You may remember earlier in the year Channel 4 ran a new series called The Joy of Teen Sex (JOTS). Series 2 is currently in production. Practitioners and educators were anxious about JOTS while it was being made. When the series aired we continued to be very worried about the core messages shared, the way sex and relationships were presented, and how messages of heteronormativity, commercialised and aspirational views of sex were normalised. We were not alone. Parents and young people also were troubled by the ideas shared in JOTS. This prompted a group of professionals working in education and healthcare to write to the Channel expressing our concerns.

Channel 4 responded, and the remainder of this post shares this and our reply, along with some additional updates about problems with sex/relationships programming at the Channel.

Channel 4′s response (25 February 2011)

“I am writing in response to your letter to Channel 4 of 8 February regarding The Joy of Teen Sex. As the head of Channel 4′s features department which commissioned the series I have been asked to respond on David Abraham’s behalf.

Channel 4 values feedback from viewers and experts and we have considered your letter carefully. I think it is important to confirm, before discussing any of your points, that we share your overarching belief of the importance of young people having access to open and honest information on sex and relationships.

It was in light of the Government’s 2007 Review of Sex and Relationships Education in Schools that we developed a slate of sex education programmes that would address the systematic issues raised in the Review, in particular the paucity of and poor quality of sex education in schools; the importance of complimentary information being provided in and out of school; and that sex and relationship education should be inclusive and meet the needs of all young people. Television is a powerful medium through which we can provide information in a way that is educative authoritative and entertaining, and which can draw-in significant audiences, both watching on their own or with friends and families. Channel 4 has a particular resonance with younger people who see us as a friend and youthful presence, and characteristics that make us uniquely able to bring effective sex education to the screen.

Over the last few years we have provided a range of sex education programmes and online resources – each seeking to reflect different aspects of sex and relationship education. The Joy of Teen Sex formed part of that mix, alongside programmes such as The Sex Education Show, KNTV Sex or Underage and Having Sex. We are proud of our track record in this area – both in terms of a frankness and relevance that young people rarely have access to – and crucially the impact that the programmes have had.

After last year’s Sex Education Show: Am I Normal, Channel 4 commissioned a public value case study, on the impact of the programme among teenagers. The research found that overall the show did a great job for teenagers:
- 78% of 14-19 year olds agreed it told them things that they would be too embarrassed to ask about
- 70% said they learnt things they didn’t know before
- 60% said that the programme made them feel more confident about themselves
- 62% of those who watched ep2 or 4 said they had changed their attitudes towards disabled people having sex
- 76% prefer learning about sex on TV than at school

Although we do not yet have comparative data for The Joy of Teen Sex, we have had some anecdotal evidence that the programme has had a positive impact on young people. Dr Rachael Jones has reported a marked upswing in attendances at sexual health clinics and that often The Joy of Teen Sex has been cited as a motivator for attendance.

In addition, the Sexperience website, which has sat alongside both the Sex Education Show and Joy of Teen Sex strands, has been immensly popular (attracting up to 5,000 user comments/questions a week), providing a forum for discussion and advice sharing. That the programmes and website have had a positive effect on young people seeking sexual healthcare advice or changing behaviour is evidenced by their being referenced or included in various NHS booklets and websites as well as their use in secondary schools.

In response to your particular points of concern about The Joy of Teen Sex, I would first like to reassure you that the programme was commissioned with the intention of providing accessible, relevant, entertaining and empowering information about sex and relationships to young people. Its purpose was to inform and educate by offering a platform to discuss any problems, questions or anxieties they might have. The programme was aimed at teenagers over the age of 16 (and their parents) and deliberately sought to be up-front and honest and to reflect the issues that young people wanted to discuss. Throughout the course of the series we sought to represent a wide variety of young people from different cultural backgrounds; heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual contributors featured alongside single people and those in steady relationships; sexually active young people as well as those considering their first sexual experience.

The series deliberately did not shy away from the fact that many 16-and-overs are sexually active and want to lead fulfilling as well as healthy sex lives. In tone and content it was also not an attempt to replicate The Sex Education Show – which is more focused on adolescents and the care to be taken before sex becomes part of a young person’s life – but was aimed at at the issues confronted by youngsters already having sex or being pressured by their peers to do so.

In putting together the programme we worked with a number of experts in the sex education field, both on and off screen. This included Peter Greenhouse, Consultant in Sexual Health at Bristol Sexual Health Centre, who also worked on The Sex Education Show and the highly regarded Dr Rachael Jones of the West London Centre for Sexual Health, who featured in the series providing medical and contraceptive medical advice. The background of other contributors – including Ruth Corden, Billie JD Porter and Joanne Wierzbickia – was made clear as was their role in the series to add to the mix of viewpoints and expertise, rather than to provide medical advice. We believe that it is critical to the success of these programmes that they are supported by credible medical experts who are available to advise us on medical matters and vouchsafe the reliability and authenticity of any advice proffered either during the programmes themselves or through the supporting website. While we will not always agree with our medical experts on presentational matters or issues relating to the narrative conventions used in television, we will heed any advice we have sought from them on any specific medical matters.

Given Channel 4′s ongoing committment to provide content that deals with young people sex and relationships, we have been planning to hold a roundtable discussion about television and sex education in the next few months to bring together people involved in providing sex education in the health and education spheres and people involved in making TV content. We very much hope you will be able to attend the event, and that it will provide a forum for your concerns to be addressed more fully by a range of experts.

We will be in touch in due course about the event. In the meantime I hope this reply provides some reassurance about the intentions behind this programme and across our sex education output, and the positive impact that the series has had during and since broadcast.

Yours Sincerely

Sue Murphy
Head of Features”

Our reply
26 June 2011

Dear Sue Murphy
Cc: David Abraham, Andrew Jackson, Katy Boyd, Liam Humphreys, Kate Teckman, Dominique Walker

Thank you for your letter of 25 February 2011. We are glad to hear of Channel 4’s ongoing commitment to improving the quality of broadcasting and that you share our ‘overarching belief of the importance of young people having open and honest information about sex and relationships’.

Our previous letter outlined a lack of underpinning of Channel 4’s programming with strong evidence and critical thinking and we are concerned that your response does not fully engage with the issues we outlined. It appears to be justifying problematic programming rather than reflecting on areas where content needs to be improved.

As stated in our initial letter we agree television is a powerful medium to share sex/relationships information, something supported by the wider literature on media and education. You are right to state you have the trust of young people, placing you in a strong position to share sex information with them. However, our concerns over how you have been going about this – and will do so in the future – remain. It is because you have a position of authority and trust among viewers it is vital to ensure messages shared are accurate, informative and entertaining. We would invite you to revisit our first letter and consider many of the areas we identified as currently not being adequately addressed. As ever, our offer to help you improve upon the quality of your programmes remains.

You cite within your reply a ‘public value case study’ but you do not include full details of who this was run by, how it was conducted, on whom, or how representative of the public/viewing audience these participants were. While the figures from this ‘case study’ seem striking the outcomes are not completely clear. Respondents stated they learned things they did not know, but this is only positive if the things they learned were accurate – learning something you did not know that is also misleading is not the same as learning something that is accurate and explained in such a manner as to give you the life skills to ensure confident behaviour in sex and relationships. Claims that teens prefer learning about sex/relationships from TV rather than school are not particularly helpful given most teens will prefer learning anything on TV rather than school and is disingenuous to the many creative and thoughtful sex/relationships programmes already offered within UK schools.

Your claim from anecdotal evidence that Joy of Teen Sex had a ‘positive impact on young people’ is not particularly helpful. Those of us working in clinical settings can equally supply our own anecdotes that following Joy of Teen Sex screening we did not notice an increase in clinic attendance. Those of us working in pastoral/advice-giving settings have had to counter fears and anxieties raised by the programme, with young people requiring reassurance over misinformation shared. In particular the coverage of anal sex, STIs, lack of sexual desire and contraception shown on Joy of Teen Sex made young people we have contact with feel afraid of sexual and reproductive health services, or that they were abnormal for not identifying with the sex tips featured on the programme.

You state ‘we sought to represent a wide diversity of people from different cultural backgrounds; heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual contributors featured’. Again we would draw you back to our previous letter that highlights how many of your messages within the Sex Education Show and Joy of Teen Sex were heteronormative and misleading over LGBT issues. Simply having some guests who may be LGBT or mentioning homosexuality is not helpful if your wider programming focus is through a heteronormative lens. By that we mean presenting diverse sexualities as ‘different’, problematic or unusual; or seeing heterosexual, monogamous and sexually active relationships as ‘normal’. Given the Channel’s stated focus on diversity we would also expect to see programming that made explicit how many young people are not sexually active until over 16 and that many enjoy relationships based on delaying/actively consenting to a committed intimate relationship when they are older. We disagree that you have included a wide diversity of cultural backgrounds and would welcome the opportunity to discuss with you what an inclusive and sensitive programming schedule that is culturally diverse could look like.

We note you spoke with experts to inform the series but we would again refer you back to our first letter. This clearly indicates many of us were also approached to inform the Joy of Teen Sex, shared our expertise – and our concerns – but were ignored. We are hoping a learning outcome for you from the feedback we have given in this letter and our previous one makes it clear that you need to listen to a wide range of practitioners – not just those who are agreeing with your programme remit. Indeed if experienced professionals are all telling you there are problems with your programmes and consistently offering to ensure you are both accurate and entertaining, you should listen to them. We would also remind you many of the counter signatories on our first letter and this one have extensive media experience delivering sex/relationships advice in print and broadcast media. Some of us have even been consultants and contributors on programmes such as The Sex Education Show or other sex programmes for your Channel. Or have spoken at Channel 4 events on education/health.

We remain concerned over the way the contributors finally selected in the series of the Joy of Teen Sex were portrayed, including some of the messages they were providing. We do not feel their qualifications were completely transparent – for example one appeared to be a qualified Social Worker but her status was later amended, while another had experience in sex toy sales but not necessarily the more complex and nuanced area of sex education/care. Equally concerning is the lack of young people’s voices and experience which could have been a feature of the series but was not included. In empowering sex/relationships education and healthcare the voices of young people as peer to peer advisors and consultants are central. We hope future programming acknowledges this.

We welcome your comments and are looking forward to your proposed round table discussion about your programming. We hope you will use our first letter and this response to inform some of the conversations at that meeting. We note Channel 4 have recently entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Trans Media Watch which will ensure ‘accuracy, dignity and respect’ in its portrayal of transgender people. We hope a similar commitment to sex and relationships broadcasting could also be developed.

As ever we remain committed to supporting young people, sex and relationships information and media opportunities to deliver this.

Yours Sincerely
Petra Boynton PhD, Social Psychologist and Sex Researcher, University College London
Dr Stuart Flanagan, Genito Urinary Physician
Justin Hancock, Bish Training, trainer and consultant
Lisa Hallgarten, Director, Education For Choice
Wendy Savage MBBCh FRCOG MSc (Public Health) Hon DSc
Marge Berer, Editor, Reproductive Health Matters
Romance Academy – a nation-wide, holistic, relationships and sex education initiative
Dr. Meg Barker, Sex therapist and social psychologist, The Open University
Alice Hoyle, Sex and Relationship Education Advisory Teacher
Alison Terry, Second year student, Applied Community and Youth Work Studies, University of Manchester
K. Barratt, Second year student, Applied Community and Youth Work Studies, University of Manchester
Becca Thompson, BSc MA COT
Steven Norris, Student Teacher
Clare Bale, RGN, BA (Hons),MPH, PhD Candidate, University of Sheffield
Dr. Lesley Hoggart, Principal Research Fellow, School of Health and Social Care University of Greenwich
Matthew Greenall, advisor on international HIV & sexual health programmes
David McQueen, International Speaker and Youth Advocate
Janet Horrocks, Healthy Schools Project Officer
Joelle Brady, MSc, Researcher
Kendelle Bond, MD of Zest Consultancy, Public Health Consultant
Dr Jayne Kavanagh, Medical Ethics and Law Unit Lead, UCL Medical School and Associate Specialist in Sexual and Reproductive Health, Camden Provider Services
David Evans, Researcher and Chief Executive SRE Project
Peter Bone, Chair of the Advisory Council, PSHE Association

Further Issues
Comparing our first letter with Channel 4′s reply and our response makes it transparent how there are problems with the Channel’s approach to sex/relationships programming and despite their claims about delivering quality broadcast materials this has not been achieved. Indeed where core problems have been pointed out, I would argue the Channel has sidestepped discussing or dealing with them. I feel the Channel has not adequately considered the problems with their past and current broadcasting on sex and relationships. As we speak The Sex Researchers – a series that promised to promote accurate and empowering information on past and current sexology is being aired. Only it is misrepresenting sex research (and researchers), again rehearsing narrow views of sex, gender and sexuality. Making out quirky lab based studies on desire and attraction (heterosexual obviously) are representative of mainstream sexology. The sex research community, including the Kinsey Institute, who helped put the programme together are very upset about how our time has been wasted in putting together something that seems to ridicule our work – and mislead the public on sex/relationships information.

Since JOTS aired we’ve also seen another series of The Sex Education Show broadcast. This series focused on sexualisation. When researching this issue the programme makers asked how they might ‘test’ sexualisation. They were referred to the Buckingham (et al) report on commercialised goods which is an excellent critical discussion of the area and provides a template of how to investigate the concepts of sexualisation and commercialisation. Rather than using this template, and while going against information from experts solicited for the series, the Sex Education Show went looking for examples of sexualised goods then made a fuss in stores about their sales. This is despite other evidence from reviews like the Buckingham one which indicates such products are not that usual and are interpreted very differently by parents and young people, but the concern over them from parents is often tied up in anxieties about girl blaming. Indeed the discussion of boys are largely absent, while the subtext of class and racial prejudice (about the ‘type of girls’ who wear such clothing) is problematic.

When acting as a consultant on Series 2 of The Sex Education Show I suggested Sexualisation could have been a topic to cover (from a critical perspective) since it tied in with the APA report on this issue that had just been launched. This was ignored with a focus given instead to limiting access to internet porn. When it comes to sex Channel 4 and related production companies seem to want to focus instead on topical issues that are both televisual and capture a public anxiety over a popular concern – rather than looking at and using evidence in a critical way.

Indeed if you look at how discussions pan out on the Channel’s Facebook page for Stop Pimping Our Kids (the campaign part of the last series of The Sex Education Show) it seems any in depth critical reflection is avoided or only included under duress (for example, witness how they position critical blogs discussing sexualisation research by myself and Dr Brooke Magnanti). Channel 4 now has a campaign for one current series (The Sex Education Show) which calls for restrictions on sexualised media. But other series the Channel has recently created – such as JOTS or The Sex Researchers seem to be promoting sexualised media (particularly for a youth market). In fact you could argue these plus Series 1 of The Sex Education Show with its focus on pubic hair removal, burlesque classes and new lingerie to boost sexual desire (in a show aimed at teens) comes under the Stop Pimping Our Kids campaign to crack down on sexualisation.

We are currently left with a situation where Channel 4 as a broadcaster focuses on a lot of sex/relationships content in various guises (entertainment, advice and education). These seemingly fall within part (or all) of it’s Public Service Broadcasting remit. Consistent, public and vocal calls for programmes to be improved – by the public and professionals – have been ignored. Programmes have been made during the past year which fail to have learned from the input from experts and feedback from professionals about content, accuracy and tone. We have an ongoing situation where programmes are being made by the Channel that contradict each other (and even contradict themselves), while offers of help to sort this muddle out are generally overlooked.

I hope the meeting the Channel are hosting in the coming weeks will be productive and the Channel will listen and really apply the core messages being shared. Otherwise we will continue to have a situation where both Channel 4 and production companies it commissions to make sex/relationships programmes will be viewed with mistrust and suspicion. We cannot currently trust Channel 4 to make quality sex and relationships programmes. And that is a situation entirely maintained by the Channel in the face of ongoing offers of support.

How sad.

It’s been a while since I’ve written about medicalisation. Which seems as good an excuse as any to revisit this issue and reflect on some of the developments in this area in healthcare, therapy and media.

A few months ago I took part in the 41st Maudsley Debate entitled ‘Love is a Drug’. Ben Goldacre and I spoke for the motion, Sandy Goldbeck-Wood and John Dean against it.

In fairness the title of the debate ‘This house believes that female sexual arousal disorder is a fabrication’ was somewhat misleading since it could be construed as saying there was no such thing as women having problems with desire and arousal. Obviously that’s a ridiculous idea for anyone to support, so Ben and I kept our focus more on the way female sexual problems have been medicalised, and what implications this can have (particularly in healthcare).

You can hear the debate and subsequent discussion here. Ben and I won the debate, although the discussion certainly indicated this is a complex area and one that is not always fully understood in terms of gender, politics and ‘bad science’. I think Ben’s points about teaching medical students (and healthcare staff more widely) to read and think critically about pharmaceutical research is important – particularly in relation to the area of sexual functioning which is heavily medicalised but often not taken seriously. Because it’s about sex.

Additional reviews of this debate can be found here, here and here.

This event follows a debate last year hosted by the British Medical Association which was also attended by John and Sandy, who discussed issues around female sexual dysfunction with Ray Moynihan (author of Sex, Lies and Pharmaceuticals) and Iona Heath.

Both of these discussions were focused towards a medical audience (with the Maudsley debate particularly aimed at medical students and trainee psychiatrists, and the BMA event at practising clinicians and therapists). While the Maudsley debate was open to the public the BMA event was invitation only, so there is a remaining problem of making discussions around medicalisation open to a wider audience.

One way this is being achieved is through screenings of Liz Canner’s amazing documentary ‘Orgasm Inc’ which have been taking place across the US, Canada and UK. Media coverage of this movie has also helped raise the profile of female sexual problems (examples here, here, here and here). Although unfortunately not all journalists covering this area ‘get’ all the issues surrounding this topic, particularly around medicalisation, evidence based practice, and endorsing largely untrialled/untested interventions).

This leaves us with some stubborn problems which still need tackling. These include:

Critiquing FSD = women don’t have problems
One of the most frustrating aspects of challenging the medicalisation of female sexual problems is the inevitable response from some journalists, medics, researchers and members of the public who interpret what you are actually saying as – ‘women don’t have sexual problems’. Clearly women who are experiencing sexual difficulties don’t want to be told they’re inventing their problems, and do want a solution. Those who are challenging medicalisation of sexual function are not saying women don’t have problems. They’re not saying sex isn’t important. What they are saying is that there are many reasons women experience problems, and an equal number of possible solutions to them (see here for more on this). And that it are the many causes and solutions that require exploring rather than assuming a woman who isn’t desiring sex is ill and requires a clinical solution (we unpack this to some degree in the Maudsley debate podcast linked above).

Discussing women’s problems = denying men have problems
Another real problem around talking about this topic is the focus on women. The media ignored the medicalisation of sex for a long while. Then did a lot to write and broadcast in ways that promoted pharmaceutical company agendas. Some media outlets have more recently decided to focus on the medicalisation problem, but generally in terms of focusing on women. This can partly be attributed to activism in this area, and partly due to rehearsing comfortable stereotypes – that women are not particularly sexual or are more likely to have problems with sex. This has led to criticisms that men’s sexual functioning has been ignored, or is not an issue. In terms of research that’s not really true. The challenging of medicalisation of male sexuality came before campaigns against the medicalisation of female sexual functioning. You can read some examples of that work here, here and here (It’s an area I’ve also researched and published on, as well as given advice to men about e.g. here and here).

What may be a more accurate statement is there is concern over men’s sexual functioning and the medicalisation of men’s sexual lives, but a lack of interest in the mainstream media in really taking this up. Other activist and sceptic groups you’d expect to challenge this problem seem reluctant. Witness the general apathy to helping men affected by the actions of the Advanced Medical Institute as a prime example. It is difficult to get journalists to focus on this in terms of medicalisation of sexual functioning per se, rather than simply seeing it as a ‘woman’s issue’.

Media lack of awareness of/complicity in this area
One of the main issues in this area is the media often doesn’t ‘get’ medicalisation. Indeed promises of wonder drugs that will boost our sex lives attract editors like moths to flames. The result has been uncritical pickup of pharmaceutical research on psychosexual problems, either promoting products that aren’t all that effective, or showcasing drugs that aren’t even available for public use. Even where drugs for desire problems have been identified as ineffective media coverage continues to write about them as if they are – for example with media’s ongoing obsession with testosterone therapy as a sex drive booster for women. This parallels problems within medicine where practitioners simply don’t understand the influence of Big Pharma in this area, can’t access (or understand) the diverse literature about medicalisation and critical sexology, and remain unable to identify and appraise literature on this topic.

Where to next?
The problem of medicalisation and poor media coverage of sexual problems is not going away. So encouraging and recognising good quality reporting in this area is vital. Supporting screenings and discussions of documentaries like Orgasm Inc can help, as can more public events tackling this topic. Moving away from a debate style format (i.e. do problems exist or not) would also allow for perhaps a more nuanced discussion on medicalisation, how it happens, and how to recognise and respond to it. Focusing on this as an issue affecting cis and trans women and men, as well as different sexualities is important. As is reflecting on how we view psychosexual issues for different age groups (and what age groups, genders, sexualities do we seem most keen to pathologize). Helping medics, therapists, journalists and the public to understand core issues around medicalisation as well as critiquing research on treatments in this area would also be useful. As would challenging any suggestion that critiquing medicalisation equals denying people have psychosexual problems.

You may also be interested in responding to the classifications of psychosexual issues in the revised DSM (deadline 15 June), or learning more about the Medicalisation of Sex from this recent conference in Vancouver.

Today sees the launch of the Bailey Review of the Commercialisation and Sexualisation of Childhood. A copy of the report and appendices available here. Background to this review here, with terms of reference here. More information can be found via their Facebook page and these videos.

[If you are interested in evaluating the review – particularly if you’re a journalist on a deadline - you may want to skip to the end of this post and focus on the section ‘Questions you should be asking about the Bailey Review’].

What is ‘sexualisation’?
Over the past few years ‘sexualisation’ has gone from a phrase that nobody had heard of (and nobody was particularly bothered by) to a buzzword beloved by the media and politicians. It has led to several separate reviews being commissioned in a number of Western countries, including those undertaken since 2008 in the UK alone (here’s a review of these preceding reports and tools to evaluate them).

As the term has become part of popular discourse a related problem has emerged where it is used a lot in media, politics, healthcare etc as though it’s an agreed upon and simple concept, and yet it is anything but . Something that becomes more obvious if you read through these critical essays reflecting on the term and the issues it raises courtesy of the Onscenity Network.

Background to this review
The Bailey Review follows in the steps of numerous other investigations and reports on youth/wellbeing. These have been framed within various contexts including: education/development (Byron), violence against women and girls (Papadopoulos), or commercialisation (Buckingham et al). All of these share the common focus of looking at potential areas of ‘harm’ and offering solutions to protect young people. They have differed in their focus with some looking at the impact of the internet, others addressing wider media formats (such as music videos), or commercially available sexual products (e.g. padded bras) aimed at children.

The assumption underpinning these reports, as well as the Bailey Review, is that sexualisation/commercialisation is a major issue affecting children and teens. However, with the exception of the review by Buckingham et al for the Scottish Government these evaluations have not interrogated the concept of sexualisation, nor focused on wider issues that might be facing young people. These may include: poverty, housing, nutrition, road safety, ‘failing’ schools, problems within health/social care that impact on young people, lack of parental support, limited provision of afterschool clubs, or inadequate availability of affordable childcare (to name a few).

Which leaves us with a consistently unanswered question: ‘is ‘sexualisation’ the main problem facing young people/parents?’ And does it warrant all these investigations?

What was Bailey Review tasked with?
The review was designed to address areas of parental concern with a focus on four key issues:
• whether and to what extent sexualised imagery now forms a universal background or ‘wallpaper’ to children’s lives;
• whether some products are inappropriate for children, and others in dubious taste: parents are anxious about what is appropriate;
• whether businesses sometimes treat children too much as consumers and forget that they are children too, with particular concerns about the kinds of marketing techniques associated with digital media;
• how parents can tell advertisers, broadcasters and retailers about the things they are unhappy about and how they can make an effective complaint.

The review was open to consultation and you can read a number of submissions to this process here. Some of these are more reflective and nuanced than others.

Concerns and Criticisms about the Bailey Review
Criticising sexualisation does not mean dismissing young people’s rights or ignoring abuse, exploitation or our changing mediated culture. It does mean thinking critically about the simplistic (and often moralistic) views of sexualisation used by politicians and the media – and how these can actually detract from the rights and needs of children and teens, while frightening and disempowering parents.

From the outset there have been numerous concerns expressed over this particular review and previous ones. These include:
- The number of recent preceding reports on the issue of sexualisation from various Western countries that (presuming sexualisation is a major issue) could have informed current policy and practice – but didn‘t.

- The varied quality of previous reviews. The Buckingham/Scottish Parliament report was innovative and thorough. While the Papadopoulos/Home Office report was problematic see here and here) based on limited and cherry picked data that failed to differentiate between academic research and PR campaigns and lacked rigour in reporting on findings (for example on focus groups used).

- Reg Bailey is the Chief Executive of the Christian organisation the Mother’s Union (MU) (although the MU have distanced themselves from directly being involved with the review). Some have questioned whether a transparent and independent review could be hosted by an individual with links to a faith based, conservative organisation. Not least because at the same time Bailey took on the review for the government the MU launched their Bye Buy Childhood campaign.

- Differing political approaches have led to a haphazard interpretation of ‘evaluation’ so the Scottish Report permitted academics to interrogate and investigate the idea of ‘sexualisation’ while the Australian and UK Home Office reports seemed to follow a remit of identifying a politician-identified problem then looking for evidence to support it (while ignoring any evidence to the contrary).

- With the Bailey Review, as with other recent sexualisation reviews academic concerns over simplistic, moralistic approaches/ignoring evidence/critical thinking have been largely ignored. Indeed many practitioners working in this area who want to inform debates on sexualisation/commercialisation and have concerns about the rights and needs of young people have struggled to have their voices heard.

- While purportedly about young people most of the investigations have not particularly included young people. Where they have been invited to contribute it has been within a very limited and top down framework where adults have set agendas and asked young people to respond to them.

- The reviews have mostly reinforced the theme of girl’s as victims/boys as oppressors (and a built in assumption all teens grow up to be heterosexual). Along with judgements around class (it’s usually working class girls who are seen as ‘the problem’ in this area); and race (black music/artists are frequently used to illustrate declining moral standards in music lyrics/videos).

- Critics have argued the preoccupation with sexualisation favours white, middle class parents (usually mothers) whose children are not generally facing particular hardships. It is easy for these parents to be worried about sexualisation because other concerns over family finances, nutrition, housing, safety within their community or their child’s educational needs are not so pressing. Indeed it can be argued that parents who are worried about sexualisation often engage in this debate in ways that judge or look down on other people and their children.

Has the media sexed up ‘sexualisation’?
When the American Psychological Association launched their review on this area in 2008 it was virtually impossible to get media coverage of it and generally it was seen as a sideline issue. However with the launch of the Home Office review in the UK the media has begun to see this as far more of a topical area. It’s become an ironic that the media, while taking a stand *against* sexualised/commercialised culture also use this topic to sell copy/generates viewing figures.

For example Mumsnet has been running their ‘Let girls be girls’ campaign, Psychologies magazine ‘Put porn in its place’ (ironically based on a survey of under 16s where parents weren’t told their kids were being asked about porn), and The Sex Education Show’s ‘Stop pimping our kids’. All may be well intentioned, but ignore much of the current evidence about young people’s lives. Worryingly when journalists want to cover the topic of ‘sexualisation’ they don’t go to academics or practitioners, they turn to these media outlets who often are not sharing a particularly nuanced or accurate perspective, but are getting a plug for their website/magazine/TV show every time they are asked to share their views. Put simply you may genuinely care about children, but you can currently also boost your audience if you talk about sexualisation.

We’re in a current situation where successive governments commission different reviews into sexualisation while various media outlets and charities host their own campaigns on the issue. Which again brings us back to the question: ‘is ‘sexualisation’ the main problem facing young people/parents?’ And given all these overlapping reviews and campaigns why aren’t we seeing any major outcomes from them?

Questions you should be asking about the Bailey Review
Before you ask these questions you may want to read up on previous reviews and utilise the free tools provided to evaluate them
- why the need for yet another review given the glut of them in recent years?
- how much all these reviews have cost so far?
- how much impact have the preceding reviews had? All had lengthy recommendations yet have any been implemented and if so have they ‘worked’?
- how have the various reviews differed from/added to/learned from each other?
- do the outcomes of the Bailey Review adequately match the four key issues (see above) it was initially tasked to evaluate?
- what methods has the Bailey Review used to gain an insight into what’s going on and how transparent is that information? (for example they’ve done a survey but is it any good? Who were the participants, how were they selected, what were they asked, why run this rather than using existing evidence?)
- how have young people been involved in the Bailey Review?
- how realistic are the recommendations from the Bailey Review, and what impact do they foresee them having on the wellbeing of children, teens and parents?
- how easy might the recommendations be to operationalise? (For example if there are to be restrictions on music videos will this be based on the lyrics, visual images or both – and who will decide what constitutes appropriate/inappropriate content?)
- how much will the recommendations from the Bailey Review cost to implement?
- are there any particular groups of children/parents who’ll be enabled or disadvantaged by the findings in the Bailey Review (i.e. is it skewed towards reassuring the middle classes?)
- is there a potential conflict of interest in Reg Bailey leading this review given his links to the Mothers Union and their own anti sexualisation campaign
- how has the Bailey Review approached questioning parents? Have people been presented from the outset with the view that sexualisation exists and is a problem or have parents and other organisations been allowed to talk about other worries they may have around their child’s wellbeing?
- how representative are the individuals and organisations responding to the Bailey Review? Do there seem to be any groups whose voices are heard or silenced?

And finally, let’s return to that most important question ‘is ‘sexualisation’ the main problem facing young people/parents?’

Join in the debate
The Bailey Review’s already being discussed on twitter on the hashtag #baileyreview. Once you’ve read the report you may want to share your thoughts on it there, or via your own blog. If you’ve any specific questions or comments about the review you can also put them to @educationgovuk (start with your question then include @educationgovuk so all your followers can see your question, RT their replies, and use #baileyreview on anything about this topic).

Update 07/06/11

Since the Bailey Review was released yesterday there’s been a lot of interesting discussion about the report, mostly on blogs rather than in the mainstream media. Here’s a lineup of some of the most interesting writing I’ve found on this topic (I’ll try to keep this updated with a range of issues represented):

Heresy_Corner (Nelson Jones) has a thorough and thoughtful reaction to the review with Children Being Children

Dr Brooke Magnanti (who did a grand job live tweeting responses to the data in the Bailey Review yesterday) gives her First Look at the review.

The fantastic Meg Barker tackles the issue of gender and sexualisation in Sexualisation and Gender stereotyping? One response to the Bailey review Similar issues are raised by Steve Greer who picks up on the ‘not said’ aspects of the review, particularly in relation to gender over at Queer Theory Reader. Quiet Riot Girl also discusses the masculinity issues, male objectification and the men’s media market which the Bailey Review overlooked in Nice Tits, Love! while Dan Avenell illustrates how the Bailey Review problematises lad’s mags while ignoring the mainstream older women’s magazine market over at The Bockingford Kid.

Over at the Ministry of Truth a somewhat different view is taken, looking at the ‘evidence’ making behind the Bailey review (probably also winning the best title of a post on this topic prize at the same time) Won’t You Fuck Off, Reg Bailey Additional concerns on the quality of the report (and how accessible it is) are raised by Think Base, while Jennie Kermode invites us to think about the core terms and assumptions underpinning the Bailey Review.

The Guardian’s CiF had a (predictable) ‘debate’ feature with different takes on the review. The first part from Holly Dustin might be somewhat more plausible if it didn’t rehearse the dreadful (and completely false) ‘statistic’ ’63% of girls want to be glamour models’. (From a PR survey that allegedly was never really completed: more criticisms of this statistic/survey here and here). Jane Fae Ozimek (whose writing style I covet) really gets to the heart of the problems with the review. Read both takes in Sexualisation and the Bailey Review.

Also at the Guardian their head of Media and Technology Dan Sabbagh writes probably one of the best accounts of this review from a mediated perspective (which makes you wonder why more media/tech expertise wasn’t included within the Bailey Review and preceding ones). His reflections can be found at ‘Sexualised Children’ -Is it always the media’s fault?. Mark Lawson also tackles media issues, this time picking up on how the Bailey Review appears out of touch with new media and youth access and how realistic a fixed watershed is within this context.

Richard Godwin in the Standard focuses around anxieties about childhood adults have in The problem is we’re scared of our children that ends with a quote which ought to focus all our reading and research on this issue ‘Childhood is generally what adults make it’. Meanwhile Libby Brooks returns to the wider concern about whether the Bailey Review addresses the most important issue facing young people, focusing on child poverty as a more pressing problem to tackle.

As you can see most of these posts have focused on the content, evidence and messaging around the Bailey Review. A different but equally interesting perspective from Caroline Farrow, who takes apart the review from a faith based perspective. Reflecting on issues of history, censorship and parenting. Here’s her post on The Bailey Review.

A lot of the discussions of the Bailey Review were rightly serious in tone, so it was good to have some light relief in the form of Andy Toots hilarious post Yippee-ki-yay,Mrs Dorries (which simultaneously also highlights the right wing media’s hypocrisy over the whole ‘sexualisation’ debate).

Update 10/06/2011
There are a number of academic conferences and events coming up between now and the end of the year
that will tackle issues of sexualisation and commercialisation. These include:

Girls, Sexuality and Sexualisation: Beyond Spectacle and Sensationalism. 30 June 2011. Cardiff

BSA Regional Seminar. Sexualisation: A cause for concern? 5 July 2011. Sheffield

BSSN 5th Annual Conference: Hard Science? Sex, Science and Technology. 15 September 2011. Brighton.

Sexualisation of Culture Conference. University of London. 1-2 December 2011. London.

Equally interestingly Westminster Media Forum have scheduled a Keynote Seminar on 18 October 2011 entitled Protecting children from commercial and other adult pressures: next steps for policy and business practice. A draft timetable is available here and a booking form here. The event’s not cheap (I don’t know why WMF always have such inaccessible pricing), but if you can afford to attend I would strongly recommend going and raising the many issues that have now been outlined relating to both the Bailey Review, preceding reports, and wider issues about evidence making, policy and practice.

Meanwhile MP Sarah Teather, Minister of State for Children and Families is asking for feedback on the Bailey Review. If you have any particular comments or questions please submit them here.

Update 13/06/11
The background literature review commissioned to inform the Bailey Review by Professor Ann Phoenix is now available. I’ve a lot of time for Ann and most people who’ve read her review have been impressed with how thorough it is. There is also this DfE Review by Ann and colleagues looking at how different countries attempt to regulate commercialisation/sexualisation. It is certainly worth reading this document and comparing it with the claims made by the Bailey Review. Critics have noted these reports were not made as accessible as the Bailey Review, and the literature review was not made public by the Department for Education until several days after the Bailey Review was released.

Brooke Magnanti returns to the Bailey Review, this time focusing on terminology and definition.

Suzanne Moore focuses on the issues about capitalism and poverty that the Bailey Review fails to address.

Charlie Brooker is typically cynical but right on the money with his take on gender, media and sexualisation.

Polling company YouGov have run their own research on sexualisation to tie in with the Bailey Review. Check the survey questions asked, there are some major problems with them – can you spot them?

Meanwhile the prize for the most offensive cashing in on the Bailey Review comes courtesy of The People who went undercover to film girls attending a ‘Pole Dancing Class for 3 Year Olds’, only to share images and film of said girls in their class as an example of ‘sexualisation’. This was later picked up by the Mail who also gloated over the photographs of said girls. Both stories ooze class judgement and girl blaming, suggesting an epidemic of pole dance classes for children across the UK (when in fact a possible 8 girls may have been involved in the classes reported on by the People). The comments on the People story are, fortunately, for the most part sensible. Our take home message? ‘Sexualisation’ is very bad. But filming little girls without their knowledge or consent and presenting them in sexually provocative photos in a national newspaper is seemingly fine.

There’s been a substantial amount of media attention today for a survey by BBC Radio One’s Newsbeat and the Portman Clinic. Suggesting porn ‘use’ among men is endemic and in many cases problematic.

It’s led to a slew of scary headlines including:

Men view two hours of porn a week – The Sun
Young men worried about the amount of porn they watch – Mirror
Men ‘worried’ about heavy online porn use

What did this survey cover?
This survey heard from 1057 18-24 year old women and men (no information available about how many males and females made up the final sample). They completed an online survey via TNS Market Research Company between March 18-21 2011. It asked about their porn consumption and attitudes to porn and relationships.

What were the main findings?
8/10 men and 1/3 women had looked at porn online
The most popular place to access porn was free websites
The ‘average’ man in study (no figures given for this) looks at porn for 2 hours a week, the average woman around 15 minutes
4% of male respondents ‘used’ adult sites for more than 10 hours per week – these were reported as having a ‘problematic and potentially compulsive’ condition
¼ men said they were worried about the amount of time spent looking at porn
¼ men said they were worried about the content of porn
61% of respondents (gender unspecified) said porn could make you less interested in sex with a partner

Should we be concerned about these findings? Not until we’ve looked more closely at this survey.

Problems with the survey
It is not clear exactly how participants were recruited/heard about this research. Market Research Company TNS administered the online survey but it’s unclear who responded, the characteristics of those who didn’t respond, and how representative of the wider population respondents were. The survey was only run over a three day period which is not unusual in commercial online surveys, but doesn’t always allow for generating reliable data – particularly about sensitive issues.

The full list of survey questions have not been made publicly available. Without these you can’t work out what people were asked. Whether questions were leading, potentially distressing, counteracted/contradicted each other, were confusing or didn’t match the final data reported.

I’ve spoken to nine journalists from different broadcast outlets about this survey over the past two days. All have called me for comment about the survey. All have taken it at face value. None had seen the original survey questions. None had asked to see them either.

This isn’t something unique to this Radio One survey however. Most commercial and academic surveys don’t make their original survey questions available when press releasing their work. It remains a problem as you cannot make any judgements about how useful a survey is without seeing what people were asked. This survey may have been amazingly well designed, carefully piloted, developed and run. Or it may not have been so stringently managed. The problem is without making both the methodology behind the research and the survey questions public it is impossible to know whether to trust in the data or not.

One question was reported in the Radio One report of the study. It asked ‘How have you ever looked at porn?’ It then gave respondents the choice of magazines, DVDs, TV, Free and Pay websites, mobile phones and file sharing.

The problem with questions phrased like this is they may look sensible at first glance, but actually are highly problematic and potentially meaningless.

If we take ‘ever looked at’ first, what does that mean? Ever looked at as in sat down, watched a lot and masturbated yourself stupid? Or ever looked at as in was shown by some mates for a laugh, or ever looked at as in accidentally found when looking for something else online or on TV?

‘Ever looked at’ seems to be taken here to mean regular porn use, or at least some porn use. Whereas it doesn’t tell us anything about the context people are viewing porn – or the amount. I may have ‘ever looked at’ porn once ten years ago and never again. But this survey would put me in the same category as someone whose ‘ever looked at’ definition included looking at porn several times a week over months or years.

The lack of clarity in the question also doesn’t explain whether people are looking at porn alone, with a partner, when single or a relationship. Nor address whether their porn ‘use’ is consistent over time or varies depending on their relationship status or other life events.

Also what does ‘porn’ mean in this survey question? Is it an erotic scene in a movie shown on mainstream TV? Tuning into Babestation? Reading Nuts, Zoo or Cosmo? Visiting YouPorn? This survey asked respondents to state the format in which they access porn, but they are not asked to explain what they mean by porn. That means we’ve no idea what it is they’re looking at.

This is a classic problem in poor survey design. That terms used aren’t operationalised. Meaning neither the respondents or the researchers actually have any idea what it is they’re asking about, or what the data means when it comes back.

‘Heavy’ porn use was described in this survey report as 10 hours or more. But it is not clear how this was decided upon as a measure of ‘heavy’ use.

¼ male participants stated they were worried about the amount of time they spent looking at porn. But since we don’t know what they were asked we can’t tell if this was based on a leading question, or whether they would have said they were worried if not prompted. It doesn’t tell us what exactly they were worried about (i.e. did they think they were spending too much time in general online, or had a specific concern re porn use).

¼ respondents also said they were worried about what they were looking at, but we can’t tell from this whether this meant they’d already stopped looking at the problematic porn. ‘Worried’ by content doesn’t tell us whether they had issues over the wellbeing of actors in porn; a person’s sexual prowess in comparison to what they were viewing; or whether their gender, sexuality or relationship was being challenged by the things that they found a turn on. In short we may know a fair number of participants expressed concern, but we’ve no real clue about the source or magnitude of that worry.

Usually with media surveys of this kind the standard approach is back of the envelope question design, based around a predetermined angle that’s being picked to generate publicity. Radio One aren’t unique in this approach (although they do have form for running similarly questionable sex surveys in the past). It is likely this current survey is more about generating publicity for Radio One and Newsbeat than really addressing issues about our relationship with sexually explicit materials. It seems the main purpose of the survey was both to inform a report for Newsbeat and draw attention to said programme.

Unusually this research has teamed a media outlet (Radio One) with clinicians from an NHS trust. Specifically practitioners from the Portman and Tavistock NHS Trust who apparently designed the survey.

This raises more complex issues than just the usual shoddy media approach to surveys. If NHS staff are involved in research they ought to be grounding this within a critical appraisal of the published evidence in this area. They also ought to ensure they employ research tools correctly (in this case completing a quality survey, piloting and reviewing it – or better still basing it on an existing measure). And if they’re doing the work on NHS staff or patients or in their role as an NHS clinician then it ought to be subject to ethical approval.

Not all health research is subject to peer review, but usually if a survey is going to be made public – either through publication in a journal or through a report launch or similar – then you would expect a thorough peer review of the work before it hit the headlines. Peer review here could have helped spot potential problems in both survey design and delivery, and ensure the relevant background literature (of which there is a lot in this area) had been carefully consulted. It would also have guarded against making claims that go beyond the data.

This may have happened in the case of this survey but that information has not been made transparent. If that is the case it is a pity since it doesn’t put the research in context nor show it in a good light. If these checks and balances hadn’t been put in place again transparency might help us assess whether this work is reliable or not.

Given the example of the questions asked of participants along with conclusions drawn it does raise serious questions about the quality of the survey. Along with the ethics of using such a tool to draw clinical conclusions – as has happened around the diagnosing of those with ‘heavy’ porn use.

Journalists I spoke with about this survey felt the inclusion of medics in the survey meant it was more trustworthy. One said to me that because a doctor had designed the survey it had to be good. As someone who’s been teaching medics internationally how to evaluated, design and use surveys in health research for the past fifteen years; I can confidently report most are pretty dreadful at this craft. Indeed, as with any other social research skill it takes time to learn how to create a quality questionnaire. Without disrespecting the skills of the medics in this survey, you cannot conclude because a doctor helped put the survey together that it’s automatically accurate.

There are in fact many people actively studying pornography – some of whom can be found here. All of whom Radio One could have teamed up with had they genuinely wanted to explore our relationship with porn. This IS an important area that is worth studying and is currently hampered by a lot of poorly conducted academic studies, mostly based on undergraduate student samples. So we need to have more quality work conducted and there are plenty of people Radio One should have involved. The fact that some of the leading names in this area weren’t even mentioned or consulted points to either a lack of awareness of the subject area. Or deliberately avoiding to engage with those who may not be fitting with a predetermined porn/shock angle. Radio One should have been clearer about why did they pick this particular team from the Portman to collaborate with? Were there any agendas there? Certainly given the worries over medicalising our sexual behaviour one might argue it could be in a clinic’s interest to set up a figure of ¼ men being anxious about porn use. After all if you’ve identified a problem you are in a very good position to offer a cure.

Finally there’s no real context about why Radio One thought this was a major area worth studying. Given it’s a youth channel it could have easily picked up on numerous other social issues – poverty, employment, education, university fees. Or if they wanted to be sex campaigners to perhaps look at the issue around how sex education is haphazardly (and often poorly) delivered in schools. Are all young people really worried about online porn, or are there other things directly affecting their lives that may be more relevant (but perhaps less publicity generating?).

Despite all the percentages shown in this report and warnings about ‘heavy’ porn use there seems to be no take home message for people about what this means. If you suspect, after reading about/hearing Newsbeat’s survey, that you have a ‘problem’ – what should you do? If you have questions about porn, where could you ask them? In this case the audience are given some dire warnings but no referrals to sources of help or advice. Which again makes the overall purpose of this research unclear.

I may be being very disingenuous about the researchers from the Portman. But it worries me that their relationship with this research has not been fully declared. No doubt they acted with good intentions, and obviously drew upon their experiences as psychotherapists (one author has written about internet porn and psychoanalysis). But it is concerning that journalists covering this story didn’t think to ask more about who was doing the research, and what their motivations might have been.

Which brings us on to…

Problems with media coverage
I’ve already mentioned how the journalists I’ve talked to hadn’t seen the survey nor saw this as important. What was more worrying was the unquestioning pickup of this story. Journalists weren’t asking what was asked in the survey, of whom and why. What they were doing was accepting the figures from the survey – particularly the amount of time men were spending looking at porn, and how they were worried about porn use.

They were then using this as a jumping off point for other discussions. For example to talk about porn addiction, how pornography use could change men’s brains, what women felt about men who used porn. As a psychologist they wanted me to come and talk about neurological changes from porn use, and as a female psychologist they wanted an insight ‘as a woman’ to talk about how all women felt about their men’s porn use (more on this later).

What journalists didn’t want, was me talking about this survey from the perspective of someone who teaches survey design. They didn’t want the survey critiqued because their editor/producer had already fixed it as their angle. Indeed they’d already accepted it as ‘true’. Most worryingly those from the BBC seemed least keen to critique the research. One researcher calling from BBC Radio 5Live Drive Time confirmed they didn’t want to question the survey because it was done by Radio One – and as such they couldn’t challenge the output from a sister station.

It really does beg the question what is going on with the BBC College of Journalism that such problematic research can be put together to begin with – and how it can continually be endorsed even when flaws are being pointed out. (Sadly I’ve tried previously to help the BBC College of Journalism to think more critically about sex research but have got nowhere. I have alerted them to the current Radio One survey and uncritical coverage on twitter today. Let’s hope they decide to take this further) .

This case has been a useful example in seeing how journalists lack the understanding to critique research, but also the practical reasons they’re unable to do so. Moreover it gives us an ….

Insight into journalists views of sex/pornography
If you look at the press coverage of this survey (alongside reflecting on the discussions I had with journalists today) some very definite patterns of how journalists/the media see sex/relationships and porn.

The view from medialand is as follows:

Who looks at porn? Well, it’s men. They are all straight and the porn they are seeking out is also heterosexual. Women are constructed as having problems/concerns about pornography – but only in relation to their (male) partner’s use of it. ‘Pornography’ as a term is used to mean one genre from one format (the internet). Looking at mainstream porn in moderation is okay, but if you do it often then it becomes a problem. Quite often described in the medicalised language of addiction.

Men are naturally sexual and so can’t help liking porn, but if they do look at it they’ll become abusers or change their neurological makeup or sexual behaviour. Women don’t like porn, those who do are presented as being in a minority, probably deluded, or liking romantic/couples-based/equality-based/feminist porn. Porn within relationships is only permissible if it’s to spice things up (or encourage reluctant wives to get in the mood). LGBT folk aren’t even thought about.

Alongside this is a widespread acceptance that porn influences sexual behaviour (i.e. shaving pubic hair, trying anal sex, different positions etc). There is no insight from journalists or often the public that these issues all have – and continue to be – widely covered in mainstream media, not just porn.

If you’re starting from this as your standard position it makes thinking critically about pornography difficult. It means journalists will be tasked (or choose) to find evidence to stack up this world view. It also means it’s risky to find other ways to think about/explore porn for fear of being seen to endorse it.

Why is coverage of porn research so poor?
Coverage within the media tends to be poor because journalists are always on tight deadlines, lack skills to evaluate both research and critically reflect on their own assumptions about ‘normal’ sex. Finding experts who can talk clearly on the topic or searching through evidence is often difficult. And not helped when the standard way to approach this issue is in a false debate format where you have to find a pro and anti porn person in the mistaken belief there are clearly defined ‘sides’ in this area.

The pressure from editors to fit particular (and usually sex negative) agendas leaves little autonomy for journalists to tackle problems they may spot with research. Freelancers in particular may struggle as if they don’t write what the editor wants they won’t get a commission. Staffers may struggle with bullying if they don’t deliver an angle to deadline.

Journalists are not impartial. Many lack basic sex education or have particularly sex negative views. It is threatening for them to have this questioned – especially when on deadline. And if something seems intuitive then it won’t be questioned. Indeed if you try you’re more likely to be seen as a crank. Or unhelpful.

Part of our problem is there is a lack of funding to really investigate porn use in sensitive and open ways. Where quality research is undertaken in this area it’s often more nuanced and doesn’t lend itself well to scary headlines and battle of the sexes style debates. This means quick and dirty studies get completed and hit the headlines far more readily, and inform public opinion more often. That can be dangerous and misleading, particularly when behaviours that may not be a problem become medicalised.

What can be done about this issue?
Offer better training for journalists to understand surveys and other social methods. You might find these guidance papers I’ve written on the topic helpful:
Administering, analysing and reporting your questionnaire
Selecting, designing and developing your questionnaire

Reaching beyond the white middle classes

Make editors and broadcasters more accountable – challenging them when they run poor research or give bad science uncritical coverage.

Require media outlets that create surveys need to be completely transparent about the work they’ve done (as we equally should with academic researchers).

Encourage the public to engage in discussing and critiquing sex research from media outlets via social media. Today we saw two things happen. The media lost the news, while the public via social media (particularly on twitter) got to the bottom of a problematic story and had a much more interesting time doing it than if they’d relied on old media coverage alone.

Over the past few weeks parents, practitioners, young people and journalists have been concerned about the Channel 4 series ‘The Joy of Teen Sex’. This has led to a number of us deciding to complain to the Channel and recommend a way forward to ensure future programming is improved.

Below is a copy of our letter, sent to the Chief Executive (David Abraham) and Commissioning Editors yesterday. Myself and others will be reproducing this letter on our blogs and you are welcome to share it on forums, your own blog or for teaching/discussion purposes. If you have been worried by the series and believe Channel 4 should address the current poor standards in sex and relationships broadcasting you may also want to contact the Channel yourself.

Dear David Abraham

Cc: Sue Murphy, Andrew Jackson, Katy Boyd, Liam Humphreys, Kate Teckman, Dominique Walker

We are a group of professionals who are pro-sex education and accessible sexual and reproductive healthcare. We believe in accurate and open discussions about relationships and sex, and feel television can be an effective and powerful medium for sex education programmes that are entertaining as well as informative.

For the past decade Channel 4 has been making programmes addressing sex and relationships issues for teens and adults including: The Sex Inspectors (2004), Orgasmatron/Body Shock (2005), The Dark Side of Modern Love (2005), Am I A Sex Addict (2007), The Sex Education Show (2008-present), and most recently The Joy of Teen Sex. This clearly demonstrates a commitment on behalf of the Channel which we feel is important given how little coverage these topics receive.

While these programmes may have attracted high viewing figures, they have been criticised by therapists, healthcare providers, and educators for portraying inaccurate or outdated and misleading representations of sex education, healthcare, clinical treatments and therapies.

Many of us have been approached to participate on these programmes, or publicise them to our colleagues/clients. We have repeatedly shared our worries about the direction programmes appear to be taking, although have had little success in having those concerns heard.

The recent series The Joy of Teen Sex has been even more problematic than previous similar shows, raising complaint and concern from sexual and reproductive healthcare staff, sex educators, youth workers, sex researchers, parents and young people. In particular they have been worried by:

- the range of topics covered, which may not be representative of the needs/questions teens may have

- some of the skills and qualifications of the professionals used in the programme

- the advice given to programme participants which left little room for exploration, choice, and the right to refuse sexual activity that doesn’t appeal to them

- misleading and/or factually incorrect information, and frequently used unreliable statistics to back up points made. For example the inaccurate claim made at the start of each programme that the average teen has had three sexual partners by the time they reach 16. In fact reputable research finds most teens have not had intercourse before they are 16.(1).

- little attention paid to communication, confidence, respect, romance, affection, closeness

- an overemphasis on sexual techniques and products

- offering options that may not be realistic for viewers, particularly younger teens or those on a low income

- valuing the ‘televisual’ over more relevant issues to young people – e.g. exploring vajazzling

- consistent muddling of key terms (e.g. vagina used when vulva is meant), or using outdated terms such as ‘hymen’

- inaccurate representation of what sex education is like, what sexual health services deliver, and how sex education and healthcare professionals should act. For example a medic making a client cry by showing her graphic images of STIs; telling young women to expect bleeding as part of losing virginity; or not making clear the difference between normal vaginal discharge and an STI

- mixed messages from programme makers in their casting calls to young people/parents, and what professionals being consulted for the series were told it would offer (see Appendices 1 and 2)

- an overall tone that encouraged teen blaming, slut shaming and homophobia, while perpetuating messages of hegemonic masculinities and narrow sexual norms

- not listening to numerous professional concerns during the development stage

- no awareness of, or respect for, cultural diversity

- producers of the show using twitter to promote the programme while simultaneously dismissing professional and parent complaints of the series, referring to anyone who questioned the series as ‘haters’ (see also Appendix 3)

We are concerned the Commissioners and Channel Four have not shown due diligence over this series. It seems to be fitting a pattern of programme development where viewing figures are prioritised over empowerment but where programmes are still marketed as ‘educational’. It does not appear to fit with the Channel’s Public Service Remit or Corporate Responsibility.

We are worried misinformation about sexual and reproductive healthcare and education has been grossly misrepresented, leading to parents feeling anxious, young people’s right to accurate information not being delivered, and professional advice being ignored at all stages of programme development.

The right of young people to comprehensive sex and relationships education is still contested in this country. Many individuals and organizations oppose sex education on the grounds it will sexualise their children, claim it will not give accurate information, or will encourage sexual activity rather than encouraging thoughtful decision-making about relationships. For this reason it is vital that any programme claiming to provide education about sex and sexuality does not provide fuel for these arguments. Sadly we have seen reactions to The Joy of Teen Sex in public discussions and on places like twitter that indicate the programme is already being used as evidence of the ‘failings’ of sex education.

As a result we fear this style of programme making could lead to young people and adults not getting the sexual and relationships advice they need; making the job of healthcare providers, therapists, educators, parents and youth workers more difficult; and causing distress to young people and parents. We have been overwhelmed with emails from anxious teens and parents who support sex education, but are concerned about the messages of teenagers, sex, relationships and sexuality portrayed in this series.

Channel 4 clearly intends to continue making programmes about sex and relationships. We are hoping as Channel Directors you will wish these future broadcasts to be accurate, entertaining and empowering. To ensure this happens we are calling on Channel 4 to establish an advisory group made up of sexual and reproductive health practitioners, sex educators, youth workers, parents and young people to oversee the development of future programming and ensure that it is entertaining, accurate and empowering. This idea is endorsed by Brook, the young people’s sexual health service. All of the signatories below are happy to help you with this endeavor, and are now expecting you to listen to our concerns, and promise quality sex and relationships broadcasting in the future. We look forward to hearing your response soon.

Signed
Petra Boynton PhD, Social Psychologist and Sex Researcher, University College London
Dr Stuart Flanagan, Genito Urinary Physician
Justin Hancock, Bish Training, trainer and consultant
Lisa Hallgarten, Director, Education For Choice
Wendy Savage MBBCh FRCOG MSc (Public Health) Hon DSc
Marge Berer, Editor, Reproductive Health Matters
Romance Academy – a nation-wide, holistic, relationships and sex education initiative
Dr. Meg Barker, Sex therapist and social psychologist, The Open University
Chris Ashford, Principal Lecturer in Law, University of Sunderland
Alice Hoyle, Sex and Relationship Education Advisory Teacher
Alison Terry, Second year student, Applied Community and Youth Work Studies, University of Manchester
K. Barratt, Second year student, Applied Community and Youth Work Studies, University of Manchester
Becca Thompson, BSc MA COT
Steven Norris, Student Teacher
Clare Bale, RGN, BA (Hons),MPH, PhD Candidate, University of Sheffield
Dr. Lesley Hoggart, Principal Research Fellow, School of Health and Social Care University of Greenwich
Matthew Greenall, advisor on international HIV & sexual health programmes
David McQueen, International Speaker and Youth Advocate
Janet Horrocks, Healthy Schools Project Officer
Joelle Brady, MSc, Researcher
Kendelle Bond, MD of Zest Consultantancy, Public Health Consultant
Dr Jayne Kavanagh, Medical Ethics and Law Unit Lead, UCL Medical School and Associate Specialist in Sexual and Reproductive Health, Camden Provider Services
David Evans, Researcher and Chief Executive SRE Project
Peter Bone, Chair of the Advisory Council, PSHE Association

(1) Wellings, K, Nanchahal, K, Macdowall, W, McManus, S, Erens, B, Mercer, CH, Johnson, AM, Copas, AJ, Korovessis, C, Fenton, KA, Field, J Sexual behaviour in Britain: early heterosexual experience. Lancet, 2001: 358; 1843-1850

APPENDIX ONE
Example email correspondence from researchers on The Joy of Teen Sex, to professionals:
“We are in the early stages of shaping our series and are keen to talk to industry professionals, so we can get it right. I understand your concerns and I can reassure you that our aim is to make a thought-provoking and positive series that will look at relationships, emotions and identity as well as “the act of sex”.”The Joy of Teen Sex will not be gratuitous, voyeuristic or salacious. Our aim, working alongside dedicated professionals, is to provide a platform for teenagers and parents to discuss the emotional, physical and psychological pressures young people face when they are seeking to forge loving relationships.”

APPENDIX TWO

Example of casting call information to recruit participants to the programme (reproduced and discussed in this previous blog post about The Joy of Teen Sex).

APPENDIX THREE
Metro Newspaper’s account of Twitter remarks from one of the producers on The Joy of Teen Sex, made during and after episodes were aired. (These have since been removed from twitter by said producer).

Update
Our letter has been reported in The Guardian and Channel 4 have since sent the newspaper this response (reprinted below). For the record the Channel have not as yet been in touch with any of the signatories of the letter and have not even acknowledged receipt of our letter. We await their promised correspondence.

Channel 4 has been committed to programming that addresses the lack and inadequacy of sex education in schools for many years through programmes such as the Sex Education Show and The Joy of Teen Sex. We are proud of our programming in this field as well and their ability to bring large audiences to the often difficult issues they have addressed. We have a hugely successful Sexperience website which has consistently been a leader in the field and has seen millions log on for further advice or information after watching the programmes. Anecdotally we also know from healthcare professionals that viewers have sought medical advice and treatment as a result of watching the programme.

While the programme makers of The Joy of Teen Sex consulted with a number of sexual healthcare professionals to ensure the information provided was accurate and appropriate, we realise that this type of programming will not always appeal to everyone. However, Channel 4 is always willing to listen to the concerns of viewers and interested parties following its broadcasts and we will correspond with the authors of the letter directly about their concerns.

A few thoughts on this response (from me, rather than on behalf of everyone who signed our letter). Given the major problems with The Joy of Teen Sex, it seems more than disingenuous for them to claim the series has been addressing the lack of and inadequacy of sex education. The point of our letter is to highlight how the misinformation in Channel 4′s programming is misleading regarding sex education, and may in fact be causing more work for parents and practitioners while giving ammunition to the anti sex education lobby. There are plenty of ways to support sex education but causing concern to young people, educators and parents is not the way to do it. Nor is creating programmes which feature mainly 18′s and over (not representative of ‘teens’). Or making programmes for teens that are screened after 10pm, and are blocked to under 18s when they’re archived on 4oD. The Channel can’t even claim they’ve not been told about the problems around delivering SRE and how media can inform this – they’ve asked me to speak at their education events twice to specifically tackle this issue (see here and here).

Anecdotes are fine, but how many healthcare professionals have said people have sought advice? Presumably if this is being reported to the Channel they’ll have some record of it? Why are these professionals listened to, but those of us who are raising concerns (based on what we’re seeing in practice) are not?

The Channel mention they consulted with ‘a number of sexual healthcare professionals to ensure the information was accurate and appropriate’. How many professionals and who were they? Six people/organisations signing our letter were directly approached to appear on the Joy of Teen Sex when it was in development. We all shared our concerns about the programme idea at the time but were unable to participate because the producers would not alter their focus. So that’s several professionals we directly know about who gave extensive feedback who were ignored. It would be useful to know who the healthcare professionals who were ultimately used by the Channel, because if they were responsible for signing off the inaccurate statistics and misleading examples of practice screened week on week there are, sadly, questions to ask about their competence.

It is not enough to say our complaint about this series and other programming is just a matter of taste. It is a matter of accuracy and broadcasting ethics. Our reason for writing to the Channel is not to have a grumble about a few things we just don’t like the tone of. It’s a serious catalogue of consistent problematic practice.

The Channel states how it ‘is always willing to listen’. Presumably that includes all the parents and practitioners who have also contacted the Channel separately from our group letter? People who are still waiting for any reply? Channel 4 has not, so far, indicated they are listening. They need to respond to us directly for us to know this is happening. And to continue a dialogue that shows they are taking on board feedback. Not fobbing people off with vague PR speak.

I will keep you posted on any further correspondence from the Channel who I hope decide to revisit our letter and realise we are offering them an opportunity to ensure they provide accurate, entertaining and empowering sex programmes in the future. It would be supremely arrogant of them to continue to decide they know better than young people, parents, practitioners – in other words, their audience.

*

If you ever wanted to see how the media simultaneously loves and destroys stories on sex and science, this week we had a classic example of truly bad sex coverage. All based on a conference presentation that suggested low libido in women could be detected through brain scanning.

I’ll move on to the research itself in a second, but first let’s look at some of the media coverage this study generated. Women with low libidos ‘have different brains’ yelled the Telegraph’s MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT (although let’s be fair they probably didn’t pen the headline). The BBC went with a similar angle (and equally daft headline) ‘Libido problems ‘brain not mind”. The carnival of largely poor and uncritical coverage can be found here.

From the press coverage you’d be forgiven from thinking there’d been a massive new scientific breakthrough here. The brainz/sex/laydees combo is a heady mix for journalists – and probably why this conference presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Reproductive Medicine was probably selected for press release. The abstract for this presentation can be found here (although I’ve taken the liberty of printing it in full below)

[O-199] CEREBRAL ACTIVATION PATTERNS IN WOMEN WITH HYPOACTIVE SEXUAL DESIRE DISORDER (HSDD) VERSUS WOMEN WITH NORMAL SEXUAL FUNCTION.

Oral Presentation: Sexuality Special Interest Group

So this is the presentation that spawned massive global coverage. A conference presentation based on an exploratory study of 19 women with self identified sexual problems and 7 ‘normal’ controls (whatever that means). This is a very small sample, and is not from a peer reviewed publication, and it makes grand claims about neurological activity and sexual functioning which may not be as exciting as they first appear. Without access to a paper to judge, however, we really don’t have much more to go on.

Fortunately a few smart bloggers who know their stuff about neurology and sex have done a very good job in critiquing the study based on what they can tell from the abstract. These include:
Cory Silverberg on why ‘Sex Researchers Want Your B-R-A-I-N-S’
The Neurocritic explaining ‘Media HSDD: ‘Hyperactive Sexual Disorder Detection’
Neuroskeptic also explores the research in their post ‘Brain Scans Prove That The Brain Does Stuff’

I’ve been bothered on two levels about this research. Firstly, the generalisations about neurology/sexual functioning, which the bloggers linked to above do a far better job than I could in dismantling. I’ve no doubt there are interesting things to explore in relation to brain/behaviour and sex, but am not convinced studies like this are really adding to our understanding of sexual functioning.

But what worried me more is the way the media responded to this story. The conference presentation was distributed to the media over the weekend, which is when journalists first alerted me to it. That means (at least some) journalists had a couple of days at least to research and write this story. It also means that a fair number of journalists were talking to academics like me (or other therapists/activists) who were telling them to find out….

- Who funded this research? (That’s important given the influence of the pharmaceutical industry in this area, particularly with their role in medicalising HSDD)
- The problem with the very small sample size
- The issue that this study was only appearing in the form of a conference presentation and had not been submitted to peer review for a journal, nor published in a format people could read to form conclusions about the robustness of the research
- How sexual dysfunction and ‘normal’ were measured and how women were assigned to these categories
- What measures were used to test arousal, and did those seem reasonable in terms of producing similar responses in participants
- Whether the research made any sense to neurologists, and particularly to talk to neurologists and get them to give their view (and to use this to interpret the research when writing it up)
- Where this work fits within the wider context of HSDD – not least given it’s very recent history with the ‘desire drug’ Flibanserin being abandoned by the drug company who created it, the British Medical Journal debating the problem of medicalisation of female sexual functioning, and Ray Moynihan’s groundbreaking expose on the disease mongering of HSDD in his book Sex, Lies and Pharmaceuticals.

It was, after all, only a couple of weeks ago the press were telling us HSDD doesn’t exist. But two weeks isn’t long in media land and certainly nobody seemed to do any searching to highlight this in the pieces they were writing.

In fact the main format for these stories was to rehash the research uncritically, talk in an alarmist manner about the prevalence of women’s problems but explain their lack of sex drive was ‘in the brain’. With a couple of therapists or medics quoted cautioning about overgeneralising on HSDD – but nobody specifically taking on the research. That remains a common problem with all coverage of this kind. A token spokesperson’s required to give ‘balance’ but that usually still approaches the original research as though it’s robust enough to pin a story on – rather than the research itself that requires a thorough appraisal.

Remember many journalists reporting on this story were MEDICAL or HEALTH or SCIENCE correspondents, many of whom were actually at the conference. So they could, and should, have asked questions about the study based on the things I’ve listed above. If you’re a journalist specialising in health/science these should not be particularly difficult things to ask. In fact it should be the first things you question on. A basic search around recent coverage on HSDD should also have alerted any journalist (regardless of speciality) that this is a controversial area full of problems with funding, bias and spin.

Some of the journalists I heard from decided, after reflecting on the study, simply not to report on it. Fair enough you may think, they decided it wasn’t that robust and wasn’t worth writing about. However this is as problematic as writing about the study uncritically. If you don’t talk about a study because you don’t give it much credit the public won’t know why you’ve got a problem with it.

A far more appropriate response from the media should have been to take the story but ask questions about the findings, put them in context, and talk to the public about what kind of things can cause lack of desire, why it’s a problem to medicalise these factors, and where scientists are trying to do this (as may have happened here).

Even if all your competitors are gushing over a small sample conference presentation that sounds sciencey but actually isn’t that informative, if you’re the only person who tackles the problems with the science and the wider social ramifications then you have an exclusive. Again, many journalists were given the opportunity to do this but they chose either to report the study uncritically, or not cover it at all.

The problem we have at the moment is the mainstream media appear incapable of understanding or accurately reporting sex science stories – even when they are given information to enable them to do this. And while we are rightly complaining about the activities of the pharmaceutical industry, the problems of medicalisation and the poor research that accompanies this, we also need to note the media are a major cause in the misrepresentation of HSDD to the public.

Perhaps it might be more accurate to say (in the words of blogger and consultant @mngreenall) ‘hacks have “different brains” that “light up” when there’s guff to be written about sex’. Certainly it seems if there’s a sex science story that promises a whacking gender difference and an oversimplistic answer to a complex problem the media are guaranteed to give it coverage. No matter how weak the research may be, nor how serious the repercussions can be to the public who desperately need quality information to reassure them about their sexual anxieties.

It’s so depressing to see stories unfold like this, and at such times it’s always good to fall back on ‘women know your limits’ for a more biting and ironic take on womenz brainz….

* Image source here

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