Last week saw the publication of a paper Multi-person Sex among a Sample of Adolescent Female Urban Health Clinic Patients in the Journal of Urban Health (sadly not open access). This tackled the issue of young people having Multiple Sexual Partners (MSPs) and in particular raised concerns over coercive sexual practices.

Predictably the media reported on this story with scary headlines like:
Teen girls who engage in group sex are often coerced, study says – NY Daily
Group sex is the latest ‘trend’ for teenage girls, disturbing report reveals – Daily Mail (The research excited upset the Mail so much they ran coverage of it twice)
Teens as young as 14 engaging in group sex, study finds – ABC News
‘Sexting’ is related to teen group sex trend, says study – New Jersey News Room (the study doesn’t say this at all, in fact recent research suggests the phenomena of teen ‘sexting’ is over exaggerated).

While we sadly are used to the mainstream media sensationalising sex research (particularly on young people), other sex blogs and medical news outlets covering this study have been equally remiss at reading the original research and critiquing it. Which is depressing.

So let’s do the job the mainstream media should have done. Let’s critically appraise the research and see if we do need to worry about MSPs and young people.

First, a quick disclaimer. Researching young people’s sexual experiences is important. Such work should focus on their needs, report faithfully any adverse issues they may be at risk from, and take their mental and physical wellbeing seriously. Research on teens should always involve young people at all levels and avoid being a top-down process where adults define teenagers’ experiences. In critiquing this research I am not suggesting young people are not experiencing problems within their relationships. I am also not saying the researchers were anything other than well intentioned.

Strengths of the research
The paper’s plus points are that it tackles a topical issue. While group sex among young people is (as this paper acknowledges) pretty unusual, it is something that has gained media interest over the past few years. So trying to collect any data about this phenomenon is important to reassure and also to direct sex education and public health programmes. The researchers seem to have developed the study over time, basing the survey they used on a series of in-depth qualitative interviews. The paper does acknowledge early on that multiple sexual partner experiences may be consensual and non consensual (more on this in a bit).

Sampling and sample size
Participants were recruited from a youth sexual health clinic. This is not unreasonable at all. It’s an excellent place to find out about young people’s sexual health. But it does mean those going there may be in need of help or support so might not be representative of teens generally.

The authors acknowledge this but I suspect that fact will pass a lot of journalists by when they report this. Media focus, I imagine, will be on all teens, rather than a subset of teens.

The paper tells us researchers were aware of 1224 female clients at the youth clinics, with 747 identified suitable for the study. Why the other clients attending the clinic weren’t suitable for the study is not explained. That, I think, is a problem. Information about participants who were unsuitable for the study, or who refused to participate (and why) should have been clarified just to help us interpret this data. I’m surprised reviewers didn’t ask for it to be included in the demographics table as is standard practice. Of the 747 clients identified, 495 (65%) agreed to take part. A 65% response rate on a sensitive topic is not a problem, but it does reduce the number of people responding further, which in turn affects how representative the sample is.

It is not declared whether the participants were Cis or Trans Women. This would have been helpful to disclose.

Table 1 in the paper provides details of 328 participants. I’m unsure if these were the final sample that was used in the study/analysis. Regardless of all this we learn right at the end of the paper only 24 of those who completed the survey had had a Multiple Sexual Partner experience. And of those, their analysis indicates, 35% said the experience was consensual.

Does this represent a major new trend in youth behaviour?
No. The paper reports of the patients attending the youth clinic very few of them had experienced non consensual group sex. It does not mean we should not be very concerned about these young people or others like them. But it does mean journalists covering this story should put this into context. The study is not showing a major trend in teen girls being forced to have group sex. It is saying non consensual group sexual activity among teens does not seem to happen often, but when it does it is highly distressing and increases the risk of psychological and physical ill health.

My worry is the media coverage of this will not read the original paper and will suggest there is an outbreak of teen sex parties happening regularly, that young girls are forced to participate in. The study did not find this and nor has it identified a major public health problem. But I doubt that will be made clear. This in turn will worry parents, mislead teachers and healthcare professionals, and probably lead to slut shaming of young women (as this kind of coverage invariably does). All the while ignoring the role of boys at best, or presenting them as gang rapists at worst. None of which is directly helpful to the needs of young people.

Problems with phrasing and terminology
The paper seems to use terms like ‘sex parties’, ‘multiple sexual partners’ and ‘gang rape’ interchangeably in places. This is confusing for the reader but I imagine also for participants in the study. This is recognised as a limitation later in the paper where the authors talk about participants who’ve experienced gang rape not necessarily seeing what they experienced as a multiple sexual partner act.

The focus of the study appears to be on heterosexual teens, although this is not really clarified.

The age range of 14-20 is important as this is a wide age range in terms of young people. While some 14 year olds may be mature and some 20 year olds immature, in general the needs and experiences of those who are in the younger age group in this study will be very different from older participants. Any of these participants could be exploited, abuse has no age barrier. However, older teens/young adults may well be better able to consensually engage in sexual behaviours younger teens cannot. This was not explored in enough detail in this paper.

The main drawback with the study, to me, is the question used to identify if participants had engaged in Multiple Partner Sex. It asked:
“Have you ever had sex (vaginal, oral, or anal) with more than one person at the same time or with more than one person at the same place? (This might be called group sex, a threesome, an orgy, or pulling a train).”
The paper doesn’t clearly explain how participants were invited to answer this question, although does suggest it was via a yes/no response (or similar). Imagine I said ‘yes’ to this question. What am I saying ‘yes’ to? That I had vaginal, oral or anal sex? The wording of this question means there’s no way of differentiating between participants who had all of these experiences and those who had one of them.

There is also no way of identifying how often participants had engaged in these various activities and whether they experienced them positively or negatively. It could be completely possible for a participant to have experienced oral sex positively but vaginal sex negatively (or vice versa). But the question phrasing does not allow for this to be explored. It also doesn’t allow participants to indicate if they were giving or receiving these sexual activities (or both).

Once you get past this confusion participants are still being asked about these sexual activities AND whether they’ve done them with more than one person. How do you answer if you’ve engaged in said activities but with only one person? The question doesn’t allow for this.

Participants could also easily be confused by a question that doesn’t make clear if the mention of ‘sex’ here refers to penetrative sex (and if so is it via a penis, finger or sex toy) or oral sex. That is important as we know from sex research unless you are very specific about what you’re asking about you’ve no real idea what participants are reporting.

The question is also confusing a group sex act (i.e. having sex with more than one person at a time) with multiple partner sex over a period of time (i.e. sleeping with more than one person in a day, evening etc). In fact this becomes more confusing as these behaviours are asked as if they’re the same thing but with no time period specified. Most of us who’ve had more than one partner could easily answer ‘yes’ to the question, assuming you have been intimate with different partners on different occasions in your home.

Deconstructing this question may seem like nit picking but in fact is very important when we are designing surveys. Unless our questions are meticulously phrased we have no real idea what participants are responding to. This in turn makes a difference to the conclusions and recommendations we can make.

Elsewhere in the paper the researchers conflate group sex and an orgy (which usually involves several people) with a threesome. They also don’t clarify who might be participating in these activities. The assumption seems to be that it’s a girl and all boys. But it could well be all girls or a mix of girls and boys.

Does ‘pornography’ and ‘sexually explicit’ mean the same thing?
Participants were also asked
“Many people come into contact with pornographic, x rated, or other sexually explicit material. How many times in the past 30 days have you viewed pornographic, x rated, or other sexually explicit material?”

This is an interesting but again problematic question. What do the researchers mean by ‘pornographic’ or ‘sexually explicit material’? Are they the same thing? Are they including explicit mainstream media such as music videos or magazine articles talking about sexual positions? That could be considered sexually explicit but not necessarily pornographic. Is this a particularly accessible question to ask a young person? Asking how often they’ve viewed such material also isn’t clear. Do they mean how often someone has watched pornography/sexually explicit material and masturbated? Simply seen it in passing? Or perhaps laughed at it with friends (as is very common among teens)? Was it watched alone or with a partner? What did it feature?

This information IS important because the researchers did find an association with multiple sexual partners and reported porn use, but it isn’t clear what relationship the young women in the study really had with porn. In order to better educate women about issues around porn we need to know more about what they are watching and how they feel about it. It is worth noting if participants said anything other than ‘no times’ they classed this as having viewed porn. So that means someone might have seen porn once in passing and be categorised in the same way as someone who viewed porn regularly and was aroused by it and someone who was forced to watch porn occasionally but against their will.

Another question asked
“Has anyone ever insisted (without using force or threats) that you do sexual things they saw in pornographic or x-rated magazines, websites, or movies when you did not want to?”

This is not an unreasonable question, but it is not necessarily something that’s easy for a teen woman to answer. For example they may well have been coerced to do something they did not want to do, but unless they asked the person coercing them if they had seen this in porn they would not necessarily know for sure this was the case. They may have a good instinct they were being asked to perform something inspired by pornography, but they wouldn’t know for sure – and would not be in any position to ask if they felt threatened.

Given the age of participants it may be someone did coerce them to do something they didn’t like but had not got the idea for this from porn. They may have got the idea from a sex tips feature in mainstream magazines like Cosmopolitan or Men’s Health, or from their peers, or from a TV show. Much of the mainstream media talks about anal sex, threesomes, oral sex etc so this could have just as easily informed the coercive behaviour.

I would have liked to see more focus on the nature of the coercive behaviour, why participants felt this was linked to porn, and if it wasn’t linked to porn where they felt the driving force behind the coercion came from. I say this not to dispute porn may play a part, but to identify exactly what is driving coercive behaviour as if it’s features in mainstream magazines or peer pressure we need to tackle this just as urgently as any perceived threat from porn.

The focus here seems to present young women’s relationship with porn as something that is done to them by young men. Young men are presented as the consumers of porn and use it to get ideas to coerce young women into doing things they don’t want. This does not explore where young women may like or dislike porn, or young men having a critical view of porn. It does not include young people who have little or no exposure to porn. It presents young women as passive, as victims. And as heterosexual. This is often taken up by the media who use debates on sexualisation or pornification to demonise or ignore young men and victimise and slut shame young women. In both cases we find it becomes a situation where adults (either academics, medics or journalists) speak for young people.

Multiple Sexual Partners – a problem in itself?
In their reporting of the results the authors say:
“While there may be a subset of girls who initiate or make self-actualized decisions about MPS participation during adolescence, it is important to consider whether social norms that encourage hypersexuality may contribute to expectations about sexual activity that make it very challenging for adolescents to resist engaging in MPS, even though they would not perceive their MPS participation as nonconsensual. The strong association between exposure to pornography, having been forced to do things that their sex partner saw in pornography, and MPS suggests that pornography may have influenced directly the sexual experiences of the girls in this sample, as has been found elsewhere. Importantly, even if participation in MPS is voluntary for some adolescents, it is crucial to know how this early experience shapes their sexual behavior trajectory and affects their lifetime risk for negative sexual, reproductive, and other health risk behaviors”.

This statement concerned me for three reasons. Firstly it suggests a kind of false consciousness idea that no young woman could ever really consent to a MSP experience. This is disingenuous to the participants in this study who stated they had willingly enjoyed a MSP. I suspect it betrays more of the researchers own values about MSPs.

Secondly it implies that even if a young woman does consent to a MSP this will be because pornography has informed her choice. Yet we know from the way they asked about porn they don’t really have strong enough data to make this conclusion. It would have been interesting to explore if mainstream media might have influenced their choice as well, but not to have decided for participants that they didn’t really know their own minds.

Thirdly there is the implication that having a MSP as a young person will inevitably lead to problems in future relationships. That seems like a leap beyond the data and also I suspect unfair to those who consensually, as adults, explore non monogamous relationships. Moreover we know many people who never have MSPs as young people (or adults) have problems in their relationships as adults. So to make this claim really requires more than a small sample of 24 participants who were asked some confusing questions. The researchers do say this ought to be followed up in future research and I don’t disagree there, but I hope they would be less judgemental and aware of sexual diversity in doing so.

Where are the experiences of young men?
There is no focus on young men in this paper and I think any study that is tackling coercion in heterosexual youth (as this paper appears to be doing) really needs to also study young men. The assumption is they are coercing young women, but are young men also feeling coerced in relationships? Is the pressure of masculinity leading to risky sexual behaviours or are they acting respectfully with their partners? Are the experiences of young gay or bi men different from their heterosexual peers? How do young men feel about being portrayed as sexually coercive? Are there issues around communication and consent we need to focus on with young men and women – and how should we be addressing this issue?

I worry media coverage will report this as though young men have been included or present young men as predators, when again the number of participants reporting negative experiences from forced group sex or pornography was low.

Should this paper have been published?
I critically appraised this paper, but does not mean I think it should be ignored. Had I been asked to review it for publication I would have asked for major revisions (based on the comments above). I find many Public Health studies on youth sexual behaviour (and sexual behaviour in adults) are well intentioned but often problematic due to heteronormative approaches. In this case this can be seen with the focus on heterosexual activity and underlying subtext that group sexual activity is never truly consensual and non monogamous relationships are not presented positively. This can alienate or pathologize many people inadvertently, while trying to help another group of people. A better awareness of thinking around diverse sexualities would help ensure generalisations about group sex among consenting adults are not pathologised while trying to tackle gang rape of teens.

I hope coverage of this will be responsible but fear it will not. I suspect it will be further used to demonise young people and worry the public. In turn ignoring the fact most young people are not engaging in group sex or coercive behaviour. In fact that most aren’t having sex at all. They may well have questions and worries about sex, but these may not be addressed while we focus on more sensational topics.

Creating a moral panic in which we shout a lot about the behaviour of young people but do very little to actually help them. And in cases where research is poor or ambiguous it may direct our efforts to help young people in the wrong direction.

There are many times in a researcher’s career when you really wish you could have come up with a particular study idea, got it funded, and supervised it to completion.

One recent example for me was the ESRC funded project that aimed to find out more about lap dancing. Over the past year researchers have been talking with dancers, industry management and regulators to capture a snapshot of what’s currently going on with lap dancing.

You may remember how this study started out. It was the one picked up by the News of the World and other media outlets who, perhaps predictably, failed to notice how this work was needed (and how many limited existing studies on this topic were biased). Instead they attempted to make out the research was either smutty or not worthy of academic investigation. (You can read my somewhat ranty response to that coverage here).

Despite this somewhat shaky start, I’m glad to report the research is now in the preliminary stages of being reported by Drs Teela Sanders and Kate Hardy. You can see their initial findings here.

Their key findings are interesting and may surprise you:
* The continuous supply of dancers, rather than the demand for erotic dance, accounted for the expansion of the industry.
* The overwhelming majority of women were satisfied with their jobs as dancers, although they also identified negative elements.
* Advantages included: choosing own hours; getting money instantly; earning more than in other roles; being independent; combining fun with work.
* Disadvantages included: never knowing how much money they would make; keeping the job secret; customers being rude/abusive; competing with other dancers.
* Most women felt safe at work, although nearly half reported frequent verbal harassment and unwanted touching from customers.
* Only a minority of women were solely dancing, most combined dancing with other work and education.
* Dancing was used as a strategy to enable and facilitate career prospects and security in the future.
* Dancers’ status as ‘self employed’ workers resulted in exploitation as they had no rights or recognition in the workplace.
* Overheads were high: house fees, commission on dances, and fines (often arbitrary) for breaking ‘house rules’ reduced capacity to earn and most dancers had left a shift not making any money.
* The current focus on licensing does not consider the welfare or working conditions of the dancers.

You might also be interested in the other ways the researchers have chosen to represent their initial findings. Including this more visual account, reflections on both this study and research-led teaching, and a short piece from the researchers challenging the media coverage of the preliminary findings from the study.

No doubt this study will be welcomed by those interested in research, healthcare and activism related to sex work. It is also of use to those teaching or researching within the social sciences as an example of good practice. Particularly how the researchers have reflected on their work, have reported at various stages of the study, and highlighted how research and teaching can be intertwined.

The problem with writings about lap dancing in the past have been either they’ve focused on entirely positive accounts, or been overtly negative and often hostile to/about dancers. That’s been the case whether it’s media accounts or academic studies. This research is different as it takes the experiences of dancers and discusses their lives in a way that doesn’t flinch from the problems they face when dancing, or the positive (and mundane) parts of their work.

I wonder whether the media will notice how different this research is. Or whether they’ll continue with the standard judgemental approach that combines judgement with sexualising ‘brainy beauties’.

Yesterday I was alerted to a worrying press release by @MrMMarsh (who has an amazing track record in critiquing commercial surveys). It was for Bounty.com – a parenting website, conducted by OnePoll. It claimed “one in 10 women have tricked a man into getting them pregnant with less than half actually wanting the person they ‘used’ to stick around once the baby was born” and went on to make further allegations about the women who deceive their partner into helping them conceive.

These women, according to this press release, are liars and tricksters, who use their seductive wiles to beguile men into parting with their seed.

Hmmm. Sounds similar to the way we used to accuse women of witchcraft – how apt for Halloween.

And apparently that was the reasoning behind this baffling campaign. According to Bounty (who had the story on their ‘entertainment page’) the poll was just a bit of ‘seasonal fun’. Doubtless they were only thinking of this in purely ‘fun’ terms, playing around the term ‘trick or treat’ with the suggestion women ‘tricked’ men into paternity. But due to a lack of forethought they inadvertently rehearsed other, far more sinister narratives about women’s sexuality that have been used to judge and harm women for centuries.

Perhaps unsurprisingly the campaign backfired. Massively. The outcry on Twitter and elsewhere online was uniformly negative about Bounty, OnePoll, and the ‘women as tricksters’ campaign.

However, that wasn’t before the story hit the headlines with coverage in both the Sun and the Daily Record.

What’s wrong with this poll?
The press release outlines 10 ‘most common ways women ‘trick’ someone’. Since we don’t have the original questions asked we can only assume they were based around these options, which include:
1. You just didn’t talk about it
2. You told them you were on the pill
3. You told them you’d had the injection
4. You weren’t very careful about taking the pill
5. You got them drunk
6. You told them you’d had the coil fitted
7. You put a needle through the condom / wrapper
8. You told them it was the wrong time of the month to conceive
9. You had a one night stand and didn’t make them use contraception
10. You told them you were infertile

These are a very odd mix indeed, and many of them describe common events that are not deliberate attempts at deceiving a partner into getting you pregnant. For example failed contraception (listed in 4) is a fairly common way for pregnancy to occur (although this survey presents it in a far more blaming way). Being confused over when you are fertile (which is one way of interpreting number eight) is also another reason women can find themselves pregnant. Simply not discussing pregnancy is not a definite sign of ‘tricking’ a partner. For many couples the topic of pregnancy is not always paramount unless they are particularly struggling with conception.

Not using contraception on a one night stand isn’t a great idea but it does happen and unless you’re specifically out to try and get pregnant from the encounter again is not a sign of someone deliberately tricking a partner into a pregnancy. It might, however, be a case of someone assuming they can’t get pregnant from a one night stand and discovering that’s a myth.

Knowing you’re fertile and telling someone otherwise (10) is not the same as thinking you may not be fertile and finding yourself pregnant – not unusual as some women will attest.

While options 2,3 and 6 involve lying about contraception use and 7 specifically describes scuppering a contraceptive, the remaining questions could easily happen without a person deciding to maliciously mislead another. Because there is no follow up to these questions there’s no way of knowing the context in which they happened.

From this the press release jumps to talk about how women continue to lie after they’ve got pregnant and talks about trapping ‘an unsuspecting male’.

While the press release does explain the majority of women don’t do this, the overwhelming tone of the story is that women are liars and out to trap men by getting pregnant. That they’re so deceitful they’ll continue to hide the secret that they tricked someone into getting them up the duff.

Why is this survey a problem?
Leaving aside the issues outlined above there are very real reasons why a survey like this is dangerous. Pregnancy and parenthood, while often positive, can also be stressful and difficult. Both can place considerable pressure on relationships. Adding to this any suggestion that women lie about getting pregnant could be devastating to many couples.

We already know that domestic violence is intertwined with paternity disputes (see here , here and here for example), although this is more often over concerns or accusations of whether a child is the biological offspring of a parent. Jealous and/or controlling partners can use accusations over paternity or the circumstances of a pregnancy to justify abuse.

At the very least this survey could put doubt into the minds of partners that they may have been conned into a pregnancy they weren’t ready for or perhaps didn’t want. Or make women feel their partners will distrust them. This might cause new parents to worry at one of the most vulnerable times in their lives. And if couples are already struggling because of distrust over conception this survey could provide unhelpful ammunition and widen the gulf between people.

Obviously it would be remiss to say no woman has ever misled a partner over a pregnancy – either with good intentions or maliciously. But this study was not robust or compassionate enough to explore this issue sensitively. Instead it overemphasises the likelihood of cheating a partner – and implies this is always deliberately malevolent.

As this is such a sensitive issue it would be reassuring to know how participants were treated. Because neither OnePoll nor Bounty have made the process of this study transparent we have no idea how participants felt about being questioned over the circumstances of their conceptions. Could they have felt judged? Embarrassed? Humiliated? Were they left fearful a partner might discover they had not been clear about their motives in getting pregnant? Were some left feeling they were liars when previously they’d simply thought they’d misunderstood their cycle?

In social research you should always be careful not to cause harm or distress, to anticipate what harms you may cause in the questions you ask. On a potentially sensitive topic like this you would usually have many steps in place to ensure participants were supported and helped if the work raised any issues for them. We have no idea if women who took part in this survey were distressed by it (or the subsequent reporting).

It is important to stress that in all probability neither Bounty nor OnePoll considered the issues of domestic violence or relationship harm when putting this work together. I am not arguing here they deliberately aimed to distress women and their partners. However it does indicate the lack of consideration behind this work. Part of good survey work (and all social research) involves thoroughly considering and planning for all potential interpretations, outcomes and consequences of your work – good or bad. It is shocking that nobody at Bounty or OnePoll could apparently see what potential problems this work could create.

Given the poll is problematic on so many levels – and the public reaction to it so negative – you might have expected Bounty and OnePoll to take immediate and apologetic action.

Bounty’s response
Bounty initially shared the story on Twitter, however once they began to receive criticism for it they deleted this message later following it up with the statement “Apologies 2 any1 offended by our recent research story – this was meant as a bit of seasonal fun & is by no means a judgement of anyone”

While they were right to apologise, their reaction that this was ‘fun’ did not indicate a real understanding of WHY people were so offended by their publicity stunt. Nor did it seem sincere given they kept the poll information as a headline feature on their ‘entertainment’ page, despite requests to remove it.

OnePoll’s response
OnePoll’s reaction was as problematic as Bounty’s. If not more so. Rather than directly engaging with the issue or apologising (as Bounty attempted) they contacted me on Twitter saying Hi there – we are the agency who carried out this research, would love to have a chat with you, DM me your number? Thanks!

I suggested they email me a statement, which they duly did:
“As the agency which commissioned this research and distributed the resulting news story, I would like to respond. OnePoll polled 3,000 mothers on behalf of Bounty, looking into the subject of pregnancy. The stats emerged that a small percentage of women admitted to tricking their partner into getting pregnant. I’d like to say that the resulting story in no way glorifies or condones this, in fact Bounty support the very opposite in their quotes. As market research specialists and providers of national news, we would always present the stats, as they are, however controversial. I would like to apologise to anyone who was offended by this piece of research”.

Let’s look at this statement in more depth. The poll apparently was on the ‘subject of pregnancy’. Was this how it was presented to mothers? If so, how may they have felt if then asked to discuss if they had ‘tricked’ their partner into getting them pregnant? We don’t know the answer to this.

The press release and subsequent media coverage may not be seen as ‘glorifying’ misleading a partner, but it does make it seem like a major issue and the press release and subsequent coverage are highly judgemental to women as a result. The stats here (not presented by the company at this time) were arguably always going to be ‘controversial’ because the questions asked were framed in such a way as to create this outcome. As was the press release.

Rather than this being a case of a robust piece of carefully designed and sensitive research into fertility being accurately reported, what we see here is a deliberate strategy to create a shocking headline that will guarantee press coverage. Although it’s important to stress this is a standard approach in PR nowadays, so nothing particularly unique to or sinister about this particular poll.

I found the response from OnePoll odd. At a time when their work was being debated on Twitter they decided to email me a statement. I don’t know why. I responded:
“Thanks. I think you would be better of making these statements on Twitter and taking responsibility there. Ethically I think this was not a good approach and I hope given the criticism you’re noting from researchers, PR and other marketing companies – as well as from parents – that you will work to deliver more thoughtful work in the future.
Since you’re stating you think it’s important to put out the stats ‘however controversial’ you should also make these available via your site now so people can see the questions you asked, the way you recruited your participants and the data you collected.
Perhaps as Bounty have had the grace to apologise you may also want to make it clear it was not a serious piece of research rather than trying to make it look otherwise.
Many people were offended by the research and also your role in it. I think it best you try and repair that damage now on Twitter, on your website and through your future conduct”.

I followed this with a message on Twitter that I had been in discussion with OnePoll and advised them to apologise, justify the survey and make their data publicly accessible (as they claimed in the email is standard practice).

No response came to my email or to anyone’s messages on Twitter. At this time OnePoll have not apologised for nor justified this work on Twitter or their website. Nor have they made the data from this poll publicly available despite saying it was standard practice. They have, however, celebrated the news coverage of this story on their website.

If either Bounty or OnePoll genuinely were concerned over running this survey or the message it portrays their reaction would have been different. It suggests neither company are particularly concerned but simply want criticism to go away. Perhaps other people working in PR or communications could pick up on how this issue has been handled and what impact it could have on brand Bounty or the reputation of OnePoll.

What you can do?
Judging by responses on Twitter today, plenty of people have been upset by this survey and the actions of both OnePoll and Bounty. If you feel this has not been adequately dealt with you can take further action.

For Bounty you can write to their advertisers – all shown on their website asking them if they are comfortable placing their adverts with a parenting organisation who approve publicity stunts that present women as liars. And who then apparently ignore the distress caused to parents and the public. You may also want to do this more publicly engaging Bounty’s sponsors on Twitter, Facebook or other social networks where they may have a presence. If you belong to Bounty (or have purchased their products/services) you may consider whether you wish to continue this relationship.

OnePoll can be reported to the Market Research Society who oversee correct conduct and ethical practice in commercial social research. An outline of their professional standards can be found here, while details of how to make a complaint can be found here.

Everyone is accountable here, everyone signed this work off and approved it at all stages. From coming up with the idea, through to asking women about their experiences, through to writing the press release and subsequent submission to the media.

There were plenty of steps when SOMEONE could have noted there was a major problem and put a stop to this work. Nobody did. Everyone involved needs to take responsibility for this.

Commercial companies and market research ones need to learn they can’t misuse surveys to promote products, particularly if they could cause harm or mislead people. The same social networks they use to promote will be used to hold them accountable and expose poor practice. Creating commercial campaigns that could harm or distress cannot be explained away as ‘seasonal fun’. Here’s hoping both Bounty and OnePoll have the courage and decency to make amends for this sorry tale.

One thing that has marked this election is the growing focus on science issues. This has partly been down to the interest of some politicians in the subject, and mostly due to the activism of a number of scientists (natural and social), science journalists and bloggers.

The focus of these discussions has been around tackling key issues around science (funding, support, listening to expertise etc). And while it is really important these topics are being debated, I’d invite a step back to think a little bit more about the way politicians understand and use ‘evidence’ from science and healthcare in practice. Otherwise we may miss opportunities to work with politicians and inform political thinking – and in turn help the public on key issues around health, education, innovation and technology.

In order to explore some of these core issues I’d like to reflect on my experiences of working with the Department of Health (DH) on their sexual health campaigns, where I had the chance to see where there are major barriers to using, applying and understanding good approaches to sound science. Which results in misleading information and a lot of money wasted.

I began volunteering on the DH campaigns in 2001 and between then and 2008 I increased the work I was doing, eventually becoming both a consultant and spokesperson on the public sexual health campaigns RUThinking, Playing Safely, Want Respect? Use A Condom (see also their great ad campaign), and Condom Essential Wear. Most of which have now been updated for Sex and Young People and Sex, worth talking about (where I currently volunteer for NHS Choices answering questions on psychosexual health topics).

This work involved identifying core evidence to underpin key messaging and liaising with civil servants, ministers and PR companies to ensure accurate, accessible and engaging messages were shared at a variety of different audiences in diverse formats (print, online and broadcast media as well as live events like music festivals).

I came to this work through my background as an academic who teaches healthcare practitioners and policymakers internationally how to access, critically appraise and understand evidence. And through my research which has focused on the sex and relationships health topics of education, service improvement of reproductive health, and addressing psychosexual problems, with a particular interest in media and public health campaigning. All of which I apply via advice giving through educational events, practitioner training and the media.

I was honoured to be part of the campaigning work and believe there were a number of key areas where major achievements were made around getting sex talked about within the media, and particularly with young people. There were some great examples of innovative practice and in the activities I was involved in we ensured work was ethical, based on sound evidence, while still being engaging.

However, during the seven years of working on the campaigns I noticed a number of core problems. I don’t know if these are repeated within other government departments, but it would be worth investigating whether the issues outlined below are happening elsewhere. My hunch is they’re not unique to health.

It was for that reason I asked the Guardian’s Science Test of politicians (by Martin Robbins) to clarify how political parties intended to oversee and manage public health campaigns and associated PR companies.

Here are the key areas I noticed problems around the application and interpretation of research and evidence:

Bidding for contracts
The majority of public engagement activity run by the government (and via political parties) is organised through PR companies. That in itself is not problematic, PR companies are experts in ensuring messages reach the right people in a timely fashion. What is problematic is for health, education and other campaigns there seems to be frequent bidding process orchestrated by different government departments. Meaning several months on any contract will be spent preparing to bid to renew it (in competition with other PR companies). And until any bids have been renewed no new activity can take place. Which restricts the amount of work you can do to reach the public.

There is also the difficulty posed when a PR company is replaced. Where the company who has held the contract has built up their own contacts, messages, experience in delivering information and goodwill among the media. Because they are a commercial organisation this information remains with them if they lose the contract. Meaning the incoming agency has to begin from scratch building up these contacts, there is no organisational memory, and a lot of time lost in repeating activities. It also means experience built up on campaigns can be lost.

Uncertainty of messaging
During the time I worked on the DH campaigns there were periods where ministers were unsure about the direction in which they intended to go. That was not because they were engaged in a systematic review of the evidence which might help them decide, but because they were anxious about media and public responses to their messages. Particularly relating to sensitive issues like contraception, teenage pregnancy and STIs. It took three years to move the more fragmented ‘sex lottery’ campaign of 2003 into the national media run ‘Condom Essential Wear’ launched in 2006. [This was the first widespread government-backed public media campaign on STIs since the HIV/AIDS one of the 1980s]. Fear over how the press/public will respond led to haphazard delivery of messaging, also hampered by a limited budget.

It has also led more recently to overlooking evidence of good practice – which is about easier access to services, accessibility of testing and treatment, combined with prevention messaging. Instead the government has opted far more towards promoting testing, and has moved away from their 2006 approach which suggested prevention based messaging/normalising condom use. This appears to be based around cost decisions and attempts to deal with rising STI rates. While it is right that we alter messages depending on new information from research and evaluation, it is problematic if politicians and civil servants do not understand this process, or ignore it in favour of activity that is based around anticipated public opposition or healthcare spending cuts. And equally worrying given it muddles the public and healthcare staff around what they should be doing.

Reinventing the wheel
In the past decade our public sexual health campaigns have begun with the Sex Lottery, which became Playing Safely, which morphed into Condom Essential Wear and is currently Sex, worth talking about. And that’s just the campaign aimed at young adults. Teen campaigns for sexual health, general health and pregnancy have also morphed in similar ways. This has included new websites, logos, branding and core messaging for each iteration of the campaign. And within each development an additional range of agencies working on digital, creative, and marketing tasks. While material written for the web has been reused for some of these campaigns, in many cases new content has had to be created although again not always based on core evidence. It results in confusion to the public who are presented with different names, brands, and websites to find. Individual NHS trusts paying for their own sexual health websites that replicate content found on government ones wastes additional money. All of which results in a lot of activity, a lot of money spent, but no real sense of outcomes – the impact such campaigns have had. Sadly the focus of evaluation is often reduced simply to mentions within the media or visits to the campaign websites. Again indicating a lack of awareness of how to fully assess activity undertaken.

Flashy, gimmicky, but has it worked?
One aspect of the public sexual health campaigns has been a focus on getting young people involved. That has included viral videos, myspace pages, interviews with celebrities and texting services. More recently England’s Sexual Health Quiz was launched. Critics have questioned why this uses a kids vs parents approach (given evidence indicates competitive based education in this area is rarely successful). Other concerns have been expressed about the accuracy of the questions (particularly relating to cancer) and whether knowing how much water a condom holds really tells you anything about your ‘knowledge’ of sex and relationships, or your sexual health needs.

All of these activities are clearly costly, and most of them are focused online, which excludes large numbers of the population. We also have no idea how much they have cost, or what impact they have had. When asked, the Department of Health’s response to me was the latest quiz encourages ‘friendly conversation’ between parents and teens and provides right and wrong information. They had no information about whether this approach had been successfully piloted or was working to increase communication between parents and young people.

We have no idea whether, post election, the current quiz will still exist, or whether the data will be used to inform public health campaigning in the future.

Activity that doesn’t make the headlines
While we may be concerned over the quality of public engagement activity, there is the additional problem of campaigns that are paid for, but fail to reach the public or make much impact. For example one survey called ‘pulling pants’ was carried out for the DH by Tickbox which was to identify whether people chose ‘lucky pant’s to go out in. The survey indicated people spent time thinking about what underwear to wear – and clearly did have special undies they wore in the hope of pulling. But they did not put the same focus on taking condoms with them. This was a playful message, but actually quite important if you think about intentions to have sex. However, despite the survey being designed, run, data collected and the PR and polling company paid, it never made it to the media as ministers and civil servants were worried about the underlying messages. While I have a copy of the data, I do not have the costs for this particular project, but it would be equivalent to a standard public survey of 1000 participants spread across the UK.

Another activity that did make the headlines, but not in any great way, was the Alesha Dixon photospread run in 2008. It produced a series of gorgeous photos, but hardly any media outlets picked up on it (if memory serves only a couple of online editions of tabloid papers ran it). Which again represents a lot of money spent for very little return. [This is not a criticism of Ms Dixon who showed a genuine commitment to a campaign on a topic very few celebrities will be associated with]

It is not unusual within mainstream research or any public engagement activity for ideas to change, for messages to occasionally fail, or for problems to arise. But in relation to the cost of these campaigns – particularly when front line services are being cut – this is a worry. Not least when you add it to the fees for the more online activities, surveys run and time lost while rebidding for contracts.

Part of the problem of messaging being ineffective is the timing of them – Valentine’s Day, for example, is such a busy period to get any media pickup. But it’s also not a particularly good time to run public sexual health messaging – a better time would be around Christmas/New Year when people are more likely to have unprotected sex.

Policy/public health education and the role of the PR Company
By far the biggest problem around evidence-based approaches to public messaging is related to PR companies. In 2008 the Telegraph reported the government were spending approximately £1million per week on polls and focus groups and it may be the figure is far higher if you factor in consultations, and other public facing activity such as websites run by different government departments.

This issue has not really been fully explored and I think a canny journalists might be able to identify a far larger spend than already suggested.

These surveys and focus groups are not run to identify people’s key problems or needs, nor to improve services or our wellbeing. Instead they are run to collect information that will be used to inform media activity. Because nowadays most journalists won’t cover stories unless they can pin them to a survey or similar.

This wastes time and money on a number of levels. It firstly overlooks existing evidence on health, education or business that may well be useful to help us understand or deal with an issue. Peer reviewed research is rarely consulted or used to underpin such activity. Instead we see a number of leading questions used to get answers that in turn will generate headlines and discussions points for radio. Which can work if you have a spokesperson allied to a campaign that can translate that information into accurate and contemporary advice. But this is sadly not often the case given the use of PR companies of spokespeople who may not be the best qualified within an area to interpret and share information.

Research to inform public health is led by PR companies, not academics/practitioners
Over the years there has been a shift within public health campaigns where instead of being informed by key academics/practitioners about current evidence of best practice there is now the approach that the PR Company comes up with the idea for an activity as well as being responsible for promoting it.

A key example, and one that led me to resign from supporting the Department of Health’s sexual and reproductive campaign, came from the new PR agency they appointed. They had heard about some research covered in the Daily Mail where researchers counted the number of mentions of alcohol in the media. They suggested the same approach be used, but focusing on condoms.

Their recommendation was for someone (an academic) to observe the media over an unspecified period, and from that they could indicate how little condoms were mentioned in the media, and flag this up as a problem. They also incorrectly claimed no similar research had ever been conducted on this before (because they had not found any in searches they had undertaken).

Civil servants at the Department of Health seemed impressed with this idea. My opposition to it ran as follows. Such an activity if carried out correctly is very time consuming and costly. It would require very clear parameters around what media would be studied over what period. Given that we already know condoms are not mentioned much within mainstream media there is probably little point in doing such an in depth activity. But given we also know that integrating safer sex messages into mainstream media works see here and here and here and here, perhaps using that knowledge might allow us to bypass the research and focus instead on working directly with journalists – particularly in television where often plot lines in soap operas can be requested to focus on core issues (e.g. sexuality, bullying, teenage pregnancy). My advice was ignored.

On 20 February the Department of Health announced they had commissioned research that looked at media coverage of condoms in a report called ‘Mis Selling Sex’. The report still has not been publicly launched, and there is no clear information on who did the analysis, how it was conducted, and how much the activity cost. Moreover, there is no clear information on how the findings would be implemented outside of talking to television companies, which, as we already have seen, could have been done without having to do a full-scale study.

It is sadly a common problem within health research where people repeat studies, but in the case of a government department being advised they did not need to do this research – and could have used their money elsewhere – it is worrying such advice was ignored. If we do not see particular changes within mainstream media, this work will have been wasted. And even if we do see such messages in media they need to be sustained and supported.

What did I learn from my time in the field?
It would be wrong of me to imply those working on various government health campaigns are not doing their best or lack good intentions. My experience of working with ministers, civil servants and the PR companies behind the campaigns suggested a lot of well meaning people. There were also a few practitioners like me who volunteered our time and skills to inform campaigns and improve sexual health.

However, high staff turnover, fear of the response of the Daily Mail, a reliance on ‘desk based’ research and the focus towards ‘policy based evidence making’ rather than ‘evidence based policy making’ meant many good ideas were blocked, and weaker activities green lit.

Given sexual and reproductive health services are so underfunded, and yet given our equally worrying rising STI rates, it is vital any activity we undertake is cost effective, appropriate, built on evidence and evaluated. And that it directs people to the services they need. Spending money on campaigns that do not achieve this means people won’t go for help and while services continue to struggle with lack of funding.

I wonder how much better we may have done if money simply had been spent on improving services, and telling people where they could find them?

As mentioned I cannot speak for the rest of the activities run in different government departments but it is my belief that money and time has been wasted elsewhere. It is also my belief that politicians and civil servants will continue to struggle after the election because they are not supported by the public or by scientists/practitioners to use evidence to inform policies and services.

While we debate science and how important it is, we need to be aware of the real life problems encountered on the ground that means very often poor practice is allowed to continue because nobody is adequately checking what is being done, and few practitioners volunteer to ensure good services can be offered.

Please, while you’re campaigning for science, think about offering your services and scrutiny to ensure we can stop wasting time and money in the name of government backed health research and education.

The latest UK Durex Sex Survey was launched this weekend, and it’s clearly pinned around topical media favourites of cheating, sexting and promiscuity. Among other things the study claims British people have sex four to five times a week, and paints a picture of UK residents where 1/3 would have sex with anyone for £1 million and 1/5 of us fantasise about our exes during sex.

Examples of the media treatment of this story include:
Third of us would have sex with anyone for £1m (and 5% just for World Cup tickets) – The Sun
Sex survey: third of Britons ‘would sleep with a stranger for £1 million’ – The Telegraph

The trouble is these findings don’t fit with the approaches or outcomes of reliable academic studies. The figure of sexual activity happening four or five times a week is massively higher than reliable studies show (around 6 times a month). While this may be an indicator of bias in the survey (and respondents trying to give impressive answers), it is problematic as it continues to equate ‘good’ sex with quantity and imply that ‘normal’ sexual behaviour is several times per week. This is a staple part of contemporary self help and media coverage on sex and makes people who’re not doing this feel inadequate.

Sex surveys conducted in independent academic research build on existing data and do not present sex in judgemental ways – so a focus on ‘promiscuity’ or ‘cheating’ as appears in the current Durex survey is a big no-no in accurate survey design. Not least because it discourages many people from answering honestly and potentially could distress participants.

The claim that 1/3 of us might sleep with a stranger for £1 million is also misleading as it asks people to say what they might do, not what they have done. The subtext of sex with a stranger in exchange for cash also taps into media prudery, so allows for coverage with a judgemental subtext. The mainstream media don’t tend to look favourably on either sex with strangers or sex for cash – and particularly despise both together.

All of which begs ethical questions about a sex survey that is designed to promote a product to encourage safer sex, but actually is suggesting sex for money or sex with strangers or thinking about someone other than your partner during intercourse is problematic.

There are limitations with the questions asked, design of the survey questions, participants included, and promotion of the survey’s outcomes; which makes it an unreliable indicator of our sexual behaviour and attitudes.

Some of the questions have been made available online (see Sun link above). Here are some of the more problematic ones:

Question 1 asks ‘How many sexual partners have you had?’ but it doesn’t give any parameters so it’s unclear if participants are being asked ever, or during past year or some other timescale. It also doesn’t define what ‘sexual’ means so some people may only include encounters that included penetrative sex, others might include experiences where oral sex was enjoyed but no penetration. From this you can’t really be sure what people are talking about. This question is used in news coverage to identify ‘promiscuous’ sexual behaviour, which does not happen in reliable sex research.

Question 3 asks the double question of ‘Where and when are you most likely to cheat on a partner?’ and gives the following breakdown:
On holiday 9.7%
Night out 12.9%
Office party 1.9%
Business trip 2.5%
If I met a hot stranger 6.2%
Do it all the time 1.7%

It says 65% would never cheat but it does not make clear how this question was phrased (so it may have been very leading and make people feel they had to answer in a socially desirable way). Strangely although this is reported as ‘where and when’ someone would cheat it actually only asks where they’re most likely to cheat, and doesn’t really capture whether this is based on people speculating where temptation might arise, or where they’ve actually cheated on a partner.

Question 4 asks ‘Could you be bought for sex and if so, for how much?’ It then lists the different price options for people to select:
No way 43.5%
A drink 3.4%
Dinner 3.1%
A pair of designer shoes 3.3%
£100 5.5%
£1000 10.8%
£25000 14.1%
£100000 14.9%
£1 million 29.7%
My mortgage paid off 13.1%
A year’s rent on my house/flat 9.1%
World cup tickets 5.4%
I’d do it for free 13.2%

You can see from the phrasing of the question that participants may well not take this seriously, but it is obviously being prepared for the media market as whatever the main choices selected this could tap into the judgemental approach the media takes towards paid for sex. PR companies often write their press releases at the same time they design their surveys, so here you can already see the ‘shocking’ finding taking shape that will slip into the press release once the data comes back.

Question 8 asks ‘Do you own or have you tried any of the following?’
Vibrator 53.2%
Pleasure-enhancing condoms 46.2%
Lubricants 67.2%
Handcuffs 38%
Sex doll 1.4%
Nipple clamps 5.3%
Whips/spanking paddles 11.7%
Visited a strip club 22.2%
Visited a sex club 7.2%
Paid for sex 5.3%
Had a sex buddy 29.6%
None of the above 7.1%
None of the above but would like to try 7.2%

Aside from being a badly worded question that is asking two questions in one, there is no breakdown of gender, age or sexuality here which might illuminate this data further. There’s no clue with the last question which of the above they want to try, and many of the positive answers regarding use of lubricant may be more indicative of respondents replying to a survey by a condom manufacturer than might be found in the general public. There’s no indication whether people responding to this question include these items as part of their sexual practices, or tried them once and won’t be bothering again. ‘Sex’ is defined here as a range of activities which many do enjoy but which do not encompass the range of sexual experiences people might share. Most of these are paid for products or activities which again favour the media’s treatment of sex, basing it around things you can buy to enhance your sex life.

Question 10 asks ‘What do you count as cheating on a partner?’
Bottom pinching 20.4%
Texting 22.6%
Snogging 75.6%
Going out for a drink 23.4%
Oral sex 71%
Penetrative sex 78.1%
We have an open relationship 4.8%

This suggests those responding had very clear views that anything other than kissing someone else is cheating. This contrasts with some of the answers given in question 8, and particularly with the response to question 4. Making the survey is a curious mix of liberal and conservative views on sex, which will influence participant responses.

In a reliable sex survey questions should not lead participants but should form a comprehensive narrative so each answer compliments the next one and the survey does not contradict itself. Each question should be clear and researchers should have an awareness of how different questions will be used individually and together in analysis.

In this current survey it seems like a range of unrelated questions with potentially sensationalist outcomes are put together in no particular order and with no real sense of what is being measured or what portrait of UK sexual behaviour is being captured.

Sadly this is a standard approach to poor survey design and is a further indicator of why such findings should not inform our sexual lives.

You can read my previous criticisms of past Durex surveys here
Concerns about the Durex Global Sex Survey
Durex Global Sex Survey – back once again with the international sex contest
Salami Slicing Sex Survey Data
Buy our sex products. Oops, sorry, I mean check out our International Sex Survey

Since this is a commercial venture and clearly not designed to truly represent our sex lives, is there any reason to get upset about it? Yes, because the Durex surveys are pretty much the main port of call to any journalist writing a sex feature. They use the data to underpin surveys with those obligatory sex statistics required by editors. This in turn influences how the public understand sex and relationships.

Durex is currently asking sex educators/researchers like me to share their ideas about sex/relationships. The company is paying £150 for an hour of a professional’s time as part of their internal product development programme. Given the potential barriers to our sex lives and our profession as educators/researchers posed by misleading promotional surveys I’d advise sexual health professionals to refuse to work with the company. That is until Durex decides to either drop their survey in its current promotional format, or agrees to revising survey so it is ethical, accurate and actually tells us something about our sex lives.

* With thanks to Ed Yong from Not Exactly Rocket Science for this clever caption for today’s blog, (in case you don’t get the joke it’s based on a previous marketing slogan for condoms ‘ribbed for her pleasure’).

Staff in the Department of Psychology at McGill University, Canada are conducting an online study exploring male body image and sexuality.

The research is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and involves completing a survey that asks about men’s attitudes towards their body. Male participants are welcome to participate and the study is open to people in Canada and other countries.

The research has full ethics approval.

You can find out more and join in the research here

If you have any specific questions about the study you can contact the researchers via the link above.

Last November you may remember drug company Boehringer Ingelheim reported at a conference on their trials of a drug called Flibanserin, aimed at treating hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in women. In lay terms HSDD means a lack of sexual desire, sometimes also described as a lack of libido.

The trials did not indicate strong findings individually, but with combined data from different country sites it suggested a women who took the drug reported 0.7 more sexually satisfying sexual experience per month as compared with placebo. You can read a summary of the history of Flibanserin, information about the trials, details of how the drug company have tried to involve practitioners and appraisals of the drug and trials here.

While aspects of the drugs effectiveness and safety long term are still being investigated, and while approvals are being sought from the FDA and EMEA the drug company appear to be continuing efforts actively promote the concept of HSDD.

Late last week the company released findings from a survey of women with low desire and associated distress at a women’s sexual health conference. Dubbed the DESIRE study (Desire and its Effects on female Sexuality Including Relationships) it reported on 65,129 women ages 18-88 from five European countries. Participants completed a computerised Decreased Sexual Desire Screener (DSDS) a five-question diagnostic tool which is apparently designed to assist “non-expert clinicians in the clinical diagnosis of generalized, acquired Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (HSDD)”. 7,542 (11.5% of original sample) answered “yes” to all four questions and 5,098 (8% original sample) women further chose to participate in the in-depth survey.

It’s not clear what participants were asked in the survey, nor whether these women were part of the wider Flibanserin trials. But we can see the DSDS screening tool, which asks five questions to which you should answer yes or no:

- In the past, was your level of sexual desire/interest good and satisfying to you?
- Has there been a decrease in your level of sexual desire/interest?
- Are you bothered by your decreased level of sexual desire/interest?
- Would you like your level of sexual desire/interest to increase?

In a fifth Yes or No question, women are asked to note any factors from the following list they feel may be contributing to a loss of sexual desire or interest.
- Medications, drugs or alcohol you are currently taking
- Pregnancy, recent childbirth, menopausal symptoms
- Other sexual issues you may be having (pain, decreased arousal or
orgasm)
- Your partner’s sexual problems
- Dissatisfaction with your relationship or partner
- Stress or fatigue

If you say ‘yes’ to questions 1 to 4 and ‘no’ to all the questions in number five you can be classified as having HSDD.

However, let’s go back and look at this study again. Firstly the title of it – DESIRE. It’s unclear if this is how it was introduced to participants, but it is worth noting that using potentially coercive titles in study acronyms is ethically frowned upon in research. Regardless of whether participants were told this was the name of the study, the branding of the research as ‘DESIRE’ is certainly making a point and one might add is part of an overall marketing strategy.

Moving on to look at questions 1-4 again. They don’t contain clear parameters so ‘in the past’ could mean anything from ever in your life to the last few weeks or months.

They’re also vague ‘has there been a decrease in your level of sexual desire/interest?’ A decrease compared to what? How I’ve felt over the course of my life? How I feel now as compared to when I met my partner? How I feel with my current partner compared to how I felt with a previous lover?

See also ‘are you bothered’. Well, maybe I’m bothered because my partner bugs me I don’t seem to want sex enough. Or maybe my partner’s great and never pressurises me but I still feel inadequate. Perhaps I feel bothered about a lack of desire not because I don’t feel any, but because I’m not in a relationship currently. Or maybe I’ve lost desire for reasons I understand, it does bother me, but I also know that the situation may change or I can do something to solve the issue. Being ‘bothered’ can mean very different things to different people at different times in their relationship.

The questions are also leading. ‘Would you like your level of desire/interest to increase?’ Well most of us would probably say yes. But even if we did say this, does it really tell us much. If I say I don’t want my levels of desire to increase it may not also tell you that I would like the opportunities to explore pleasure to be more forthcoming. Or perhaps I’d like more opportunities to have the time to spend on intimacy.

If you’re setting up a diagnostic you need to be really clear about what it is you’re asking people to measure their experiences/behaviour against. Otherwise it becomes all too easy for people who’re probably not that troubled by something to be classed as someone who is in difficulty.

Let’s not lose sight of what are the main causes of desire problems in women – see how many of these you consider to be a ‘medical’ condition:
* Concerns over body image
* A lack of sex education or knowledge how your body works
* Not knowing what turns you on, or the inability to share what does turn you on with a partner
* Psychological or physical health problems (including sexually transmitted infections)
* Past or present sexual abuse or domestic violence
* A partner who has a sexual problem
* A partner who does not know how to turn you on effectively
* Relationship difficulties including arguments or jealousy
* Being overworked and lacking support from family and/or partner
* Having a young family (particularly if there’s little support provided to care for them)
* Concerns over fertility, problems with contraception use
* Lack of privacy to relax enough for sex
* Poverty and related issues of limited access to healthcare
* Focusing on vaginal sex instead of wider sexual activities, particularly clitoral stimulation

Aside from the DESIRE study a ‘patient registry’ will now be collating data on women classified as having HSDD who will be followed up long term. This will be supported by an ‘unlimited grant from Boehringer Ingelheim’ (see press release above).

What’s interesting about the reports on the DESIRE study and launch of the patient registry is there is no mention on the press release about Boehringer Ingelheim’s development of medication specifically to treat HSDD. This is important if you need to put both their investment in this study and the registry in context.

Sadly the media covered this story uncritically and without asking key questions about it. Not least about the funding of the research, registry and additional studies being conducted on medications to ‘treat’ female desire disorders.

Instead we heard coverage that women with a lack of desire suffer from emotional distress, in reports that indicated this was a widespread crisis that needed immediate attention.

Now many women do report dissatisfaction with sex, but that does not mean they are dysfunctional, nor does it mean they are always distressed. Problems around desire affect women and men, gay and straight, partnered or single. And they can be due to a variety of often interrelated factors – physical, psychological and social.

What we are currently seeing is a shift towards setting up a lack of desire as a widespread, distressing, clinical condition that requires drug treatment as a first port of call.

There are questions to be asked about why a drug company would invest in surveys and patient registers to indicate there is a disorder, while at the same time creating medication to treat this condition.

[Non UK readers may be wondering what the 'am I bovvered?' phrase in this title refers to. It's a catchphrase of a character, surly teenager Lauren Cooper, in UK comedy programme The Catherine Tate show, shown in the picture at start of this blog]

Over the past few weeks I’ve been hearing about GMTV’s LK Today show’s forthcoming ‘sex week’, a series of morning programmes aimed at a mainly female audience to be run in the week before Valentines day.

It’s been an invaluable opportunity to observe how ‘sex’ is understood and constructed by programme makers, and how television journalists interact with sex educators, researchers and health practitioners. And ultimately what is chosen to count as content or ‘evidence’ for a programme.

It begins with a survey …
During the introduction to hearing about the forthcoming series I was told the programmes were going to be pinned around a ‘sex survey’. This is a predictable approach used by TV companies to create content and drive publicity. Fine if said surveys were well designed, reliable or valid, but usually they aren’t. Unsurprisingly the planned version of the GMTV sex survey wasn’t very good, but interestingly the programme makers were willing to accept feedback even if the final version wasn’t all that accurate.

The problem with using surveys to underpin programmes is they’re usually thrown together without much reflection by staff with no knowledge of survey design or much of an awareness of sex. Meaning results are either misleading or reinforce stereotypes. There is no real sense that researchers/practitioners like myself and others already know about such materials and can easily translate it into television-ready formats which we’re happy to offer if we’re approached during the planning phase of programme making.

TV sex programmes are led by two things – a ‘news’ agenda and the opinions of the producer – and it’s hard to argue with either
We all know that the media, less like education or research, is closely directed by a news agenda. The creation of GMTV’s ‘sex week’ was no exception, so during preparations for the programme it seemed production staff were keen to find sex addicts and those who’d been cheated on, presumably to fit stories tagged around celebrity sex addicts and cheaters currently in the headlines.

This does two things. It fits sex into a fairly narrow framework, but also restricts discussions towards gossip rather than actual evidence. Now undoubtedly with celebrity sex scandals there will be public interest and opinion. But this won’t help inform relationships unless we can move away from the celebrity angle and focus on the issues at hand. Even then we’d need the ability to do so accurately. So in the case of ‘sex addiction’ we’d need to take a completely different stance than that offered by a standard production angle – that sex addiction is real, here’s a celebrity example, and here’s a ‘real life’ case study to further illustrate the problem. Instead we’d need to look at how sex addiction isn’t really the problem made out by the media, who is promoting the ‘sex addiction’ agenda, and what people really need to worry about in relation to relationships – and how to solve relationship problems without medicalising behaviour.

In phone conversations I had with staff working on ‘sex week’ I was asked if I could help them find a sex addict, someone who was celibate, someone who had an STI, and recommend other experts who could join in panel discussions about sex and relationships. While I was happy to recommend a number of colleagues who I rate (and know would do a great job in talking confidently about sex and relationships to the viewers) obviously I couldn’t recommend case studies (it’s unethical to refer someone you meet in education/research to journalists).

It is unclear exactly what will feature within ‘sex week’ but if it follows the format being worked on over the past few weeks ‘sex’ will be problematised. This can be seen in the way GMTV framed sex in their introduction to their sex survey: “Valentine’s Day is upon us, but are you fed up with your sex life? Is your partner inattentive and unadventurous? Or was the last sexual compulsion you experienced many, many moons ago? Maybe you’re lucky enough to enjoy a passionate relationship with your partner. Whatever you’re getting up to between the sheets, share your sex stories and thoughts with us in our sex survey”. Through to focusing on people who do it too much (addicts) or with the wrong people (cheaters) or those who aren’t doing it enough (celibates).

Sex programmes on television will consistently fail to reach their potential if…
- The focus of any programming is defined and limited by top down approaches where producers set agendas and instruct junior staff to find experts, ‘statistics’ and case studies to support the beliefs and values of the producer. In the case of GMTVs sex week the staff I talked to were charming but were seeking answers to questions set by their producer (who of course didn’t bother speaking directly to any experts). As a result you’ve a constant interrupted dialogue where a producer sets an agenda, a junior has to find someone who’ll support this, and anyone who has a different view will be ignored. No programme will work if you’ve got junior staff negotiating with numerous key players but no authority to green light their inclusion and pressure from an editor to find tame contributors.

- Where ‘news’ (aka ‘gossip’) underpins all stories. Particularly when directly pinned on celebrity cases (with the emphasis on speculating about the celeb not wider issues). Ethically it is inappropriate for practitioners to judge celebrities or any case study and pinning stories so closely to celebrity cases will make it difficult for any ethical practitioner to contribute.

- Where poorly designed surveys are conducted as part of a programme but don’t inform it due to quality issues (or because the survey is conducted to generate publicity not content).

- Where searches for scientific evidence to inform a programme are only carried out on google and ‘evidence’ is understood in terms of some statistics to help stack up a story. A particular problem when staff are pressed for time, don’t understand evidence, and probably aren’t aware that there is a wider body of extensive information about sex they could be drawing on.

- When experts are used to inform content but where staff struggle to identify who is adequately qualified to contribute.

- Journalists (and particularly senior production staff) lack basic sex education so are unable to understand core critical issues about sex. Meaning the ‘sex week’ staff were unaware of any critical discussions of ‘sex addiction’ – they assumed it was real and accepted as a medical condition until told otherwise, and even then continued to work with it as a key contemporary sex issue. There was also the problem of staff accepting ideas that should seem nonsensical – for example one researcher called me asking if I could confirm whether celibacy was harmful to your health since one expert they’d talked to told them if you don’t have sex it could cause physical harm. As with many media encounters a large part of my discussions with staff for ‘sex week’ was about basic sex education (ie how sex won’t get rid of wrinkles or how not having sex won’t harm your body, and that celibacy and asexuality are not the same thing). No reputable sex educator will object to providing this service, but it demonstrates how programmes can’t be made accurately if staff are working from a position of ignorance and misinformation to begin with.

All of which raises serious ethical and practical dilemmas for anyone thinking about being involved in TV sex programmes
Reputable sex educators are always happy to give time to create accurate sex coverage for television. Sadly the approach taken by many production teams often creates barriers for those wanting to be involved. There is the general assumption that you will be willing to provide background information for free, very often to also contribute your time to the show/series for nothing, and the appearance on television is a privilege so you must unquestioningly fit in with the show’s agenda.

Given that many ‘sexperts’ working within the media do so as a means to advertise their products and services they’ll obviously say whatever’s asked for to get their time on television. However, genuine experts won’t be motivated in the same way. We will want to share accurate, sex positive information in an engaging way, not repeat what the producer wants to hear. For many of us schedules need reorganising if we’re going to be on TV (for ‘sex week’ we were asked to set aside two days for filming). That means patients, clients, colleagues and students timetables will also need restructuring. This is only worth it if you’re actually going to be able to share sex positive information.

Once you become aware there’s a show in development you want it to be as accurate as possible – regardless of whether you appear on the final edit. However, that in turn raises issues of how much you should be involved given you can provide lots of time and effort for nothing, have no record of your contribution, and ultimately not see any of your efforts inform the programming. (Which is sadly the case with ‘sex week’ where contributors including myself who’d been booked to appear were told at the last minute we weren’t needed as they’d be sticking with their resident TV doc and sexpert).

Because of these issues the end result of most TV sex shows currently means sex is always constructed in particular ways – usually limited, negative, problem-based with judgemental case studies pinned on celebrities. Expertise may well have been consulted, but may well not be understood or applied. And contributors may not end up on any programming leading to time being wasted and a lot of lost opportunities and bad feeling created.

Very often journalists complain they can’t put together decent programmes because they are up against limits of time or resources. Yet this case study and countless others like it indicate that’s just not true. There’s stacks of evidence, loads of qualified people who can talk about it in engaging ways, and a lot to be said that’s currently not talked about. The key problem is producers make specific decisions to frame sex and ‘sexpertise’ in particular ways. Meaning you get poor to average sex coverage when you could have had GREAT sex.

The tracking of GMTV’s sex week from programme outline to broadcast allows us to think about how sex programmes are constructed for mainstream prime time audiences. You’ve had the background from me, but you can explore this further by watching the programmes (run on ITV1 every morning this week from 9am GMT)

What will they discuss? Consider what they may have talked about and reflect on how much of the programme is linked to their sex survey (the results of which can be found here). You can also question what other evidence is used to underpin programme (and where might that have come from) and what other evidence could have been used. How much of ‘sex week’ will frame sex in a language of hormones, evolution, body language, and gender stereotypes (and how much of that coverage seems accurate or understood). You may want to reflect on who is and isn’t included in discussions (for example in terms of ability, age, ethnicity or sexuality) and how much of the series will be pinned around product placement (lingerie, sex toys etc). Finally you may want to consider how much of the series provides actionable information people can put into practice (rather than instructions on what we should be doing sexually).

As a sex educator my wish is always that quality sex information is provided to the public, so if GMTV manage to do this during ‘sex week’ then this is good news. My anxiety is the programmes won’t be as good as they could be (for reasons set out above) and this is common to most television shows about sex/relationships.

The questions remain about how we address this problem? Practitioners are keen to get involved and share good information but are restricted by many practical and financial barriers set up by television companies. Television companies are keen to continue to include sex content but are unwilling to improve content, particularly because they need to talk about sex but fear losing advertising revenue or viewing figures.

Perhaps the key to the puzzle is not to be found with journalists or practitioners, but lies with the public who can demand better programming (presuming they’re aware what’s currently on offer is inadequate). After all, no matter how eager or well meaning us practitioners can be, or how much evidence we can share, this is never going to be possible unless producers have a reason to provide it. If viewers want this – or if viewers will switch off if it’s not provided – then maybe our sex programming will get better.

Yesterday I wrote about the case of UK morning television show GMTV who’d got into hot water after hosting a biased survey about breastfeeding that had upset mums a lot. It resulted in the programme being publicly criticised for their actions.

I mentioned how I’d been approached by GMTV about a planned series on sex, which they wanted to base on a sex survey. I agreed in principle to take part, with the proviso I had some input to the survey. They sent me their draft questions and I gave feedback. I’ve not heard anything back from them (not even an acknowledgement they received my message), but looking at their sex survey (which is now live on their site) it seems they have listened to the feedback I provided.

Their original list of questions wasn’t too bad, although as with any survey they required reflection and change. For example they planned to ask ‘do you have a partner?’, but this is often misleading and folk who are either dating or married assume it doesn’t apply to them. So a better term (which I recommended) is ‘are you in a relationship?’ They also wanted to find out ‘is your sex life good’ which I suggested they change as ‘good’ is a difficult concept to measure (my standards for ‘good’ may be much more stringent than yours). Instead I recommended ‘how satisfied are you with your relationship?’ (and added asking about partner satisfaction was equally important). I recommended they drop questions that are difficult to reliably measure through a survey (like ‘how often do you think about sex?’) along with questions relating to ‘meeting a stranger online for sex’ (which seemed at odds with the rest of the questions and judgemental).

Based on their suggestions my rewrite looked something like this – aimed to be very basic and to get some general data that could be compared with existing studies and used as a talking point for their programme.

- Demographics: age, gender, location (I usually don’t start a survey like this as demographics are quite threatening, but given the rest of the questions were sensitive this wasn’t a bad place to begin).
- Are you in a relationship? If yes, how long have you been together?
- Are you happy with your sex life?
- Is sex important to your relationship?
- What things help you enjoy sex? (I suggested this might remain open ended or give multiple choices such as communication, willingness to explore new things, time to spend together, trusting each other)
- What are the main barriers to enjoying sex? (worries about body image, confidence issues, lack of partner support, relationship problems, health problems, fertility worries, tiredness, lack of privacy/kids in
the way, sleeping in separate beds)
- Do you have any questions about sex you would like us to answer? (open ended)

Looking at their live survey it seems many of these pointers have been taken on board. These include:

6. Are you happy with your sex life? Yes/No
7. Do you think your partner is happy with your sex life? Yes/No
8. Is sex important to your relationship? Yes/No

9. What would help you enjoy sex more?
Good communication
Willingness to explore new things
Spending time together
Trusting each other
I’m happy with our sex life

11. What prevents you having more sex?
Kids
Tiredness
Poor body image
Health problems
Partner’s sexual difficulties
Relationship problems
Sleeping in separate beds
I’m happy with how often we have sex

12. What things enhance sex for you?
Time together
Good communication
Confidence
Help around the house / childcare

13. Do you still find your partner attractive? Yes/No

If I were doing this study myself I’d have more space to talk about positive things that enhance sex and I’d combine questions 9 and 12. I’d allow more scope for participants to share what does/doesn’t work for them and I’d focus on relationships and intimacy as much as sex. However, the inclusion of factors that get in the way of desire which are very practical for most women (lack of time/privacy due to kids being around, body image etc) is important and will allow for a good discussion for the programme.

However, there are still major problems with the survey and the first one you spot on the welcome page which says “Valentine’s Day is upon us, but are you fed up with your sex life? Is your partner inattentive and unadventurous? Or was the last sexual compulsion you experienced many, many moons ago? Maybe you’re lucky enough to enjoy a passionate relationship with your partner. Whatever you’re getting up to between the sheets, share your sex stories and thoughts with us in our sex survey”.

Yes, it’s in media speak, but there are problems here around the aim of the study – is it about Valentine’s day or sex? It’s leading from the outset with the first statement asking whether people are fed up, or if their partner is inattentive or unadventurous, or sex is something that’s not happened for years. It’s hideously sex negative and likely to invite people who’re either having problems with their sex lives or want to prove they’re super sexual. It’s very bad practice to begin a sex survey with statements like this and no clear aims, but it’s another example of how little attention people give to even basic things like the way you begin your survey and invite participation. Sadly, this opening to the survey suggests it is likely to be as problematic and biased as the previously flawed one on breastfeeding.

At the close of the survey there are suddenly several questions about porn and paying for sex, which don’t really fit with the rest of the questions asked:

14. Do you use pornography? Yes/No
15. Does your partner use pornography? Yes/No
16. Would you ever pay for sex? Yes/No
This question is optional.

These are flawed questions because it’s unclear what does ‘use’ pornography mean? ‘Use’ as in something to turn you on during sex, or before sex with a partner? ‘Use’ to give you ideas for sex? ‘Use’ for masturbation on your own?

Not only do these questions not measure porn ‘use’ (because of a lack of explanation in the questions) but they also don’t tell us useful information like whether women are happy or not about porn or their partner looking at it. It’s almost as though this was tagged on at the end because porn might come up as part of the planned series on sex so there had to be some data on it. Because there wasn’t any thought about this (or using existing survey questions on porn, which again there are loads of) these are just wasted questions.

The buying sex one is also not clear in terms of why it’s being asked (on a reputable survey you’d always ask why you want someone to tell you something). Making the question optional is good, but it’s still not going to tell us anything more than whether people think they might consider buying sex, not whether they have and what their attitudes to paying for sex are. Because this question is placed above asking people for their name and a daytime contact number it makes the porn/paying for sex questions even more threatening – and less likely to be answered.

It’s a shame the introduction to the questionnaire and closing questions are so flawed as the questions in between aren’t too bad. You can easily see, however, that by not taking care throughout the research process, that you can unduly influence and potentially scupper an otherwise good piece of work.

As mentioned in yesterday’s blog, for many journalists (and for most people who’re novice survey designers) it’s common to think if you throw down a few questions on the back of an envelope your survey is good to go. I think from looking over this current survey that there’s an additional problem I often encounter when teaching survey design. Which is folk grasp they need feedback, but assume if they get a little bit then that’s the green light to run with a piece of work.

In fact, to make a good survey (and this applies whatever it is for) you need to find out whether other surveys already exist on the topic you’re interested in. Use or adapt them for your own study. Get feedback on them from colleagues. Amend the questionnaire accordingly. Pilot on a representative subsample. Amend as needed. Then proceed with your work.

This can be more time consuming than bunging down a few questions, but if you liaise with an expert it shouldn’t take long. And it means what you do produce is reliable and useful and far less likely to risk criticism or non completion.

I’m glad to see GMTV appear to have taken feedback on board, although sad to see that by not fully understanding how surveys work that errors in their existing sex survey means it’s not very reliable. Of course they will be able to use it to inform discussions, but the outcomes they get may not be all that representative and thus conversations may be skewed and not deliver what viewers really need.

After writing yesterday several journalists emailed me and asked what my tips were for them to create good surveys for use in features or programmes. I’d recommend following the steps for good survey design outlined above and also:
- get experts to help (they can tap into questionnaires quicker than you can)
- don’t be afraid to use existing measures
- don’t base programmes/features on a survey you’ve designed without going through steps outlined above (if you don’t have time commission someone to do this for you)
- may be better to use the findings from another survey as a talking point
- don’t make the mistake of seeing a survey as quick and easy
- if you get help and feedback then have a dialogue about it (don’t assume feedback equals a green light to proceed unless specifically stated)

People like myself should be willing to work more closely with journalists to improve practice around surveys – which might include training on how surveys work or survey design/analysis, or assistance with writing and disseminating surveys. I see it as a duty of care to make existing measures more accessible and to help journalists put together good quality surveys.

However, there is a problem around offering such a service. Who pays for it? Is it something journalists will expect for free? Is it part of wider public engagement duties we ought to be providing? If so do our institutions cover that cost or the media outlet we’re working with? What do we do if our advice isn’t heeded? How much time should we give to such ventures? And how do we measure ‘success’?

For example I managed to get some questions changed from the original GMTV list. Or so it seems. I’ve had no further contact with them to confirm this (I can only go by what they originally sent, what I suggested, and seeing my suggested changed questions now appear on their website). So you could judge that a success. However, responding took time and you have to ask yourself is it worth providing such feedback if you’ve no guarantee the overall quality of a survey would be good (or represent the standards you’d expect in your usual practice). Is it worth doing if you get no feedback whatsoever? Or with no guarantees you’d be able to appear on television (or in print) to talk about the survey?

I’d really be interested to hear from journalists or health/social scientists/practitioners about this topic so please email me your thoughts.

Journalists – I’d love to know if you are interested in getting training on using/understanding surveys, or feedback on creating individual surveys well as the need arises. What kind of support (if any) are you bothered about?

Researchers/practitioners – I’m keen to hear what your experiences in dealing with the media around research have been. Do you think we should do more to encourage collaborative working or training? If not, why not? If so, how might this relationship be encouraged to avoid exploitation and overcome poor practice?

And to everyone reading, is it right to expose bad research in the way I’ve done in yesterday or today’s blog? Or best to keep discussions about research private?

I’ll feed back any comments in a future blog.

Recently a UK morning television show hosted an online poll about breastfeeding. Not a problem you might think. Breastfeeding is an important and topical issue and one that often creates anxiety for mothers. So finding out what women’s experiences are of breastfeeding is important.

However, if you are going to do this you also need to ask questions in a fair and unambiguous way. That’s just basic good survey design. If you ask questions in a leading, biased or confused way you’ll either find people won’t respond to you, or those who do won’t be representative so any resulting data is meaningless.

Unfortunately it seems GMTV hadn’t gone to the ‘survey 101’ class and posted a poll that included questions like:

“Do you think breasts should not be displayed in public for any reason?”
“Do you think women should use discretion when breastfeeding?”
“Do you think it’s a woman’s right to breastfeed in public?”

It also apparently asked whether it was “wrong” to breastfeed a child over 12 months.

These questions are a problem because they’re leading and negative. If you wanted to find out women’s views and experiences of breastfeeding (good and bad) you could ask them about where they feed, or whether they’ve encountered support or barriers when feeding at home or in public. You might ask them who gave them advice about breastfeeding and whether that was helpful (and if not why not), and focus on key issues like family/partner support.

You’d want to be sure anything you asked delivered a clear answer. For example for the question ‘is it wrong to breastfeed a child aged over 12 months’ someone might answer yes but meaning they felt it was wrong to feed an older child in public, but were not averse to the child being fed at home. Or they might answer yes to the question not believing it’s ‘wrong’ to feed a child over 12 months in public, just that they would feel uncomfortable doing so. Or their understanding of ‘wrong’ related to exclusively breastfeeding a 12 month old (although they might be fine with occasional feeds to a little one). With vaguely worded yet judgemental questions you can never be sure what someone’s responding to.

That’s not to say you can’t ask provocative questions, but you would do it in a way that was clear that was your aim. So you could say ‘some people believe the time to stop breast feeding is when baby is 12 months old?’ and ask people to agree or disagree with that statement. It is suggesting there’s a cut off time for feeding, but not that feeding or not over a particular age band is right or wrong.

Indeed good quality surveys are characterised by the fact that they can ask sensitive questions but in a way that does not suggest blame or moralising. Good social research is about finding out about peoples views, not imposing views on them or making them feel their beliefs are faulty.

Usually it’s just geeky social science types like me who get in a flap when dubious surveys hit the media, but on this occasion members of the website Mumsnet also noticed what was going on. As you can see from the linked thread members of the site were upset about the wording of the questions which they felt devalued breastfeeding and mothers who chose to do it. The discussion also alleged the reason for the dubiously worded survey was down to the show being sponsored by Nestle who manufacture baby milk.

Interestingly this story then hit the headlines (albeit more with a focus on the perceived anti breastfeeding angle rather than the duff survey design). However this is an important step forward in campaigning around shoddy surveys used within media as if the public notice and speak up against biased surveys we may be able to challenge more of their widespread use.

It’s clearly difficult to show a link between the dodgy GMTV survey and the show’s advertisers (Nestle claim they had no influence on the survey). So leaving aside the possibility that the advertisers played some role, why else might this situation have arisen?

Within media it’s very common to use surveys. These can be used as promotional tools to plug a magazine or television show, or to create content or a peg to hang a story on.

While there is huge amounts of data that exists that could inform stories (more on this shortly) most journalists assume to make their story/programme ‘unique’ they have to create a brand new survey to inform later content. Which might be an article using data/quotes gleaned from a survey, or a discussion based radio or television show based around your survey results.

My hunch is this was simply the case of a journalist writing down a few questions and getting their producer to approve them. Possibly sharing them with colleagues in the office but certainly not reflecting on them, sharing ideas about the question tone, or piloting in any way.

Generally journalists aren’t aware of the amount of work that needs to go into designing, delivering and analysing a survey, so a back of the envelope sketch of a few questions is enough to run with.

It’s a classic example of poor journalistic practice as not only are the surveys created usually slipshod and meaningless, they’re also unethical since they may well upset participants (as in this case) or mislead the public on key health/social issues.

Moreover it’s bad practice because it shows no research has been done. For pretty much any topic on health or social issues there will be a body of research investigating that. Studies that can be found if you search using Scholar or PubMed. In the case of breastfeeding not only are there countless surveys on attitudes towards breastfeeding, experiences of breastfeeding, feeding duration, partner support, impact on relationships, there are even journals specifically dedicated to lactation. So it’s not exactly an area where you couldn’t quickly find numerous existing and well designed surveys that could inform a programme. As an example here’s what comes up when you put in the very basic searches attitudes towards breastfeeding and breastfeeding experiences.

Sadly many journalists appear unaware these resources exist, or unsure how to search and find information. When I speak to journalists about such resources they often tell me they couldn’t use any pre-existing surveys because they have to design a ‘new’ one in order for it to be fresh for their programming. There is no sense that the very purpose of existing published research is to inform and underpin education and practice.

This is worrying in terms of practice, but also depressing since evidence is published in order to inform public understanding and practice. It is remiss not to make use of such information that could still provide a talking point/background for a story or programme, but would ensure what was discussed was accurate and based on the experiences of a wide range of people.

My guess is that GMTV hosted a sloppy survey for reasons set out above. However there is really no excuse for this practice to continue. They have had a very public warning that such activities are unacceptable.

More than that, I was contacted by GMTV last week who are planning a forthcoming series of programmes. They asked if I might be involved and told me they were basing the whole event around a survey. I explained I’d be delighted to be involved but I’d need to see the survey first. I was told the survey was based on a few questions they’d written down but they did agree to send me them and in turn I gave detailed feedback on how to reword the questions and add more meaningful ones.

To date I’ve heard nothing back so I can either assume they’re busy firefighting the breastfeeding debacle, never got my emails, or my approach to trying to ensure their survey was correct was not welcome and they’ve found another expert (perhaps one who doesn’t ask difficult questions about surveys). Experience tells me it’ll be the latter, but I’m happy to be proved wrong.

If I do hear anything I will let you know. Given this barrage of complaint against the programme and an offer from at least one experienced social scientist to help improve their survey design one might assume GMTV would be keen to get it right in future.

Let’s see what happens. And in the meantime let’s continue to name, shame and campaign each time we spot a shoddy survey.