A bit off topic for this blog, but the recent ONS report on sexual identity (pdf) raises some interesting questions. As pointed out here the estimate of the number of gay/lesbian/bisexual people produced is way lower than that which came from the last National Survey of Sexual Health and Lifestyles (1.6 per cent of the population, compared with about 6 per cent).
Now, the Integrated Household Survey (IHS), from which the new numbers come, is a truly gigantic survey, with around 450,000 respondents. This means we can place a high degree of certainty around the estimates it comes up with. But is it necessarily the case that the new figure must be 'the answer'? Actually, I'd be very surprised if it was. For one thing, the variation by age is highly suspicious - why should there be as much variation by age as the IHS data seem to suggest: surely the proportions of gay and lesbian people should be more or less constant across age? Ditto the class distribution - why should gay people be over-represented in the professional social classes?
One reason is surely that what is captured by surveys such as the IHS is precisely sexual identity, not sexual preference. This was what the survey was designed to do. The 1.6 per cent of people who report being gay/lesbian/bisexual are those who to whatever extent see their orientation as a component of their identity and, if you like, acknowledge this. Those who don't see being gay as a component of their identity (and who may even be 'in denial') will not, even if their sexual orientation is homosexual. The variation by age and class becomes much easier to understand if you look at things from this angle.
So the survey has not produced an estimate of the number of 'gay people' at all, but rather an estimate of the number of people with a gay/lesbian/bi identity. It is therefore almost by definition an underestimate of the 'true' number (as the 1.5 million profiles on Gaydar, reported in the Guardian piece, would seem to suggest). And that's even before we start to think about response rates, sample design, etc.
This should not be a problem as long as we are all using, and talking about, the same set of definitions, But, of course, we are not, so all of a sudden the old estimates are myths and da gayz shouldn't have as much money spent on them as they do.
This is a really good example of the pitfalls inherent in collecting statistics of this type, and the inherently political nature of much data gathering and use. The extent of these issues is such that sometimes it seems almost counterproductive to collect data of this kind, as it will inevitably be misused. But only almost, and, I think, we should no allow wilful ignorance and journalistic bad-faith put us off!
Sunday 26 September 2010
Sunday 19 September 2010
Cannabis law, again
Yet another police officer has come out in favour of some sort of rehink on the cannabis laws.
You have to wonder, though, just what it'll take for something like this to happen. Something more than a few thoughful comments from a cop, I' guessing, and at at the very least a change of editorial policy at the Mail, Express, Sun et al. I really can't see any government going up against that lot, even one as self-avowdely 'liberal and progressive' as the current one......
You have to wonder, though, just what it'll take for something like this to happen. Something more than a few thoughful comments from a cop, I' guessing, and at at the very least a change of editorial policy at the Mail, Express, Sun et al. I really can't see any government going up against that lot, even one as self-avowdely 'liberal and progressive' as the current one......
Friday 17 September 2010
Stunningly naive?
Apologies for the lack of posting in recent weeks. Life's been pretty busy, and will continue to be so for a while, so posts may be sporadic for a while.
In the mean time, this seems almost incredible to me. Presumably the idea is that until Andrews is proven definitively guilty he can not (should not?) be penalised by being, you know, sacked.
But this is surely to confuse purely legal considerations of proof beyond reasonable doubt with the lesser levels that are required in other contexts. Even if Andrews is found not guilty of the specific offence for which he is being tried, surely he can't possibly carry on serving as a police officer? Whatever the provocation, and whatever the circumstances, you would have thought his behaviour that night would disbar him from such a role?
This raises an interesting question about the legitimacy of the police, which is likely to be based in large part on the extent to which the police follow the rules and procedures laid down to govern their behaviour. But I don't think this should be taken to mean a rigid and narrowly legalistic rule following - of the type that seems to be behind the decision to carry on with full pay - but a more subtle adherence to a set of commonly accepted norms and ethical principles.
Even if Andrews is eventually cleared, the damage to public trust in the police (although the importance of this type of events can be exaggerated), and to police legitimacy, is likely to have already occurred, since his actions clearly transgress some pretty obvious moral principles and, I suspect, being seen as being profoundly unfair by the public. Such a sense will only be heightened by rigid adherence to regulation over the matter of his pay.
If police are serious about taking account of public opinion, and building trust and legitimacy by improving public perceptions of fairness and demonstrating that police operate within a just moral framework, these are the type of questions that will need to be addressed. Is fairness to be found in 'the rules', or in a more fluid consideration of fairness, justice and what is ethical in a given situation? Which is not to say of course that extant rules can't be adapted in the light of developing understandings, or made less rigid such that events such as this can be avoided.
In the mean time, this seems almost incredible to me. Presumably the idea is that until Andrews is proven definitively guilty he can not (should not?) be penalised by being, you know, sacked.
But this is surely to confuse purely legal considerations of proof beyond reasonable doubt with the lesser levels that are required in other contexts. Even if Andrews is found not guilty of the specific offence for which he is being tried, surely he can't possibly carry on serving as a police officer? Whatever the provocation, and whatever the circumstances, you would have thought his behaviour that night would disbar him from such a role?
This raises an interesting question about the legitimacy of the police, which is likely to be based in large part on the extent to which the police follow the rules and procedures laid down to govern their behaviour. But I don't think this should be taken to mean a rigid and narrowly legalistic rule following - of the type that seems to be behind the decision to carry on with full pay - but a more subtle adherence to a set of commonly accepted norms and ethical principles.
Even if Andrews is eventually cleared, the damage to public trust in the police (although the importance of this type of events can be exaggerated), and to police legitimacy, is likely to have already occurred, since his actions clearly transgress some pretty obvious moral principles and, I suspect, being seen as being profoundly unfair by the public. Such a sense will only be heightened by rigid adherence to regulation over the matter of his pay.
If police are serious about taking account of public opinion, and building trust and legitimacy by improving public perceptions of fairness and demonstrating that police operate within a just moral framework, these are the type of questions that will need to be addressed. Is fairness to be found in 'the rules', or in a more fluid consideration of fairness, justice and what is ethical in a given situation? Which is not to say of course that extant rules can't be adapted in the light of developing understandings, or made less rigid such that events such as this can be avoided.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)