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

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

Channel 4′s response (25 February 2011)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours Sincerely

Sue Murphy
Head of Features”

Our reply
26 June 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How sad.

Why is there all this fuss about sex education? Is it really a problem?
In the UK we clearly have issues that need addressing through sex education. The ones you are most likely to have heard about are high rates of teenage pregnancy, rising rates of Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs), and problems around coercion and sexual violence among young people. However there are also wider problems you may not be aware of. Young people have complained existing sex education focuses too much on the biological aspect of reproduction and not enough attention has been paid to tackling feelings, emotions and negotiation – and the practicalities of enjoying a relationship.

The needs of lesbian, gay, bi and trans teenagers have not always been adequately met although homophobic bullying is recognised as a problem within schools. Teachers have complained they don’t always feel supported to confidently deliver sex education, particularly once it moves past the biological basics. Parents, generally, are in favour of sex education (despite what you may have read in the media) but worry they don’t know how to adequately deliver this in what they perceive to be a highly sexualised modern culture. And there’s been an ongoing concern that sex education has been delivered in a haphazard manner with different schools offering different approaches. Meaning some young people get excellent sex education, others get patchy advice, and some get nothing at all.

As a result there are problems around what is being taught, the quality of teaching and issues about the underlying messages of sex education which often remain negative and are based on warning youth against pregnancy or infection rather than preparing them to anticipate sex as something pleasurable to enjoy when they are older.

For these reasons it’s been recognised that sex education needs to change and be delivered in a far more effective manner.

What’s actually happened with sex education in the UK?
Over the past few years there’s been an ongoing consultation about sex education. This has involved contributions from the public (particularly parents and young people), faith groups, teaching and healthcare organisations and academics involved in researching sex education and youth culture. It has also involved expert input from a core group of professionals involved in researching or delivering sex education within schools.

This has fed into the Children, Schools and Families Bill 2009-2010 which seeks to make sex and relationships education (SRE) a statutory part of the school curriculum. You can see the progress of the bill here and here and view the actual bill here. The parts you should focus on in relation to sex education are sections 11-14 of The Curriculum. In particular point 13 which details the provision of SRE and 14 which outlines exemption from SRE.

This week the bill passed its first reading in the House of Lords where it was agreed that sex education would be compulsory for all schools. Faith schools will have the right to explain their view on key issues (although they’ll still have to teach all aspects of the SRE curriculum), and parents will have the right to withdraw their child from sex education up until the age of 15.

There are additional readings of the bill to follow over the coming months so it is not completely guaranteed these suggestions for SRE will be upheld.

Is sex education now compulsory in schools?
At this time all schools in the UK are required to teach SRE within the context of biology (basic reproduction). They are able to opt out of teaching topics they may not agree – homosexuality, abortion, contraception for example. School governors can also restrict what can be covered, who delivers sex education and what they talk about. Many schools do already offer good quality sex education.

I heard Catholic schools will be able to teach abortion, homosexuality and contraception are wrong. Is that correct?
There has been some controversy this week where Minister Ed Balls was seen as backtracking when he explained faith based schools would be allowed to teach SRE “in a way that reflects the school’s religious character”. Mr Balls stated “There is no opt-out for any faith school from teaching the full, broad, balanced curriculum on sex and relationship education and that is a huge step forward…Every school will have to teach the full curriculum in a balanced way that respects equality and is not discriminatory, but of course what we are saying is they can explain the views of their faith…Catholic schools can say to their pupils that, as a religion, we believe contraception is wrong, but what they can’t do is therefore say they are not going to teach about contraception.”

Secular groups have been understandably upset by what they feel is a climb down over sex education, while sexual health and LBGT groups have expressed concern this will lead to schools being able to promote homophobia or incorrect messages over abortion or contraception.

It is disappointing this decision was taken, but it is my understanding it was made after considerable pressure was made by faith groups (particularly the Catholic Church) against the proposed bill. There was a fear that this might derail the bill completely. So although this is a compromise it may have been made to ensure that compulsory SRE could still be assured.

Before we panic over this issue, it’s worth noting that whether this compromise had been made or not, there is no guarantee that teachers at faith or non faith schools would deliver SRE effectively – even if it was mandatory. After all ‘compulsory’ is not a byword for ‘good’. There are plenty of teachers delivering compulsory subjects on the curriculum in substandard ways. Even if a school delivers sex education well, a child will also be exposed to negative messages from their peers, parents, or their Church, Mosque or Synagogue.

And let’s not forget the media here. While the press was shouting against Ed Balls it seemed to escape everyone’s attention that by far the biggest voice against SRE in the UK is the press. So even if schools are delivering sex education well, the media are likely to continue in their efforts to scupper it.

My hunch is rather than faith based schools delivering a class on abortion or homosexuality as prescribed, following it up with ‘well that’s bad’, we’re more likely to see these topics covered but in a lacklustre or inaccurate manner. And sadly that may apply in non faith schools too. The challenge will be to identify where poor practice is happening and work to rectify that when the time comes.

Given we live in a multicultural society with different faiths and views about relationships it’s not unreasonable to have this reflected in our teaching of SRE. That is not, however, the same thing as allowing faith groups to decide what can and cannot be taught, nor to undermine basic teaching that is essential to the psychological and physical wellbeing of young people.

If I don’t want my child to have sex education, will I have the right to stop them going to lessons?
Once sex education becomes compulsory you will be able to withdraw your child from lessons up until they are aged 15, after that you will not be able to do so. This age seems very late to many educators as many of our most vulnerable youth are sexually active much younger than this age and they need help far earlier. However, currently parents will be able to opt out up until this age.

I hope that parents won’t want to do this. Here’s why. School sex education is an additional source of information for your child. Sometimes hearing someone other than a parent talk about a topic can help a child appreciate an issue. It also means if you and the school are talking about sex and relationships then the likelihood of your child picking up misinformation from peers or the media is reduced. We must remember that for many vulnerable children it is not possible to talk to a parent, or that often very well meaning parents simply do not feel able to talk about sex with confidence. Sadly sometimes parents, with the best intentions, provide misinformation about sex.

Most schools show parents what they will be delivering to young people in SRE before the children see it, giving parents the chance to ask questions and be aware what their child will want to know about. Organisations like the Family Planning Association and Parentline Plus offer additional support and classes to parents, as do many Primary Care Trusts. So the aim should be for schools and parents to work in tandem. If that isn’t happening currently you should speak to your head teacher about it.

Parents I talk to worry that schools will teach too much too soon or be explicit or rude. It’s easy to believe this from the media, but this should not happen in SRE. Young children are not going to be taught about using condoms or sexuality, but they will be told how to name their body parts, how a baby is made and introduced to gender differences and ideas about friendship and respecting others. As they grow information will be added to suit their developmental needs.

So rather than seeing the school as undermining you it’s better to think of them as an ally in raising your child.

Whether parents or teachers talk to young people about sex and relationships, kids are definitely talking to each other about it. So to ensure they’re on the right track we need to be there to answer their questions and explain what positive relationships look like.

If sex education isn’t compulsory yet, will there be any classes covering sex education issues?
Yes. Schools are already covering SRE to varying degrees and this will continue. You may expect to see some schools working to improve what they are already delivering in the run up to SRE becoming compulsory (anticipated in September 2011).

What’s actually going to be taught in sex education?
At this point the SRE curriculum is still being debated. It will definitely include topics like contraception, STIs (including HIV), coercion and abuse, and pregnancy. But it is also expected to cover sexuality, pleasure, delaying sex, confidence, communication and positive relationships. The consultation on the curriculum is open until 19 April 2010 and you are invited to have your say on what may be covered. If you are interested in SRE do please take the time to read and respond.

Why has sex education failed in England?
It’s wrong to say sex education as ‘failed’, or that it is taught badly. The problem we have in the UK is our sex education has never been valued or well funded. There’s never been an effort to deliver it in a compulsory manner and so what has been taught and the standard of teaching has varied widely. Unfortunately because we provide some sex education the media and some faith groups claim this causes teenage pregnancy and STIs. In truth we have problems with teen pregnancy and STIs for numerous complex and often interrelated reasons – poverty, poor education overall, the exclusion of young people, barriers in accessing contraception and healthcare services, lack of family support, aspirational limitations.

There are plenty of dedicated practitioners, teachers, parents and researchers all working to ensure young people learn more about sex and relationships. Young people themselves are not passive in this process and also usually seek out information. Simply providing SRE is not going to tackle wider social issues so we also need to invest in tackling those. However, not providing SRE (or delivering inadequate messages) is not going to help young people manage a commercialised sexual culture which they may not always know how to negotiate.

Often when we hear the sex education has failed mantra it’s a precursor to ‘so we should stop it completely’. The answer to our problems with SRE is not to ban it, but to ensure it is delivered to a high standard to all young people.

My husband thinks if we teach sex education it encourages young people to experiment or take risks, is that true?
This isn’t true, but it’s again something the media and some faith groups claim is a by product of SRE. If you simply tell young people not to have sex, or that they must wait until marriage for sex (but provide no other SRE information) then often young people do have sex – and are less likely to use contraception. If you talk to young people about sex as something to look forward to in the future and provide them with information about contraception, talk about negotiation and safer sex, confidence and delaying until they feel ready, then yes they may have sex but they are more likely to use contraception – and wait until they are older.

Young people do ‘experiment’ – I’m sure we can all remember lustful teenage feelings even if we didn’t act on them. And while we as parents often worry that teenager are all involved in sexual activity it is worth remembering the majority do not have sex until they are over 16 and most do think about contraception and safer sex.

As parents we want our children to grow up to enjoy positive relationships and pleasure. We want them to be confident and able to avoid coercive situations and toxic relationships. We don’t want them to be abusers or victims of domestic violence. We don’t want our children to have sexual problems when they were adults because they were not given enough information about sex or taught it was dirty or shameful. Young people have the right to know about sex and relationships and we have the responsibility to deliver that information in supportive ways.

If we introduce compulsory sex education, what difference will that make – and how soon will we notice it?
It is hoped that sex education, if delivered uniformly and to a high standard, will:
Reduce STI and teenage pregnancy rates
Reduce the number of terminations young people are having, and in the future prevent rising levels of infertility
Increase young people’s uptake of contraception services
Reduce coercion, abuse and exploitation
Tackle homophobic bullying and reassure young people about sexuality
Improve young people’s confidence to talk about sex and negotiate relationships
Highlight the importance of positive relationships

The difficulty with some of these issues is we won’t notice any changes for a long while (for example tackling future infertility). And sometimes if you do introduce more education you see a rise in the uptake of services so it could be likely we see a rise in STI rates for a while.

Even if we do introduce really great SRE across the UK it will take time to bed down and we will need a period of support for teachers and parents. We will be learning throughout this introductory process and undoubtedly there will be some quick wins and stumbling blocks. But SRE is only one part of the puzzle and we will only see benefits if we also tackle other issues around access to reproductive healthcare, reducing poverty and dealing with other inequalities.

What is the biggest barrier you see to SRE provision?
The media. We’ve had endless negative coverage about how dreadful we are at tackling teen pregnancy, STIs and other anti social behaviour among young people. The media has for the most part stood in the way of every initiative to try and improve SRE when they could have supported ventures. Instead we’ve had judgemental pieces most of which end up in girl blaming and hysterical misrepresentations (shag bands, anyone?). Specific editorial decisions are made to be unsupportive and we must not lose sight of this.

Journalists frequently cite the Netherlands as a gold standard of good practice, complaining how we fail in comparison. Never noting the reason the Netherlands do so well is partly cultural, partly about education, but mostly because their media are supportive of SRE.

What’s going to happen next?
The bill is still going through the Lords so there will be more discussions. I will update on those as they happen. In the meantime we can expect to see more efforts in training the trainers activities and support for parents.

Hopefully that’s answered your questions about SRE in the UK, but if you do have any more please let me know.

I’ll be returning to some of the issues raised here in future blogs, particularly around training for sex education teachers and nurses and what parents can do to talk effectively about sex and relationships.

A brief history of formulas as marketing tools

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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