"I thought it was just a part of life." VAWG survey report published today

I do think the criticism of the research are a bit unfair. Yes it was not a representative sample of the population but it is a huge sample and covers a wide demographic range (she did say in the livestream what some of the limitations were such as not enough women over 60 took part).

The British Crime Survey until recently excluded women over 59 and they still have quite a random upper age limit. It is impossible to design a study without methodological limitations.

Some of the findings are shocking but honestly not surprising. Like 51 % of those who responded had been sexually assaulted in their sleep. You know from the number of people saying this isn’t rape that this is something that is very widespread.

I guess one approach to collect representative data would be to 'piggyback' onto an existing large-scale survey and include some additional questions about VAWG. But I think it is likely to be an ethical nightmare collecting robust data about violence against women and girls. I know that the Crime Survey for England and Wales is somewhat restricted in what it can ask about this due to ethical constraints, although it does have stats on domestic violence and sexual assault, in the context of these being a 'crime'.

But there is nothing to suggest this study is less reliable than any other of this kind

It was specifically (at least initially) recruiting women who believed they had been abused, not all women.

And the huge sample size surely gives some validity in itself

It is shocking that that many women came forward to say that they were abused. Sample size is important, but how representative it is is critical. This sample was generally pretty good in most categories ethnicity, religion etc. But it was recruiting women who thought they had been abused, it did not specifically try and also recruit women who had not been abused. So all of the answers are coming from a sample pool of women who have been abused. We don't know the size of that pool compared to women who have not been abused - this is where the issue lies.

I want to talk about what we do to get society to recognise that VAWG is endemic, not isolated incidents.

I agree, and it's great so far that the media are using this survey to illustrate just how endemic it is. The problem is that IMO the survey doesn't actually show that, and I'm worried it is going to backfire when people realise that.

I feel the researchers have described their methodology and used a standard one, have looked for and described variations in responses and have highlighted limitations in the findings. Their science is not "bad".

It's almost impossible to run these kind of studies in a way that isn't flawed, because people don't always answer truthfully and the questions might influence the answers. But there is nothing to suggest this study is less reliable than any other of this kind, and the huge sample size surely gives some validity in itself.

I want to talk about what we do to get society to recognise that VAWG is endemic, not isolated incidents.

@QuentinBunbury

What does that mean? Is it a bum grope in a pub, or is it holding someone down and assaulting them. Both are bad, but there's a clear separation between the two and how you'd tackle them. I don't think that's relevant really. The responses show a large proportion of women will experience serious and less serious assaults. The society that accepts a "bum grope" enables more serious offences. Personally I wish we would crack down on "bum gropes". But we can't even manage to prosecute rapists effectively

Here is Noel Clarke, allegedly a serious sexual predator, minimising what he does because as Jessica Taylor's survey says in its title 'I thought it was all just a part of life'.

Clarke said he would apologise to any women he may have made sexually inappropriate remarks about. “If a bunch of people go: he commented on my bum, or he mentioned my tits, it’s like– why do you need to take it this far?” said Clarke. “I’ll just say sorry to you. Tell me and I’ll be like: I’m so sorry. You’re right, I said that, I was wrong.”

I completed this survey and made a comment "I just thought it was part of life" - I'm sure I was not the only one.

Yes it was difficult to look back at all the abuse, sexual coercion and and abuse I suffered whislt completing the survey - most of which I thought was totally "normal" - our lives were so dysfuctional back then. There really was no one to talk to about anything and the support I did manage to access just facilitated more sexual abuse under the guise of "caring".

My eldest daughter is now reaching the age I was when everythig went to shit for me. I'm finding it all quite harrowing - I imagine that is a common experience too. I'd like to find a therapist to talk about all this with - can anyone recommend any therapists who can deal with women and are GC? I really couldnt handle any "men are women" madness while trying to unpick the shit I endured because of my sex, and the vulnerablity I experienced becasue of my sex.

rather than engaging with the substance of the findings

The problem is the substance of the findings doesn't actually illustrate (or say anything at all) about the endemic rates of violence and abuse which is incredibly frustrating.

I'm sorry too. This is personal to me,and in real life I've had to listen to so many men tell me that women don't get abused much/it's unusual/I'm unusual that I'm frustrated that straight away the focus with this report is in finding methodological flaws, rather than engaging with the substance of the findings. It comes across as minimising and dismissing to me.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine agree with everything you've said. I think maybe they need to get a statistician or someone with more quantitative research experience on the team to really make the most of the data, which looks to be rich and potentially fascinating. As far as I am aware neither of them are experts on this type of analysis?

The problem with this is that eg on Sky News yesterday the broadcaster was horrified that 50% of women had been raped on their sleep, and there was a lot made of this statistic both on the show and on social media. The problem is this statistic isn't true, it's 50% of women surveyed / 50% of abused women. Still shocking, but not at all what the Sky Presenter understood the statistic to mean. And this was not corrected.

People who want to discredit all the work will use this and Victim Focus need to make sure their work is not being misrepresented in this way, and make it really clear what the validity of their statistics is - especially as this isn't an academic paper, it is aimed at the general public who might not read the small print of the stats (of women surveyed).

They don't want people saying that they are chasing publicity by using misleading statistics when this will detract from the really valuable statistics that are valid.

@allQuentinBunbury Ok, sorry you're right I'd missed that! Maybe I should just clarify that isn't what I am trying to say. I don't want to argue with anyone here - I am sure we ultimately have the same goal, which is trying to improve women's lives.

What it cannot do is say 99.3% of UK women have experienced sexual abuse, or any other extrapolation of the general population. It can say that 99.3% of people recruited to a survey using the words "collect experiences of UK adult women subjected to any form of violence and abuse since birth" have indeed experienced abuse.

Anything collected within the survey is perfectly valid, and will give some very useful information. It just can't be extended to the female population as a whole (just the female population who has experienced abuse) which is a shame as it would be nice to know how much overlap there is.

If only the survey had recruited using a more neutral phrase eg "collect experiences of UK adult women who both have and have not experience abuse or violence".

On the first page I'm really not an MRA and I'm not trying to discredit the work, I'm just concerned it's bad science and might backfire.

@allQuentinBunbury I don't think anybody has said that it can't be true, or that it is 'bad science'. I wouldn't be at all surprised if findings from a random sample showed very high levels of VAGW as well, but what I am concerned about is they they are opening themselves up to criticism that could undermine the whole study if they make interpretations that they cannot support with the data.

In the livestream she said something like 'well other studies have dubious methods and nobody criticises them!' (I'm paraphrasing, clearly!), and this is a fair point in that it is depressingly unsurprising that a survey about women is treated with more scrutiny than other types of research. But that doesn't mean that it is ok to ignore the limitations of the sampling, just because others do! I just find it frustrating because it suggests to those looking at the findings that the authors either don't care, or don't understand how population-level statistics work.

She also compared people questioning the methodology to people not believing what women say about VAWG which I thought was a bit off.
I totally agree with her. That's what it comes across as - "this can't possibly be true, it must be bad science". We have had comments to that effect on this thread.

What does that mean? Is it a bum grope in a pub, or is it holding someone down and assaulting them. Both are bad, but there's a clear separation between the two and how you'd tackle them.
I don't think that's relevant really. The responses show a large proportion of women will experience serious and less serious assaults. The society that accepts a "bum grope" enables more serious offences.
Personally I wish we would crack down on "bum gropes". But we can't even manage to prosecute rapists effectively

[quote howmanynames]Facebook live video discussion of this on Jessica Taylor's Facebook at the moment. She's taking questions.

www.facebook.com/jessicaforenpsych/videos/1390778357945063[/quote]
Thanks for that. It was interesting to see her replies to questions on the methodology. I am still concerned about the wording of the initial tweet sharing the survey as that is the means by which many will have seen it.

She made an interesting point though that in most headline making statistics people don't care about the methodology (which is not a positive IMO).

She also compared people questioning the methodology to people not believing what women say about VAWG which I thought was a bit off.

We've all had experiences when we've been scared that a man's behaviour is going to escalate; this is the constant fear.

Facebook live video discussion of this on Jessica Taylor's Facebook at the moment. She's taking questions.

www.facebook.com/jessicaforenpsych/videos/1390778357945063

For me, the results are unsurprising and I would be surprised if it was not indicative of VAWAG in the general population. I've grown up with a relatively privileged background and I've been pretty sheltered from some of the stuff other women have had to put up with.... But still I have been cat called, groped etc - I've even had a sandwich thrown at me from a moving car whilst walking on the pavement. I can't say that I have been particularly upset by any of this (although the sandwich incident was a bit odd), as I've always taken it as 'it's just part of life'. But it shouldn't be.

www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=900994340744254&set=p.900994340744254&type=3

19 transwomen took part in this survey.

I don't want it being discredited, incidentally. I think Jessica does incredible work, she's so passionate and it's good to see someone with her background delve into these kinds of issues. She has so much to offer society, clearly, and I look forward to seeing what she achieves over the whole course of her working life. But I also don't think anything or anyone should be above criticism and this survey should be subjected to analysis. That's healthy and necessary.

I filled this in (it was open to all women, not just those who'd experienced abuse). I was also concerned about self-selecting participants, and one reason I filled it in was because I have experienced very little male violence and wanted to see that data included. But very little is not none, and I found myself replying in the affirmative to several questions. I think that was part of the point of the survey design - to highlight incidents that are too often normalised.

I think the authors have a good handle on the limits of their methodoligy and have explicitly said they are not generalising this study's findings to the overall population. But I know the media are notoriously awful at reporting stats (and science in general) well. Maybe More or Less will cover it.