We have made some little videos explaining the key issues in the study. We also presented yesterday to 2000 people and explained the following to everyone:
1. We do not seek to generalise or extrapolate to the UK population from our data
2. This is the report of 22,419 UK women and their own experiences and that should be significant enough. We are not looking to make wider generalisations so we do not need to weight data or rake it.
3. Lots of people misunderstanding what a ‘self selecting sample’ is and how common that is in these kinds of studies. The UN 97% stat from last month was based on 1000 18-25yr self selecting sample too, but no uproar. Amazing.
4. We clearly posted to say that the study was about violent experiences of women since birth because it is vital that women are not deceived before they take part, in case it harms them. The only criteria was being a woman over 18 in UK. No other criteria was set out.
5. Recruiting participants using social media and referral techniques is very common, used in huge studies that people already cite in this field with no criticism and as long as we are clear and transparent about that, it’s okay. All studies have limitations. Including ours.
6. Every single study in which a participant can choose to take part, read full info beforehand and then consent or ignore has an element of self selection bias and that includes all surveys, questionnaires and interview studies. This is rarely raised until 22k women report.
7. Our sample is interesting in that it is huge, more diverse than the UK population and seems to be skewed towards women with more education than average. This is important when reflecting on findings. Women over 60 were not well represented at all in our sample, regrettably
8. We have much to consider and analyse over the coming months but it’s been shocking to see people attempt to discredit a study based on widely used methods - suddenly those common methods are not acceptable - maybe that’s because they are women talking about abuse and violence?
9. From a critical perspective, we have ended up completely distracted from the fact that for the first time ever, 22k women were able to clearly report their experiences anonymously - and instead have attacked contested methodology and even spread misinformation about sample
10. I hope that clears some things up. We haven’t and won’t extrapolate because we don’t want or need to. Recruitment method was common, not perfect, not RCT, but appropriate. Criteria to take part did not include experience of violence. Study was shared across many populations
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I have a friend who is a brilliant forensic psychologist who has recently conducted a set of studies which has seriously upset the apple cart. Originally, they were all kept in academia until recently, she decided she had a duty to women who had been raped to make her work public
She wrote some accessible style blogs and has started to post publicly about her studies and findings, and what it means for women who have been raped whose statements are discredited or disbelieved.
As soon as she stepped outside of academia, she’s been vilified
Her findings and methods are very different to the norm. Her arguments are vital for women. She’s been trolled and bullied online now for about a fortnight. Academics in her specialism keep RT and subtweeting her saying she’s full of shit, questioning her method and findings
Well, now that everyone is an expert in research methods, sampling and presentation of data, I cannot wait to watch you all retract your use of the UN stat which reported ‘97% of all women are sexually harassed’ based on 1089 self selecting women aged 18-25 years old.
Funny how everyone was perfectly happy to use that without even reading the original report (which I did) to find that their findings were only relevant to 18-25yr olds, which YouGov and UN reported as a generalised stat for all women. So did the media. Yet, no uproar. At all.
Here’s another - not the mention that the stat was on the TV and in media for weeks. In parliament by several MPs. It was generalised to our entire population by every single media outlet including BBC and Sky.
No one gave a shit did they.
I am immensely proud of the fact that I always choose to present complex information in an accessible, simplified and jargon-free way. It might look ‘non-academic’ but that’s the point. I could write it to look like an impenetrable paper if I wanted, but what good would that do?
Academics often have to present their work in ways which mean that their own participants can’t even understand their own responses - and I don’t want my work to ever be like that. I want it to be laid out in easy read style every single time. I want accessibility and free access
We have a dataset with over 4 million data-points and it will take us all summer to finish the deeper statistical analysis. That will come out too, but I’m still going to present it as simply as possible, with as many diagrams and tables as I can so people can engage with it
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.
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.