gender was allowed to be interrogated as a system of oppression, control and stereotypes
Don’t wait for someone else to open a door for you when you could just push it open (or kick it down) yourself.
Loads of people think I was one of those lucky authors who randomly got picked up by a publisher but I self published my book and never approached a publisher once.
I have no interest in waiting for people to see me as worthy of their attention or investment - I just do it anyway.
For anyone reading this who has been waiting to be ‘given’ a chance... why?
Why not just give yourself the chance and do it anyway?
Why are you waiting?
Why are you waiting to be given permission for your ideas or work?
Just completed some more advanced statistical analysis on the large dataset we have from 22,419 women and found something frankly shocking for anyone who believes in ACE scores being used in practice and assessment.
Spoiler: ACE scores correlate with absolutely nothing so far.
I will of course elaborate and include this in the analysis - but if that isn’t the nail in the coffin for the ACE score being used in our services, I don’t know what is.
Major takeaway from this:
If you were subjected to abuse or neglect in childhood, you’re not doomed to anything, no one can predict your outcomes or future, and what others did to you will not direct your life.