The IWF has criticized Mary Koss’ study of rape incidence over and over for being “commissioned by Ms. Magazine.” I’ve written about this before.
What I didn’t realize until last week (when I was researching this post) is that the IWF has financed a study conducted by the think tank The Institute for American Values (IAV). (The study is the source of much of the talk about the alleged “hook-up culture” on college campuses today).
So, the IWF commissioned a study – just like Ms. They selected researchers, just like Ms.
Hey, wasn’t the IWF claiming that there was something wrong about doing that?
Of course, there are a few differences:
- Koss’ study design was published and presented at conferences years before Ms‘s involvement began – proof that Ms didn’t influence the study’s basic design. The “hook up” study design was not published before the IWF got involved.
- Unlike Koss’ study (supervised and funded by the National Institute for Mental Health), the “hook up” study was not independently supervised by a neutral scientific institution.
- Unlike Koss’ study, the “hook up” study did not pass through an academic peer review process before being published.
So either the IWF doesn’t believe that studies are corrupted by being associated with an ideological group, and they were just pretending to believe that to dis Koss…
Or, they do believe that studies are corrupted by association, and they intentionally set out to make a corrupt study.
I really don’t see a third possibility.
* * *
P.S. Just to be clear, this post is not criticizing the “hook up” study. The study is good or bad on its own merits; that the IWF funded it doesn’t matter to me. I’m just pointing out that, yet again, the IWF has shown all the intellectual integrity of a carnival barker..
I am not buying the study, at least at this point. at least at this point. I just don’t have the bucks for it. BUT this struck me as interesting.
“Women who had hooked up reported a range of feelings, positive and negative, about the practice. For example, 61 percent of college women who said that a hook up made them feel “desirable” also reported that it made them feel “awkward.” Part of the awkwardness seems to arise from not knowing what comes next.”
Okay, take the sex out of it. Doesn’t this basically describe human relationships period? If I meet you and you and I talk for ten minutes and I can expect that there is a possiblity of us seeing each other again (we live in the same place, work in the same place)isn’t there a sense of awkardness and wondering what will come next? Are we going to continue to “hit it off” or maybe they were only being nice to be nice? Should I try and go out of my way to see you again? Ask if you’d like to take in a movie with me one night or whatever.
The comment just struck me as trying to make something significant out of a “duh”.
amp, you missed the third and somewhat likely option: they believe that when Koss did her study, it was biased and bad. But when IWF does a study, it’s good because they’re good.
I thought your last sentence read “carnival baker,” and was all set to defend delicious carnival snacks. Oopsie.
I must protest your uncalled-for slur on the reputations of carnival barkers everywhere.
This seems to be part of the common approach the right has used so successfully to reframe the public debate in this country. Commission studies which are not vetted, then distribute them widely. That they do exactly what they blame others of doing isn’t novel either; I’m reading so much about this inexplicable liberal rage on the conservative blogs. Inexplicable, to whom? Certainly not to anyone who has been following politics for the last decade or so. Pot. Kettle. Black.