> Chris Udy writes:
>
> > My read is that 27,000 people - all UCA members? - responded to the RA
> > survey. 88% of them used the survey to register a protest. 273,000 UCA
> > members (at least) did not choose the survey as the way to
> > discern the Holy
> > Spirit's guidance for the Church - one way or the other.
>
> The NCLS survey had a better chance of being a representative sample than
> the Alliance one, but it was a very small one, so I'm not sure that it was
> much more reliable. I think that the only way we might get a fairly
accurate
> understanding of the beliefs/feelings of UCA members would be to convince
> the government to include the question in the next census (as if!) :-)
Ann: Perhaps someone from NCLS can enlighten us on their sampling process
and whether they think their sample size is large enough to draw some
conclusions. At least the NCLS sample is randomised across the UCA (that is,
there is no reason to believe that people responding to the survey are more
likely to have one view or another about sexuality).
>
> On another tack:
>
> Tom suggested that people who signed as "Dr" should be very embarrassed.
I
> suspect that a significant number of the Drs have medical qualifications,
> which tend not to include courses on research methodology, and it is
> definitely possible to get PhDs without doing this - the majority of
> theological PhDs would not involve any research that requires an
> understanding of statistics, for example, and nor would history PhDs or a
> number of others I'm too tired to bother thinking about just at the
moment.
> I suspect that many of the Drs are simply people of goodwill who don't
have
> any more training than many others which would enable them to see the
flaws
> in the survey design.
Ann: My recollection is that most of those who called themselves Dr were
Rev. Dr. and I assume that they have doctorates rather than being medical
doctors. I don't think it matters anyway. If one claims the authority of the
title "Dr" then one should accept the responsibility that goes with that
authority. If one claims that research is "objective" then one has a
responsibility to know what makes it so. The code of ethics for specified
ministries requires that ministers not claim competence that they do not
have. If they don't know how to design a survey and interpret research data
properly, then they should not do it - they should get someone competent to
do the work. It is mandatory in academic and health institutions these days
that research proposals involving human subjects go to a human research
ethics committee. It is accepted as best practice in other institutions.
This requirement is independent of the particular discipline - it is about
the responsibility that one takes on when one involves human beings in one's
research project. At UTC students embarking on research involving church
members must have it vetted. UnitingCare Burnside has a research ethics
group. One of the criteria research has to meet before such a committee
looks at specific ethical issues, is basic standards of methodology. It is
unethical (immoral) to interfere in the lives of human beings if one does
not know what one is doing, or if one is deliberately using unfair or biased
research instruments, or if one's research will cause harm to the subjects
or to other human beings. On all these counts, the survey fails - bad
method, biased and misleading questions, causing harm to the subjects (by
creating misunderstanding in the subjects through the questions), harm to
gay and lesbian ministers, candidates, applicants and church members (by
arousing fear about them through misinformation and focus on the
"irrelevant" characteristic, namely their sexuality, instead of their gifts
and graces for ministry) and harm to the church (by creating
misunderstanding and division). The Reforming Alliance, for all its bleating
about morality, is immoral. They impose on others standards that they do
not meet themselves, since they have persisted with using this survey even
when informed of its invalidity, unreliability, and dangers - that is, they
refuse to repent.
Ann
(Rev. Dr.) Ann Wansbrough
UnitingCare NSW.ACT
PO Box A 2178 Sydney South 1235
Phone (61) (02) 8267 4280 Fax (61) (02) 9267 4842
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------
- You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe
insights-l' (ell, not one (1))
See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm
------------------------------------------------------
