ESRC digs in
ESRC defends radfem
“research” methodology. ESRC Economic
& Social Research Council Phone
01793 413008 [+44
1793 413008] E-Mail
chris.caswill@esrc.ac.uk Fax
01793 413005 Polaris
House, North
Star Avenue, Swindon
SN2 1UJ, [England] 22 January 2002 …. …. Dear
Mr Catt, I write to respond formally to the complaint which you sent us on 29
October 2001, in which you claimed that Professor Betsy Stanko had falsified a
(research) result, namely that 1 in 4 women experience Domestic Violence in
the home. Subsequent correspondence made it clear that the source of the
complaint was a publication entitled “Counting the Costs”, jointly authorised
by Professor Betsy Stanko with D.Crisp, C.Hale and H.Lucraft, published in
1998 by Crime Concern. Since then we have been reviewing the publication
carefully. To do so, we have taken advantage of your agreement [actually my
proposal – IC] that we could extend beyond our normal deadline
for handling complaints. I must first point out that the research for “Counting the Costs” was
not funded by the Council, nor was the publication. This is a simple
statement of fact, not to be taken as any comment on the publication itself.
Having looked very carefully at the work, I cannot find any grounds for
supporting the view that findings in the report are falsified. In fact the
report is very careful to set out its methodology and the basis for its
conclusion, and does so in transparent detail. There seems therefore to be
absolutely no case for this to be seen as falsification and I cannot
therefore accept your complaint. Yours
sincerely, [signed]
Chris Caswill Director
of Research [I
told Caswill that I rested my case on the following document from Ill Eagle 4, sep99. Does Stanko stand by
the “1 in 4” figure? Ask her. She is at tel 01895 203068 or 203085 b.stanko@rhul.ac.uk http://www.rhul.ac.uk/SocioPolitical-Science/About-Us/Stanko.htm – Ivor Catt] From Ill Eagle 4, sep99, p4. At www.ivorcatt.com/99 Stanko
Much of our work is investigative. It has to be. Newspapers today have
largely become mere conduits for 'official briefings'. With notable
exceptions, they and by-line journalists; pawns in a political game of bluff
reduced to testing the water for Govt policy manoeuvrings that will hit us a
few months down the line. Scouring the Internet we downloaded on June 30th
information from the Cabinet Office re. domestic violence ( www.open.gov.uk 'Organisational Index' choose 'Cabinet Office' choose 'What's New' -
30.6.99 Press Release). This reported the joint Ministerial launch by the Home Office (HO) and
the Women's Unit - but it appeared to omit certain key statistics, namely HO
study 191. However, it did quote a
study by 'Stanko et al', which claimed that 1/. Domestic Violence costs £278
million pounds in London alone and 2/. Govt sources or 'official' Govt figures showed that 1 in 4
women suffer domestic violence. All the national newspapers picked up and
quoted these 'official' Govt figures. Having debunked the 1 in 4 figure in the summer of 1998 (See last
issue [at www.ivorcatt.com/99
]) we promptly made
enquires at the Home Office. They were evasive as to the veracity of the
"official figures", stating they hadn't come from them. They did
however direct us to "Stanko et al" as Prof. Stanko at Brunel. Prof. Stanko replied by email; "I will forward you a copy of the
report 'counting the costs'…. As for the figures used by the Cabinet Office [in
"Press Release" above], there is no citation for
that figure in the report. I suggest
you contact the Women's Unit directly as I only received my copy of the document
this week. I did not write it". But Counting
the Costs is written by Prof. Stanko together with 3 other female
authors, and it does cite the
"1 in 4" totem. It is
published by Crime Concern and
funded by the Children Society
and Hackney Safer Cities. The so-called "survey", of only 107 postal respondees to
agencies and 129 women in GP's surgeries, is loose, lightweight and limited,
but still manages to stretch to 70 pages. By the time the reader gets to page
9 it is blatantly apparent that this is a document based on speculation,
estimates and assumptions. From the beginning, is piles estimate upon
estimate, guess upon guess, making magical intellectual leaps between them to
arrive where the dogma says they should be, i.e. p 16. Domestic violence is defined
throughout the paper as only women (and sometimes children) as victims. Our understanding, from the Home Office, is that domestic violence is
not actually a criminal offence, but the report states that it is (p 17). Of the 107 postal surveys sent out to public service providers, only
49 were returned with some information on them, 23 resulted in no response at
all and 29 were not completed. Those "key agencies" targeted also
produced only 32 vague data on "the global cost" of their
operations, 7 provided unit costs and with regard to number of clients only
10 knew the exact number or could estimate the ratio of domestic violence to
clients (whatever that means). "Key agencies" were defined as the police, solicitors,
housing dept. Women's Aid, Social Services, GP's, health visitors. The report is fond of using the word "trawl" to imply a
thorough examination e.g. its trawl through local authority and agency files. Unfortunately for the researchers, many key agencies replied that domestic violence "was not a primary presenting problem" and few incorporated it into their daily practice monitoring framework (p 8). Indeed, at page 44 they concede "that some case studies" may not be thought to "represent true domestic violence". This inflammatory report is based on Hackney. Hackney is not typical
of England. 46% of its population subsists on Income Support (State
Benefits). The average income of the rest of London is 66% greater than that
of Hackney. Over 65% of housing in Hackney is "social housing". In
the past it has been the stomping ground of villains like Jack the Ripper and
multifarious gangsters e.g. the Kray Twins. The area is a melting pot of over
10 nationalities multiplied by as many cultures. The survey reveals that except for Women's
Aid and the Domestic Violence
Housing Service, none of the public service providers (Social
Services, Police, etc) could estimate the cost of domestic violence. Nor
could they estimate the prevalence of clients that "present"
themselves for help. In 1996 the police introduced
CRIS (Crime Report Information System) which has a mechanism for highlighting
particular crimes e.g. domestic violence. But because of "teething
troubles" and the fact that they were "acutely aware" that
police figures would be "conservative", the Stanko team had to
estimate again. The team also realised they had no way of knowing or even estimating the cost in
educational terms of domestic violence, but they nonetheless were soon able
"to generate local
estimates". Citing the 1993 Home Affairs Select Committee on domestic violence,
which concludes that domestic violence was common and the Assoc. of Chief
police Officers evidence that domestic violence is "not based on either
reliable or accurate data", the report continues to assert that it is
grossly under-recorded. However, they concede that while nearly a third of
domestic violence incidents resulted in victims seeking medical support, only
3% actually sought hospital attention. This would seem to underscore the proposition
that seeking medical care, if not for police purposes, is purely an emotional
prop. At page 13 of Counting the Costs
we read of earlier surveys into this field. Beginning with estimates from the
British Crime Survey (1996) it
moves on to Mooney's 1994 survey in Islington (less than 500) which found
that 37% of women reported some form of domestic violence and 1 in 4 reported
being injured from domestic violence in their lifetime - which is a
meaningless statistic. Painter's survey of 1,000 women; one in eight said they had been raped
while married. McGibbon et al survey (1989) (less than 500) in Hammersmith showed
that of 281 respondees 39% had experience verbal or physical abuse by a
partner. Dominy and Radford (1996) - a survey of less than 500 - found that
they had to add in a significant number of women who had suffered domestic
violence where the women themselves (15%) did not view it as such. Of the
above, only Mooney's was randomly distributed. All research, the report concludes, shows that its findings that 1 in
4 experience some form of domestic violence in their life time and between 1
in 8 and 1 in 10 in the current year, "echoed" the work of other
researchers and Women's Aid. Significantly, Stanko et al. state; "Perhaps more disconcerting
is the number of women who continue to maintain their silence about their
experiences, or those who, when they spoke to someone, were not heard".
This is difficult to credit, given the setting and antics of "Eastenders". One 70 year old who responded to the GP questionnaire said " .. In old age sexual violence becomes
mental cruelty. Weak shits remain weak shits". It would be more accurate and trebly difficult (if not ideologically
impossible) for 'Stanko et al" to come to the same conclusion about men who
suffer domestic violence. Of dubious interest is the
assertion that domestic violence is a feature in 1 in 3 instances of
separation or divorce (Hester 1996). It will take more research to find out
whether that is true of only cohabitees, or of married couples that separate
and divorce. Actually, as we all know, allegations of violence during divorce
proceedings, which cannot be countered in our courts, are merely a mechanism
to validate the confiscation of a husband's home and children.
|
|
|
|
|