Tonight sees the first in a three part series ‘The Sex Researchers’ on Channel 4 (10pm GMT). It will focus on the history of sex research, explain what sex research involves, and tackle worries the public have about sex (particularly the obligatory ‘am I normal?’ question).

I’ve been a sex researcher since I started my PhD studies in the 1990s (academic background here). It’s a discipline I find fascinating. I love working in this area and I hope it shows. Over the past decade I’ve focused on trying to explain sex research to the public through writing for the media, public science events and training other researchers and practitioners in sex research methods. I also apply my work through advice giving in print, online and in broadcast media – using the evidence I take for granted and making it publicly accessible (and most importantly freely available). I work in different country settings, and am endlessly amazed by how similar and different our intimate lives are across the world.

So any programme that showcases sex research is going to get my vote. This post reflects on how sex research (and sex science) is portrayed in the media, reflects on the Sex Researchers series itself, and includes information about how you can learn about or get more involved in sex research.

Why do academics want Sex Research talked about?
The sex research community were excited to hear about this programme when it was first being researched last year. We’re keen to raise the profile of sex research – both to encourage people to participate in studies, and to enable them to be able to think critically about and apply sex research to their intimate lives.

Being involved in a programme about sex research also gave us hope we might be able to showcase the amazingly diverse range of sex ‘science’, which crosses multidisciplinary boundaries and can cover the social, cultural, biological, physical and more.

Why is media coverage of sex research important?
It’s important that sex research does get accurate coverage as often the media’s treatment of ‘sexology’ is either in terms of dodgy biological research, stuff about brainz, or cod evolutionary theory. None of which are particularly representative of the discipline. That’s alongside the slew of dubious commercial PR sex surveys and other ventures which are basically advertorials but the media accepts and shares as sex science. Editors and journalists don’t take sex seriously as a topic, often aren’t able to critically appraise sex studies. And can’t seemingly differentiate between a PR fluff survey, a drug company product push, and a kosher piece of detailed sex research. Which means the former two are far more likely to get media pickup, and the public are fed a steady diet of misleading information that in turn influences (but probably does little to help) their intimate lives. (More information on how the media gets sex stories wrong here and here).

Sex researchers also face major problems with the media (and public) with a general misunderstanding about what our work involves. Most journalists I have discussions with seem firmly wed to the idea that sexology is only carried out in laboratories; using brain scanning, thermal imaging or blood tests, conducted by white coat wearing researchers. Depending on the story the journalist is working on this stereotype can either be uber clinical, or rather kinky (sometimes even both!). It is difficult to convince the media (along with science communication event organisers too) that most sex research doesn’t happen in lab-based settings and doesn’t usually involve intimate physiological tests.

That’s not to say these don’t happen, but they’re not the staple part of a sex researcher’s toolkit. Instead things like surveys, interviews, focus groups, diaries, epidemiological research or visual methods (to name a few) are far more likely to be used. These give us a fascinating insight into our sexual lives, so where there is a (rare) chance to showcase these within the media sex researchers are keen to do so.

Unfortunately our diverse methods and philosophical approaches don’t often appeal to journalists because they don’t have the visual trappings of ‘science’ that laboratories, physiological measures and white coats do. For television in particular there’s an ongoing problem where ‘sexology’ is misrepresented or shown in outdated or judgemental terms because the only way a director/producer can envisage representing sex science is with gadgets and gimmicks. This means researchers whose work doesn’t fit in this area (particularly those of us involved in critical/community based practice) are ignored, forced to play out a make believe version of your job, or appear as some kind of clinician.

Another common problem we see in the media’s use of ‘sex science’ is cherry picking data. By that I mean finding a study (which may or may not be a genuine piece of sex research) that will help you support your particular story angle/agenda. This sometimes is called being ‘evidence based’ but actually is anything but. If you are taking an evidence based approach (a phrase which is still hotly contested) you would review all available literature on a given topic and summarise it all. Highlighting research similarities, differences, shortcomings and opportunities. Unfortunately the media; some (naughty) academics; and many organisations, charities and politicians lack the time, skills or incentive to do this. Meaning studies that are outdated, unrepresentative or flawed can be presented as having more importance than they actually possess.

Finally media approaches to sex/science can result in the quirkier areas of sexology (and often not really sex research at all) get a higher billing than our more mundane studies of sex and relationships in our daily lives. Coverage of oversized genitals, unusual fetishes or paraphilias are often presented as the norm in sexology (particularly with a judgemental angle which does not characterise genuine sex research). Work addressing how we experience sex, what we like or dislike, or how we interact with others are not so dramatic and so are covered less often. Indeed where they are covered you commonly encounter the default media sneering option of ‘wow, we could have told you that’. Implying that sex research is simply so obvious we needn’t bother doing it. An arrogant position that contrasts the media’s preoccupation with aspirational sex messages, and the public’s anxiety about how they measure up.

You may find this lecture I gave at my workplace (University College London) earlier this year helpful to expand on some of these ideas. It talks about some of the issues we experience in media sex education, which includes how sex ‘science’ is applied and shared with the public. [This is quite a long lecture so you might want to skip it for now and come back to it later]

Putting the ‘sex’ in sex research
To make things even more complicated, sex researchers (at least those that are on the ball and critical thinkers) also like to consider basic issues like what ‘sex’ means. While the media when making programmes or writing features about sex assume it means one thing – heterosexual penis in vagina intercourse. Sex researchers know from talking to the public about their sexual experiences, or recording sexual activity in other ways that there can be many activities that count as ‘sex’. Unfortunately the mainstream media aren’t always keen on this. Preferring to construct intimacy in fairly restrictive ways, thinking about ‘sex’ as penetration, heterosexual, monogamous, that happens in the bedroom between two attractive, able bodied, white people. Not surprisingly the ‘am I normal?’ anxiety that plays out in public and can be answered by sex research is often caused by media misrepresentation of the sex lives of us. This is another reason why sex researchers are keen to talk to the press about the work they do.

These limited roles also extend to how the sex researcher is seen. The media may well represent you as an academic or social/scientist but because there’s a lack of understanding of sexology as a discipline this is often overlooked. Instead you’re more likely to find yourself in the public gaze as the voice of doom about our sexual lives, the flirty sex doc sharing naughty tips, or the whipping boy/girl that has to justify other people’s perceived sexual ‘bad’ behaviour. Some practitioners will fulfil these roles, often acting unethically in judging celebrities or making sex science seem vacuous or over simplistic. Others simply shy away from them. Not that the media cares since their view of sex research is so confused often they’ll happily make out folk with no qualifications or experience are academically qualified – and there’s no shortage of ‘sexperts’ happy to take on this mantle.

It’s not just the media who causes us problems
Those are the barriers within the media, but there are additional barriers that come from our workplace. Not all of us are supported at work to talk to the press. The negative views some academics hold towards sex research means many are anxious about dealing with the media for fear their work will be judged, dumbed down, or make them targets for those with anti sex views. This can mean fewer practitioners engage with the media, or just see ‘public engagement’ as a one-off press conference following publication in an academic journal. It is only recently that public engagement in this area has been seen as part of our academic life and still many senior academics in this area look down upon or limit new researchers from public engagement.

That’s not to say sex research doesn’t have its own problems with poor practice, under theorised research or unethical studies. Certainly we do have to tackle overmedicalisation, simplistic quantitative approaches or an aversion to more critical, nuanced and qualitative approaches. This sometimes is an issue because many people doing said work may consider themselves social or health researchers but avoid the ‘sexology’ label. And it’s fair to say that any academic discipline has its own share of poor practice, bad science and dodgy researchers. It’s just sex research seems to be singled out more for the bad than the good. Maybe because of our anxieties about studying sex to begin with. It’s a handy silencing tool to simply state this is not a worthy area of study, nor is it ‘scientific’.

Those of you who work in media and want to write about sex/relationships more accurately, or those of you who work in therapy/education/healthcare/research and want to work with the media may find these resources on ‘Sex,Health and Media’ useful – from the Onscenity Network’s recent conference of the same name.

Being involved with The Sex Researchers Series
Talking to colleagues involved in contributing to The Sex Researchers suggested most of us found it a positive experience. Generally we felt sex research was taken as a serious issue, allowing people working in area to share their views/experiences. Those using different methodological/philosophical approaches were interviewed, which we hope will give the public an insight into the history of sexology (at least for the past century or so) alongside current examples of work. We were assured by programme makers that sexology would be presented as a relevant and important discipline, while illustrating some of the problems facing us in terms of science, ethics and funding – alongside problems with medicalisation and commercialisation of our sexual lives.

As you can see from the start of this post there are many reasons why sex researchers are nervous about working with the media. It’s probably fair to say not all the sex researchers featured in the series are representative of the whole discipline and there are many people whose work will not be showcased. There did seem to be a focus from the programme makers to initially start with the ‘usual suspects’ of sex research – those well known, experimental, positivistic folk (mainly from US institutions) who have had the most media coverage elsewhere to date. It seemed through taking a long term and more in depth approach to framing sex research that other researchers and academic branches of sexology were considered but it remains to be seen whether the series will rehearse the usual experimental/lab based/heteronormative/neo conservative version of sex research we’re used to seeing.

Those of us working in critical/cross cultural/community based settings were worried the focus of the series would be predominantly Western, focusing on a history and current practice of sex research from a Western European/American perspective. Obviously sex research happens globally and there are some amazing, critical and thoughtful projects happening everywhere. It’s always a let down to see this area only presented through the views of those in the Global North (or with those in the Global South presented in discourses of pity, shame, blame, abuse, sexlessness and inequalities). Even within Western settings we often see the focus on urban, young, able bodied, white folk. All of which fails to really showcase the true diversity of sexology.

Filming for The Sex Researchers unfortunately coincided with more worrying problems with Channel 4 and their series The Joy of Teen Sex a series aimed at twenty-somethings which caused anxieties among the research, education, healthcare and youth services for the way sex and relationships were presented. Many UK researchers felt unable to participate in a programme being made for Channel 4 at the same time the Channel seemed unwilling to acknowledge it was part of the problem in representing bad sex advice and misleading information on sex (particularly using poor data to stack up their programmes). All contributors were faced with a dilemma of challenging the Channel on its poor practice, while having the opportunity to showcase sexology. Ultimately many researchers opted out of filming because they lack trust in Channel 4. It remains to be seen how The Sex Researchers represent us and our work. Practitioners remain in negotiation with Channel 4 to try and persuade them to improve their sex and relationships broadcasting elsewhere.

My Contribution to The Sex Researchers
I was asked to talk about different methodological approaches, practical applications of sexology (i.e. evidence into practice through advice giving and similar), the problems of PR research, and how the public and media understand sexology. I refused to participate unless I was also able to discuss how poor coverage of sex/science in the media has negative public consequences (given my ongoing concerns about Channel 4’s approach to sex broadcasting). As with any TV series you’ve no idea if you’ll make it to the final cut, and given the media generally isn’t keen on self analysis I’d be surprised if most of my comments about media/bad science are aired. (In fact given my ongoing vocal challenges of Channel 4 I would be surprised if any of my interview is aired, but we will see).

This may be a really good series. I hope so. Myself and colleagues have given lots of our time (for free) to make this a success and to hopefully show the public what we do and why it is fascinating and important. I hope it introduces people to an area of importance and highlights the value in studying our sexual lives.

Want to know more about sex research? Here’s how!
Hopefully you may be keen to find out more – perhaps you’d like to take part in a study, maybe you would like to become a sex researcher, or perhaps you are already working in this area and want to highlight to others the importance of your work.

Here are some resources to get you interested in sexology/sex research
[Some of these are focused on Kinsey because I wrote them to tie in with the release of the film of that name. They are still relevant to sex research more generally]

Explore the Truth about Sex This is a lecture I gave for Science Oxford, talking about the way we study sex and relationships; the methods we use; and answering some of the most frequently asked questions about sex that the public want to know about from sexologists.

Want to be in a sex study? Find out how to get involved (and what really happens in sex research) here and here
Some of the methods we use to study sex
And a stepwise account on how you might run sex research
What’s it like to be a sex researcher? Answers to commonly asked questions
Why sex research is important What parents might want to know about sex research Barriers and opportunities in modern sex research Test your sexology knowledge

Useful sources of information
Kinsey Institute
Cory Silverberg’s fantastic blog About Sexuality
The Sexademic
Archive for Sexology
Onscenity Network
World Association for Sexual Health
Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality
List of sexology organisations

Update 23/06/11
The first episode of the series is now available via 4oD and it continues to be discussed on twitter at #sexresearchers. Reactions from the sex research community to episode 1 are not positive. There is an anxiety that the sex lives of sex researchers from history have been mocked and misrepresented in places, made out to be comical, with some of the relationships of sexologists shown in homo/transphobic ways.

Given the efforts researchers went to in explaining to the TV company about what sex research is but also how it seeks to challenge heteronormative views of aspirational sex, and how the misrepresentation of sex/research makes our work difficult, it is worrying the depiction of what is sex research in this first episode is misleading. In particular the use of white, able bodied, attractive, young, slim women to illustrate research has bothered those whose research seeks to challenge such depictions of the body/intimacy as ‘normal’. However, you decide as you watch the programme and use the resources listed above to help you make sense of it. Among the sex researchers I’ve been talking to in the UK and elsewhere there is a sense of disappointment that what we were promised as a clear and fair approach to explaining our work has again been reduced to a bit of a joke. There is still hope the following two episodes will rectify the problems with episode 1.

Alongside the series Channel 4 have an viewer poll which asks ‘who benefits most from an active sex life?’ (with the options men, women or both benefit equally). If this were a poll thrown together by someone with no awareness of sex research we might dismiss it as the usual media sex question stuff up. Remember, however, this series was put together over months with hours of input from sex researchers all over the world. All of whom were explaining how important it was to think critically about how we measure sexual activity.

So it’s worrying to see that apparently little or no learning from this experience has happened to the Channel. Why? Let’s look at the question. First of all ‘sex life’ is not defined – what does it mean? Intercourse, masturbation, sharing fantasies, desiring a partner, talking about sex, oral sex? One core issue we pointed out to the TV company is the assumption we all know what ‘sex’ means, yet we know from research participants have very different ideas about what it might be. So there’s a lack of clarity in conceptualising ‘sex’. Next the term ‘active’. What does that mean? The amount you have sex in any given time period? The number of people you are intimate with? How physical you are during intimacy? Leaving such terms undefined means we don’t know what people are responding to. And ‘benefits’. What does that mean? Physically, psychologically, financially, emotionally or something else? Who is benefiting – you, your partner(s), and how does that benefit manifest itself?

The poll represents one of the core problems sex researchers contributing to this programme are anxious about – and one of the major ways the media makes our work difficult. It sets up the idea that your ‘sex life’ is (or should be) something that is ‘active’ and has ‘benefits’. Tapping into the current vogue of presenting sex as an aspirational activity that’s framed in the language of performance, positions, targets and achievement.

Finally there’s the choice of male or female (or both) with no accounting for trans or intersex people. Which again we know the media generally overlooks, but given the focus on gender and sexuality was an integral part of the TV company’s research for this series it is amazing they seem to have ignored pretty much all the input from experts about our methods, philosophies, and critical thinking about sex and gender.

Today is World AIDS Day with events taking place globally around the theme of Universal Access and Human Rights. You can follow discussions about the day with links to activities and organisations involved on twitter using the hashtags #WAD2010 and #PreventionRevolution

Access is an important but often overlooked issue within this area. Getting education to help people protect themselves from HIV or making care available for people with HIV/AIDS are both still major problems being faced worldwide. Particularly in resource poor communities. Women, children, sex workers, LGBT communities may find it more difficult to reach basic educational and health services, particularly in countries with gender inequalities or where homosexuality is illegal. A lack of critical reflection on the meanings of masculinity within research and care around HIV/AIDS can often mean mens’ health needs or problems can be overlooked or only focused on in negative terms.

Aside from funding and staffing issues, access to HIV services can center around transport and roads, availability of aid, poverty, housing, and education generally (particularly literacy programmes). Not to mention problems of rape and sexual violence, domestic abuse and availability of medication.

Access isn’t just about treatment services for those living with HIV/AIDS but also around prevention and treatment programmes. Which can often be blocked by moral or political opposition or apathy. Which is why access and human rights are interlinked. People deserve the right to have accurate information to help them protect themselves from HIV or gain appropriate care and support if they are positive.

The theme of access for the coming year is an important one and hopefully will be an opportunity for health care staff, educators and researchers to focus on a broader definition of the term. Access also applies to the education, training and support of staff working in health and social care in HIV/AIDS. We still have problems with a lack of open access for many academic journals covering issues staff need to be aware of and that should be something we all press for in the next twelve months.

Easily available and high quality education programmes for staff also need to be based on the specific needs of communities, encourage capacity building and are constructivist in nature – using the lived experiences and local contexts of staff to inform their teaching. Currently much teaching, while well intentioned, is delivered in a context-free, top down and short term fashion. Illustrated here with these wonderfully reflective pieces by Matt Greenall here and here. This can result in programmes that tell people what they ought to do, but not how to achieve this – and how to amend messages if they don’t fit people’s personal or local needs. A lack of sustainability and support within programmes can also often leave communities disempowered and distrustful of research, education or health initiatives.

There can also be a problem around applying what we know. All too often funding for HIV programmes can lead to people deciding to do more research (a survey or focus group) without consulting the existing evidence base on this area which could well inform practice and save time. This is not to say there’s no place for research in HIV/AIDS. Just for practitioners to think carefully about what they are doing and why they are doing it. Critical reflection on both our research and teaching in this area is essential if we wish to improve upon current care and outcomes for the communities we serve.

Health educators and researchers working in this area often struggle themselves with limitations of time, money and demands of funders and local/national politics. Not to mention barriers caused by internalising homophobic, sex negative and gender/class/tribal judgements. With a call to consider access it is important we focus more critically about the teaching we offer and how this work can have meaningful outcomes that include and work with communities.

A couple of examples of this in action can be found in the recent Distance Learning for Health conference which brought together health educators who shared examples of good practice and reflected on ways to improve their work internationally. A review of the event and access to presentations given can be found here. While Contestations provides space for practitioners, activists and educators to debate and think critically around topics related to healthcare that often are oversimplified or overlooked. And, as you can see from Matt Greenall’s posts above are crucial to reflect upon if we’re to improve our understanding of health and human rights.

Finding ways to share knowledge and educational resources can be a powerful approach to tackling HIV/AIDS, but equally importantly allows us to remember that HIV is not the only health problem the world is facing. Thinking about access to education and creative ways of providing this can also allow us to consider additional issues that are impacted upon by HIV but can also be ignored because of a focus on HIV/AIDS. Things like maternity services, mental health, disability, tackling poverty, or managing non communicable diseases, or infections such as TB or malaria.

I will share more on the blog about programmes I hear about in expanding access to education and prevention and would be keen to hear from bloggers, institutions or organisations who are finding creative ways to introduce empowering, critical and reflexive educational programmes with health care staff on HIV (and related issues).

In the meantime if you are thinking these are interesting issues but ones you cannot contribute to directly, here are 10 things you can do in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

You don’t need me to tell you that science is important. I’m sure we can all think of different ways science has transformed our lives. However, in the UK science is under threat with proposed cuts to science funding. This will affect research, teaching, innovation and practice.

Scientists are rightly concerned about this, and led by UCL’s Jenny Rohn have launched the Science Is Vital campaign to celebrate science and highlight its importance within the UK. It has brought together social, health, and natural scientists together. It includes people working in research, health and science practice, and those working in education (from schools, universities and adult education).

You can get involved by signing the petition, writing to your MP, lobbying parliament or coming along to the rally this Saturday (9 October) 2-4pm in Central London.

Please join us. Everyone is welcome! If you are working as an academic or practitioner, if you teach science at any level, if you work in health or social care, or if you are anyone who has benefited from science (for example through medical care). You don’t have to be formally involved in science to join in – if you’ve just got a passion for the subject, or perhaps your friends or family members have then you may want to come along. Or perhaps you’re a parent of a child who seems curious about the social, natural or health sciences and you want to ensure they’ll have a future studying (and possibly working in) these areas.

Some have questioned whether this campaign can truly represent all scientists, worrying whether it favours the natural sciences over the health or social sciences. It’s my impression the focus is about defending science in all its forms. Ultimately cuts to science funding and academia means we’re all going to struggle, regardless of how our work is positioned. It is time to stand up for what we do and celebrate how well we do it.

For me, it’s very important to focus on funding for both teaching and research since the areas where I work (sexual and reproductive health and international health) are areas which traditionally can struggle for funding and to provide quality teaching and research support. When cuts are made its those of us within the vitally important but often overlooked ‘Cinderella subjects’ who are often the worst affected. Challenging the funding cuts also reminds us our work is often internationally based and it won’t just be UK citizens who’ll suffer if funds are restricted.

I’m standing up for science because it’s about the research myself and colleagues do in sexual and reproductive health. It’s about money to help fund attempts to reduce and combat HIV and other STIs. It’s about addressing gender inequalities, relationships violence, and abuse. It’s about tackling reproductive health problems. It’s for ensuring safer deliveries for mothers and healthcare for infants. It’s about making our sexual and reproductive lives healthy and safe. It’s about promoting health literacy and general wellbeing. And it’s about ensuring practitioners working globally get evidence based training that encourages critical thinking to promote best practice for their patients.

Science IS vital. Do stand up for it and join in if you can. I’ll be at the demonstration at the weekend and I hope to see you there.

In the meantime here’s a lovely song about science from They Might Be Giants. Reminding us science isn’t just vital, it’s very real too….

A few weeks ago colleagues and myself took part in a symposium at University College London’s Institute of Global Health. Our focus was stigma in relation to sex work, specifically focusing on how this can get in the way of providing healthcare to those involved in prostitution.

Professor Graham Scambler discussed core concepts of stigma and particularly focused on how we understand sex work. He also addressed issues of diversity within sex work (how people are involved in it and what their health needs might be) as well as reflecting on agency and wellbeing on sex workers – particularly in relation to debates on trafficking.

Professor Helen Ward focused on her work with female sex workers, particularly around physical, cultural and psychological barriers they encountered in relation to accessing healthcare and maintaining wellbeing. Drawing upon interviews with sex workers she outlined how stigma is enacted and how this impacts upon those involved in prostitution.

My contribution drew upon my past research background in this area and more recent practice in working with healthcare practitioners to embed evidence within their sexual health practice. Focusing on experiences of training practitioners globally and the wider evidence base on stigma related barriers to healthcare I talked about the problems experienced by practitioners, NGOs/charities, sex workers and communities in providing adequate, accessible and appropriate healthcare.

All three presentations questioned concepts such as stigma and sex work and particularly addressed the problems facing healthcare staff in knowing how to access and apply evidence to inform good practice. We also focused on challenging the rhetoric that can often run around terms like ‘evidence based practice’, ‘stigma’ and ‘trafficking’ and encouraged the audience to think about ways to improve their research and healthcare provision, engage sex workers in decision making about their care, and reflect on what their role was as healthcare providers/researcher in relation to addressing sex work.

You can see the each presentation (including our slides) and the following panel discussion here.

Please feel free to share this link, which should be of particular interest if you are…
- a student or practitioner in healthcare (particularly global health)
- working for a charity, NGO or other organisation involved with addressing prostitution
- a sex worker or ally
- a researcher studying sex work
- a lecturer in medical education and/or evidence based practice

If you’ve any questions about the presentation feel free to contact me and I can pass them on to the relevant speakers. And if you’re working in health care (as a practitioner, charity or other organisation) and want further training on improving the care offered to those involved in sex work please get in touch if you think I can help you or your organisation.

The event provided a lot of discussion during the panel and afterwards and I know has led to further activities among researchers and practitioners. I’ll post updates on some of those activities in a future blog.

What made me start blogging?
Five years ago I sat down on a dark November evening and wrote my very first blog entry. It was a bit ranty. I’d been misquoted by a journalist and was anxious it would get me into hot water (again).

I didn’t have a game plan when I started blogging. My partner (who’s way more tech savvy than I am) thought it might be a good way of sharing ideas I was struggling to convey via the mainstream media (I was writing several advice columns in magazines at the time, as well as hosting a regular radio phone in for BBC Five Live).

I approached the blog as a form of therapy. I wanted to work with the media but was getting a lot of stick for it professionally (I’m an academic as well as a sex educator). Having a place to blog would allow me to correct any errors in reporting and disclose bad journalism. I even hoped it it might even let me bring evidence into sex/relationships reporting – and show it was possible to do so without things becoming worthy or dull.

One thing I felt sure of early on was this blog was something I enjoyed writing, but I wanted to be useful, and most importantly to deliver things about sex, relationships, science and journalism that readers wanted to know about. Which is why the blog has always been shaped by things you’ve asked for.

Readers make this blog (or “why don’t you have comments?”)
Last summer I asked regular readers to give me feedback on this blog and got some very helpful responses. It’s taken me a while to implement some of these, but I have now upgraded the blog to include the things you asked for – photos and images to liven things up, a better blogroll, summaries at the start of most entries so you can decide if you wish to read on. And categories. Something I didn’ think about five years ago and really wish I had. I’m now in the process of going back through all the 800+ posts and adding categories to them, which I hope will make this blog a lot more useful to you.

The one thing this blog doesn’t have is comments. I did start off having them, but encountered several problems. As I was offering advice within columns and websites elsewhere I hadn’t planned to also answer problems on this blog. However, not all readers understood this so I frequently found requests for advice on anything from infidelity to penis size included in discussions about blogs relating to research design or journalism ethics. This sometimes led to some readers mocking those asking for advice, which of course is completely unacceptable for me as an educator.

Moreover, I’ve always blogged openly – never behind a pseudonym. I work within the community on sex/relationships projects and educational activities (in the UK and internationally). This meant I was very accessible, and felt vulnerable when those whose comments were deleted or not posted, made very personal threats.

I found moderating the comments was time consuming and took me away from other educational activities which I felt were more worthwhile. So I decided to remove the comments option. When I’ve asked readers if they want them back the general response is ‘no’. That’s mostly from people who feel the blog’s a safe space to get information which they can use as they wish elsewhere.

Of course I strongly welcome respectful email feedback and am always happy to add information or correct errors within the blog. You’re always welcome to start discussions on other forums or your own blog about issues raised here. For now I’ve no plans to reinstate comments, but since I’m occasionally asked why I don’t have them I thought this was a good a time as any to clarify the issue.

Achievements so far
Having read back to 2004 I’m pretty pleased with this little blog. It’s nice to see it’s grown into a resource that people trust and enjoy reading.

The things I’m most proud to have written are activist blogs that highlight medicalisation, exploitation and abuse. These include the debates around female sexual dysfunction, questioning high street stores stocking ‘herbal’ erectile dysfunction drugs (not approved by the FDA), exposing the Advanced Medical Institute’s aggressive sales technique for men affected by premature ejaculation, or highlighting misleading media coverage of the availability of Viagra on the high street.

I initially planned to use the blog to set right bad sex coverage in the media (or occasions where I’d been misquoted). This has been a theme within the blog although I think it’s become more focused over time (although not necessarily less ranty than my very first post). I can’t say whether it’s made much difference to journalists, and I hope it’s not put people off working with the media. I’ve found it helpful to describe poor practice – not least because the general trend for ‘experts’ working with the media is to act grateful for any exposure, not publicly discuss poor experiences or document bad practice. Gems for me include an expose of GMTV sending a cab to my home at 6am on the off chance I might wake up and come to their studio. Or how a TV show wanted to discuss female sexual confidence without mentioning genitals or masturbation. Or some rather nasty experiences with snotty TV producers just after I’d had a baby. Not to mention the hilarious case of the science journalist who really took a dislike to me (and colleagues). Oh, and let’s not forget the journalist who wanted me to recommend them an ‘unethical psychologist’ .

Of course, the past five years have not been spent simply slagging off journalists. No. Sometimes I’ve also turned my gaze to bad science too. Where it’s been depressing to report on a carnival of studies which seem to set us back sexually. Studies complaining women orgasm too easily, or there’s a ‘clitorocentric conspiracy’ against the vagina, how sex with a partner is 400% better than any other kind of sex you might have, and you can tell whether a woman has vaginal orgasms by her walk.

Let’s not forget my other bugbears. The fake formula and shonky surveys and my goodness this blog’s a treasure chest for those. And if I’m not being irritated by that, then there’s always the problem of psychologists talking about celebrities, or the general ethical issues raised by Big Brother for me to moan about.

Of course, it’s not all been bad news. Anyone would think this blog is only about gripes and grumbles. I’ve always wanted to showcase a variety of sexual experiences within this blog and not just think about sex just for a Western audience. I’ll continue to discuss issues relating to sex and seniors; teenagers; disability; transsexuality; lesbian, gay and bi issues; open relationships; BDSM; sexual health; contraception; prostitution; pornography; reproductive health; pleasure; desire; asexuality; dating; psychosexual problems; showcasing great sex pioneers; talking about safer sex; and as many other topics as I can find for you to read about.

Where to next?
Unlike five years ago, I’m now thinking strategically about this blog – who it’s for, what it does, and seeking to find ways to assess any impact it may have. I’ve noticed over the years it sometimes deviates into areas that interest me, but may not appeal to all readers. So my aim is to ensure the focus of the blog remains around the core things you’re most interested in when you visit – sex, science, and media.

I’m currently involved in overhauling the site so in the new year I hope to have far more open access materials available for you – relationships and sex guides, information about sexual and reproductive health, more advice and links to sources of help, along with practical information for journalists, healthcare professionals, parents, teens and teachers.

I’ve been asked by many readers for more information about how to become an agony aunt/media sex educator, so I’ll be blogging about this – as well as how to write a sex blog – in the not too distant future.

I’ll also be making use of twitter soon, as sometimes I blog about issues people need to hear about fast (particularly developments in science/health), so hopefully that will make messages more accessible. I’ll let you know once I’ve sorted it.

Obviously I’d like to hear what you’d like to see. How would you like this blog to develop over the next year (or five!). Are there any particular things you’d like to see more/less of? Topics you want covered? People you’d like me to interview for the ‘quickies’ section of the blog? Campaigns you want covered? Let me know what your vision is for this blog.

So, happy fifth birthday blog. Big birthday kisses to those of you who’ve been with me from the beginning. For those of you who’ve only recently found this blog I hope you like it enough to stick around for the next half decade. I notice one of my favourite other blogs Mind Hacks has also celebrated it’s fifth birthday too, so congratulations to them.

Time to blow out the candles and make a wish. Of course, I can’t tell you what it is. You’ll have to come back in five years to find out if it’s come true.

A brief history of formulas as marketing tools

Over the past few years we’ve got used to seeing formula used as a promotional tool by PR companies. Sometimes these are simply presented as just a formula, other times they are fronted by an academic or other ‘expert’. This has presented problems for universities where staff members (or people claiming an affiliation with a particular institution) use the institution’s name as part of the formula promotion.

Critics of the ‘fake formula’ approach have argued they are often not based on sound science, make little or no mathematical sense, and usually seem to be created by the PR company for an ‘expert’ to front (although this is often disputed by those promoting formulas). There’s also the concern that such formula appearing in the media may devalue robust academic research and reduce public trust in science.

Those academics who do front such activity (and there’s a core group who specialise in this practice) argue they’re merely promoting science and engaging with the public. A view that might be easier to believe if the formula stood up to scientific scrutiny.

Until now, debates on this issue have focused on academics fronting formula, but recently PR companies have taken a new tack and have used undergraduate students to promote their products.

This raises a lot of issues for universities and students and we need to think carefully about how it ought to be addressed.

The new PR approach – the case of the ‘Perfect Night Out’
The case in question began with a competition for ‘Britain’s Best Job’. Drinks Company Global Brands wanted to promote VK Vodka Kick (primarily, it seems, at Fresher’s events). The job advert stated “Wanted! Talented maths or science student or graduate to spend the summer literally discovering the formula of fun. Must be over 18 years of age like bars, clubs and pubs and be prepared to have a fantastic time in the quest for knowledge, science and the pursuit of the perfect night out.” The press release also stated “But there is a serious side to this and the applicant will be expected to deliver a full thesis at the end of the trip that must stack up to academic scrutiny by Britain’s best brains”.

PR Company Brahm worked with Global Brands for this activity. 50 students applied, and one Biology undergraduate student from Leeds University was picked for the task – to identify the formula for a ‘Perfect Night Out’ (PNO) based on undertaking a survey, then creating the formula.

The report created by the student can be found here (as text document) and here (as pdf). (This was described by the PR company as the ‘full thesis ‘ that ‘Britain’s best brains’ would be scrutinising).

I will leave you to critically evaluate the student’s report. Further discussions of the formula comes courtesy of Steve at Irregular Shed. Meanwhile Tristan O’Dwyer at Cargo Cult Science tackles the wider issues about this formula in relation to science communication.

I’m going to focus on key methodological and ethical issues that the research invites, and the wider implications of such research for students and universities.

Perfect Night Out – Survey and Semi Structured Interviews
The survey can be found here. It mostly seems to be asking general questions about a night out. PR company Brahm confirmed the survey was designed by the student. While the questions may seem fairly standard (although not particularly robust) there is the wider issue of how this survey was conducted. The student’s report (linked above) states “an online questionnaire was completed by 2000 people (male and female) and had a 100% response rate”.

It is not made clear how this survey was delivered online. Who hosted the survey? How long was it available for? How were participants recruited? I’m also curious about the 100% response rate which is pretty much unheard of in genuine social research. I can only assume there’s been a misunderstanding in understanding completion and response rates.

Contradiction exists between the report and the promotional activity. The student’s report stresses data were collected by an online survey. But the Global Brand’s website show the survey being conducted inside clubs as part of promotional activity – for example at Chester University and Manchester Metropolitan University.

The student’s report does state they conducted additional semi structured interviews, but it’s not clear how many were undertaken and whether they based activity shown in the clips above (which indicate a survey being used, not semi structured interviews). It is therefore unclear whether the student knows the difference between the two methods, or whether reporting on two approaches is confused in their write up.

The report does not make it clear how the semi structured interviews and survey worked together. While it is perfectly fine to use a variety of methods within research (sometimes called ‘triangulation’) it is standard practice to demonstrate how those methods link together. In this report we’re told the semi structured interviews were carried out post survey, but not shown whether the survey answers informed the semi structured interviews or how both of these informed the subsequent formula.

Ethical questions about the research
What is more worrying is the study was conducted in part within clubs and social events. This raises key issues of researcher safety and wellbeing, ethics and consent. Those who may be drunk are not in a strong position to consent to research (and may pose potential risks to researchers or other participants). Indeed if you wish to study people who are drinking alcohol or may be drunk it requires particular sensitivity and ethical approval. [Leeds University confirmed this study was conducted independently of their institution and therefore had no ethical approval].

A press release for the activity states “The official VKendology tour will start on Saturday 19th September, where the Research Team will hit UK Student’s Union’s during Fresher’s Week and students will be in with a chance to win their Perfect Night Out.”

This indicates participants were directly incentivised to complete the survey, something that is frowned upon in reputable social research (and also requires careful management in market research). The mention of the ‘research team’ also suggests aspects of this work were not simply down to one student, a survey and subsequent formula. I’m not sure whether the ‘research team’ are actual researchers or glamorous guys and gals dressed up to deliver a survey (or both). I would question the former, as presumably anyone who did know anything about social (or market) research would know this activity wasn’t the most robust or ethical.

I would like to think this report and the research described represents something casual and fun, not the best quality work the student could offer – nor representative of research writing skills she may have been taught on her degree programme. There are key details missing and as a result the write up does not appear particularly professional or scientific (see critique and links above).

I can understand that this activity would appear very exciting. (In the past I have undertaken PR-based research and know how beguiling such an activity may appear – at first). In this case the student was promised loads of fun nights out, the promised opportunity to do a bit of science, the chance to get some media coverage – and most importantly for a student it also is a paid post.

My concern is that in undertaking such activity, what may look like a fun opportunity may result in numerous problems for students and Universities.

What issues does involving students in PR activity raise?
Firstly, we have the question of student wellbeing. Usually students who are conducting research will require ethics approval and tutor support for studies they’re undertaking. There are three main reasons for this:
- to protect the participants researchers are interacting with and ensuring they are not harmed by the research process
- to ensure the research undertaken is appropriate and of a high quality
- and to protect the wellbeing and safety of the researcher.

It’s easy to say in this case it was basically a promotional activity and nobody was likely to be harmed. The questions seemed innocuous and unlikely to upset anyone. However, if a participant had disliked the research, or someone had threatened or harassed the researcher, who would be responsible? The point of having ethical controls over research is to ensure people can’t be harmed, and that researchers don’t play god and decide just because they don’t think their research is problematic then it won’t be bothersome to the public.

University staff are often aware of students who don’t let them know about research they are undertaking, often trying ambitious projects without notifying tutors or gaining ethics approval for their work. This can make students very vulnerable.

If PR companies intend to continue to use this method of getting students to front their campaigns, who is going to look after student or participant welfare? (Particularly if the ‘research’ is of a more personal or invasive nature). PR companies are keen to use Universities to add clout to campaigns, but where do Universities’ responsibilities lie if the student technically undertakes work without informing them and any negligent or non negligent harms arise?

No doubt PR companies and the commercial organisations who hire students may care little about the actual quality of research and be in no position to check on key questions about consent, ethics and personal safety. That is why both researchers and participants could be at risk if such activity becomes standard practice.

We know researchers can and do make mistakes. In fact it’s part of the steep learning curve of being a researcher in the natural, health or social sciences. Usually such problems around misunderstanding methods or poor report writing can be overcome with tutor feedback and practice. And remain relatively private.

However, if you undertake PR activity like this you run the risk of any errors you make being picked up on in public. Already bloggers have begun critiquing this particular study for example here and here.

This raises further issues about student wellbeing. After all, if you undertake a piece of work that’s promoted as fun and exciting, but the backlash is to label you a poor scientist, then that’s got to hurt (it’s partly why I’ve not named the student in this blog and am focusing more on the wider issues this case raises as opposed to a personal attack).

But if you undertake research outside of your institution who will be there to support you when things might go wrong? And what issues might this raise for your future career if, when you apply for a job, you’re known not as someone who advanced public understanding of science, but someone who undertook a piece of substandard PR research?

There’s also the wider issue of student responsibility to their fellow students and academic institution. As well as thinking about your own possible career pathway, you also need to consider the impact of your work on the reputation of others who might be associated with you. You may not appreciate that presenting ‘science’ or ‘research’ in a particular way may actually make other genuine researchers lives a lot less safe, and recruitment a lot more difficult. Not to mention reducing public trust in science.

Sadly, not many universities teach this within methods training (and it’s fair to say many academics don’t always reflect in this way). You can see why an enthusiastic student being wooed by a PR company is probably not going to think twice about what the end result of their work might be for either their own reputation, or for those associated with their subject area.

I emailed Leeds University’s PR office to ask them if the student in question was studying with them (she is), whether she had applied for ethics approval for the study (no, since the research was not conducted as part of the institution), and whether she undertook the research in her capacity as a Leeds student (the PR office said no it was unrelated to Leeds, although they had put journalists in touch with the student so they could write their own stories/take photographs of her).

This is a key issue for me. We can’t really expect students to be aware of wider ethical and methodological issues that underpin research. That’s our job to teach them. We can’t blame students for wanting to earn cash and seeing PR activity as a fun way to do this. We can’t also blame students for being unaware of the background to the whole ‘fake formula’ issue (after all many academics don’t take it that seriously).

Universities and PR companies need to be responsible here. PR companies cannot use institutional names as part of promotional activity without ensuring that institution is aware of what they are doing and approves it. [Not that I expect PR companies to take any notice of this]. Universities also can’t play the ‘research wasn’t conducted as part of our university so it’s nothing to do with us’ line. If students are getting involved in so-called research activity and are allowed to be linked to it with mentions of the university in the press or passing on the student’s contact details to journalists, then the work is partly linked to the institution.

Universities need to be aware that the problem of PR activity in misusing scientific approaches has now been extended to students. They need to consider what this means for their students wellbeing and institutional reputation. Some institutions may not care, perhaps they’ll just be glad of some publicity. However there is the wider duty of care issue, and if any student is undertaking research-related work during their time studying with you then you have a responsibility to ensure you are aware of what they are doing and can ensure they work safely.

If PR companies are going to use students for promotional events then the media will report this and draw attention to your institution. Do universities want to be associated with studies that imply their teaching of research and ethics plus their pastoral care is substandard?

The problem is we have no clear guidelines on this issue. It is something that is new and many institutions won’t have had to think about it.

However, we’ve seen the uptake of using academics for fake surveys and formula has grown and it is likely using students (particularly to promote products to other students) could follow the same path.

The issue we must now face is what our approach should be on this issue. Let students do as they wish, so long as we can argue it’s not done in our name/on our time? Or take a stand and make it clear we do not endorse student activity in this way?

After all, if students really are keen to learn more about research methods, want to undertake studies, write reports, or bring science to the public there are numerous ways that can be done. As academics maybe we should make these opportunities more obvious (and focus on making our teaching of these topics more engaging).

Sure, they may not pay as much as a PR activity like this one. But in the long term they might be a whole lot better for a student’s reputation and personal development.

One story you can’t have missed in the past week or so was the sacking of Professor David Nutt in a situation where the government (yet again) disregarded evidence. Sadly it’s something we’ve got used to with this current administration. There’s been an interesting discussion about this over on Bad Science forums, although my favourite story on the issue comes courtesy of the Daily Mail whose attempts to smear scientists is pure comedy gold. I’d strongly recommend using this piece in teaching around journalism/science communication. I particularly like the Mail’s understanding of science as lab-based, unimaginative, not working in the real world, arrogant, and resistant to being questioned/challenged. Unfortunately many people also hold those views about science – although they probably don’t go as far as the Mail and equate scientists to Hitler :-0

While we’re on the topic of science communication and evidence based practice, here are two very useful dates for your diary. On November 16 2009 Westminster Skeptics in the Pub are hosting an event ‘Evidence based policy making’ with Dr Evan Harris MP and Professor David Nutt. On November 24 (again hosted by Westminster Skeptics) there’s an event ‘What next for Science Activism and New Media’ where a group of science bloggers and activists will be discussing issues around science communication and the impact of science blogging. If you’re a science journalist it would be particularly great to see you there to get some additional input from you about your views on science blogging/activism.

Stonewall hosted their annual awards ceremony this week (which seemed a lot less controversial than last year). They named journalist Jan Moir as their ‘bigot of the year’ following her attack on the late Stephen Gately. It’s always good to see those supporting LGBT issues rewarded, although while the folk at Stonewall are celebrating it might be worth looking to other countries where thinks are not so good for lesbians and gays. Like Uganda, who are seeking the death penalty for LGBT people (and requiring friends/family to turn in their loved ones suspected of being LGBT). It’s truly terrifying stuff, but worth reminding ourselves about the situation many LGBT people are faced with across the world.

I’ll leave you with a spoof documentary from The Onion about sexual arson (which actually does exist, although not perhaps in the way described in this clip

Crime Reporter Finds Way Of Linking Warehouse Fire To Depraved Sex Act

Last night the Science Museum in London hosted one of its fabulous ‘Lates’ events. The theme of the evening was ‘sex and science’ and there was a great range of things to do. From learning more about yourself in the ‘who am I?’ tour, through to speed dating, finding out about the history of sex toys, salsa dancing, an experiment in ‘dance, hormones and sexual selection’ and some sexy punk science. Condoms were available to all guests, just in case things got extra fruity, and judging by the amount of drink and giggling going on I think people had a good time

I hosted a talk called ‘So you think you’re a sexpert?’ where we took 10 commonly asked questions about sex or commonly quoted sex ‘facts’ and put them to the test with some interactive voting to find out how smart our audience were about sex.

I’d like to give a great big thank you to everyone who came to Science Lates last night. I thought it was a novel way to share science, and the range of talks/events going on ensured we could create a balance between the fun and frisky and the serious and scientific.

For those of you who weren’t able to make it, I’ve reproduced the ‘So you think you’re a sexpert?’ quiz below, and I’ll give you the answers tomorrow, along with incorporating questions from the audience last night.

1. What are the most common methods sex researchers use to study sex?
a. By looking – watching people have sex in a laboratory or on film
b. By measuring – assessing sexual behaviour via brain scanning or heat sensors
c. By listening – recording answers from surveys or interviews
d. By participating – having sex with the people they are studying
e. Not sure

2. How often does the average UK couple have sex per week?
a. 7-10 times
b. 4-7 times
c. Once a week or less
d. Not sure

3. The average (erect) penis size is 5 inches long
a. True
b. False
c. Not sure

4. Women and men are equally stimulated by visual images of sex
a. True
b. False
c. Not sure

5. Men can fake orgasm
a. True
b. False
c. Not sure

6. Men reach their sexual peak at 17 years old, women at around 40 years old
a. True
b. False
c. Not sure

7. Animals (other than humans) can be gay
a. True
b. False
c. Not sure

8. Where do most people get their sex information from?
a. Friends and family
b. School/college sex education
c. Self help/sex experts
d. The media (magazines, films, television, internet)
f. Pornography

9. What’s the most popular area in sex research currently?
a. Desire and pleasure
b. Sexual problems
c. Sexuality
d. Sex addiction
e. Love, romance and courtship

10. Why do sex researchers study sex?
This was an open-ended question we gave to the audience last night. I’ve got all their answers to sort through and I’ll be posting those in a blog next week, along with some answers from real-life sex researchers and educators.

Come back tomorrow and you can find out whether you’re a sexpert, and learn more about each question.