Thank you Ann. Very well put. Clap Clap. Like Judy, I wrote a letter to the RA informing them that the survey was greatly flawed and received a similar return letter that acknowledged the same. I thought when it took them so long to release the data they must have "repented" of their actions, but obviously not. Allan
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ann Wansbrough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Insights List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 10:58 AM Subject: Re: chruch reject gay poll > > > > > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------------------------------------------ - 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 ------------------------------------------------------
